konane's Blog

Another perspective the MSM likely won't be presenting.

__________

"Black tea partiers rebut NAACP

By ANDY BARR | 7/14/10 1:11 PM EDT
Source Politico

"Some African-American tea party candidates are displeased by a resolution that the NAACP approved on Tuesday calling the grass-roots conservative movement “racist.”

“I have not experienced the charges of racism that the NAACP is touting,” Vernon Parker, an African-American tea party congressional candidate in Arizona, told POLITICO.

Parker, former mayor of Paradise Valley, said that he has never felt out of place at a tea party rally because of the color of his skin.

“When I go to tea party events, people don’t look at me any differently,” he said. “They didn’t judge me on the color of my skin, quite frankly, they judged me on my principles."

"The NAACP should be concerned about bringing jobs to people in depressed areas,” he added, “not the tea party.”

Tim Scott, a GOP congressional nominee in South Carolina, echoed Parker’s sentiments in a statement.

“I believe that the NAACP is making a grave mistake in stereotyping a diverse group of Americans who care deeply about their country and who contribute their time, energy and resources to make a difference,” Scott said.

“As I campaign in South Carolina, I participate in numerous events sponsored by the tea party, 9/12, Patriot, and other like-minded groups, and I have had the opportunity to get to know many of the men and women who make up these energetic grass-roots organizations,” Scott added.

“Americans need to know that the tea party is a color-blind movement that has principled differences with many of the leaders in Washington, both Democrats and Republicans.”

The resolution the NAACP approved at its annual conference in Kansas City alleges that tea party groups have used racist epithets in attacks on President Barack Obama and have verbally and physically abused African-American members of Congress."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39729.html

Will be interesting to watch this go through courts as to how it pertains to overall First Amendment rights.

____________

"Court Tosses Out FCC Rules to Curb Indecent Speech

By AMY SCHATZ And JESS BRAVIN

Source Wall Street Journal

"A federal appeals court threw out the FCC's rules on indecent speech Tuesday, in a big win for broadcasters that could lead to a new Supreme Court test of the government's power to control what is said on television and radio.

A three-judge panel of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said the Federal Communications Commission's indecency policies violate the First Amendment and are "unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here." ......."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703834604575365141592489802.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

Powerline is THE VERY BEST at laying out facts.  Live links for verification.  Highlighting mine.

_____________

July 13, 2010 Posted by Scott at 5:14 AM

There is one problem with the story: It didn't happen. We believe that we demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt over the course of our 18-part "Don't leave it to Cleaver" series that it didn't happen.The congressmen's story was a fabrication intended to defame the Tea Party movement and distract attention from the resistance to Obamacare.

Under circumstances where such evidence would exist if the incident had occurred, no audio or video recording corroborates it, despite Andrew Breitbart's offer of a $100,000 reward to anyone producing such evidence. And no independent journalist or other eyewitness has stepped forward to vouch for the congressmen's story -- because it didn't happen.

We posted correspondence from reader Greg Farrell providing his own testimony denying that the incident happened in part 7, part 16, and elsewhere in our series. Farrell had sent us his photographs documenting his position at the March 20 protest. Farrell was in a good position to testify: It didn't happen.

Given the involvement of Rep. Clyburn in promoting the story, the fabrication extends to the Democratic congressional leadership. It is a scandal that warrants the attention of the mainstream media, but instead the mainstream media continue robotically to repeat it.

ABC did it again yesterday in a story linked by Drudge and thus read by millions. ABC's Human Khan reported:

First Lady Michelle Obama brought renewed energy to the NAACP today, delivering the keynote speech at the annual convention one day before the nation's largest civil rights group is expected to condemn what it calls racist elements in the Tea Party movement.
First Lady Michelle Obama Addresses NAACP

The nation's largest and oldest civil rights organization will vote on the resolution Tuesday during its annual convention in Kansas City, Mo.

In her speech, the first lady focused on the issue of childhood obesity and her "Let's Move" initiative, but outside of her remarks, anti-Tea Party activism has been a key focus of the gathering, which conservative leaders say is driven solely by a political agenda.

Tea Party members have used "racial epithets," have verbally abused black members of Congress and threatened them, and protestors have engaged in "explicitly racist behavior" and "displayed signs and posters intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically," according to the proposed resolution.

The NAACP represents some of Barack Obama's hardiest supporters. How thoughtful of the mainstream media to have left the story of the phantom n-word ready at hand for the likes of the NAACP to use it against the resistance to Obama. One might almost think there is method to this madness.

Huma Khan is ABC's "digital editor." Surely she knows that the March 20 n-word story represents a highly disputed assertion of fact, and knowledge of the dispute enters her story. Yet she introduces evidence from elsewhere on the Internet to lend the story credence:

In March, Tea Party protesters opposing the health care bill were alleged to have shouted racial slurs at black House members in the halls of Congress, a charge that Tea Party supporters say has not been proven. Liberal blogs have also seized on signs that have appeared in Tea Party protests, comparing President Obama to a monkey.

Khan does not mention Breitbart's unclaimed bounty, nor does she note that conservative blogs have seized on the March 20 n-word concoction to argue that the story represents an incredibly tired effort to stigmatize opposition to President Obama as racist.

Khan minimally acknowledges the disputed nature of the March 20 incident, but she also quotes the Rev. C.L. Bryant. Bryant is a former president of NAACP's Garland, Texas, chapter who is now a Tea Party activist. Khan quotes Bryant to the effect that the imputation of racism to to the Tea Party is "simply a lie." The NAACP wants to "create a climate where they can say that those on the right are in fact racist and those on the left are their saviors," he added. "This is very much what the liberal agenda is about." As we used to say: Right on!

Some enterprising editor at the Wall Street Journal, or NR, or the Weekly Standard, or Commentary, or the New Criterion, really should commission an article on the pathogenesis and propagation of the lie involved in the NAACP resolution. It would make a highly illuminating case study. It would also slightly complicate the efforts of the NAACP and its ilk to stigmatize dissent from the Obama program of national socialism as racist.

FOOTNOTE: Readers interested in a serious exploration of the larger subject may want to consider Timothy Dalrymple's "Is the Tea Party racist?" Dalrymple writes: "The charge that the Tea Party is racist is a perfect object lesson in liberal misinterpretation of conservatives." And it is misinterpretation with a purpose."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026743.php

  Video shows Congressman Sherman wiping his face, grabbing the podium when called on his feigned ignorance of the case and circumstances surrounding DOJ policies and dismissal of the New Black Panthers won case.  Kudos to his constituents!

_____

July 13, 2010 Posted by John at 8:26 AM

"If you don't think voters are up in arms about the discriminatory policies of Barack Obama's Department of Justice, check out this video of a town hall meeting held by Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman, CA-27. A constituent asks him about DOJ's dismissal of charges against members of the New Black Panther Party and describes the case accurately. Sherman claims not to have heard about it, drawing fury from the crowd:

*****VIDEO*****

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026746.php

Source The Hill's Healthwatch 

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/108015-tax-report-rehashes-debate-over-cost-effectiveness-of-health-reform-law

By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/69151

Woot, go Sarah! 

"Another Democrat Congressman Loses Temper on Camera ~ Video

http://www.breitbart.tv/another-democrat-congressman-loses-temper-on-camera/

Posted by Karl Denninger in Housing at 12:38

"Is MERS About To Unravel?

"............. In the meantime if you are facing a foreclosure and MERS was involved in some fashion, either in assignment of the paper just before the suit was filed or worse, in bringing the suit itself, you need competent legal advice right now.

You may be able to stop the foreclosure dead in its tracks."

http://market-ticker.org/archives/2490-Is-MERS-About-To-Unravel.html

-

"Rocking the Vote: Did DOJ Try to Whitewash Black Panther Intimidation Case?

Eric Holder’s Justice Department is lying about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. Why?

June 29, 2010 - by Joe Hicks Source Pajamas Media 

"Last August, the Hicks File reported on a very strange federal legal case. Let me refresh your memory.

On Election Day 2008, two men — identified as members of the New Black Panther Party — stationed themselves outside a polling place in Philadelphia dressed in military clothing. Videotape captured these two strolling back and forth in front of the polling place, with one clearly brandishing a nightstick.

A white poll watcher testified that he was called a “white devil” and a “cracker.” This poll watcher was told by one of the Panthers that he would be “ruled by the black man.”

This is classic voter intimidation as defined by the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The Justice Department investigated the charges, affidavits were gathered, and a trial team — all seasoned Justice attorneys — filed a case against the two thugs as well as against their organization, the New Black Panther Party.

It was thought to be a “slam-dunk” case.

A default judgment was quickly granted, because the New Black Panther Party simply failed to mount a defense.

Justice prevails, right? Wrong! Last May, Obama Justice Department lawyers ordered the case against the New Black Panther party dismissed.

It was truly a WTF moment.

But hold on … there have been some new and unexpected developments. Two prominent members of the trial team at the Justice Department have now resigned. And they’re in a talking mood!

After resigning, J. Christian Adams — a veteran lawyer in the Justice Department’s voting section — wrote a letter to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights which spelled out the reason for his resignation: the appalling decision by his superiors to pull the plug on a guaranteed court victory.

(Adams has since written an article for PJM on this topic as well.)

Earlier, the Civil Rights Commission had subpoenaed Adams and another career Justice attorney, Chris Coates. But in violation of federal law, their superiors at Justice had ordered them not to testify.

Both Adams and Coates are now free to talk.

I should again re-state my connections to this case. I am a California Advisory Board member to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, so I so have a dog in this fight.

What has now emerged in the wake of these resignations is the possible cause of the Justice Department’s abandonment of the case and a subsequent cover-up of its actions.

The trail is hard to trace, but here’s what appears to have happened:

After senior Bush administration Justice officials signed off on prosecuting the New Black Panther Party, a decision was made to file the case. It was assessed as a serious case of voter intimidation and an easy case to win.

After the Panthers were unable to mount a defense, the trial team was set to enter a default judgment, when acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Rosenbaum sent a message to the trial team that he had doubts about the case.

Rosenbaum — an Obama appointee — argued that the case raised “serious First Amendment issues.”

Oh really?

The trial team fired back a response, which in essence pointed out that dressing in military garb did not raise First Amendment concerns when “used with the brandishing of a weapon to intimidate people going to the polling station.”

In other words, are you nuts?

After angry exchanges between Obama’s assistant attorney general and the trial team, the order finally came down to scuttle the case.

In an attempt to cover up what appears to be politically motivated intervention by officials at the highest level of Obama’s Justice Department, the Department denies that Obama appointees were involved in the decision to end the case.

This appears to be a flat-out lie.

Eric Holder, as well as Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, were briefed on the case, and the conclusion by insiders is that a decision as extraordinary as this — to dismiss a blatant case of voter intimidation — had to come from the highest ranks of government.

But more mischief has been uncovered.

It now turns out that the NAACP had vigorously lobbied the attorney general’s office to dismiss the case against the Panthers. Kristen Clarke, an NAACP attorney, admitted that she spoke with Justice Department lawyers about the case, as well as a voting section attorney, and even pressed them for a dismissal date for the case.

But still, why would the Obama Justice department dismiss such a clear violation of voting rights?

The answer appears to be that a belief exists among the liberal core of government civil rights attorneys that civil rights laws exist only to protect minorities from discrimination, and in the case of voting rights, from the intimidation of whites.

Those familiar with the inner workings of the Justice Department say this belief dominates the approach to civil rights cases, with liberal-oriented government attorneys objecting to cases filed against black defendants.

These taxpayer-supported lawyers point to the history of official discrimination against “people of color” that, in their view, trumps everything else. Meaning that they will often refuse to work on cases brought against blacks.

This sentiment is similar to the oddball view among liberals and leftists that only whites can actually be racists.

Now, I’m willing to bet that you’ve come to another conclusion: that bigots can come in all skin colors, and that civil rights laws exist for the protection of all Americans, regardless of their race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion.

But this is the era of Obama, which means that another form of logic — well, actually illogic — prevails.

Meanwhile, the thugs at the New Black Panther Party thumb their noses at us, having so far escaped punishment for doing precisely what white bigots used to do prior to the passing of civil rights laws and the enforcement of those laws.

How do we change this?

Come November, vote to change the balance of power in the Senate and perhaps even the House. Only this will allow the kind of oversight that might put the Panthers back where they belong — in the crosshairs of an aggressive government civil rights prosecution."

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/rocking-the-vote/?singlepage=true

Oil Spill Timeline  ~  VIDEO ~

http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=12933322&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1

Source The Weekly Standard 

"A federal lawsuit is never a laughing matter – especially when the U.S. Department of Justice signs the complaint.  But the Obama administration's complaint against Arizona faces serious obstacles in the federal courts.

The administration needs to show that S.B. 1070, Arizona's law authorizing state officials to enforce federal immigration law, is "preempted" – that it runs afoul of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which confirms that federal law supersedes state law.  To that end, the complaint's opening paragraphs stake an uncontroversial claim: "[i]n our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters."  

Certainly no one would dispute that the federal government is the "preeminent" architect of the nation's immigration policy.  But it is quite another thing to say that federal law, through the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, preempts S.B. 1070.  In U.S. v. Arizona, the administration will have to prove the latter point – and that will be no small task.

Arizona drafted its laws with De Canas firmly in mind, as S.B. 1070's architect, law professor Kris Kobach, explained in a recent interview. In fact, Arizona's recent brief in a separate lawsuit makes this very point. Last month, Arizona moved to dismiss Friendly House v. Whiting, a class action lawsuit brought against S.B. 1070 by the ACLU and other groups. Responding in its motion to dismiss the lawsuit that was based on arguments that S.B. 1070 improperly regulates immigration, Arizona drew De Canas's crucial distinction: The ACLU is "confusing enforcement of federal immigration regulations (which S.B. 1070 seeks to accomplish) with enactment of Arizona-specific 'regulation of immigration' (which federal law would preempt)."

Arizona's brief lays out in straightforward detail the absence of any of the traditional bases for federal preemption of state law. As De Canas explained, the federal immigration statutes lack an express statement that federal law prohibits states from enforcing federal immigration law. Similarly, federal law does not so thoroughly "occupy the field" of immigration regulation that it leaves no room for state involvement in the federal statutes' enforcement.  Finally, S.B. 1070 does not "conflict" with federal law: It neither interferes with the accomplishment of federal immigration statutes nor creates legal standards that contradict the federal statutes.

While the Obama administration phrased its complaint in broad terms, it appears to be framing this case primarily as one of "conflict" or "field" preemption. Namely, in administering the federal immigration laws, "the federal agencies balance the complex – and often competing – objectives that animate federal immigration law and policy," and that the "nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests."  In fact, the Obama administration goes so far as to assert that S.B. 1070 prevents it from getting tough on truly nasty illegal immigrants: "S.B. 1070 disrupts federal enforcement priorities and resources that focus on aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety ... undermin[ing] the federal government's careful balance of immigration enforcement policies and objectives."

But that line of argument wholly misses the point.  When courts decide whether federal law preempts state law, the question is not whether the state law conflicts with the president's selective enforcement of federal statutes.  The question is whether the state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment ... of the full purposes and objectives of Congress," as embodied by the federal statutes.  S.B. 1070 satisfies that test – it does nothing more than allow state officials to enforce Congress's purposes and objectives as expressed in current federal statutes.

As it happens, the Supreme Court may weigh in on these types of questions long before the lower federal courts resolve the Obama administration's case.  In the upcoming term, the Court will hear Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria, which presents a similar constitutional challenge to another Arizona immigration-related statute – one that was signed into law, ironically enough, by then-Governor Janet Napolitano.  In that case, the traditionally liberal Ninth Circuit ruled in Arizona's favor, holding that federal law does not preempt Arizona's law punishing employers that hire illegal aliens.

No one gets rich betting big against the U.S Department of Justice.  Its lawyers are among this nation's very finest.  But the Obama administration's decision to commence this controversial lawsuit will require them to put their formidable talents to the test."

Adam J. White is a lawyer in Washington, D.C.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-administration-files-lawsuit-against-arizona-over-immigration-law

Entirely new video in this very short article.

_________________

"The Beneficiaries of Holder's Favoritism

Source Powerlineblog.com

"..........I wonder how many people who watch this video will say, Yeah, good idea, let's suspend law enforcement in favor of these guys."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026721.php

"$500K donated to Ariz. to defend law
 
(photo) AP – Hispanic community members, some from Phoenix, hold hands in prayer to protest against SB1070, Arizona's …

By PAUL DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer Paul Davenport, Associated Press Writer – Thu Jul 8, 7:47 pm ET

"PHOENIX – Retirees and other residents from all over the country were among those who donated nearly $500,000 to help Arizona defend its immigration enforcement law, with most chipping in $100 or less, according to an analysis of documents obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

The donations, 88 percent of which came from through the Arizona defense fund's website, surged this week after the federal government sued Tuesday to challenge the law. A document from Gov. Jan Brewer's office showed that 7,008 of the 9,057 online contributions submitted by Thursday morning were made in the days following the government's filing.

Website contributions came from all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including nearly 2,000 from Arizona. Donations ranged from $5 to $2,000, with the vast majority between $10 and $100........."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100708/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_donations