Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pompsander who wrote (13057)	5/29/2009 5:03:35 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 103300

Gotta love this. It is an insult of unimaginable proportion to unleash this charge on her, based on one sentence from her Berkeley, California, speech. It is not just irresponsible to make this charge against a sitting federal appeals court judge based on this flimsy record; it is -- and here I'll break the taboo -- racist to do so. cnn.com

To: pompsander who wrote (13057)	5/30/2009 10:41:02 AM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Democrats: It’s OK When We Politicize the Justice Department Why did political appointees at the DOJ override career prosecutors and drop a civil rights suit against the New Black Panther Party? May 29, 2009 - by Jennifer Rubin Page 1 of 2 Next -> The “politicization” of the Justice Department was one of many aspects of the Bush administration which the Obama administration was going to cure. But it appears that while the party of the administration has changed, we are seeing a level of political meddling at the Justice Department which the Bush administration never remotely approached. First, we had word that Eric Holder overruled the career attorney lawyers’ research on the issue of voting rights for the District of Columbia. Now we learn that political appointees have overturned the work of career attorneys attempting to prevent voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party. The Washington Times reported: Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews. The incident — which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube — had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms. The Justice Department filed a complaint under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act (which prohibits any attempt to “intimidate, threaten or coerce” any voter) against the New Black Panther Party after months of research and acquiring a sworn affidavit attesting to the intimidation. The affidavit by veteran civil rights attorney Bartle Bull describes the egregious behavior in which armed men appeared at a polling place. Bull explains he “never encountered or heard of” such blatant physical intimidation at the polls in his many years as a civil rights advocate. Neither the New Black Panther Party nor any of the individual defendants responded to the suit. The federal judge therefore ordered the Civil Rights Division to file a default judgment. However, without providing any grounds for doing so the Division moved to dismiss the complaint — in essence forfeiting the case. The Washington Times report explains that the injunction was obtained to prevent further intimidation. However, the career attorneys were prevented from proceeding further: Court records reviewed by The Times show that career Justice lawyers were seeking a default judgment and penalties against the three men as recently as May 5, before abruptly ending their pursuit 10 days later. People directly familiar with the case, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because of fear of retribution, said career lawyers in two separate Justice offices had recommended proceeding to default judgment before political superiors overruled them. Now Rep. Lamar Smith, the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, wants to know what is going on. Pajamas Media has obtained a letter sent on May 28 from Rep. Smith to Loretta King, the acting assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, demanding to know why the case was dropped. He writes: For example, why did the Civil Rights Division voluntarily dismiss a lawsuit that it had effectively already won, against defendants who were physically threatening voters? Is the Division concerned that this dismissal will encourage the New Black Panther Party, or other groups, to intimidate voters? Why did the Division seek such limited relief against a defendant who was actually carrying and brandishing a weapon at a polling station on Election Day? What role did the change of administration play in the unusual resolution of voluntarily dismissing a case on which the Division had already prevailed? Smith is also demanding a briefing on the circumstances surrounding the lawsuit and its dismissal and all non-privileged documents relating to the dismissal of the lawsuit. So the question remains: Is the Obama administration serious about impartially and apolitically enforcing federal law? Or is the Justice Department now the handmaiden to the Obama administration’s political agenda? Moreover, the absence of any oversight by the Democratic majority in Congress leaves one wondering whether “politicization” is still such a bad thing in their eyes, so long as the “right” political party is in charge. It is true that every administration is entitled to its own priorities and policy agenda. But each and every administration must faithfully and vigorously enforce existing laws, especially those which protect fundamental rights such as the right to vote. The appearance that the administration would rather not set an example and exact appropriate penalties in a case of egregious voter intimidation raises serious and troubling questions. The Judiciary Committee — Democrats included — should insist on some swift and complete answers from the Justice Department. And if they are not forthcoming, the public may rightly conclude that “transparency” and the “impartial administration of justice” are merely slogans for those seeking to gain office. pajamasmedia.com

To: pompsander who wrote (13057)	5/30/2009 3:45:38 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Ted Rall: It's increasingly evident that Obama should resign The hardcore left starts to turn. (looks like the end of the dem.party) THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER Posted May 29, 2009 @ 12:02 AM MIAMI — We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama's inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through. From health care to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. When a president doesn't have the nerve to annoy the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning? Obama is useless. Worse than that, he's dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now — before he drags us further into the abyss. I refer here to Obama's plan for "preventive detentions." If a cop or other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, you could be held in "prolonged detention." Reports in U.S. state-controlled media imply that Obama's shocking new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, wannabe Islamic terrorists, and also kinda-sorta-maybe-thinking-about-terrorism dudes). As if that made it OK. In practice, Obama wants to let government goons snatch you, me and anyone else they deem annoying off the street. Preventive detention is the classic defining characteristic of a military dictatorship. Because dictatorial regimes rely on fear rather than consensus, their priority is self-preservation rather than improving their people's lives. They worry obsessively over the one thing they can't control, what George Orwell called "thoughtcrime" — contempt for rulers that might someday translate to direct action. Locking up people who haven't done anything wrong is worse than un-American and a violent attack on the most basic principles of Western jurisprudence. It is contrary to the most essential notion of human decency. That anyone has ever been subjected to "preventive detention" is an outrage. That the president of the United States, a man who won an election because he promised to elevate our moral and political discourse, would even entertain such a revolting idea offends the idea of civilization itself. Obama is cute. He is charming. But there is something rotten inside him. Unlike the Republicans who backed George W. Bush, I won't follow a terrible leader just because I voted for him. Obama has revealed himself. He is a monster, and he should remove himself from power. "Prolonged detention," reported The New York Times, would be inflicted upon "terrorism suspects who cannot be tried." "Cannot be tried." Interesting choice of words. Any "terrorism suspect" (can you be a suspect if you haven't been charged with a crime?) can be tried. Anyone can be tried for anything. At this writing, a Somali child is sitting in a prison in New York, charged with piracy in the Indian Ocean, where the U.S. has no jurisdiction. Anyone can be tried. What they mean, of course, is that the hundreds of men and boys languishing at Guantánamo and the thousands of "detainees" the Obama administration anticipates kidnapping in the future cannot be convicted. As in the old Soviet Union, putting enemies of the state on trial isn't enough. The game has to be fixed. Conviction has to be a foregone conclusion. Why is it, exactly, that some prisoners "cannot be tried"? The Old Grey Lady explains why Obama wants this "entirely new chapter in American law" in a boring little sentence buried a couple of paragraphs past the jump and a couple of hundred words down page A16: "Yet another question is what to do with the most problematic group of Guantánamo detainees: those who pose a national security threat but cannot be prosecuted, either for lack of evidence or because evidence is tainted." In democracies with functioning legal systems, it is assumed that people against whom there is a "lack of evidence" are innocent. They walk free. In countries where the rule of law prevails, in places blessedly free of fearful leaders whose only concern is staying in power, "tainted evidence" is no evidence at all. If you can't prove that a defendant committed a crime — an actual crime, not a thoughtcrime — in a fair trial, you release him and apologize to the judge and jury for wasting their time. It is amazing and incredible, after eight years of Bush's lawless behavior, to have to still have to explain these things. For that reason alone, Obama should resign. Ted Rall is a columnist for Universal Press Syndicate. Ted Rall: It’s increasingly evident that Obama should resign - Springfield, IL - The State Journal-Register (30 May 2009) sj-r.com