Archive for the ‘Elected Officials’ Category

Feds: States’ Growing Gun-Rights Movement a Threat

May 25, 2010

Attorneys Argue Laws ‘Void’ Because of Impact on ‘interstate commerce’

Posted: May 20, 2010
10:55 pm Eastern


Handguns from Freedom Arms in Wyoming

The federal government is arguing in a gun-rights case pending in federal court in Montana that state plans to exempt in-state guns from various federal requirements themselves make the laws void, because the growing movement certainly would impact “interstate commerce.”

The government continues to argue to the court that the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution should be the guiding rule for the coming decision. The argument plays down the significance of both the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the 10th Amendment provision that reserves to states all prerogatives not specifically granted the federal government in the Constitution.

 WND has reported both on the lawsuit filed by Montana interests seeking affirmation of the 2009 Montana Firearms Freedom Act as well as the growing movement that has seen six other states, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Tennessee and Arizona, follow with similar laws.

 Here are answers to all your questions about guns, ammunition and accessories.

 The movement worries the federal government. In a brief filed this week in support of government demands that the case be dismissed, posted on the website for the Firearms Freedom Act, attorneys wrote, “Because an illicit market for firearms exists nationwide, a ‘gaping hole’ in federal firearm regulation would persist if firearms made and sold in Montana were exempted from compliance.”

The brief continued, “Moreover, six states have followed Montana’s lead in enacting ‘virtually identical’ Firearms Freedom Acts, and an additional 22 have proposed similar legislation. … The fact that up to 29 states may essentially ‘opt out’ of certain federal firearms laws would have an indisputable effect on interstate commerce.”

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit previously argued that the Commerce Clause, in the original Constitution, later was modified by both the Second Amendment and 10th Amendment.

In a brief submitted on behalf of Montana lawmakers who wrote and adopted the law, attorneys argued that the state law simply allows Montana citizens to “engage within their state in constitutionally protected activity without burdensome federal oversight.”

“It is questionable whether Congress’ authority under its conditional spending power or its power to regulate interstate commerce extends to MFFA firearms,” the argument continued.

“Where a power had not been granted exclusively to the national government or, where generally granted, had not been exercised … the states retain freedom to legislate,” the lawmakers argued.


Montana statehouse

“There is nothing in the MFFA that should offend the powers of the national government,” they said. And the lawmakers argued that the Constitution’s supremacy clause has no impact because “only laws made in pursuance of the Constitution constitute the supreme law of the land.”

In this case, the state is addressing intrastate commerce under its authority under the Second and Tenth Amendments, the brief argued.

Not so, said the feds.

Not only do the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the case, Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce is extended to anything that affects interstate commerce – including intrastate actions and the federal action to strike down the Montana law doesn’t violate any constitutional provisions, the government brief argues.

“Congress also may ‘regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce,'” the government argues. “Here, Congress has rationally concluded that the manufacture and sale of firearms, a highly regulated commodity, substantially affects commerce.”

“While the MFFA may only apply to guns made and sold in Montana, it is unreasonable to expect that these firearms will not leave the state,” the brief continues.

The government argues that not even the Second Amendment supports the idea of state-regulated firearms rather than federal regulations.

“It is important to note that Heller [a Supreme Court decision affirming the individual right to bear arms] did nothing to disturb prior holdings refusing to extend Second Amendment protection to firearm manufacturers.”

A separate brief also was filed in support of striking down the Montana law by lawyers on behalf of the Brady Center to Prevent Violence, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, National Black Police Association and several others, drawing a sort of rebuke from the judge in the case.

He noted that only the Brady Center had been authorized to file the friend-of-the-court brief so the other organizations cited would not be recognized.

Montana’s plan is called “An Act exempting from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in Montana.”

The law cites the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time it was admitted to statehood in 1889.

Lawmakers in Montana actually took the dispute to the feds. They argued, “Should Congress enact a law that appears to conflict with the guidance in the [Montana Firearms Freedom Act], the courts may then determine whether Congress has acted within the scope of its delegated powers as limited by later amendments. … The courts may then determine the extent to which Congress’ enactment has abrogated the state’s exercise of power within the same sphere.”

The lawsuit was brought against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont.

It seeks a declaration that the federal government must stay out of the way of Montana’s management of its own firearms.

According to the Firearms Freedom Act website, such laws are “primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the ‘commerce clause,’ with firearms as the object – it is a states’ rights exercise.”

When South Dakota’s law was signed by Gov. Mike Rounds, a commentator said it addresses the “rights of states which have been carelessly trampled by the federal government for decades.”

Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center said Washington likely is looking for a way out of the dispute.

“I think they’re going to let it ride, hoping some judge throws out the case,” he told WND earlier. “When they really start paying attention is when people actually start following the [state] firearms laws.”

WND reported when Wyoming joined the states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation. Officials there took the unusual step of including penalties for any agent of the U.S. who “enforces or attempts to enforce” federal gun rules on a “personal firearm.”

The costs could be up to two years in prison and $2,000 in fines for an offender.

Advertisements

17 More States Planning Ariz. ‘Illegal’ Crackdown

May 25, 2010

INVASION USA

But ICE Chief Says Feds Might Not ‘Process’ Illegals Arrested by State

Posted: May 21, 2010
9:00 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

 In what is developing into a standoff between states and the federal government that could be bigger than gun control or even health care, 17 states have launched versions of Arizona’s immigration law, even as federal officials say they may not bother to process illegal aliens caught by the states.

 William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, which has been trying to get officials to address the open southern border for years, warned the consequences could be dire.

“Over the last couple days, Obama and the chief of ICE have refused to honor their oaths of office,” he said. “Their constitutional requirement is to enforce existing laws.

 “They’ve told the American public to go eat cake,” he said.

 Tell Washington what you think about immigration by sending every member of the Senate “The No Amnesty Pledge.”

 His organization is assembling the list of state efforts to emulate the Arizona law, which makes it illegal under state as well as federal law to be in the state without documentation.

“Seventeen states are now filing versions of Arizona’s SB 1070, which is designed to help local police enforce America’s existing immigration laws,” ALIPAC said in a report today.

The report said numerous national and local polls indicate 60 to 81 percent of Americans support local police enforcing immigration laws.

“Our national network of activists have been working overtime trying to help the state of Arizona and the brave Arizonans who have passed this bill,” he said. “Arizona no longer stands alone and we have now documented state lawmakers filing, or announcing they will file, versions of the Arizona bill in seventeen states! We will not stop until all states are protected from invasion as required by the U.S. Constitution.”

Gheen said the states where some form of immigration crackdown is under development include Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas and Utah.

President Obama several times has said he doesn’t like the Arizona law. He’s called it misguided and ordered a review by the Justice Department.

John Morton, who heads the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, said his agency might not process illegal aliens caught under state jurisdiction, the Chicago Tribune reported.

He insisted that only the federal government should respond to the problem.

“I don’t think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution,” Morton said.

One blogger expressed concern that “a senior Homeland Security official has openly declared that he won’t be doing his job.”

“Morton has sworn an oath to uphold the laws of the United States. He is not allowed to pick and choose which ones he likes and which he doesn’t.”

Gheen said the Arizona law and the plans it has spawned in other states is a victory for Americans. But he said those are just battles, and winning the war will require success in elections this fall.

A “comprehensive” solution to the problem will arrive when there are enough “hostile” members of Congress to tell the administration to uphold the existing immigration and border laws or the impeachments will start, he said.

“[We need to send] to Washington a hostile Congress that is going to encircle the executive branch and tell them to [follow the law] or we’ll impeach all the way down to the speaker of the House,” he said.

Gheen said he is alarmed over the pending release, expected sometime just before the election, of a movie called “Machete,” which reportedly is the story of a Mexican uprising in the United States.

Gheen said the message in the movie reportedly is that Americans will either submit to the “rape” of their land or else.

He said he believes the project is intended to create turmoil just as the mid-term elections draw near.

“There is nothing as important right now as getting [people] fully involved with all the campaigns,” he said.

ALIPAC already has helped to pass some form of immigration enforcement legislation in more than 30 states. And Gheen has developed a national reputation for defeating socially progressive plans to hand out licenses, in-state tuition and other taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens.

“It is incumbent upon our states to protect American lives, property, jobs, wages, security, and health, when the executive branch fails to honor its constitutional responsibility to do so by enforcing our existing border and immigration laws,” he said.

The Arizona law, which strictly prohibits racial profiling, empowers local police to enforce immigration laws.

To monitor the growing number of states considering similar legislation, ALIPAC utilizes a public forum in which members can update the organization with news articles and other information from states where the push for an Arizona-like law is making headway.

In Arizona’s neighboring state Utah, for example, Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, reportedly is drafting a bill that would similarly require immigrants to carry proof of status and require law enforcement officers to check for it.

“Utah is seen as state that welcomes illegal immigrants. We almost encourage it with driving privilege cards and in-state tuition for illegals,” Sandstrom told the Salt Lake Tribune. “With Arizona making the first step in this direction, Utah needs to pass a similar law or we will see a huge influx of illegals. The real issue is just establishing a rule of law in our state.”

Across the country in Maryland, Baltimore’s WBAL-TV reported earlier that State Delegate Patrick McDonough, R-Baltimore County, is drafting a bill identical to Arizona’s. He’s also planning to poll his fellow legislators before the bill is filed.

Obama Administration Plans to snatch up to 75% of your income

May 25, 2010

FROM JEROME CORSI’S RED ALERT
Federal Government Could Confiscate More Than Half of Everything Earned

© 2010 WorldNetDaily: www.wnd.com

Editor’s Note: The following report is excerpted from Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert, the premium online newsletter published by the current No. 1 best-selling author, WND staff writer and columnist. Red Alert subscriptions are $99 a year or $9.95 per month for credit card users. Annual subscribers will receive a free autographed copy of “The Late Great USA,” a book about the careful deceptions of a powerful elite who want to undermine our nation’s sovereignty.

 If President Obama repeals the Bush tax cuts and imposes a 20 percent value added tax, or VAT, on the U.S., Americans may be facing tax rates where more than half of everything earned is confiscated by the federal government in the form of income taxes, Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert reports.

 Add Social Security taxes and the tax burden quickly advances to more than 60 percent.

 “Adding state property and income taxes to the burden, the amount government confiscates could be in the 75 percent range before Americans have a chance to vote Obama out of office in 2012,” Corsi wrote. “Are Americans willing to be taxed 75 percent of every dollar earned?”

That is the current tax burden in Scandinavian countries as the table below demonstrates.

“In a five-day work week, will Americans be willing to work four days for the government?” Corsi asked.

He said as Obama moves the U.S. in the direction of becoming a European-style social welfare state, it is important to consider taxation levels typical in Europe.

Corsi noted that even high levels of taxation are not sufficient in Europe to prevent debt levels from rising to crisis proportions, as has been seen in Greece and is looming on the horizon in Portugal, Spain and Italy.

“These are the real costs of income redistribution, as taxpayers are made to bear the taxation costs of generous pension plans for government employees at all levels of government – federal, state and local – as well as funding Social Security, paying for Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare and funding welfare, including educating the children of illegal immigrants in Spanish in public schools,” he wrote. “There is no limit to generosity when it comes to socialist states providing social welfare benefits to increasingly government dependent populations.”

To learn more about the true costs of income redistribution, read Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert, the premium, online intelligence news source by the WND staff writer, columnist and author of the New York Times No. 1 best-seller, “The Obama Nation.

Red Alert’s author, whose books “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command” have topped the New York Times best-sellers list, received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972. For nearly 25 years, beginning in 1981, he worked with banks throughout the U.S. and around the world to develop financial services marketing companies to assist banks in establishing broker/dealers and insurance subsidiaries to provide financial planning products and services to their retail customers. In this career, Corsi developed three different third-party financial services marketing firms that reached gross sales levels of $1 billion in annuities and equal volume in mutual funds. In 1999, he began developing Internet-based financial marketing firms, also adapted to work in conjunction with banks.

In his 25-year financial services career, Corsi has been a noted financial services speaker and writer, publishing three books and numerous articles in professional financial services journals and magazines.

Dawson Borough, PA Mayor Denies She Was Looking For Fight

May 21, 2010

From: www.pittsburghlive.com

By Mary Pickels, TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, May 21, 2010

Dawson Mayor Carol Capella said she did not accompany borough resident Amanda Shultz to Melissa Jones’ Laughlin Street residence Tuesday evening looking for a fight.

 What she said began as a peaceful conversation about recent acts of vandalism in the borough ended in a physical confrontation. No one was seriously injured in the 8:50 p.m. incident.

 State police at Belle Vernon said Wednesday that Capella, 43, Shultz, 27, Jones, 36, and Capella’s son, borough Councilman Michael Capella, 23, all face charges of harassment and disorderly conduct. Carol Capella and Jones were both listed as accused and victims on a police news release. Shultz and Michael Capella were listed as accused.

 Carol Capella said there have been two recent incidents of pellet gun shooting in the borough, the most recent Monday night. She said Shultz’s vehicle and two of her own vehicles were damaged.

 Carol Capella said she and Shultz informed Jones that state police were contacted about the incidents and that they might be talking to her son about his possible involvement.

 “This is all alleged,” Capella said Thursday. She said she was not accusing Jones’ son.

 “She was very nice to me,” Capella said.

 When her son arrived home and learned where she was, Capella said, he joined her.

 “We were getting ready to leave, and neighbors were gathering,” Capella said.

 She said Jones “panicked.”

 “There were a lot of words going back and forth,” she said.

 Then, Capella said, Jones “smacked me right up side the head.”

 “She’s grabbing at my hair and ripped my earrings out,” Capella said. “My son said, ‘I can’t believe you just hit my mother.’ ”

 The two then fell to the ground, she said, until Capella was pulled from Jones.

 “I’m not here to fight,” Capella said yesterday. “I’m here to help this town. It was made to sound like we ran as a posse after this woman. That’s not what happened.”

 Capella said more information about the incident will be made public at a preliminary hearing.

 Calls to Jones yesterday were not returned.

 Police said charges will be filed before District Judge Dwight Shaner, after which the hearing will be scheduled.

Mayor: Detroit Doesn’t Know ‘How to Stop’ Killings

May 20, 2010
By COREY WILLIAMS, Associated Press Writer Thu May 20, 4:41 pm ET

BIRMINGHAM, Mich. – Detroit Mayor Dave Bing said Thursday the city has no answer to the recent spike in violence that has left at least 12 people dead, including a patrolman, two teenage boys, a grandmother, the adult son of another police officer, and a 7-year-old girl.

Mayor Dave Bing, Eleanor Josaitis co-founder of Focus Hope in Detroit and L. Brooks Patterson the Oakland County Executive hold hands as they pose for AP – Mayor Dave Bing, Eleanor Josaitis co-founder of Focus Hope in Detroit and L. Brooks Patterson the Oakland …

“It’s very demoralizing, very painful … don’t know how to stop it, quite frankly,” Bing told a group of area business and elected leaders Thursday during an annual political forum in the suburban community of Birmingham.

Lawsuit filed in police shooting of 7-year-old Play Video Video:Lawsuit filed in police shooting of 7-year-old AP

Tension after a Detroit police officer accidentally shot second-grader Aiyana Stanley-Jones during a raid early Sunday morning continues to hang over the city.

Police have said the officer’s gun discharged inside the house after he was jostled by, or collided with, the girl’s grandmother.

An attorney for the family has filed two lawsuits in the case and claims the shot was fired from outside on the porch.

Both Bing and Police Chief Warren Evans have apologized to the girl’s family, and the Michigan State Police have launched an investigation into her death.

Democratic U.S. Rep. John Conyers on Wednesday asked Attorney General Eric Holder to have the Justice Department look into the case and evaluate similar police raids, nationally. On Thursday, U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade in Detroit said in a statement the Justice Department is monitoring the state investigation.

Bing said he believed blame was being laid in the wrong place.

“Too many people are pointing to the police department,” he said Thursday. “I don’t think they are the problem. They have to be the solution.”

Detroit had 379 homicides in 2009, and 375 the year before.

So far in 2010, the numbers are down. There were 60 homicides through the end of March, compared to 80 over the same period last year.

But the numbers have recently spiked.

A 29-year-old man was shot to death inside a gas station early Thursday morning by a masked assailant. A police spokeswoman said he was the son of a police officer and investigators were looking into why he was killed.

Between the May 3 shooting death of officer Brian Huff while investigating a “shots fired” complaint in a vacant house through Tuesday, the Wayne County medical examiner’s office had recorded at least 12 homicides, including the death of Stanley-Jones.

A 15-year-old boy was shot to death on a friend’s porch. Police have said he may not have been the intended victim. A 65-year-grandmother was shot and killed when a bullet aimed at a suspected carjacker went awry and blasted into her home.

Je’rean Blake, 17, was slain Friday outside a convenience store, apparently after looking at 34-year-old Chauncey Owens the “wrong way,” according to prosecutors.

It was the search for Owens in that slaying that led the Detroit police Special Response Team to the house on Lillibridge where Aiyana was killed.

Owens, who is engaged to be married to Aiyana’s aunt, was arrested in an upstairs flat after her shooting. He was arraigned Thursday on a charge of first-degree murder in Blake’s death and ordered held without bond pending a June 1 preliminary examination.

Prosecutors and police said they didn’t know whether Owens had a lawyer.

“You’ve got individuals all over the city that are frustrated, that are angry, that have given up hope, and we’ve got a culture where it’s like it’s OK to do whatever you want to do, and it’s not, and we’ve got to change that and that’s not going to happen overnight,” Bing said.

Conyers’ call for federal intervention may be an “overreaction,” Bing added.

“I want to make sure that I give all the support that I can to our police department to do the things that they need to. I’d rather keep it local.”

Already undermanned, Detroit police also are facing about $6.5 million in budget cuts proposed by the City Council. Officials are trying to reduce a deficit of more than $300 million.

“Cuts of this magnitude certainly would have a negative impact on our response times to citizens’ 911 calls,” Police Chief Evans said in a statement. “The loss of this funding would send us in the opposite direction of where we need to be going.”

Supreme Court Nominee’s Pro-Abortion Views Exposed

May 20, 2010

From: www.libertycounsel.org
ELENA KAGAN IS 100% PRO-ABORTION:

While working for President Clinton, Kagan wrote that any ban on abortion is
unconstitutional – including the horrendous partial-birth abortion (PBA) procedure.  Reports that she once counseled Clinton to ban PBA’s ignore the fact that it was purely  political maneuver she was recommending.

ELENA KAGAN SUPPORTS THE RADICAL ABORTION AGENDA:

She is  a financial contributor to the National Partnership for
 Women and Families (NPWF), a pro-abortion group. The group
 advocates “to increase women’s access to…reproductive
 health services and blocks attempts to limit reproductive
  rights…and to give every woman access to…abortion
  services.” Plus, a senior adviser of the NPWF volunteered
  a statement “wholeheartedly” supporting Kagan’s Solicitor G
  eneral confirmation.

ELENA KAGAN SUPPORTS TAX-FUNDING OF ABORTIONS:

She publicly opposed a Supreme Court case upholding a prohibition on
 federal Title X funds from being used for abortion.

ELENA KAGAN EVEN OPPOSES CRISIS PREGNANCY COUNSELING:

To further illustrate how radical her abortion beliefs are,
  many pro-life groups are reporting that Kagan believes
  crisis pregnancy centers should be barred from advising
  teens on pregnancy matters. That is outrageous!

Liberty Counsel’s urgent message to the United States Senate:

“OPPOSE THE CONFIRMATION OF ELENA KAGAN!”

Liberty Counsel, with offices in Florida, Virginia and
Washington, D.C., is a nonprofit litigation, education and
policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom,
the sanctity of human life and the traditional family.
Liberty Counsel . PO Box 540774 . Orlando, FL 32854 .800-671-1776

Justice Dept.: Drug-Related Kidnappings Rampant in Arizona

May 19, 2010

The violence associated with drug smuggling has spilled across the Mexican border to such an extent that last year there was a drug-related kidnapping every 33 hours in the city of Phoenix alone.

That’s one of the eye-opening disclosures from the National Drug Threat Assessment for 2010, published by the National Drug Intelligence Center, a division of the U.S. Justice Department.

“Although much of the violence attributed to conflict over control of smuggling routes has been confined to Mexico, some has occurred in the United States,” according to the Justice Department report, issued shortly before Arizona passed a tough new immigration law targeting illegal aliens in the state.

“Violence in the United States has been limited primarily to attacks against alien smuggling organization members and their families — some of whom have sought refuge from the violence in Mexico by moving to U.S. border communities such as Phoenix.

“For example, in recent years, kidnappings in Phoenix have numbered in the hundreds, with 260 in 2007, 299 in 2008, and 267 in 2009.”

The 267 kidnappings in Phoenix last year equal one kidnapping every 1.4 days, or every 33 hours.

The kidnapping victims often have a connection to drug trafficking activities or are innocent relatives of traffickers, the report states.

“An individual or individuals may be kidnapping because of a lost drug load or failure to pay a drug debt.

“The number of U.S kidnapping incidents is most likely underreported because many victims’ families are unwilling to report the crime for fear that the victim will be killed, the kidnappers will retaliate against the family, or law enforcement will discover the family’s drug trafficking activities or illegal alien status.”

Other disclosures of the threat assessment:

  • On average, three Border Patrol agents are assaulted each day at or near the Mexican border.
  • Last year, mid-level and retail drug distribution in the U.S. was dominated by more than 900,000 criminally active gang members, representing approximately 20,000 gangs in more than 2,500 cities.
  • In addition to vehicles, Mexico drug smugglers use “cross-border tunnels, subterranean passageways, and low-flying or ultralight aircraft to move drugs from Mexico into the United States.”
  • Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) smuggled tens of billions of dollars from the U.S. through the Southwest border into Mexico in 2009.
  • Mexican DTO members or associates acquire thousands of weapons each year in Arizona, California, and Texas and smuggle them into Mexico.

The outlook, according to the report: “Without a significant increase in drug interdictions, seizures, arrests, and investigations that apply sustained pressure on major DTOs, availability of most drugs will increase in 2010, primarily because drug production in Mexico is increasing.”

The complete report can be obtained by contacting:

National Drug Intelligence Center

319 Washington Street, 5th Floor

Johnstown, PA 15901-1622

(814) 532-4601

e-mail: NDIC.Contacts@usdoj.gov

Feds: Nightstick at polls ‘not prosecutable’

May 19, 2010

Commission demands to know why Obama administration gave Black Panthers free pass

Posted: May 18, 2010
9:07 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


New Black Panther Party members outside polling place on Election Day

 

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is demanding to know why the Obama administration Justice Department dropped a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and threatening voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day.

 The commission, an independent body charged with investigating civil-rights complaints and making recommendations to the federal government, held a hearing on the case May 14. Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, gave testimony, stating that “the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes.”

 As WND reported, two men, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson, wearing paramilitary uniforms and armed with a nightsticks, blocked a doorway to a polling location to intimidate voters. Shabazz is leader of the Philadelphia chapter of the New Black Panther Party.

After a poll watcher saw one of the men brandishing a nightstick to threaten voters, he called police.

“As I walked up, they closed ranks, next to each other,” he told Fox News. “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 night stick 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 fist fight right here,’ and I called the police.”

A poll watcher with the University of Pennsylvania asked the men who they were with.

The man with the nightstick responded, “Uh, security,” and asked why he was taking pictures.

He told them, “I think it might be a little intimidating that you have a stick in your hand.” He continued, “I am a concerned citizen, and I’m just worried that …”


Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department

“So are we, and that’s why we’re here,” the Black Panther with the nightstick interrupted.

According to various witnesses, the men also hurled racial epithets such as “white devil” and “cracker” and told voters they should prepare to be “ruled by the black man.” One person said the men called a Republican poll worker a “race traitor” and told him there would be “hell to pay.”

The Washington Times reported witnesses testified that they saw would-be voters try to enter the polling place. They purportedly saw the Black Panthers in the doorway and left without voting.

Officers escorted the man with the nightstick away from the polling location, but the other person in Black Panther gear was a poll watcher. Police allowed him to remain on the premises.

Minister Najee Muhammad, national field marshal for the New Black Panther Party, told a crowd Nov. 2 that the Black Panthers would send members to polling sites on Election Day, the Jackson Sun reported.

“We will not allow some racists and other angry whites, who are upset over an impending Barack Obama presidential victory, to intimidate blacks at the polls,” he said. “Most certainly, we cannot allow these racist forces to slaughter our babies or commit other acts of violence against the black population, nor our black president.”

Uhuru Shakur, chairman of the Atlanta chapter, said, “We love Barack Obama – he gives our people great hope and light for advancement. Every president America has had has been a white man. Now the black man must be given his time to rule. Obama is a man of justice and a leader who wants to do right.”

Shakur had warned, “We will be at the polls in the cities and counties in many states to ensure that the enemy does not sabotage the black vote, which was won through the blood of the martyrs of our people.”

On Jan. 7, 2009, the Justice Department filed a complaint seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 against four defendants: the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense and its leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz, and the two men who appeared at the Philadelphia polling place on Nov. 4, 2008, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson. The complaint accused them of attempting to engage in, and engaging in, both voter intimidation and intimidation of individuals aiding voters.

“After reviewing the evidence, the Department concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Party or Malik Zulu Shabazz violated Section 11(b),” Perez said in his testimony.

He added, “Prior to the election, the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense made statements and posted notice that over 300 members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense would be deployed at polling locations during voting on November 4, 2008, throughout the United States. To the department’s knowledge, the single polling place in Philadelphia is the only location where an incident occurred. This apparent fact is inconsistent with the notion that the Party or Malik Zulu Shabazz directed a campaign of intimidation.”

He noted that the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense posted a statement on its website dated Jan. 7, 2009, saying the men who blocked the polling place “do not represent the official views of the New Black Panther Party and are not connected nor in keeping with our official position as a party.”


Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Loretta King

“At a minimum, without sufficient proof that New Black Panther Party or Malik Zulu Shabazz directed or controlled unlawful activities at the polls, or made speeches directed to immediately inciting or producing lawless action on Election Day, any attempt to bring suit against those parties based merely upon their alleged ‘approval’ or ‘endorsement’ of Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jackson’s activities would have likely failed,” Perez explained. As WND reported, Malik Zulu Shabazz endorsed Obama for president on Obama’s own website prior to the election. Shabazz boasted he met Obama in 2007 on the 42nd anniversary of the voting rights marches in Selma, Ala.

With regard to King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson, Perez said the Justice Department considered all available information, including signed statements of poll observers or poll watchers at the polling place. The department filed an injunction against Shabazz, prohibiting him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place. The department concluded that a nationwide injunction against Shabazz was not legally supportable.

In July 2009, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania declined prosecution. According to Perez, local police also declined to pursue state criminal charges.

“The evidence was insufficient to show that Minister King Samir Shabazz had engaged or planned to engage in a nationwide pattern of such conduct as he exhibited at the polling place in Philadelphia, or that he was inclined to disregard the injunction,” Perez said.

The department stopped at the injunction and didn’t call for criminal penalties, monetary damages or other civil penalties.

Despite videos of the incident posted on YouTube, Perez said the Justice Department concluded that the allegations against Jackson, the other defendant who was also a certified poll watcher at the Philadelphia polling place, “did not have sufficient evidentiary support.”

He said the decisions on the case were made by a career attorney then serving as the acting assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division.

Before the charges were dropped, a federal judge ordered default judgments against the Panthers after party members refused to appear in court. The Washington Times reported the Justice Department was seeking sanctions when Loretta King, acting assistant attorney general who had been granted a political appointment by President Obama in January 2009 to temporarily fill the position, ordered a delay in the proceedings. According to the report, the ruling was issued after King met with Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the department’s No. 3 political appointee, who approved the decision.

“Based on the totality of the evidence and the relevant legal precedent, the acting assistant attorney general made a judgment about how to proceed, choosing to seek an injunction against the only defendant who brought a weapon to the Philadelphia polling place on Election Day and to voluntarily dismiss the other three defendants,” Perez explained.

He added, “The decision to proceed with the claims against Minister King Samir Shabazz and to dismiss the claims against the three other defendants was based on the merits and reflects the kind of good faith, case-based assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of claims that the Department makes every day.”

In August last year, Gerald A. Reynolds, chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, told the Washington Times the Justice Department has been offering “weak justifications.”

He said, “If you swap out the New Black Panther Party in this case for neo-Nazi groups or the Ku Klux Klan, you likely would have had a different outcome.”

Gov. Perdue meets With Widow of Slain Charlotte Police Officer

May 18, 2010

Alabama Senator: Kagan Nomination is a ‘Big Deal’ and Must Be Opposed

May 18, 2010

This article was sent to us by Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel on May 18, 2010

The confirmation hearings of Elena Kagan will be a “big deal”
according to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking Republican
member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sessions expressed concern about Kagan to TV news magazine
“This Week” by saying, “We’d like to know in a real honest sense
whether her philosophy of law is so broad in her interpretation
of the Constitution that you are not faithful to the Constitution
and law.” He also said, “… [A] judge under their oath says
you serve under the Constitution, not above it. So we want
to know whether she faithfully will follow it even if she
doesn’t like it…”

Sessions added, “I think we’ll be looking at her testimony
because she has so little other record, and it’s going to be
a big deal. It’s so important how she testifies.” This has
been a major concern of my own regarding Kagan.

Expelling the Military from campus.

Senator Sessions also seized on Elena Kagan’s role in
prohibiting military recruiting on Harvard’s campus during
her tenure as the dean of Harvard Law School, calling it
“no little-bitty matter.” He insisted that Kagan was not
only wrong in her decision, but that she actually broke
the law.

            And now that the left-wing blogosphere and even
            the New York Times has called on Kagan to
            honestly address the issue of her sexual
            orientation, Senators must not be allowed to
            adopt some strange standard of “political
            correctness” and avoid the subject.

It is obvious that if Kagan has enough pro-homosexual
political passion to take such a strong stand against the
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, it will affect her legal
positions on the entire range of family, marriage, and
homosexual “rights” issues she is likely to rule upon if
confirmed.

Of course, the United States Supreme court overturned her
misguided resistance of the Solomon Amendment by a 9-0 vote,
clearly demonstrating that her views are radically outside
the mainstream of American legal thinking.

Kagan holds a pro-abortion viewpoint.

Americans United for Life (AUL) has reported that Elena
Kagan significantly donated to National Partnership for
Women and Families (NPWF), a pro-abortion group.  The
group advocates “to increase women’s access to…
reproductive health services and blocks attempts to
limit reproductive rights…and to give every woman access
to…abortion services.”

Judith Lichtman, Senior Advisor for the NPWF, wrote a
letter “wholeheartedly” supporting Kagan’s Solicitor
General nomination, whom she describes as a “friend and
colleague.”  Such an endorsement would not happen if
Lichtman was not confident of Kagan’s pro-abortion stance.
The bench of the Supreme Court of the United States
requires individuals who have a keen understanding of the
law and an ability to interpret the law without invoking
their personal viewpoints and prejudices. Elena Kagan,
lacking experience as a judge, simply does not have this
proven ability.  We will not concede this battle. We MUST
stop the nomination of Elena Kagan before it gains momentum!

“OPPOSE THE NOMINATION OF ELENA KAGAN!”
Liberty Counsel, with offices in Florida, Virginia and
Washington, D.C., is a nonprofit litigation, education and
policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom,
the sanctity of human life and the traditional family.
Liberty Counsel . PO Box 540774 . Orlando, FL 32854 .800-671-1776