by Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog
Police, fire personnel, emergency medical technicians, and the military are often referred to collectively as the "uniformed services." But they share more than just a name. As novelist W.E.B. Griffin writes, they "share a number of unique traits: astonishing courage, loyalty, and camaraderie . . . like no other profession."
Griffin omitted something.
Each day members of the uniform services report on duty knowing there is a possibility that they may not report off.
They do it anyway.
Statistically, there are some occupations which are more dangerous such as a convenience store clerk or cab driver or bartender. The difference is that uniformed personnel place themselves at risk willingly - knowingly.
They are never called when all is well. They are called only to protect the lives of their fellow citizens. They know that in the process their own lives may be in jeopardy.
They do it anyway.
They do it because that is who and what they are.
When members of the uniformed services entered the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, they did so not because they were trained to do so. They did so because of their character. They knew the risks. They did so knowing the possible consequences. They'd done it before.
They did it anyway.
They knew what they were getting into when they arrived at the World Trade Center. They got there quickly and went to work to help those trapped inside the buildings.
Wharton Business School graduates were rescued by those who could not afford to attend such a distinguished Ivy League institution. There were rescuers on the 82d floor when the building collapsed - a place the rescuers ordinarily might not be permitted to be because of their societal status.
They went anyway.
They knew what was happening. They did not have to do it. They could have said, "Oops, sorry; just can't get there." They would still have kept their jobs. Nobody would have condemned them.
They did it anyway.
Fire personnel who were caught in the explosion, like the New York City Fire Department's John Morabito, who survived the explosion of the second tower - was still on the job, rescuing people, many days afterward.
Morabito already risked himself once. But he continued to do it anyway.
I once rescued three people - and a dog - from a burning two-story building. I could not even conceive of what it would be like to be in a burning skyscraper. No training - no school or academy - can prepare you for something like that.
The uniformed personnel who ventured into danger in lower Manhattan and the Pentagon did not ask for gratitude. Neither do those who are - at this very minute - placing themselves in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq and places that we will never know about. They will not ask for plaudits.
They do it anyway.
When you recall the reports of what the uniformed personnel did on 9-11, remember there was nothing in their job description that mandated they risk their lives. Certainly, they knew the hazards - but nothing required them to sacrifice their lives for those of others or for any benefit, monetary or otherwise, that would accrue. There were no bonuses for lives saved.
They did it anyway.
The next time you read or hear a news story criticizing uniformed personnel - from the liberal mainstream media; from the leftwing intelligentsia; from the Code Pink protesters; from the wealthy liberal elitists - remember that, despite the risks, despite the costs, despite the difficulties, despite the criticism from the chattering classes:
They do it anyway.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
DOJ Finally Investigating New Black Panther Voter intimidation case
According to sources, Rep. Frank Wolf R.Va. and Rep. Lamar Smith R-Tx received a letter today from the Dept. of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (DOJ) about the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense ( NBP), which was mysteriously dismissed by the DOJ after President Obama took office.
Questions about this unusual dismissal have been asked by Messrs. Wolf and Smith, as well as, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. Several letters were sent to DOJ asking for the process that resulted in the DOJ dropping a case against two of the three members after they already received a judgement against all three. These letters were either unanswered or answered evasively.
The letter, signed by Mary Patrice Brown, Acting Counsel, states the Office of Professional Responsibility is initiating an inquiry into the matter. She said that they will be contacted with the results once the inquiry is completed.
Mr. Wolf issued a statement today after receiving the letter. He said:
“After months of unanswered questions, incomplete and faulty excuses, and revelations of political influence, the Office of Professional Responsibility has agreed with our July 9 letter asking for a full investigation of the dismissal of this important voter intimidation case – over the objections of both the career attorneys on the trial team and the department’s own appellate board. I fully support OPR’s decision to investigate this dismissal and look forward to their report. I hope the Civil Rights office also will agree that the case should be re-filed. ”
Speculation remains about how assiduously the DOJ will investigate this matter because of the resistance they have shown thus far. Questions also remain as to why the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office never prosecuted this case or why civil liberties organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, National Lawyers Guild and others have been silent about it.
Questions about this unusual dismissal have been asked by Messrs. Wolf and Smith, as well as, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. Several letters were sent to DOJ asking for the process that resulted in the DOJ dropping a case against two of the three members after they already received a judgement against all three. These letters were either unanswered or answered evasively.
The letter, signed by Mary Patrice Brown, Acting Counsel, states the Office of Professional Responsibility is initiating an inquiry into the matter. She said that they will be contacted with the results once the inquiry is completed.
Mr. Wolf issued a statement today after receiving the letter. He said:
“After months of unanswered questions, incomplete and faulty excuses, and revelations of political influence, the Office of Professional Responsibility has agreed with our July 9 letter asking for a full investigation of the dismissal of this important voter intimidation case – over the objections of both the career attorneys on the trial team and the department’s own appellate board. I fully support OPR’s decision to investigate this dismissal and look forward to their report. I hope the Civil Rights office also will agree that the case should be re-filed. ”
Speculation remains about how assiduously the DOJ will investigate this matter because of the resistance they have shown thus far. Questions also remain as to why the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office never prosecuted this case or why civil liberties organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, National Lawyers Guild and others have been silent about it.
Obama's Education Speech Masks His Liberalism with Conservative Themes; Liberal Media Distorts Oppostion
The first piece I wrote about President Barack Hussein Obama was an August 5, 2004 ezine article titled The Barack Obama Myth, http://frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11950. This was after I listened to him speak at the 2004 Democratic convention. At that time, I wrote:
"this rising star in the Democratic Party spouted some conservative themes during his speech, the rhetoric may be deceptive. While Obama spoke of individual responsibility – such as stating that the government cannot teach kids to read, parents must – his ideology and voting record is quite different. Obama is very liberal."
Mr Obama's speech to the nation's school students sounded many of those same conservative themes of self-reliance and personal responsibility he mentioned during his August 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention. His speech to the students was merely a reiteration of these themes made popular by black leaders such as Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby and Walter Williams. These themes appeal to mainstream America.
As such the speech discredited to a certain extent the opposition to it. It was very rational and it made the critics sound irrational.
Of course, the mainstream media, which disdains anyone who opposes President Obama, used this to ridicule those who protested. Indeed, they even mischaracterized the opposition.
They said that those who opposed the speech were fanatics. They said they were hatemongers.
What they didn't mention was that even the White House admitted that their initial description of the speech and what they asked teachers and students to do was "poorly worded."
The liberal mainstream media also used the opportunity to continue the criticism of Rush Limbaugh - criticism that conceivably is being urged by the Democratic Party who blame Limbaugh instead of their own ideas for the unpopularity of the congress they control.
A commentator for ABC stated that Rush Limbaugh was fomenting opposition on September 2. An MSNBC commentator said that Limbaugh called the speech unpatriotic.
Both are factually incorrect. Limbaugh was on vacation on September 2. As far as calling anyone unpatriotic, Limbaugh merely said that Mr. Obama doesn't believe what he is saying.
"this rising star in the Democratic Party spouted some conservative themes during his speech, the rhetoric may be deceptive. While Obama spoke of individual responsibility – such as stating that the government cannot teach kids to read, parents must – his ideology and voting record is quite different. Obama is very liberal."
Obviously, my piece was very prescient.
As such the speech discredited to a certain extent the opposition to it. It was very rational and it made the critics sound irrational.
Of course, the mainstream media, which disdains anyone who opposes President Obama, used this to ridicule those who protested. Indeed, they even mischaracterized the opposition.
They said that those who opposed the speech were fanatics. They said they were hatemongers.
What they didn't mention was that even the White House admitted that their initial description of the speech and what they asked teachers and students to do was "poorly worded."
The liberal mainstream media also used the opportunity to continue the criticism of Rush Limbaugh - criticism that conceivably is being urged by the Democratic Party who blame Limbaugh instead of their own ideas for the unpopularity of the congress they control.
A commentator for ABC stated that Rush Limbaugh was fomenting opposition on September 2. An MSNBC commentator said that Limbaugh called the speech unpatriotic.
Both are factually incorrect. Limbaugh was on vacation on September 2. As far as calling anyone unpatriotic, Limbaugh merely said that Mr. Obama doesn't believe what he is saying.
This is quite true. As I wrote in August 2004, "His voting record certainly displays the ideology characteristic of an indulgent liberal. (Sorry, "Progressive.") Obama favors abortion, socialized medicine, and Affirmative Action. Obama sponsored a bill in the Illinois legislature requiring local police departments in Illinois to record the race of anyone stopped for questioning so that the data can be used to track the occurrence of racial profiling. He opposes a $2,000 tax credit for retirement and has voted against private gun ownership, mandatory sentencing and the death penalty. During his tenure as a legislator, he abstained from voting about an abortion parental notification bill and on legislation that would keep pornographic video stores and strip clubs from within 1,000 feet of schools and churches. He has also voted against laws requiring students to complete suspensions before being transferred to other school districts. He abstained from legislation requiring adult prosecution for students who fire guns on school grounds. He opposed legislation making it a criminal offense for accused gang members to associate with known gang members. "
So Obama's speech to students was never going to do anything except reiterate that what he has said in the past. This doesn't mean that those who opposed it shouldn't have.
After all, Democrats and the Washington Post criticized President George H.W. Bush for addressing students in 1991 about science. If anything the condemnation by Democrats and the teachers' unions to the critics reveals their hypocrisy.
However, don't be fooled by Obama's appearance. He is very much a liberal. He is beholden to the American left - the far left of the political continuum.
As I also wrote in 2004, "Obama the candidate is conservative only when addressing a national television audience. ...Obama is a stealth candidate -- a liberal stealth candidate."
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Fox of Philadelphia ( Part 1 of a short story)
The Fox of Philadelphia
By Michael P. Tremoglie
“You know the more I think about it, the more I figure it’s a good idea if you and Mikey go stay with your sister for a while,” Ilario Enna said to his young wife. “I can’t be around that much with the way this case is going and she can help you take care of Mikey. Besides she would love having a one year old around the house.”
“Yeah, and who is going to take care of you, Larry?” replied Katie Enna, using the name everybody on the Philadelphia Police Department called him.
“I can take care of myself,” Larry replied indignantly.
“I know you can,” Katie responded plaintively “It’s just that I hate the idea of leaving you alone. It’s not like there aren’t people around here who won’t help me with the baby if I need it.”
“Yeah, but we don’t want to burden anyone. If I thought your sister would be burdened I wouldn’t tell you to go there either. But she is always asking you to spend a few weeks with her, and it might be a good thing for both of you.”
It was no use arguing. Katie knew that. She was going to go. Besides, if she stayed and he worried about them, it would affect his job. She certainly did not want that to happen. She knew the case was a dangerous one because, normally, Larry never talked about his work. Although he tried not to alarm her, just the mere fact he suggested she spend some time with her sister in Chicago made her apprehensive. Katie knew her husband too well not to be concerned.
Katie, whose real name was Caterina, was an attractive young woman with raven black hair and beautiful blue eyes. She, like her husband, was twenty-three years old.
Larry and Katie had known each other since they were infants. The two of them had immigrated to the United States, with their families, from the same town in Sicily twenty years earlier. Their families settled on the same street in South Philadelphia.
They fell in love with each other and were married shortly after Larry became a Philadelphia police officer - three years after graduating high school. Two years later, their son Michael was born.
Both sets of parents returned to Italy not long after they married. Larry’s father returned to Sicily – something he always planned to do. Katie’s father’s plant closed. He got a job with a company that wanted him to manage their Rome office.
Neither of them had any aunts or uncles who lived in the United States. Larry had two older brothers. They moved away years earlier and he rarely spoke with them.
Katie had one sister, Ida, who married, Herman Meadows, an Iowa farmer turned Chicago factory foreman. They lived in Elmwood Park, Illinois just outside of Chicago. Despite the distance, Katie and Ida maintained a close relationship.
__________________________________
A few weeks after their conversation, Katie and Michael flew to Chicago to visit Ida. However, she desperately missed her husband and worried about him every day. The fact that he did not call heightened her anxiety.
Four months after she arrived at her sister’s house in Chicago, Katie flew back to Philadelphia, without the baby, for a surprise visit with her husband. Ida objected to her returning so soon, nonetheless, she enjoyed taking care of her nephew and she could not prevent Katie from going.
Katie arrived at the house in the evening. She wanted to surprise Larry. As she unlocked the door she noticed that the lock had some scratches on it – as did the doorjamb.
The house was empty. Larry is probably still at work, she thought, as she climbed the steps to the second floor bedroom. When she got to the landing, she peered into her bedroom and noticed Larry’s legs on the bed.
She got a knot in her stomach.
She walked softly into the room. He snored ever so softly. She smiled, leaned over and kissed him. He awoke; startled at first, then he smiled, grabbed her and kissed her.
“What are you doing here? Why didn’t you tell me you were coming?”
“I wanted to surprise you. You had me a little worried there. “
“Yeah, I normally don’t sleep so soundly. This investigation’s got me goin’ for a few days now, so I took something to help me sleep.”
“I didn’t know what happened,” Katie said with a smile. “I got scared, especially after I saw the scratches on the doorknob and doorjamb. It looked like someone broke in. I thought somebody killed you.”
“Scratches?” Larry asked, a note of concern in his voice. “Whaddaya mean? Show me.”
He quickly got out of bed and walked down the stairway to the front door. Katie was a few steps behind him.
Midway down the stairway they saw the flash of the explosion come up the stairway - neither lived long enough to hear the sound.
****
By Michael P. Tremoglie
“You know the more I think about it, the more I figure it’s a good idea if you and Mikey go stay with your sister for a while,” Ilario Enna said to his young wife. “I can’t be around that much with the way this case is going and she can help you take care of Mikey. Besides she would love having a one year old around the house.”
“Yeah, and who is going to take care of you, Larry?” replied Katie Enna, using the name everybody on the Philadelphia Police Department called him.
“I can take care of myself,” Larry replied indignantly.
“I know you can,” Katie responded plaintively “It’s just that I hate the idea of leaving you alone. It’s not like there aren’t people around here who won’t help me with the baby if I need it.”
“Yeah, but we don’t want to burden anyone. If I thought your sister would be burdened I wouldn’t tell you to go there either. But she is always asking you to spend a few weeks with her, and it might be a good thing for both of you.”
It was no use arguing. Katie knew that. She was going to go. Besides, if she stayed and he worried about them, it would affect his job. She certainly did not want that to happen. She knew the case was a dangerous one because, normally, Larry never talked about his work. Although he tried not to alarm her, just the mere fact he suggested she spend some time with her sister in Chicago made her apprehensive. Katie knew her husband too well not to be concerned.
Katie, whose real name was Caterina, was an attractive young woman with raven black hair and beautiful blue eyes. She, like her husband, was twenty-three years old.
Larry and Katie had known each other since they were infants. The two of them had immigrated to the United States, with their families, from the same town in Sicily twenty years earlier. Their families settled on the same street in South Philadelphia.
They fell in love with each other and were married shortly after Larry became a Philadelphia police officer - three years after graduating high school. Two years later, their son Michael was born.
Both sets of parents returned to Italy not long after they married. Larry’s father returned to Sicily – something he always planned to do. Katie’s father’s plant closed. He got a job with a company that wanted him to manage their Rome office.
Neither of them had any aunts or uncles who lived in the United States. Larry had two older brothers. They moved away years earlier and he rarely spoke with them.
Katie had one sister, Ida, who married, Herman Meadows, an Iowa farmer turned Chicago factory foreman. They lived in Elmwood Park, Illinois just outside of Chicago. Despite the distance, Katie and Ida maintained a close relationship.
__________________________________
A few weeks after their conversation, Katie and Michael flew to Chicago to visit Ida. However, she desperately missed her husband and worried about him every day. The fact that he did not call heightened her anxiety.
Four months after she arrived at her sister’s house in Chicago, Katie flew back to Philadelphia, without the baby, for a surprise visit with her husband. Ida objected to her returning so soon, nonetheless, she enjoyed taking care of her nephew and she could not prevent Katie from going.
Katie arrived at the house in the evening. She wanted to surprise Larry. As she unlocked the door she noticed that the lock had some scratches on it – as did the doorjamb.
The house was empty. Larry is probably still at work, she thought, as she climbed the steps to the second floor bedroom. When she got to the landing, she peered into her bedroom and noticed Larry’s legs on the bed.
She got a knot in her stomach.
She walked softly into the room. He snored ever so softly. She smiled, leaned over and kissed him. He awoke; startled at first, then he smiled, grabbed her and kissed her.
“What are you doing here? Why didn’t you tell me you were coming?”
“I wanted to surprise you. You had me a little worried there. “
“Yeah, I normally don’t sleep so soundly. This investigation’s got me goin’ for a few days now, so I took something to help me sleep.”
“I didn’t know what happened,” Katie said with a smile. “I got scared, especially after I saw the scratches on the doorknob and doorjamb. It looked like someone broke in. I thought somebody killed you.”
“Scratches?” Larry asked, a note of concern in his voice. “Whaddaya mean? Show me.”
He quickly got out of bed and walked down the stairway to the front door. Katie was a few steps behind him.
Midway down the stairway they saw the flash of the explosion come up the stairway - neither lived long enough to hear the sound.
****
How Many Poor People Could Receive Health Insurance If Democrats Paid Their Taxes
Liberal Democrats like to say that if our government took all the money spent on the Iraq war it could pay for health insurance for all of the uinsured.
Well, that may be, however, the Iraq war was a matter of national security. Regardless of what one believes, the purpose of the war was to prevent another terrorist attack.
However, there is something liberal Democrats can do to help the government pay for the uninsured. This won't require changing the insurance status of the 90% of Americans who are very satisfied with the current system.
Liberal Democrats just need to pay their federal income taxes and require that their political representatives do so as well. If Charles Rangel, Tom Daschle, Tim Geithner and other powerful Democratic Party members of the federal government paid their taxes every year - plus their back taxes and penalties - the feds would probably have a couple of million dollars to spend on health insurance for the uinsured. Indeed they could probably provide insurance to about 20,000 uninsured.
Besides these are just the tax cheats we know about. How many Democrats haven't been caught yet?
What about all of these wealthy Democrats who want to help the poor?
If Rangel sold his vacation home in the Dominican and gave the millions to poor people; if Daschle gave the millions of dollars made from his speaking fees to health insurance companies, I wonder how many poor people could receive health insurance.
What is even more interesting is that these Democratic Party tax cheats are not just any old politician. These are the elite of the Democratic Party. These are people who are directly in charges of federal income tax laws.
Rangel is Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. This is the congressional committee that establishes federal income tax laws.
Tom Daschle was the leader of the Senate. He also had influence on income tax laws.
Timothy Geithner is the Secretary of the Treasury and enforces income tax laws.
President Obama chose Geithner and Daschle to be in his cabinet. Daschle was supposed to lead the health insurance reform effort.
None of them paid all of their federal income taxes!!
These people are liberal Democrat leaders who can set good examples for their fellow liberal Democrats. One can only guess how much more tax money the federal government could collect if all the other liberal Democrat tax cheats paid their taxes after Rangel, Geithner and Daschle urged them to do so.
Wasn't it VP Joe Biden who said that paying income taxes was patriotic?
Wasn't it Rep. Nancy Pelosi D- Calif, the Speaker of the House, who said that this will be the most ethical congress in history?
So before Democrats try to "fix" our health insurance system maybe they need to get rid of the corruption, greed and hypocrisy in their own party.
That should keep them busy for at least four more years.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Va. Congressman Adamant About New Black Panther Case
‘I Am A Believer In The Voting Rights Act’
By Michael P. Tremoglie, For The Bulletin
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Rep. Frank Wolf R- Va., told The Bulletin in an exclusive interview, that he fully intends to learn why Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit — for which they already obtained a judgment — against two members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense for violation of the Voting Rights Act that occurred last Election Day in North Philadelphia.Mr. Wolf is the ranking member of the House subcommittee, which has jurisdiction of the Dept. of Justice (DOJ).
He is an unapologetic staunch supporter of the Voting Rights Act. He was the only member - Republican or Democrat - of Virginia’s House delegation to vote for the 1981 Voting Rights Act. He voted for the act’s reauthorization in 2006.
“I voted for the Voting Rights Act in 1981 and received a lot of criticism for doing so,” said Mr. Wolf. “I believe in the Voting Rights Act. I believe there has been a violation of voting rights in this case.”
He is so disturbed about DOJ’s actions that he is considering filing a resolution of inquiry before the House Judiciary Committee, although he expressed his desire that such a drastic measure will not be necessary.
“We're going to force Eric Holder to address this,” Mr. Wolf said. “I do think there is something funny about this. I don't know what it is.”
Mr. Wolf sent a letter to Mr. Holder July 31. He wrote, “The video evidence of the defendants’ behavior on Election Day, as well as a January National Geographic Channel documentary, "Inside: The New Black Panther Party," should leave no question of the defendants’ desire to intimidate or incite violence.”
He also said that the results of the dismissal of this case were serious. “Defendant Jerry Jackson received a new poll watcher certificate … immediately after the case was dismissed… Is that justice served?”Mr. Wolf suspects that the dismissal was politically motivated. He thinks Mr. Holder has politicized the DOJ. He is deeply troubled by this.
“A politicized Justice Department is a dangerous thing,” he said.
By Michael P. Tremoglie, For The Bulletin
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Rep. Frank Wolf R- Va., told The Bulletin in an exclusive interview, that he fully intends to learn why Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit — for which they already obtained a judgment — against two members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense for violation of the Voting Rights Act that occurred last Election Day in North Philadelphia.Mr. Wolf is the ranking member of the House subcommittee, which has jurisdiction of the Dept. of Justice (DOJ).
He is an unapologetic staunch supporter of the Voting Rights Act. He was the only member - Republican or Democrat - of Virginia’s House delegation to vote for the 1981 Voting Rights Act. He voted for the act’s reauthorization in 2006.
“I voted for the Voting Rights Act in 1981 and received a lot of criticism for doing so,” said Mr. Wolf. “I believe in the Voting Rights Act. I believe there has been a violation of voting rights in this case.”
He is so disturbed about DOJ’s actions that he is considering filing a resolution of inquiry before the House Judiciary Committee, although he expressed his desire that such a drastic measure will not be necessary.
“We're going to force Eric Holder to address this,” Mr. Wolf said. “I do think there is something funny about this. I don't know what it is.”
Mr. Wolf sent a letter to Mr. Holder July 31. He wrote, “The video evidence of the defendants’ behavior on Election Day, as well as a January National Geographic Channel documentary, "Inside: The New Black Panther Party," should leave no question of the defendants’ desire to intimidate or incite violence.”
He also said that the results of the dismissal of this case were serious. “Defendant Jerry Jackson received a new poll watcher certificate … immediately after the case was dismissed… Is that justice served?”Mr. Wolf suspects that the dismissal was politically motivated. He thinks Mr. Holder has politicized the DOJ. He is deeply troubled by this.
“A politicized Justice Department is a dangerous thing,” he said.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Civil Rights Commission Demands Answers from DOJ
Calls Dismissal of New Black Panther Case “Corrosive to Rule of Law”
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog
An August 10, 2009 letter sent to Attorney General Eric Holder by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, contained a stinging rebuke to the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ). A footnote in the letter states that the explanation for the dismissal of a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBP) “is even more corrosive to the rule of law than the dismissal without comment.”
The DOJ filed a lawsuit in January under the Voting Rights Act against the NBP and three of its members alleging the defendants intimidated voters last Election Day. The complaint, filed in federal court in Philadelphia, where the incident occurred, alleged that NBP members Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were stationed at a polling location wearing the uniform of the organization and Mr. Shabazz repeatedly brandished a “police-style baton weapon.”The complaint said NBP Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Messrs. Shabazz and Jackson was part of a nationwide effort to deploy members at polling locations. The Justice Department initially sought an injunction to prevent any similar future actions.
None of the defendants responded to the lawsuit. However, instead of immediately filing for a default judgment, as is routine, the Obama DOJ filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit for two of the defendants – including Mr. Jackson, who was a Democratic Party poll watcher.
DOJ only obtained an injunction against Samir Shabazz, which was granted on May 18. However, this has been criticized because it contained none of the usual conditions for such a case.
As the Commission’s letter noted, the injunction prevents Mr. Shabazz from brandishing a weapon at a polling place in Philadelphia. They thought it unusual that such an injunction in a voting rights case would only prohibit such a very specific action limited to a specific area.
The Commission’s six page letter was pursuant to two inquiries sent in June to the Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division (CRD). These letters wanted more information about what they said was the “unusual dismissal of the government’s case against most of the defendants in United States v. New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense.” It was signed by the Commission’s chair Gerald A. Reynolds and Vice-Chair, Abigail Thernstrom, as well as four other commissioners.
The commissioners also noted that an earlier reply they received from Portia Robertson, Director of the Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison was “non-responsive to our questions.” They elaborated “to the extent it is responsive, it paints the [DOJ] in a poor light.”
They claimed the letter from Ms. Robertson contained some of the “vague conclusions sent to Members of Congress.” A footnote in the letter states that “These conclusions are more than weak. We believe the public rationale offered thus far is even more corrosive to the rule of law than the dismissal without comment.”
They further note that media reports have questioned Ms. King’s involvement in the dismissal of the case and the role of political appointees – specifically naming Associate Attorney General Thomas Perelli. Because of this they want Attorney General Holder to personally direct responses to their inquiries or appoint someone from DOJ who does not have a potential conflict of interest.
The Commission believes that since they are obligated to investigate enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, they are entitled to know the justification for the dismissal. They are seeking the “evidentiary and legal standards” for CRD’s actions.
They also want to compare the actions in this case with other voter intimidation investigations to determine if there was anything unusual about the treatment of this investigation by the CRD.
According to Ms. Thernstrom’s office, the Commission has considered making this incident part of their annual statutory report. This report focuses on a selected area of civil rights enforcement. Last year’s addressed civil rights issues raised by the mortgage crisis.
Other government officials are also demanding answers about this case and speculating that the Obama DOJ has been politicized.
Rep. Frank Wolf, R. Va., said in a July 31 letter to Holder that he can only conclude that the decision to overrule the career attorneys in the CRD and DOJ who argued in favor of continuing the case was “politically motivated.”
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog
An August 10, 2009 letter sent to Attorney General Eric Holder by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, contained a stinging rebuke to the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ). A footnote in the letter states that the explanation for the dismissal of a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBP) “is even more corrosive to the rule of law than the dismissal without comment.”
The DOJ filed a lawsuit in January under the Voting Rights Act against the NBP and three of its members alleging the defendants intimidated voters last Election Day. The complaint, filed in federal court in Philadelphia, where the incident occurred, alleged that NBP members Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were stationed at a polling location wearing the uniform of the organization and Mr. Shabazz repeatedly brandished a “police-style baton weapon.”The complaint said NBP Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Messrs. Shabazz and Jackson was part of a nationwide effort to deploy members at polling locations. The Justice Department initially sought an injunction to prevent any similar future actions.
None of the defendants responded to the lawsuit. However, instead of immediately filing for a default judgment, as is routine, the Obama DOJ filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit for two of the defendants – including Mr. Jackson, who was a Democratic Party poll watcher.
DOJ only obtained an injunction against Samir Shabazz, which was granted on May 18. However, this has been criticized because it contained none of the usual conditions for such a case.
As the Commission’s letter noted, the injunction prevents Mr. Shabazz from brandishing a weapon at a polling place in Philadelphia. They thought it unusual that such an injunction in a voting rights case would only prohibit such a very specific action limited to a specific area.
The Commission’s six page letter was pursuant to two inquiries sent in June to the Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division (CRD). These letters wanted more information about what they said was the “unusual dismissal of the government’s case against most of the defendants in United States v. New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense.” It was signed by the Commission’s chair Gerald A. Reynolds and Vice-Chair, Abigail Thernstrom, as well as four other commissioners.
The commissioners also noted that an earlier reply they received from Portia Robertson, Director of the Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison was “non-responsive to our questions.” They elaborated “to the extent it is responsive, it paints the [DOJ] in a poor light.”
They claimed the letter from Ms. Robertson contained some of the “vague conclusions sent to Members of Congress.” A footnote in the letter states that “These conclusions are more than weak. We believe the public rationale offered thus far is even more corrosive to the rule of law than the dismissal without comment.”
They further note that media reports have questioned Ms. King’s involvement in the dismissal of the case and the role of political appointees – specifically naming Associate Attorney General Thomas Perelli. Because of this they want Attorney General Holder to personally direct responses to their inquiries or appoint someone from DOJ who does not have a potential conflict of interest.
The Commission believes that since they are obligated to investigate enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, they are entitled to know the justification for the dismissal. They are seeking the “evidentiary and legal standards” for CRD’s actions.
They also want to compare the actions in this case with other voter intimidation investigations to determine if there was anything unusual about the treatment of this investigation by the CRD.
According to Ms. Thernstrom’s office, the Commission has considered making this incident part of their annual statutory report. This report focuses on a selected area of civil rights enforcement. Last year’s addressed civil rights issues raised by the mortgage crisis.
Other government officials are also demanding answers about this case and speculating that the Obama DOJ has been politicized.
Rep. Frank Wolf, R. Va., said in a July 31 letter to Holder that he can only conclude that the decision to overrule the career attorneys in the CRD and DOJ who argued in favor of continuing the case was “politically motivated.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
