SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (43223)5/9/2013 9:25:14 AM
From: FJB2 Recommendations  Respond to of 85487
 
Navy Seal Team VI Press Conference, Thursday 10:00 To 11:30 am

Three families of Navy SEAL Team VI special forces servicemen, along with one family of an Army National Guardsman, will appear at a press conference on May 9, 2013, to disclose never before revealed information about how and why their sons along with 26 others died in a fatal helicopter crash in Afghanistan on August 6, 2011, just a few months after the successful raid on the compound of Osama Bin Laden that resulted in the master terrorist's death.Accompanying the families of these dead Navy SEAL Team VI special operations servicemen will be retired military experts verifying their accounts of how and why the government is as much responsible for the deaths of their sons as is the Taliban.


The Navy Seal Team VI press conference is being held from 10:00 to 11:30 am (E) at the National Press Club in DC will be streamed live
trentovision.tv



To: Brumar89 who wrote (43223)5/9/2013 10:11:42 AM
From: FJB1 Recommendation  Respond to of 85487
 
Justice Department hiring request fuels bias complaints; 44 civil rights lawyers sought

By Jerry Seper
The Washington Times
Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Questions have surfaced over a Justice Department plan to hire 44 more attorneys for its Civil Rights Division, which has been accused of bias by members of Congress and been described in a government report as having deep ideological differences that have fueled disputes harmful to its operation.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s 2014 fiscal budget says the bulk of the attorneys being sought by the Justice Department are earmarked to help meet the “nation’s civil rights challenges,” to support the “department’s vigorous enforcement of federal civil rights laws” and to expand criminal enforcement efforts against “police misconduct.”

But several senior Republicans said the Civil Rights Division historically has hired lawyers based on their political views and not their legal experience, and changes need to be made before any new lawyers are brought on board.

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said it will take “a new kind of leadership” to eliminate the “politicization and polarization of the Civil Rights Division.”

He said Congress needs to continue its aggressive oversight of the department and, when necessary, offer legislative reforms to ensure that bad behavior doesn’t continue for another decade at the division.

Mr. Grassley noted that the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General first reported on the division’s politicized hiring policies in 2008 and found similar problems in a follow-up report in March.

He said any hiring within the division “needs to value intellectual diversity” to put to rest any perception that employment is based on politics. Given what he called the inspector general’s “findings of flawed criteria used to hire attorneys,” he said, Congress should demand that hiring “not be so skewed that it leads to hiring almost exclusively liberal attorneys at the expense of candidates with ‘stellar academic credentials and litigation experience.’”

Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican and chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on commerce, justice and science, has called for an independent review of the Civil Rights Division. He said the inspector general’s report made it clear that the division had become “a rat’s nest of unacceptable and unprofessional actions, and even outright threats against career attorneys and systemic mismanagement.”

In a letter to Mr. Holder, Mr. Wolf acknowledged that problems within the division were not isolated to his tenure as attorney general but said it was his responsibility to resolve them.

“It is unacceptable that these practices have continued on your watch,” Mr. Wolf wrote. “As the head of the department, you bear ultimate responsibility for the serious abuses that have occurred over the last four years. I take these issues very seriously, both because of my responsibilities as chairman of the House CJS Appropriations subcommittee, which funds the Justice Department, but also because I have been a stalwart supporter of voting rights enforcement.”

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, went to the Senate floor Wednesday to outline his opposition to the nomination of Thomas E. Perez, who heads the Civil Rights Division as an assistant attorney general, as President Obama’s labor secretary.

He said that under Mr. Perez, the Voting Rights Division compiled a “disturbing record of political discrimination and selective enforcement of our laws.” He said the inspector general’s report found that the Voting Rights Section under Mr. Perez’s leadership has become so politicized and so unprofessional that at times it became simply dysfunctional.

A confirmation vote by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee scheduled for Wednesday on Mr. Perez’s nomination was postponed until May 16 at the request of committee Republicans.

Mr. Perez came under heavy criticism from Republicans after the inspector general’s report, saying he had failed his leadership responsibilities.

Republicans also accused him of abusing his power and negotiating a dubious deal in persuading the city of St. Paul, Minn., to drop a housing discrimination case that was headed for the Supreme Court. In exchange, the Justice Department agreed to withdraw two whistleblower cases against the city that Republicans said could have won up to $200 million in settlements for taxpayers.

Story Continues ?

Read more: washingtontimes.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (43223)5/9/2013 5:01:30 PM
From: J_F_Shepard  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
 
You certainly can't prove that, but those particular years are no coincidence. Carry laws were a big deal back then?