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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FJB who wrote (44143)	7/13/2010 8:45:32 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Obama claimed he was post racial. It is only true if you define post racial as similar to how it was in the fifties only with roles reversed. We have learned much about Obama from his handling of the Cambridge Cop and the New Black Panther election intimidation case.

To: FJB who wrote (44143)	8/2/2010 9:08:53 AM
From: Peter Dierks	2 Recommendations Respond to of 71588

Arizona Immigration Decision July 28, 2010 3:07 PM By Andy McCarthy On a quick read, the federal court’s issuance of a temporary injunction against enforcement of the major provisions of the Arizona immigration law appears specious. In essence, Judge Susan Bolton bought the Justice Department’s preemption argument — i.e., the claim that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration, and therefore that any state measure that is inconsistent with federal law is invalid. The Arizona law is completely consistent with federal law. The judge, however, twisted to concept of federal law into federal enforcement practices (or, as it happens, lack thereof). In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can’t do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement … which is nuts. The judge also employs a cute bit of sleight-of-hand. She repeatedly invokes a 1941 case, Hines v. Davidowitz, in which the Supreme Court struck down a state alien-registration statute. In Hines, the high court reasoned that the federal government had traditionally followed a policy of not treating aliens as “a thing apart,” and that Congress had therefore “manifested a purpose … to protect the liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national system” that would not unduly subject them to “inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” But the Arizona law is not directed at law-abiding aliens in order to identify them as foreigners and subject them, on that basis, to police attention. It is directed at arrested aliens who are in custody because they have violated the law. And it is not requiring them to register with the state; it is requiring proof that they have properly registered with the federal government — something a sensible federal government would want to encourage. Judge Bolton proceeds from this misapplication of Hines to the absurd conclusion that Arizona can’t ask the federal government for verification of the immigration status of arrestees — even though federal law prohibits the said arrestees from being in the country unless they have legal status — because that would tremendously burden the feds, which in turn would make the arrestees wait while their status is being checked, which would result in the alien arrestees being treated like “a thing apart.” The ruling ignores that, in the much later case of Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court has emphasized that Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State’s economy generally, or the State’s ability to provide some important service. Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation’s borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns. [Emphasis added.] Furthermore, as Matt Mayer of the Heritage Foundation notes, the Fifth Circuit federal appeals court similarly held in Lynch v. Cannatella (1987) that “No statute precludes other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies from taking other action to enforce this nation’s immigration laws.” However this ruling came out, it was only going to be the first round. Appeal is certain. But the gleeful Left may want to put away the party hats. This decision is going to anger most of the country. The upshot of it is to tell Americans that if they want the immigration laws enforced, they are going to need a president willing to do it, a Congress willing to make clear that the federal government has no interest in preempting state enforcement, and the selection of judges who will not invent novel legal theories to frustrate enforcement. They are not going to get that from the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrats nationalreview.com

To: FJB who wrote (44143)	8/6/2010 10:40:34 AM
From: Peter Dierks	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Justice Department steers money to favored groups By: Byron York Chief Political Correspondent August 5, 2010 Attorney General Eric Holder. The Justice Department has found a new way to pursue civil rights lawsuits, using the powers of the Civil Rights Division not just to win compensation for victims of alleged discrimination but also to direct large sums of money to activist groups that are not discrimination victims and not connected to a particular suit. In the past, when the Civil Rights Division filed suit against, say, a bank or a landlord, alleging discrimination in lending or rentals, the cases were often settled by the defendant paying a fine to the U.S. Treasury and agreeing to put aside a sum of money to compensate the alleged discrimination victims. There was then a search for those victims -- people who were actually denied a loan or an apartment -- who stood to be compensated. After everyone who could be found was paid, there was often money left over. That money was returned to the defendant. Now, Attorney General Eric Holder and Civil Rights Division chief Thomas Perez have a new plan. Any unspent money will not go back to the defendant but will instead go to a "qualified organization" approved by the Justice Department. And if there is not enough unspent money -- that will be determined by the Department -- then the defendant might be required to come up with more money to give to the "qualified organization." The arrangement was used in a recently-settled case, United States v. AIG Federal Savings Bank and Wilmington Finance. The Justice Department alleged that AIG violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by allowing third-party wholesale mortgage brokers to "charge African-American borrowers higher direct broker fees for residential real estate-related loans than white borrowers." The financial institution denied any wrongdoing, and there was no factual finding of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, under the terms of a March 19, 2010 consent decree, AIG agreed to pay $6.1 million to "aggrieved persons who may have suffered as a result of the alleged violations." That is standard procedure in such cases. But then AIG also agreed, in the words of the consent decree, to "provide a minimum of $1,000,000 to qualified organization(s) to provide credit counseling, financial literacy, and other related educational programs targeted at African-American borrowers." The money would come from unspent funds in the victim-compensation fund. But if it turned out that, after paying off the victims, there was less than $1 million left in the victim-compensation fund, AIG agreed to "replenish the settlement fund so that it contains $1,000,000 for distribution for those educational purposes." The consent decree directs AIG to consult with the Justice Department on which "qualified organizations" could receive money, and it gives the Department the right to approve where the money will go. In any event, the money will go to groups who have no direct connection to the lawsuit and its allegations of discrimination. Xochitl Hinojosa, a Justice Department spokeswoman, says no money has yet been given to organizations under the AIG agreement. But she adds that the funds, and those from other cases, will "go to 'qualified organizations' that have a mission that addresses whatever the harm is that was the subject of the litigation." The Department followed a similar procedure in another case, United States v. Sterling. In that suit, which was first filed in 2006, the Department accused a large California landlord of violating the Fair Housing Act and other laws by "refusing to rent to non-Korean prospective tenants, misrepresenting the availability of apartment units to non-Korean prospective tenants, and providing inferior treatment to non-Korean tenants in the Koreatown section of Los Angeles." The defendants did not admit any wrongdoing, and there was no factual finding of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, in a November 3, 2009 consent decree, the defendants agreed to pay $2.625 million to compensate alleged victims. On top of that, the consent decree stipulated that if there weren't enough alleged victims on which to spend the $2.625 million, then what's left "shall be distributed...to a qualified organization(s) mutually agreed upon by the United States and defendants...for the purpose of conducting fair housing enforcement or educational activities in Los Angeles County." Hinojosa says that in the Sterling case, $40,000 will be split between the victim fund administrator and a group called the Southern California Housing Rights Center. According to the Center's website, its goal is to promote "freedom of residence" through the use of "education, advocacy and litigation." Thus, money used to settle a lawsuit over alleged discrimination might well go to fund yet another lawsuit over alleged discrimination. Sen. Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, recently learned about the new Justice Department practice and on July 8 sent a letter to Holder asking for an explanation. "While these settlements may appear reasonable on their face, I am concerned that this change in policy has the potential to divert compensation intended for victims to third party interest groups that were not wronged by the defendant," Grassley wrote. "Absent proper safeguards and internal controls, this policy change could drastically alter the way victims are compensated and could set the Department down a path where third party interest groups are compensated to a greater level than victims. Moreover, as a staunch supporter of victims' rights, I want to know what this change in policy means for individual victims and for advocacy groups that are both selected and not selected to serve as 'qualified organizations.'" Grassley asked Holder which suits have been settled or are being settled in this fashion, how much money is involved, and what guidelines apply to the settlements. "What, if any, qualifications are taken into consideration when determining whether an organization should be designated a 'qualifying organization'?" Grassley asked. "What protections and safeguards are in place to oversee the use of funds by the 'qualified organization' to ensure that monies that could otherwise be used for victim compensation are used in a manner free of fraud, waste, and abuse?" Grassley has not yet received an answer from Holder. Republicans are particularly concerned that the "qualified organizations" money might end up with groups that are associated with the community organizing group formerly known as ACORN. Republican lawmakers want to avoid sending federal money to groups that Congress has deemed unsuitable to receive it. But the concerns of Republicans, and perhaps some Democrats, go beyond ACORN and other activist groups. The new Civil Rights Division tactic represents a departure from a fundamental principle of such cases, which is the pursuit of justice on behalf of actual victims. "If the Department of Justice recovers funds for alleged civil rights violations, the money should go to compensate victims or to the Treasury," says Bob Driscoll, who was a top official in the Civil Rights Division during the first two years of the George W. Bush administration. "The practice of the Civil Rights Division steering settlement funds to favored advocacy groups is at odds with both civil rights laws and common sense. If Congress wants to fund certain advocacy groups or set up grants for agencies to award in order to promote non-discrimination, it can. But allowing the Civil Rights Division to steer a defendant's money to its ideological allies is offensive." Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on ExaminerPolitics.com washingtonexaminer.com

To: FJB who wrote (44143)	11/9/2010 8:42:48 PM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71588

Judicial Watch obtains emails contradicting Justice Dept. official’s sworn testimony about New Black Panther case By: Mark Hemingway Commentary Staff Writer 11/09/10 11:30 AM EST Judicial Watch has obtained Justice Department emails that seem to contradict sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. In testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Perez asserted that none of Justice’s political leadership had anything to do with the in the decision to stop pursuing voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panthers seen standing in front of a polling place in Philadelphia brandishing weapons during the 2008 election. The emails were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. The new documents include a series of emails between two political appointees: former Democratic election lawyer and current Deputy Associate Attorney General Sam Hirsch and Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli. Both DOJ officials were involved in detailed discussions regarding the NBPP decision. For example, in one April 30, 2009, email from Hirsch to Perrelli, with the subject title “Fw: New Black Panther Party Update,” Hirsch writes: Tom, I need to discuss this with you tomorrow morning. I’ll send you another email on this shortly. If you want to discuss it this evening, please let me know which number to call and when. These emails were put in further context by an updated Vaughn index obtained by Judicial Watch, describing NBPP documents the Obama DOJ continues to withhold. These documents, which were attached to the DOJ’s Motion for Summary Judgment filing, include a description of a May 13 email chain that seems to suggest political appointee Sam Hirsch may have been orchestrating the NBPP decision. Acting DAAG [Steven Rosenbaum] advising his supervising Acting AAG [Loretta King] of DASG’s [Hirsch’s] request for a memorandum by the Acting DAAG reviewing various options, legal strategies, and different proposals of relief as related to each separate defendant. Acting DAAG forwarding emails from Appellate Section Chief’s and Appellate Attorney’s with their detailed legal analyses including the application of constitutional provisions and judicial precedent to strategies and relief under consideration in the ongoing NBPP litigation, as well as an assessment of the strength of potential legal arguments, and presenting different possible scenarios in the litigation. [Emphasis added] Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Thomas Perez testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political appointees were involved in the NBPP decision. Perez suggested that the dispute was merely “a case of career people disagreeing with career people.” In fact, political appointee Sam Hirsch sent an April 30, 2009, email to Steven Rosenbaum (then-Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General in the Civil Rights) thanking Rosenbaum for “doing everything you’re doing to make sure that this case is properly resolved.” The next day, the DOJ began to reverse course on its NBPP voter intimidation lawsuit. There’s a lot to unpack here and Judicial Watch has lots more details at their website. And for those of you that have been following this story very closely, here’s the PDF of the actual emails obtained by Judicial Watch dev.www.washingtonexaminer.com

To: FJB who wrote (44143)	11/13/2010 12:42:01 AM
From: Peter Dierks	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Oversight for Eric Holder By Jed Babbin November 11, 2010 Republican gains in this week's election will obviously make it tougher - if not impossible - for President Obama to push more nation-changing legislation through congress. But, less obviously, the day-to-day pressures of dealing with a more inquisitive and less cooperative congress will fall more on the cabinet secretaries than on the president himself. Attorney General Eric Holder is likely to feel more of this heat than the other members of Obama's cabinet for two reasons. First, not since Bobby Kennedy held the office has a president had such a close relationship with his attorney general. Holder - with Obama's blessing - has aggregated unprecedented authority over other agencies. He is playing Richelieu to Obama's Louis XIII. Second, Holder's broken promises and disdain for congressional opponents has strained his relationships with key congressional Republicans to the breaking point. In his confirmation hearing, Holder addressed the concern raised about his already-close relationship with Obama. He said, "I understand that the attorney general is different from every other Cabinet officer," Holder said. "Although I am a part of the president's team, I am not a part of the president's team in the way that any other Cabinet officer is. I have a special and unique responsibility. There has to be a distance between me and the president." But from the beginning of his tenure, Holder's actions have made it clear the Chinese wall that should separate the AG from the president has been torn down. No member of Obama's cabinet is more visible than Holder, who has been - with the exception of the healthcare debate -- at the epicenter of every one of the administration's controversial moves. Holder led the charge to move the trial of 9-11 planner Khalid Sheik Mohammed to New York City and his Justice Department outraged many congressional Republicans by dismissing the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. Holder filed the suit against Arizona's new immigration-control statute and this week sent hundreds of Justice Department observers to Arizona to ensure there was no immigration-based "discrimination" against Hispanic voters. Much of the friction between Holder and senate Republicans has centered on his seizure of control of much of the intelligence community's actions. Holder has, in the words of retiring Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo), ranking Republican on the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, accomplished a "hostile takeover" of the intelligence community. Soon after his confirmation, Holder (with Obama's approval) took the supervision of terrorist interrogations away from the CIA and moved it under White House control. Holder's other actions on that single subject destroyed his credibility among many top Republicans. As two senators have told me, during his pre-confirmation meetings with them, Holder promised each of them that he wouldn't begin an investigation of CIA interrogators on old allegations of torture. When he broke that promise in August of 2009, the two - and others on their committees - were furious. And when the White House was criticized for taking away the CIA's authority to supervise terrorist interrogations, Obama ordered Holder to form a "high value detainee interrogation group" - the "HIG" -- of FBI experts who could deploy quickly to obtain vital intelligence supposedly without using the harsher interrogation methods. On Christmas Day four months later the unsuccessful underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was captured and we found out that the HIG didn't exist. Obama and Holder had broken that promise. Perhaps most importantly, Holder has taken control of the information that flows between the intelligence agencies and the House and Senate intelligence committees. This is an apparent violation of law: the National Security Act requires intelligence agencies to keep the oversight committees apprised of all but a few of their actions. Holder's relationship with congressional Republicans in both houses of congress has been unduly strained by his refusal to reply to inquiries about these and other Justice Department actions. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala), ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, among other members, has sent dozens of urgent inquiries to Justice and received no answer. Several Republican House members sent letters to Holder on immigration issues and on the Justice Department's unusual dismissal of the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party but have not received any response. Many of Holder's actions have been taken in secret. Just as he exerts de facto control over what the intelligence community tells congress, Holder has apparently assumed de facto control over the Pentagon's decisions to release terrorists from Guantanamo Bay. Since the process was established by presidential order (and later by law) the Pentagon is responsible for reviewing the status of every detainee to determine if he is a terrorist, if he could be tried for crimes under the law of war, or if he can be released to the custody of another nation or freed in his native country. The Pentagon undertook a review of these rules last year. And, according to a letter sent to Holder by Sens. Bond and Sessions, Holder has intervened to set his own rules. In a letter released publicly last week, Bond and Sessions wrote to Holder asking for the previously undisclosed guidance he reportedly issued to the Pentagon task force in September 2009 which told the participants to apply a presumption in favor or transferring or releasing certain detainees. (The letter also asks for any additional guidance Holder may have issued.) Holder's actions have, in the view of many congressional Republicans, been so political and so closely tuned to Obama's agenda that the office of the Attorney General will have to come under significantly increased scrutiny. The results of this week's election will not defrock Obama's Richelieu, but they will ensure that he will not be able to avoid the close scrutiny has earned. Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense. He is the author of several bestselling books including "Inside the Asylum," and "In the Words of Our Enemies." realclearpolitics.com