News

Is the Department of Justice refusing to defend the voting rights of whites?

Leave a comment

I wanted to update my readers about a case of voter intimidation by a group of black racists called “The New Black Panthers”. They intimidated white voters in Philadelphia during the 2008 election, by carrying weapons in front of a polling place. The Obama administration dropped the charges against them.

Here’s some of the raw video:

And here’s some eyewitness testimony:

Fox News reports on the original story and the latest development – an ex-DOJ official has come forward to explain what really happened behind the scenes.

Excerpt:

J. Christian Adams, testifying Tuesday before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, said that “over and over and over again,” the department showed “hostility” toward those cases. He described the Black Panther case as one example of that — he defended the legitimacy of the suit and said his “blood boiled” when he heard a Justice official claim the case wasn’t solid.”It is false,” Adams said of the claim.

“We abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens,” he later testified.

The department abandoned the New Black Panther case last year. It stemmed from an incident on Election Day in 2008 in Philadelphia, where members of the party were videotaped in front of a polling place, dressed in military-style uniforms and allegedly hurling racial slurs while one brandished a night stick.

[…]Adams has described the case as open-and-shut and said Tuesday that it was a “very low moment” to hear Perez make that claim.

But he described the department’s hostility toward that and other cases involving black defendants as “pervasive.” Adams cited hostility in the department toward a 2007 voting rights case against a black official in Mississippi who was accused of trying to intimidate voters. Adams said that when the Black Panther case came up, he heard officials in the department say it was “no big deal” and “media-generated” and point to “Fox News” as the source.

I thought it might help my readers if I posted these videos of Megyn Kelly debating the head of the New Black Panthers, so you can see how they respond to the charges yourself. After all, it’s good to hear both sides.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Why would the Department of Justice side with the New Black Panthers against voters who just want to exercise their right to vote? This whole thing reminds me a lot of ACORN and the voter fraud problems they’ve been having. Obama used to work for ACORN, and the head of ACORN endorsed Obama.

Voter intimidation. Voter fraud. Barack Obama.

Commentary

How much do lawsuits against businesses cost consumers?

Leave a comment

Consider this article from the Pacific Research Institute.

Excerpt:

When deciding where to start a business, expand operations, or relocate, entrepreneurs prefer states with balanced tort systems that discourage abusive lawsuits. In 2006, job growth was 57% greater in the 10 states with the best tort climates than in the 10 worst states. Business leaders are leery of Michigan because of its sky-high tort costs and skewed courtrooms.

Fear of lawsuits also causes companies to withdraw or withhold beneficial products. Volkswagen planned to sell a 46 m.p.g. three-wheel vehicle. This “green machine” would have cost only $17,000, but VW decided not to market it in the United States because of lawsuit fears.

Total direct tort costs were $255 billion in 2008. Abusive lawsuits cost every American a hidden “tort tax” of about $2,000 a year in higher prices and insurance premiums, fewer jobs and new products, lower wages and benefits for working people, reduced access to health care, and higher taxes to pay for court costs. And the current system is very inefficient at its intended purpose – less than 15 cents of every tort-cost dollar goes to compensate plaintiffs.

Here’s a video about the Tort Liability Index, which tracks which states have the best environment for business based on tort costs.

This is one reason why states like North Dakota have low unemployment while anti-business states like New York have high unemployment. And North Dakota has massive budget surpluses whereas New York is running massive deficits.

News

What do Democrats think of the Defense of Marriage Act?

25 Comments

Here’s the story from Life Site News.

Excerpt:

A federal judge in Boston has ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which enshrines in law the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional.

Judge Joseph Tauro claimed in a ruling Thursday that DOMA violates the right of homosexual couples to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.

“This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status,” wrote the judge.

“The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state.”

The DOMA bill was passed by a Republican-controlled House and a Republican-controlled Senate. Republicans believe in traditional marriage.

And some reactions to the recent ruling:

[Democrat] Attorney General [Martha] Coakley, who made headlines earlier this year as the U.S. Senate candidate unexpectedly edged out by Republican Scott Brown, applauded the ruling Thursday. She called the decision “an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts.” Massachusetts was the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex “marriage.”

[…]Posting on Twitter, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the ruling “great news!”

[…]…DOMA is likely to face a tough battle in the Supreme Court, especially in light of the nomination of Elena Kagan. Should Kagan be confirmed to the highest court in the land, she would bring another certain vote in favor of striking down the law, as she has already come out strongly in favor of the homosexualist agenda.

In addition, pro-family leaders have pointed to a controversial brief authored under Kagan as U.S. Secretary General, in which the legal defense for the law was gutted by rejecting the ideological basis for maintaining marriage as between a man and a woman. Instead, the brief acknowledged that the Obama administration considers DOMA “discriminatory, and supports its repeal,” before arguing that the plaintiff in the case lacked standing.

Interesting. So this is what Democrats think about traditional marriage. They don’t believe in the right of children to have a stable relationship with the man and the woman who brought them into being. They’re committed to the breakdown of traditional marriage and family. And they don’t care about what is best for children. They care about votes from powerful special interest groups.

Related posts