June 12, 2013 | 2 comments
June 6, 2013 | 4 comments
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
I posted such a plethora of material Tuesday on Obamite Justice Department official Thomas Perez, rumored to be the next nominee for Secretary of Labor, and on the Inspector General’s report about the rot at DoJ’s Civil Rights Division, which Perez heads, that I thought I should take the day off from the subject yesterday so as to not cause an information overload. But now it’s time to resume the process of making sure the now-public record of Perez’ perfidy, and that of his compatriots in the Eric Holder Justice Department, is highlighted, echoed, and spread widely. With that in mind, here’s the round-up of important coverage since early evening on Tuesday.
First, for the single-best, concise, oral recapitulation of the findings in the IG report, please listen to this superb interview Mark Levin did with former DoJ whistleblower and author J. Christian Adams.
Here, John Fund puts things into perspective, and notes that even some honest establishment-media outlets (although not enough!) are recognizing the import of the report and blasting Eric Holder’s management of DoJ.
On video, Sean Hannity interviews the wonderfully inimitable Michelle Malkin, an indefatigable chronicler of Perez’ radical record, about the IG report and also about Perez’ history of trying to run roughshod over existing immigration laws.
The honorable bolldog of a congressman, Virginia’s Frank Wolf, now pressures Holder to live up to promises to release numerous documents. (I hope this link works.)
Black conservatives at Project 21 helpfully weigh in.
Andrew Cohen, left-leaning, weighs in with tough, important words in The Atlantic.
Jennifer Rubin — who like me, the Washington Times’ Jerry Seper, John Fund, and Michelle Malkin (along with my former WashTimes colleague John Lott) has been covering this for nearly four years, discusses the implications of “a division entirely out of control.”
For a humorous interlude, you may want to read as Media Matters whines about our coverage of these scandals and tries (and fails) to spin the report to the Left’s advantage.
Back to serious stuff….
Quite chillingly — AND THIS IS AN EXCLUSIVE!!! — a southern Alabama sheriff explains how Perez “threatened” local law enforcement, and said federal funds would be withheld from various programs and grants, if local police and sheriffs actually enforced the state’s immigration laws.
And in some prior material worth noting, Scott McKay of The Hayride (in Louisiana) describes how Perez has been trying to shake down the Bayou State to register more welfare recipients to vote — not just to make registration accessible at welfare offices, etcetera, but to “proselytize” those welfare recipients.
And, finally, PLEASE read my piece at CFIF, which wraps into one package the essential findings in the IG report.
The IG absolutely confirms what I and others have repeatedly reported: On two different occasions in the fall of 2009, political appointee Julie Fernandes made statements at widely attended staff meetings to the effect that civil rights or voting rights laws would not be enforced, despite unambiguous language directing such enforcement, to protect white people or to protect against ineligible names remaining on voter lists. Worse, she and others in the Obama political ranks acted precisely accordingly: Despite repeated entreaties from honest staff members, supported by overwhelming documentation, the department failed (refused) for 15 solid months to enforce voter-list-maintenance laws against eight states that were flagrantly violating the laws.
Again, the obvious goal was racial or partisan/ideological/political. Blacks/Democrats/liberals are not understood to benefit from efforts to clean up voter rolls of the names of dead people, incarcerated felons or other ineligibles; so, therefore that portion (Section 8) of the National Voting Registration Act was not, according to Fernandes herself, among what she called the “enforcement priorities” of the Division’s political leadership.
Again, to quote the IG report: “Thirteen witnesses told the OIG that Fernandes stated that she ‘did not care about’ or ‘was not interested’ in pursuing Section 8 cases, or similar
No matter how the IG tries to excuse the Obamites’ motives, the facts speak for themselves. If numerous people in the Civil Rights Division express hostility against race-neutral enforcement of laws, and then a top political appointee in the division says on two occasions that she is not interested in enforcing parts of the law or enforcing the laws against non-white perpetrators, and if the Attorney General himself says that his team has other enforcement “priorities,” and then if the actual record shows that the division did indeed fail to enforce those specific parts of the law despite repeated staff advisories to do so backed by copious evidence in support of doing so… well, then, this obviously amounts to selective non-enforcement of the law, and considering all the other partisan, racial and ideological viciousness detailed by the IG, it is silly to conclude anything other than that partisan, racial and ideological motives drove the non-enforcers in their non-enforcement decisions.
This is lawlessness. It ought to be punishable.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?