October 28, 2010

Rangel plan gives prez 'civilian security force'

Proposal provides mandatory induction for 'national defense,' 'homeland security'

When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he visited Colorado Springs and WND broke the the story that he wanted a "Civilian National Security Force" as big and as well-funded as the $650 billion-plus U.S. military. Now Charlie Rangel is proposing that he have it.

Rangel, facing ethics charges in Congress, has proposed (The Thomas directory which made it so easy to look up laws was taken down by a senator) the Universal National Service Act that would require "all persons" from ages 18-42 "to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security."

The plan also authorizes "the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes."

A reader responded: "May Obama be damned," he wrote. "It re-institutes the draft, and is for both males and females … There is no 'opt-out' – if you are not 'fit' for actual military service, or are a 'conscientious objector,' then you are shunted into 'civilian service' which is pretty much anything the 'president' says it is."

Hitler had a similar force in the 1930's he called 'Brown shirts' who went around intimidating and roughing up individuals that didn't follow Hitlers word.

When a copy of Obama's Colorado Springs speech posted online apparently was edited to exclude Obama's specific references to the new force.

As the presidential campaign advanced in 2008, another video appeared online that for many crystallized their concerns over such a "corps." It shows a squad of young men marching and shouting praises to Obama.

According to the copy of Rangel's plan, which has been assigned to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel even though it lacks cosponsors, it specifies that "national service" means "military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the president, promotes national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security."

"It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title," it specifies.

It would require that the president provide "for the induction" of people to the service corps.

"Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years," Rangel wrote.

Complete story as well as many others like it can be found on WND.com.

The Washington Post

Report: Justice Dept. tried hiding 'officials' role in Panther lawsuit dismissal

Friday, October 29, 2010

The Justice Department has tried to hide the extensive involvement of high-level political officials in the dismissal of a controversial voter-intimidation lawsuit against members of the New Black Panther Party, a federal commission concluded in a draft report.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said the department's reversal in the case indicates that its Civil Rights Division is failing to protect white voters and is "at war with its core mission of guaranteeing equal protection [under] the laws for all Americans.''

The Justice Department denied the allegations in the report, based on the commission's year-long investigation into the Obama administration's handling of the 2008 incident. The Bush administration had filed the lawsuit against members of the New Black Panther Party, but the Obama Justice Department dismissed most of the case.

Holder ignores demands for NAACP-influence data

A lawsuit has been filed against President Obama's Justice Department for refusing to release details about how agency officials decided to abandon a voter intimidation case that staff members had brought – and won – against members of the New Black Panther Party.

The lawsuit was filed by Judicial Watch, the public interest organization that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, over a refusal by the federal agency to provide information about the decision.

At issue in the case is whether the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People "improperly influenced" the Justice Department, the nation's highest law enforcement agency, "to drop a lawsuit against members of the Black Panthers who allegedly threatened and intimidated white voters outside a polling station during the 2008 election."

Because Kristen Clark, of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, reportedly met with Justice Department officials to discuss the case just before the agency announced plans to dismiss the action, questions arose about the influence that may have been exerted.

Judicial Watch in November 2010 filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records of communications between the agency's Civil Rights Division and the NAACP. Under federal requirements, Attorney General Eric Holder's agency was supposed to have responded by Dec. 3, 2010.

"However, to date, no documents have been produced," the Judicial Watch announcement said.

"Who is running the Justice Department? That is what we're trying to find out with this lawsuit. I find it outrageous that leftist special interest groups seem to be directing the activities of the nation’s top law enforcement agency," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a prepared statement about the case.

"The Obama Justice Department has made a mess of the Black Panther lawsuit. We already know the Justice Department's decision to drop the case was tainted by politics and racism. There is something amiss in the Holder Justice Department. And its casual violations of the freedom of information law highlight this administration's contempt for transparency and the rule of law."

According to the lawsuit, "As of the date of this complaint, defendant has failed to produce any records responsive to the request or demonstrate that responsive records are exempt from production. Nor has it indicated whether or when any responsive records will be produced. In fact, defendant has failed to respond to the request in any manner."

WND previously reported on the Philadelphia case, which was documented on video.

The Justice Department originally brought the case against the organization and several individuals who witnesses say derided voters with catcalls of "white devil" and "cracker" and told voters they should prepare to be "ruled by the black man."

One poll watcher called police after he reportedly saw one of the men brandishing a nightstick to threaten voters.

"As I walked up, they closed ranks, next to each other," the witness told Fox News at the time. "So I walked directly in between them, went inside and found the poll watchers. They said they'd been here for about an hour. And they told us not to come outside because a black man is going to win this election no matter what."

He said the man with a nightstick told him, "'We're tired of white supremacy,' and he starts tapping the nightstick in his hand. At which point I said, 'OK, we're not going to get in a fistfight right here,' and I called the police."

Subsequently, former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that the Voting Section of Holder's organization is dominated by a "culture of hostility" toward bringing cases against blacks and other minorities who violate voting-rights laws.

Further, two other former U.S. Department of Justice attorneys later corroborated key elements of the explosive allegations by Adams.

One of Adams' DOJ colleagues, former Voting Section trial attorney Hans A. von Spakovsky, told WND he saw Adams was being attacked in the media for lack of corroboration. He said he knew Adams was telling the truth, so he decided on his own to step forward.

It was Adams who had been ordered by his superiors to drop a case prosecutors already had won against the New Black Panthers. When they were ordered to stop prosecution, Adams and the team of DOJ lawyers had already won the case by default because the New Black Panthers declined to defend themselves in court. At that point in the proceedings, the DOJ team was simply waiting for the judge to assign penalties against the New Black Panthers.

The latest FOIA action is part of Judicial Watch's comprehensive investigation of the New Black Panther Party scandal. It previously found information that top political appointees played key roles in the decision to dismiss the case.

That information "directly contradict[s] sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, who testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political leadership was involved in the decision," Judicial Watch said.