Are some Americans too dumb to vote? John Stossel weighs in…
525,919 views in JUST TWO days Case proven…
Are some Americans too dumb to vote? John Stossel weighs in…
525,919 views in JUST TWO days Case proven…
FACTCHECK.ORG: Rep. Grayson Lowers the Bar; September 27, 2010
We thought Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida reached a low point when he falsely accused his opponent of being a draft dodger during the Vietnam War, and of not loving his country. But now Grayson has lowered the bar even further. He’s using edited video to make his rival appear to be saying the opposite of what he really said.
Talk about things being ‘swept under the prayer rug’.
A fellow radio host of mine emailed me a story on Thursday night that I thought was a bit interesting, interesting because I had not seen or heard about it anywhere.
WCSH NBC Channel 6 out of Portland, Maine had posted the following story on their website Wednesday, September 22:
PORTLAND, ME (NEWS CENTER) — Police say there were no injuries or damage caused by a chemical bomb that went off in a parking lot near the Islamic Society of Portland.
The bomb went off in the lot between the Islamic Society and Back Bay Grill around 8:00 PM Tuesday night. Portland Police say Islamic elders came forward to tell them that a 13 year old from the Society was experimenting and was responsible for the bomb. Another bomb was also found undetonated.
Police say it’s unclear if charges will be filed against the teenagers.
That’s it? That was the whole story? A 13 year old sets off a bomb, police even state “another bomb was found undetonated.” It happened near the Islamic Society, the Islamic elders admitted the 13 year old was from the society and “it’s unclear if charges will be filed against the teenager?”
I’m sorry but I for one don’t want some ‘Junior Jihadi’ running around making chemical bombs anywhere and getting away with it by saying it was some “experiment” gone wrong.
I needed to find out what had happened to this ‘Junior Jihadi’ so I contacted the District Attorney’s office in Portland, Maine and what I found out scared me more than a teacher with a twitch in a suicide bomber class.
Friday morning I spoke to the head of the Juvenile Justice Division, Prosecution Team Leader, Assistant District Attorney, Christine Thibeault.
I asked Asst. D.A. Thibeault what was happening with the case of the bomb that went off outside the Islamic Society of Portland. Her answer was “what bomb?” My reaction, of course, was to repeat the question and her answer was “I have not even heard about it.”
What? Could this be real? How has the District Attorney’s office not yet even heard about it? So, I read the story to her right off the WCHS website. I asked her if it didn’t concern her that an Islamic teenager had set off a bomb and told her that the police even found a second bomb. She replied that “it concerns me anytime anyone sets off a bomb regardless of their ethnicity.”
Okay, good answer. I followed up with “given the current situation with the Ground Zero mosque and homegrown terror in this country does is not concern you that a teenager who is Muslim set off a bomb outside the Islamic Society and you have yet to hear about it?” Asst. D.A. Thibeault answered that question directly, “Yes it does and soon as we get off the phone I am calling the Portland Police Department to find out about it.”
That still didn’t sit well with me so I asked the Asst. D.A. what the procedure was for cases involving juveniles in Maine. She explained that “if it was the person’s first offense the police could choose to handle it informally with in their own community”. She promised to call me back after contacting the Portland PD and a few hours later she did.
When Thibeault called me back she informed me that she was now aware of the incident, but that the Detective in charge of the case was off until Monday, so she really could not give me any further information. She did explain to me that she now had the name of the ‘Junior Jihadi’ in question and that she had never heard of him. She also confirmed that it was only one individual that was involved and not “teenagers” as reported in the last line of the WCHS story.
Given the explanation that I received during our first conversation I asked “where do you draw the line of the ‘first offense’? Isn’t it a bit more serious when that first offense involves a bomb that can kill or damage property?” She did agree with that and said that she would contact me as soon as she had spoken with the detective in charge.
This is by no means the fault of Asst. D.A. Christine Thibeault. She sounded as concerned as I was and was as helpful as she could be, given that she was totally unaware of the incident. This all falls directly on the Portland P.D. for not notifying the D.A.’s office to begin with.
This incident took place on Tuesday September 21 and I spoke with the D.A.’s office on Friday the 24th, the Detective in charge is off until Monday the 27th and the D.A. was still unaware of it until my telephone call.
I don’t want to hear the Portland PD say that they were investigating and were planning on telling the D.A.’s office later, blah, blah, blah. Bull! This is something that should the Juvenile Justice Division of the D.A.’s office should have at the very least, been made aware of on Wednesday the 22nd even if an investigation were on going.
Now here’s where I am a bit lost, back in April of 2007 a student was suspended from the Lewiston Maine Middle School for putting a ham sandwich down on a table where a Muslim student was also sitting. It was referred to as a “hate crime”. Part of the story from the Renew America website stated:
The latest incident of “Muslim outrage” involves a middle-school student purportedly placing a ham sandwich wrapped in a baggie on a lunch table where Somali Muslim students sit. One 14 year-old unnamed Somali student is reported to have said: “At the school the next day, I didn’t feel safe. I felt like everybody was against me. Before I felt like I fit in, and everything was normal.” The ham-placing “offending student” has been suspended, the Maine middle school is calling the placing of the ham sandwich a “hate crime” and the local police are investigating the child. More charges against the child may be forthcoming. School Superintendent Leon Levesque said: “The school incident is being treated seriously as a hate incident!”
So, a ham sandwich is considered “a ‘hate Crime’ and the local police are investigating the child. More charges against the child may be forthcoming”, but an Islamic teenager sets off a bomb and “Police say it’s unclear if charges will be filed against the teenager”. Was the sandwich an exploding sandwich?
This is where we have come to in this country. I am tired of screaming about it week after week. Allah forbid we insult the Muslims in any way, shape or form, but charge the non-Muslim with a hate crime.
There is no telling what will happen with this ‘Junior Jihadi’, whether any charges will be filed and if so, if he will even be found guilty is anyone’s guess. But one thing is for sure here, had I not contacted the District Attorney’s office they would not have heard about it.
You can bet your Sharia Compliant local politicians that if that had been a non-Muslim 13 year old setting off a chemical bomb he would have been in cuffs and on every major network that night at 11pm. Oh, and of course, it would have been because his parents were Tea Partiers.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Gadi Adelman is a freelance writer and lecturer on the history of terrorism and counterterrorism. He grew up in Israel, studying terrorism and Islam for 35 years after surviving a terrorist bomb in Jerusalem in which 7 children were killed. Since returning to the U. S., Gadi teaches and lectures to law enforcement agencies as well as high schools and colleges. He can be heard every Thursday night at 9PM est. on his own radio show “America Akbar” on Windows to Liberty Radio Network. He can be reached through his website
In an extraordinary public statement, all five Republican members of the House ethics committee are calling on Democrats to schedule ethics trials for Reps. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) before the November elections.
Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.), ranking member of the committee, was joined by his four Republican colleagues on the bipartisan committee in slamming ethics committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) for not scheduling the trials even as the House prepares to adjourn until after Nov. 2.
“It is in the best interests of the transparency and fairness to the American people, Representatives Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters, and other Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, that the House Ethics Committee stop stalling the resolution of the Rangel and Waters mattes and complete those public trials prior to the November elections,” the Republican members of the normally secretive panel declared in their statement.
Bonner and the Republican blamed Lofgren for the delays in moving forward with the proceedings, saying she alone has the authority under ethics committee rules to set a trial date for the Rangel and Waters cases.
“The Chairwoman has repeatedly refused to set either the Rangel or Waters trial before the November election,” the Republicans wrote in a statement released Tuesday. “While we regret that the Committee has not worked together in a bipartisan fashion to ensure the transparent and fair resolution of these matters to date, we look forward to working with the Chairwoman in a bipartisan manner to accomplish this – and other important unfinished Committee business – in the coming weeks.”
Bonner’s public criticism of Lofgren is a surprising move, considering the usually secretive nature of congressional ethics committees, and it opens up a divisive partisan clash over the Rangel and Waters cases. Lofgren and Bonner have been at pains since the start of the 111th Congress to play up their bipartisan cooperation on ethics cases, issuing frequent public statements highlighting their cooperation.
The clash over the schedule for the Rangel-Waters trials is the worst public fight for the ethics committee since early 2005, when Republicans moved to replace former Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), the committee chairman, and top panel staffers following an investigation into then Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).
Democrats were privately furious over the decision by Bonner and the other four Republicans to go public with their complaints about Lofgren.
“The whole ruse of it being a bipartisan, non-politicized committee has blown up in their face,” said one Democratic aide who follows the ethics panel closely. “The fact that they can put out this statement shows how damned partisan it is.”
The Democratic aide also said that Lofgren “has lost control of the process.”
Friday’s testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights by Christopher Coates — a career Justice Department lawyer and supervisor — knocked down the Potemkin Village that the Obama administration has built to obscure why Justice officials dismissed a voter-intimidation case against two members of New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia.
Coates, former chief of the Voting Section in the Civil Rights Division, testified that Justice officials purposefully dropped the New Black Panthers case because they didn’t want to enforce the Voting Rights Act against minority defendants accused of violating the law.
Coates’ sworn testimony to the independent Civil Rights Commission supported accusations made previously in testimony by J. Christian Adams, a former career lawyer in the Voting Section.
In a long and detailed opening statement, Coates sought to confirm the truth of Adams’ charges.
Most disturbing was Coates’ description of a culture of animus within the Civil Rights Division toward race-neutral enforcement of federal voting rights laws. He described an atmosphere of harassment directed at lawyers and paralegals who worked on the NBPP case, and on an earlier case filed in Noxubee, Mississippi, against Ike Brown, a twice-convicted felon and political activist who runs Noxubee County. Like the defendants in the Philadelphia case, he is black.
Lawyers and other staff within the Voting Section also refused to work on the Brown case, Coates testified, because they did not believe the Justice Department should prosecute blacks or other racial minorities — no matter what law they violated. Coates testified that he had complained about this attitude and unwritten policy to Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez, a political appointee.
When Perez testified before the Civil Rights Commission, he said no such policy or problem existed.
Coates, in a lawyerly manner, dismantled the Obama administration’s justifications for dismissing the case against the New Black Panthers accused of intimidating white voters on Election Day 2008:
To understand the irrationality of these articulated reasons for gutting this case, one only has to state the facts in the racial reverse.
Assume that two members of the KKK, one of which lived in an apartment building that was being used as a polling place, showed up at the entrance in KKK uniform, and that one of the Klansman was carrying a billy stick. Further assume that the two Klansmen were yelling racial slurs at black voters who were a minority of people registered to vote at this polling place, and the Klansmen were blocking ingress to the polling place. Assume further that a local policeman comes on the scene and determines that the Klansman with the billy club must leave, but that the other Klansman could stay because he was certified as a poll watcher for a local political party.
In those circumstances does anyone seriously believe that the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights would contend that on the basis of the facts and law, the CRD [Civil Rights Division] did not have a case under the VRA [Voting Rights Act] against this hypothetical Klansman because … he was allowed to stay at the polling place by a local police officer because he was a poll watcher?
I certainly hope Mr. Perez would not find that hypothetical case lacking in merit, and I will guarantee you that Ms. King, Mr. Rosenbaum, Mr. Kappelhoff, and Ms. Clarke would not either. However, such reasons are a part of the publicly articulated grounds for the CRD’s decision to instruct me to dismiss a significant portion of the NBPP case.
Coates also recounted directives received from political appointee Julie Fernandes, deputy assistant attorney general for Civil Rights. He supported Adams’ testimony that Fernandes made it clear in meetings with Voting Section staff that the Obama administration was interested only in filing “traditional types” of voting rights cases that would “provide political equality for racial and language minority voters.” Coates testified that everyone in the room understood what that meant: “No more cases like the Ike Brown or NBPP cases.”
Coates also testified that in another meeting with Voting Section staff, Fernandes said the Obama administration was not interested in enforcing the provision of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act that requires states to maintain voter registration lists by regularly removing ineligible voters — for instance, the names of voters who have died or moved away.
In September 2009, Coates testified, he sent a memorandum to Fernandes and the “Front Office” of the Civil Rights Division (the assistant attorney general’s political staff) in which he recommended opening investigations of eight states that appeared to be in non-compliance with the list-maintenance procedures. He did not get approval for the project, and it has yet to be acted on, Coates said — suggesting political appointees are not pursuing possible violations of law.
Prosecutorial discretion does not allow prosecutors “to decide not to do any enforcement of a law enacted by Congress because political appointees determined that they are not interested in enforcing the law,” Coates testified. “That is an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.”
Coates made another incident public for the first time. He testified that when he became chief of the Voting Section in 2008, he began asking job applicants a new question after seeing experienced employees refuse to work on the Ike Brown case. He would ask applicants “whether they would be willing to work on cases that involved claims of racial discrimination against white voters, as well as cases that involved claims of discrimination against minority voters,” Coates testified.
Coates added that he “did not want to hire people who were politically or ideologically opposed to the equal enforcement of the voting statutes the Voting Section is charged with enforcing.”
When Loretta King was named acting assistant attorney general for Civil Rights after President Obama’s inauguration, Coates testified, she called him to her office. King had heard about the question Coates was asking. She “specifically instructed” Coates that he “was not to ask any other applicants whether they would be wiling to, in effect, race-neutrally enforce the VRA.”
King took offense that Coates was asking that question, he testified, “because she [did] not support equal enforcement of the provision of the VRA and had been highly critical of the filing and civil prosecution of the Ike Brown case.”
Coates, a veteran voting rights litigator whose awards include honors from the NAACP, testified that he believes King, Fernandes, and other lawyers within Justice violated their oath to faithfully execute the law when they selectively enforced the Voting Rights Act based on the race of the victim and the perpetrator.
Biased enforcement, he testified, will encourage violations by election officials who happen to be minorities, because they will not fear repercussions from the Justice Department. In our “increasingly multiethnic society, that is a clear recipe to undermine the public’s confidence in the legitimacy of our electoral process,” he told the commission.
Unless senior officials at Justice take steps to repudiate such policies, they will destroy public confidence in the legitimacy of the Civil Rights Division’s enforcement of voting rights laws, and its stewardship of the election process. If Fernandes and King have the views described by Coates, they should resign or be fired. And Perez has a responsibility to explain why he misinformed the Civil Rights Commission and why he took no steps to investigate problems Coates identified to him.
The public needs to know that such policies are not approved by Obama appointees within the Justice Department. Because if it is the case, Americans will hold the highest officials of the Obama administration to account.
Cross-posted at Pajamas Media.
An Anchorage court issued restraining orders yesterday against Shawn R. Christy, 18, of Pennsylvania, on behalf of Wasilla residents Kristan Cole and former Gov. Sarah Palin, according to court documents.
The protective orders say Christy has been stalking the families since 2009.
Cole said she became concerned about Christy’s letters and e-mails 15 or 16 months ago, but it ended up in court yesterday after the man called her to say his plane had landed in Alaska.
“When someone sends you proof that they’ve purchased weapons. Proof that they know where you live. And said that they are looking into purchasing a one-way plane ticket to Alaska and then calls from a cell phone with a 907 number, it’s over the line and we need protecting.”
Cole testified that Christy sent a letter in August 2010 saying that “he tried to follow the bible but had evil and wickedness in him.” She said Christy told her that he is convinced she is evil and must be punished.
Christy also claims to have had a sexual relationship with Gov. Palin, the documents say. “Petitioner testified that respondent has told her that he has had an affair with Gov. Palin and that petitioner needs to tell the FBI the truth about the affair.”
Attorney Thomas Van Flein, who represented Palin and Cole at the hearing Monday, also provided evidence that the Secret Service investigate Christy alleging that he had threatened or said he want to sexually assault Gov. Pailn.
Cole said Wasilla Police Department also helped the two families put together a safety plan.
“I can’t say enough good about the Wasilla Police,” Cole said.
The families do not know what Christy looks like because the photos he’s sent are from when he was a boy, she said.
Cole said she and former Gov. Palin want women to know that they don’t have to live in fear if they are being stalked. “There are avenues to get help. Staying silent doesn’t help anybody.”
The restraining order against Christy prohibits contact with Cole and her children and lists Todd Palin and all of the Palin’s children and their grandchild.
The 20-day protective order Anchorage Magistrate Colleen Ray signed Monday prohibits Christy from following, approaching, confronting, watching or otherwise staking or threatening to stalk or assault Palin.
The order also forbids Christy to telephone, e-mail or otherwise contact Palin or anyone in her immediate family, orders him to stay at least a mile away from her home and to stay away from Colony High School.
Palin has requested a long-term order. A hearing on that request is scheduled for 10 a.m., Oct. 13, before Anchorage Master John E. Duggan.
If Christy violates the order, a peace office can arrest without a warrant.
~I JUST wish Sarah would get security for her family. This guy is a stalker too: 05/27/2010
Joe McGinniss is writing an unauthorized biography of the former VP candidate. Why is a an author of true crime writing a book about Sarah? Remember Fatal Vision? The real-life story of Captain Jeffrey MacDonald, M.D., who in 1979 was convicted of the murder of his pregnant wife and his two young daughters. These murders took place in 1970 while MacDonald was a Green Beret captain and physician in the US Army, stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
My guess is Michael Bolton will be going home, although I would send home “The Situation & his
female. I mean, come on now, he has two left feet that are pigeon toed.
Those I thought that did well:
–Of course, Jennifer is still my # 1 choice so far
–Rick Foxy Fox
–For 76 years old Mom Brady rocked
–Bristol is coming into her own (anyone else sense the tension when she went home with Mark? She doesn’t seem to treat Sarah very nice)
–Kurt Warner is getting gooder
–Kyle has energy & is fun to watch (Yay I keep Lacey awhile)
–I missed Margaret’s *& Audrina’s dance (how did she do?)
Those I didn’t like:
–Brandy got a bit ahead of herself & didn’t wow the judges or me