Tag Archives: Hypocrisy

Civil Rights Panel Requesting DOJ Employees To Testify On VRA Enforcement Policy

Rights panel seeks testimony from Justice.  WT. 

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights wants the Obama-led DOJ to pony up information on its ingrained pattern of failing to enforce race neutral laws. 

 “Since June 2009, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has sought information from the Department of Justice, much of which the department refused to provide despite its statutory obligation to ‘cooperate fully’ with such commission requests,” the letter says. “Our original aim was to determine the reasons for and implications of DOJ’s dismissal of most of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation lawsuit and its narrow injunction against the remaining defendant.”

It shouldn’t be too hard for Justice employees to get up on a stand to testify about their actions and rationale.  That is of course if there is truth behind the allegations. 

If the truth will obviate the testimony of Christopher Coates, former DOJ voting rights section head who was summarily reassigned to South Carolina after his insistence on blind justice was shut out by superiors,  and J. Christian Adams, former head of the Blank Panther prosecution team who has since gone into private practice after being held back from fulfilling his job, then the Department of Justice has nothing to worry about.

Take a look.  Superiors had everything to do with quashing the Black Panther case, even though attorney Coates was ready to proceed.  Justice’s Panther pursuer to testify on case.  WT.

The decision to dismiss the civil complaint came from then-acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King after an April 2009 meeting with Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the department’s No. 3 political appointee, according to interviews with lawyers familiar with the case.

The chain of command tainted by selective enforcement goes further.  EDITORIAL: No black hole for Black Panthers.  WT. 

Attorney General Julie Fernandes told employees of the Voting Rights Section that the department would not enforce certain portions of voting laws. Mr. Coates said Ms. Fernandes told staff in September 2009, “the Obama administration was only interested in bringing traditional types of [Voting Rights Act] Section 2 cases” – meaning only those that protected minorities, not ones that protect whites.

A little background on the superiors who have enabled the Black Panther case to escape prosecution.  Justice Dept. subpoenaed in New Black Panthers case.  WT. 

  • Attorney General Eric Holder, appointed by President Barack Obama.
  • Acting-Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, appointed by President Barack Obama. 
  • Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, Obama school chum from Harvard, number 3 position at DOJ,  raised $500,000 for Obama for president.

The DOJ leaders’ political alliances do not help them appear justice blind.  Makes one wonder the DOJ’s legal justification in enforcing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, since reading it clearly shows it was designed to apply and protect everyone.  Not just favored folks.    

See:

Democrats Go After GOP Contributers Via DOJ And IRS

Shutting Up Business.  WSJ.

Is there anything else to demonstrate the integrity of a person?  Now now.  Look at President Barack Obama.  Happily cheering on the IRS to go after 501(c)’s because they might be accepting foreign campaign donations.  Allowing foreigners to influence American elections.  Forgetting how he did the very same thing in 2008.

That didn’t stop President Obama from raising the issue in a Maryland speech last week, saying that “groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections.” Within hours of the ThinkProgress report, the bully boys at MoveOn.org asked the Department of Justice to launch a criminal investigation of the Chamber. In a letter to the Federal Election Commission, Minnesota Senator Al Franken expressed his profound concern that “foreign corporations are indirectly spending significant sums to influence American elections through third-party groups.” From the man who stole his Senate election in a dubious recount, this is rich.

Their goal.

Democrats claim only to favor “disclosure” of donors, but their legal intimidation attempts are the best argument against disclosure. Liberals want the names of business donors made public so they can become targets of vilification with the goal of intimidating them into silence. A CEO or corporate board is likely to think twice about contributing to a campaign fund if the IRS or prosecutors might come calling.

Hypocrisy.  Since it is okay to go after businesses for donations too.

pardon our skepticism given the ferocity of this White House-led campaign against businesses that donate to political campaigns. Faced with electoral repudiation as the public turns against their agenda, Democrats are unleashing government power to silence their political opponents. Instead of piling on, the press corps ought to blow the whistle on this attempt to stifle political speech. This is one more liberal abuse of power that voters should consider as they head to the polls.

Let’s go back and see.

Klein: Palestinians donate $29,500 to Obama. Gazan brothers’ illegal contributions listed in government election filings (Updated 2x).  RBO.  2008.

Illegal Obama donors: Middle Eastern Arabs.  WND.  2008.

Campaign Disclosures: This Is Not The Rafah Georgia I Knew.  UW.  2008

Obama’s Foreign Donors: The media averts its eyes.  Pamela Geller.  AT.  2008.

Pamela Geller, Big Government: Foreign Contributions, Investigating Obama.  Atlas Shrugs.  2010.  With screenshot.

Foreign Contributions, Investigating Obama Pamela Geller, Breitbart’s Big Government.  2010.

Examples of foreign donations the IRS never got around to investigating.  Quite conveniently.

See:

Useless Congressional Accomplishments Set Mid Term Campaign Stage

Wow, how work-driven the Congress is of late. 

Senate votes to turn down volume on TV commercials.  WE.

But As New Fiscal Year Looms, Congress Has Passed 0 of 13 Appropriations Bills.  CNS.

Barely a moment left, House adjourns after passing short-term fix to fund federal government.  The Hill.

And they’re out! Congress flees DC to campaign.  AP/HC.  More precisely, Feckless Congress Flies The Coop.  IBD. 

But things aren’t looking too good one month before mid term elections.  How come?  

Winston: Obama, Democrats Misjudged Mandate.  Roll Call.

See:

Inspector General Investigating DOJ For Employee Harassment Of Specific Cases Like Black Panthers

Justice IG probing Black Panther case.  WT.  You heard right.  The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department is actually looking into whether the voting rights section employees have been subjected to harassment, change in responsibilities, or transferred, for working on particular cases. 

Somehow the night stick wielding Black Panther with his comrade stalking a Philadelphia poll station intimidating voters, was petty for the DOJ.   

EXCLUSIVE: Career lawyers overruled on voting case.  WT.   That is correct.  The DOJ bosses blocked the lowly justice lawyers from proceeding, even though default summary judgment against the Black Panthers had already been issued.   

Why?  Obviously because the flagrant violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Black Panthers, did not fit political appointeees’ brand of enforcement work.  Laws are to be applied justice blind, right?  Not in the new era of the Obama Justice Department.   

  • Attorney General Eric Holder, appointed by President Barack Obama.
  • Acting-Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, appointed by President Barack Obama. 
  • Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, Obama school chum from Harvard, number 3 position at DOJ,  raised $500,000 for Obama for president.

When those doing their job properly from within won’t let up, despite being restrained by their masters, the heat is turned up to drive them out.  J. Christian Adams, an attorney in the voting rights division, left after superiors shunned the Black Panther case.  Back Channels: Panther case dismissal needs explanation.  Philadelphia Inquirer. 

Adams wrote that the dismissal of the case “was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law.” As for the re-review, “the lawyers who ordered the dismissal … did not even read the internal Justice Department memorandums supporting the case and investigation.”

What’s “most disturbing,” Adams wrote, is “the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.

“Some of my coworkers,” Adams continued, “argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation. … Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the [Justice Department’s] Voting Section.”

Christopher Coates, a former ACLU attorney, and now former chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department, was transferred from his post to South Carolina.  NRO uncovered a troubling mantra at the DOJ that may have been the impetus for Coates’ reassignment.

One of their unbreakable rules is that the VRA shouldn’t be used to protect white voters from discrimination committed by racial or ethnic minorities. 

That is why  Justice Dept. subpoenaed in New Black Panthers case.  WT.   And now EDITORIAL: Black Panther case roars back.  WT.

The overdue need for an investigation centers on the broader question of whether the Obama-Holder Justice Department enforces civil rights laws equally in defense of whites and Asians as it does on behalf of blacks or Hispanics. Ample anecdotal and strong circumstantial evidence indicates it doesn’t. 

But will the investigation expose and penalize the DOJ agenda on selectively pursuing some cases, whereas failing to prosecute overt law-breakers?    Or will political maneuvering thwart the truth?

“Security” patrols stationed at polling places in Philly

November 4, 2008

See:

GAO Exposes Misleading Obamacare Claims

Well it looks like Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services, has been overstating the benefits of Obamacare, and threatening insurance companies who criticize it with removal from the roster.    

It all started about a year ago.  A Humana Mailer brochure was mailed to Medicare Advantage seniors warning them of the tightening reins on Medicare with Obamacare looming.

Leading health reform proposals being considered in Washington, D.C., this summer include billions in Medicare Advantage funding cuts, as well as spending reductions to original Medicare and Medicaid. While these programs need to be made more efficient, if the proposed funding cut levels become law, millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable.

Medicare was not pleased.  They initiated an investigation of Humana.  Misleading and Confusing Plan Communications to Enrollees Memo from CMS.  

Please be advised that we take this matter very seriously and, based upon the findings of our investigation, will pursue compliance and enforcement actions.

Unable to leave that Humana letter unanswered, HHS made its own brochure and promptly mailed it to Seniors.  But the veracity went tested.  GAO Finds Sebelius Misleading Taxpayers on Health Reform.  Fox Business.   

For example, the GAO says the brochure fails to note that reform actually delivers cuts to the Medicare program, increases Medicare prescription premiums, and cuts payment to doctors. 

The GAO also says the Sebelius brochure made misleading statements about health reform making “improvements” to Medicare Advantage, and that the brochure does not cite the $123 billion in estimated cuts over a ten-year period to Medicare Advantage, which provides services beyond regular Medicare offerings. Medicare Advantage is the private options that about one in five Medicare beneficiaries enroll in.   

And the GAO says the brochure fails to note that “two government analyses have determined that [health reform] reductions in funding for Medicare Advantage may decrease enrollment and result in less generous benefit packages.”The GAO also says the brochure misleadingly tells Medicare recipients that health reform “increases the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and physician assistants” enrolled in Medicare, when in fact, reform only provides incentives for those doctors to voluntarily join or stay in Medicare.

The GAO also says the brochure misleadingly refers to new programs as being available for Medicare recipients, when they are not eligible for these offerings.The GAO also says the brochure fails to acknowledge what the 2010 Medicare Trustees Report says, “that while the financial outlook for the Medicare program is substantially improved as a result of” reform, “the feasibility of long-range improvements is still uncertain, and significant increases in premiums for some beneficiaries may be necessary.”  

But if it isn’t bad enough having the GAO publicly cross check your claims, then apparently it is worse if insurers  publicly clamor because of the rising costs, cutbacks in services, and increased premiums we all pay as a result 0f Obamacare.  They have started to drop policies.  Obamacare bureacracy effect on people is manifesting.

Now Obamacare creators are miffed that any insurer dare practice freedom of speech.   

HHS to insurers: Don’t blame us for your rates.  AP/Yahoo.     

the administration won’t tolerate blaming premium hikes on the new health overhaul law.     

“There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to the insurance lobby.   

“Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections,” Sebelius said. She warned that bad actors may be excluded from new health insurance markets that will open in 2014 under the law. They’d lose out on a big pool of customers, as many as 30 million people nationwide.     

 Sebelius: insurers who criticize ObamaCare may get locked out of system.  HA.    

Rarely have we heard a Cabinet official tell Americans to stay out of political debates at the risk of losing their businesses.  It points out the danger in having government run industries and holding a position where politicians can actually destroy a business out of spite.  It also demonstrates the thin skin of our current administration, where Hope and Change means keeping your mouth shut and pretending that everyone is happy while businesses slowly circle the drain.  

Oddly enough, Senator Max Baucus might take his own words a little more seriously.   

“It is wholly inappropriate for insurance companies to mislead seniors regarding any subject—particularly on a subject as important to them, and to the nation, as health-care reform,” Mr. Baucus said in a statement yesterday, playing the role of Congressional censor. “The health-care reform bill we released last week strengthens Medicare and does not cut benefits covered under the Medicare program—and seniors need to know that.”   

Message.  Speak up, and ye shall be sanctioned.   

See:

Obamacare Turns The Other Cheek On $56 Billion Malpractice Cost

Trial lawyers: Medical liability costs ONLY $56 billion per year!.  Washington Examiner.

Only $56 billion per year. Well, then it’s not even worth doing medical malpractice reform. $56 billion per year is barely enough for a good lobster dinner.

The very idea that President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrat minions did not attempt to rein in malpractice liability in health care reform, clearly shows they are as much a part of the problem as the trial lawyers in this country for promoting the cost as insignificant. 

Perhaps downplaying the cost, Bloomberg entitled their take on it as Medical Liability Costs Make Up 2.4% of U.S. Health Spending.  Bloomberg.  It is harder to fathom the cost in those terms. 

Now typical of ivory tower academicians who have no clue about the real world. 

“The $56 billion for medical malpractice isn’t chump change for a country already feeling financially strapped,” said Amitabh Chandra, a co-author, in a telephone interview yesterday. “But we should not think that by reforming it, we will find the keys to reducing the cost growth in health care.”

It hardly seems unlikely that by clamping down on runaway costs that stem from defensive medicine, i.e., tests and studies ordered to limit a doctor’s risk of a malpractice lawsuit, that costs will not go down. 

Simply stated, remove the incentive for a lawsuit, then the practice, and hence the cost, of defensive medicine will drop.  And so too will the costs borne by the public and taxpayers in the cost of their insurance coverage, private, Medicare, or Medicaid.  The critical issue is how long it will take before effects will manifest. 

Malpractice reform no ‘silver bullet’ for skyrocketing healthcare spending.  The Hill.  Texas is served up as an example of tort reform passed in 2003, whose health care costs remain high.  However, there are indirect benefits which have served the state well.

“In Texas, medical liability reform has attracted thousands of new doctors to the state — over 15,000 since reform passed in 2003. Before reform, doctors were leaving the state,” Burgess said. “Charity care rendered by Texas hospitals has increased by 24 percent, resulting in $594 million in free care to Texas’ patients.” 

Medical liability reform does have benefits, albeit not necessarily as quickly as many would like.  The reality is that it does significantly contribute to the cost of health care, and if that is to be addressed, then it would appear that both removing incentive for lawsuits in conjunction to changing practice patterns of defensive medicine, may go hand -in-hand to improving the ultimate price consumers and taxpayers foot overall. 

See:

Sneaky Amnesty Plan For Illegal Immigrants Has Slowly Been Engaged

Obama Administration Must Enforce America’s Immigration Laws.  Or so America would expect the Executive branch of the government to adhere to the laws in place.

Sneaky amnesty for illegal immigrants?  Decide for yourself.  The Heritage Foundation has an excellent piece discussing the need for immigration enforcement, yet the real illegal immigration agenda emanating straight from the White House today.   

First, the Obama Administration fundamentally changed the contours of the Section 287(g) program that empowered state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law. Though only a “revision,” the new policy placed unnecessary new financial and administrative burdens on states and localities. It further limited the ability of state and local law enforcement to check the immigration status of those arrested to individuals arrested for “serious offenses.”

Next, the Obama Administration failed to develop any coherent border security policy, even as it moved away from the gains made in the last few years of the Bush Administration. After the White House dismantled the SBInet program and ceased any new physical fence work, the void left the border as porous as ever. A move to put 1,200 National Guard troops at the border was more politics than substance, as Guard troops are severely limited in their ability to assist the Border Patrol beyond administrative and maintenance duties. While this decision may have made sense in previous years where the simple lack of Border Patrol manpower hindered its ability to secure the border, a robust recruitment program by the Bush Administration has left the Border Patrol much better staffed.

Then, the President himself sat in silence as Mexican President Felipe Caldron lectured to Americans from the Rose Garden, chastising them for their lack of interest in subsidizing the Mexican economy through remittances or absorbing its poorest citizens. Never mind that Calderon’s own failed policies have failed to create economic opportunities for his people at home, let alone stem the horrific violence now spilling over into the U.S.

Still worse, the Obama Administration abandoned worksite enforcement policies that resulted in record levels of arrests, deportations, and penalties against scofflaw employers and replaced it with a “soft” audit process that allows illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. In some cases, the Administration is releasing illegal immigrants apprehended with temporary work permits.

To the surprise of no one, the Administration then sued the state of Arizona to stop it from enforcing its own laws dealing with illegal immigrants within its jurisdiction. Regardless of whether Arizona eventually prevails (which it likely will), the lawsuit itself will certainly chill action by other states, especially during such austere times when paying large legal bills is an unattractive option.

Finally, over the last month, reports indicate that an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) memorandum blatantly advised the leadership at USCIS—and, presumably, Secretary Janet Napolitano—to simply ignore the law. According to reports, the memo advised officials not to issue “Notice to Appear” letters to those illegal immigrants who did not have another avenue to use to delay their deportation. In conjunction with that memo, it was uncovered that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has begun to review and dismiss cases of non-criminal illegal immigrants, which will allow those illegal immigrants to remain in America.

Sadly, we see the reality being dictated from above down to ICE.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are being told to freely let illegal immigrants into the United States, as long as they have no criminal cases pending. 

New Immigration Policy to Halt Some Illegal Immigrant Deportations.  Fox.  A memo was released August 20, 2010 directing the ICE agents to dismiss deportation proceedings against illegals who are married or have a U.S. citizen or legal resident who has filed a petition on their behalf.  No criminal, serious, or adverse issues though. 

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, likened the change to a “free pass” for illegal immigrants, a characterization federal authorities denied.

A Department of Homeland Security official told Fox News that the new policy was designed in July 2009 to improve docket efficiency.

The Feds will certainly be able to clear their dockets now.  Instead of doing their job, backlog and all, they would rather just let them in.  Then it makes them look like they are working doing something.

Indeed.  Something illegal in and of itself.  Violating federal laws already in place by ignoring them.  Laws that apply to everyone.  The Executive branch of the U.S. government included. 

See: