Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Reason #1
  • Reason #2
  • Reason #3

Site Description

Obama, Holder and the D O J at work ( 2 examples)

Discussion in 'Cop Talk' started by ronduke, Jul 30, 2009.

  1. ronduke


    Jan 24, 2007
    Revenge of the ‘Shoe Bomber’
    The terrorist sues to resume his jihad from prison. The Obama administration caves in. By DEBRA BURLINGAME
    Last May at the National Archives, President Barack Obama warned that “more mistakes would occur” if Congress continued to politicize terrorist detention policy and the closure of Guantanamo Bay. “f we refuse to deal with those issues today,” he predicted, “then I guarantee you, they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future.”

    On June 17, at the Administrative Maximum (ADX) penitentiary in Florence, Colo., one of those albatrosses, inmate number 24079-038, began his day with a whole new range of possibilities. Eight days earlier, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Denver filed notice in federal court that the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) which applied to that prisoner—Richard C. Reid, a.k.a. the “Shoe Bomber”—were being allowed to expire. SAMs are security directives, renewable yearly, issued by the attorney general when “there is a substantial risk that a prisoner’s communications, correspondence or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury” to others.

    Reid was arrested in 2001 for attempting to blow up American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami with 197 passengers and crew on board. Why had Attorney General Eric Holder decided not to renew his security measures, kept in place since 2002?

    According to court documents filed in a 2007 civil lawsuit against the government, Reid claimed that SAMs violated his First Amendment right of free speech and free exercise of religion. In a hand-written complaint, he asserted that he was being illegally prevented from performing daily “group prayers in a manner prescribed by my religion.” Yet the list of Reid’s potential fellow congregants at ADX Florence reads like a Who’s Who of al Qaeda’s most dangerous members: Ramzi Yousef and his three co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui; “Millennium bomber” Ahmed Ressam; “Dirty bomber” Jose Padilla; Wadih el-Hage, Osama Bin Laden’s personal secretary, convicted in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombing that killed 247 people.

    In December 2008, the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss Reid’s lawsuit. It cited the example of ADX inmate Ahmed Ajaj as an illustration of “the dangers inherent in permitting a group of inmates, of like mind in their opposition to the United States, to congregate for a prayer service conducted in a language not understood by most correctional officers.”

    While imprisoned for passport fraud in 1992, Ajaj assisted in the plans to destroy the World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993, making phone calls to Ramzi Yousef and speaking in code to elude law enforcement monitoring. Ajaj tried to get his “training kit” to Yousef, which included videotapes and notes he had taken on bomb-making while attending a terrorist camp on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

    Reid’s own SAMs on correspondence had been tightened in 2006 after the shocking discovery that three of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers at ADX, not subject to security directives, had sent 90 letters to overseas terrorist networks, including those associated with the Madrid train bombing. The letters, exhorting jihad and praising Osama bin Laden as “my hero of this generation,” were printed in Arabic newspapers and brandished like trophies to recruit new members.

    When setting restrictions on inmate religious practice, the Bureau of Prisons need only meet a reasonableness standard, a very low bar in the case of Muslim terrorists. Justice would easily have prevailed against Reid’s lawsuit; nevertheless it dropped the security measures on Reid after he missed 58 meals in a hunger strike that required medical intervention and forced feeding in April.

    On July 6, Justice Department lawyers informed the court that Reid will be given a “new placement” in a “post-SAMs setting.” Whether that entails stepped down security in a different unit or transfer to a less secure facility, the Bureau of Prisons won’t say, and Justice refuses to comment.

    Mr. Obama likes to observe that “no one has escaped from supermax,” but if Reid is moved from ADX Florence, he will be the first convicted terrorist to use the First Amendment to sue his way out.

    What drove the Obama administration’s decision to cave in to Reid’s demands? The president after all has repeatedly pitched supermax and the federal prison system as a secure alternative to Guantanamo, citing the fact that it handles “all manner of violent and dangerous criminals.” Yet the last thing he needs, as his administration engages in its hasty effort to shut Gitmo down by a fast-approaching deadline, is for lawyers and human-rights activists to use a hunger-striking, near-death prisoner to launch a propaganda campaign fashioned right out of the Gitmo detainees’ playbook. Lawyers who shamelessly compared Gitmo to Nazi concentration camps would think nothing of casting supermax as the next “symbol of America’s shame” and a “rallying cry for our enemies.”

    From the outset of his administration, Mr. Obama has been trying to thread the needle between national security policy and his ideological affinity with civil liberties lawyers and human-rights activists, meeting with and consulting them prior to making detainee-related decisions. Though his executive order shutting Guantanamo closely followed the blueprint provided by Human Rights First, leaders of key organizations were stunned when he revealed in an awkward, off-the-record meeting the day before his public announcement at the National Archives that he planned to continue President George W. Bush’s policy of preventive detention.

    Michael Ratner, whose human rights organization, the Center for Constitutional Rights, filed the first successful detainee lawsuit in 2002, called Mr. Obama’s proposed U.S. detention scheme a “road to perdition” and nothing more than a plan to “repackage Guantanamo.” Leaders of the so-called Gitmo bar appear poised to launch a flurry of legal challenges the moment the last departing detainee’s feet touch U.S. soil.

    In January, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado issued a statement saying that conditions at supermax are “simply another form of torture” worse than Gitmo which “make a mockery of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’” Last month, the ACLU filed a civil lawsuit mirroring Reid’s religious rights claim on behalf of two terrorism inmates held at the Communications Management Unit inside a medium security prison in Terre Haute, Ind.

    One of those inmates is Enaam Arnaout, a Syrian-born U.S. citizen serving a 10-year sentence for diverting Muslim charity money to militant Islamic groups in Bosnia and Chechnya. The other, Randall Royer, is serving 20 years for his role recruiting young Muslims in the “Virginia Jihad Network,” a group that used paintball games in 2000-2001 to train for holy war.

    Mr. Obama has repeatedly suggested that the security challenge of bringing more than 100 trained and dangerous terrorists onto U.S. soil can be solved by simply installing them in an impenetrable fortress. This view is either disingenuous or naïve. The militant Islamists at Guantanamo too dangerous to release believe that their resistance behind the wire is a continuation of holy war. There is every reason to believe they will continue their jihad once they have been transported to U.S. soil where certain federal judges have signaled a willingness to confer upon them even more rights.

    The position of civil rights activists with regard to these prisoners is plain. “If they cannot be convicted,” says ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer, “then you release them.”

    Meanwhile, in order to appease political constituencies both here and abroad, the Obama administration is moving full steam ahead, operating on the false premise that giving more civil liberties to religious fanatics bent on destroying Western civilization will make a difference in the Muslim world. In a letter sent to his father as he began his hunger strike, Reid provided a preview of how he will exercise his newly enlarged free speech rights, calling Mr. Obama a “hypocrite” who is “no better than George Bush.” His lawsuit remains active while the Department of Justice works out a settlement that satisfies the man who declared, “I am at war with America.”

    DOJ Civil Rights: Black Panther Voter Fraud Absolved
    Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli is responsible for reversing voter fraud charge against the New Black Panthers, but many had a hand in it after the interested "political" and "racial" factions put their heads together.

    After intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling precinct, decked out like a military thugs from a third world country, wielding at least one 2-ft. long nightstick, a civil lawsuit was filed. The three men charged refused to show up for their court cases for five months - that's 5 months - and they did show! The government won a default judgement in federal court against the New Black Panthers and three of their men. In April, however, department lawyers were told to drop the case - after already procuring the default judgment. Unbelievable.

    Why would the case be dropped? Wouldn't you know it is always about politics?

    Front-line lawyers were in the final stages of completing that work when they were unexpectedly told by their superiors in late April to seek a delay after a meeting between political appointees and career supervisors, according to federal records and interviews.
    If that doesn't make your blood boil...this will:

    Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler told The Washington Times that the department has an "ongoing obligation" to be sure the claims it makes are supported by the facts and the law. She said that after a "thorough review" of the complaint, top career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division determined the "facts and the law did not support pursuing the claims against three of the defendants.
    Schmaler is certainly a Liberal. She had the audacity to says "we [DOJ] are committed to vigorous enforcement of the laws protecting anyone exercising his or her right to vote." Only Liberals have that special kind of audacity. What about the people of Philadelphia? What about the people inside and outside the polling place? What about Mr. Bull - a man who signed an affidavit tell what he saw that day?

    Schmaler says claims must be supported by facts and the law. How about the default judgment? But beside that, there was witness with a sworn affidavit. He is a "longtime civil rights activist and a former aide to Senator Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. Here is a portion of Bartle Bull's affidavit:

    In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll," he declared. "In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi ... I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location.
    Can you believe that the DOJ never did get around to entering Mr. Bull's affidavit! I know it is drama to say that I want to cry for this country and for my children, but that is how I feel. This is not justice.

    The guilty are Acting-Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, appointed by Barack Obama, who delayed the case. Then King discussed it with Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli. He accepted the counsel of King:

    She and other career supervisors ultimately recommended dropping the case against two of the men and the party and seeking a restraining order against the one man who wielded a nightstick at the Philadelphia polling place. Mr. Perrelli approved that plan, officials said.
    Rep. Frank R. Wolf (F-VA), a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee was prevented from interviewing the "front-line" lawyers who brought the charges. That's transparency for you!

    Why am I being prevented from meeting with the trial team on this case? Mr. Wolf asked. "There are many questions that need to be answered. This whole thing just stinks to high heaven.

    Yes, it stinks to high heaven, as most everything does connected to this administration. No need to worry, however, Wolf can't get anywhere with it, but Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has some pull and he is meeting with King next week. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) is also to be allowed in the door. More from Rep. Wolf:

    If showing a weapon, making threatening statements and wearing paramilitary uniforms in front of polling station doors does not constitute voter intimidation, at what threshold of activity would these laws be enforceable? Mr. Wolf asked.
    Here's a quote from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: a June 16 letter to Justice that the decision to drop the case caused it "great confusion, since the NBPP members were "caught on video blocking access to the polls, and physically threatening and verbally harassing voters during the Nov. 4, 2008, general election.

    Though it had basically won the case, [through default] the [Civil Rights Division] took the unusual move of voluntarily dismissing the charges , the letter said. "The division's public rationale would send the wrong message entirely -- that attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated and will not be vigorously prosecuted so long as the groups or individuals who engage in them fail to respond to the charges leveled against them.

    To date, the Washington Times says their request for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has yielded nothing.

    AG Thomas Perrelli, whose word was the final decision, raised more than $500,000.00 for Obama for the presidential election.

    I cannot begin to express my high-volume anger right now.

    The New Black Panthers are identified as the party's chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, an attorney and a D.C. resident. The nightstick bully is alleged to be Minister King Samir Shabazz, of Philadelphia and head of the Philadelphia NBPP chapter; and Jerry Jackson, Philadelphia. The people of Philadelphia were subject to a thug from Washington, D.C.! The suit against these men alleged:

    The civil suit filed Jan. 7 identified the three men as members of the Panthers and said they wore military-style uniforms, black berets, combat boots, battle-dress pants, black jackets with military-style insignias and were armed with "a dangerous weapon"and used racial slurs and insults to scare would-be voters and those there to assist them at the Philadelphia polling location on Nov. 4.

    The complaint said the three men engaged in "coercion, threats and intimidation, ... racial threats and insults, ... menacing and intimidating gestures, ... and movements directed at individuals who were present to vote." It said that unless prohibited by court sanctions, they would "continued to violate ... the Voting Rights Act by continuing to direct intimidation, threats and coercion at voters and potential voters, by again deploying uniformed and armed members at the entrance to polling locations in future elections, both in Philadelphia and throughout the country."

    In case you are not white with anger...yet, one more reminder: these men never did respond to the charges or appear in court. Could you get away with this? I could not.

    The New Black Panthers in Philadelphia want us to know how responsible and credible they are. They've "suspended" their chapter in that city "until further notice." No elections to abuse coming up any time soon. Time to hit the streets and abuse someone there, or meet-up with ACORN for a little fun at the expense of voters everywhere. And what about Malik zulu Shabazz, who called Michelle Malkin a "political prostitute" - all cozy back home in Washington, D.C. where voters need no abuse to do the bidding of the New Black Panthers.
  2. I'm telling you. The current DOJ hates cops and has no respect for law enforcement, security or other related issues.

    Just my opinion, of course.



    Sep 14, 2008
    No, no that's pretty much spot on.

  4. lawman800

    lawman800 Juris Glocktor

    That's our top law enforcement official Eric Holder for ya. I hope the people wake up and soon for the sake of this country before we become a full-blown 3rd world banana republic under Dopebama.
  5. ronduke


    Jan 24, 2007
    Voter intimidation case still a mystery

    A former member of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) says the Obama Justice Department has still yet to adequately explain its decision to dump a highly publicized voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party.

    The Washington Times is reporting that the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has launched an investigation into the dismissal of voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party.

    In January, the Justice Department filed a complaint accusing two New Black Panthers of engaging in "coercion, threats, and intimidation, racial threats and insults, menacing and intimidating gestures, and movements directed at individuals who were present to vote" at a Philadelphia polling place in November. A third Black Panther was accused of directing the behavior. The Times has reported that the number-three man at Justice, Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, okayed the dismissal of the case.

    Hans van Spakovsky, a visiting legal scholar at The Heritage Foundation and a former member of the FEC, says the OPR investigation is a smoke-and-mirrors play by the Justice Department.

    "Given the past performance of that office, I don't believe they can be trusted to do a fair and objective investigation," he contends. "Also, they are simply looking at ethics issues. That doesn't answer the kind of questions that, for example, the Civil Rights Commission asked about what the standards are for filing and pursuing voter intimidation cases."

    Von Spakovsky says there was no good reason for the Justice Department to tell the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that it would not cooperate and provide any of the documents and testimony the Commission requested.
  6. lawman800

    lawman800 Juris Glocktor

    They are too busy going after Joe Wilson for being a racist and encouraging people to start wearing white sheets again rather than going after real incidents of racially motivated violence.
  7. Hack

    Hack Crazy CO Gold Member

    As usual it's nutty in the world of the feds right now. I am glad we don't have any real high profile cases like the one mentioned at Florence. But, what they didn't say was that the normal security measures for monitoring communications will remain in place as for all inmates. It will be up to the staff to find anything concerning criminal activity. I pray that they are doing their jobs, and I think there are those there concerned enough to keep trying to do what they can within the limits of current law and practice.

    Meanwhile, be doing some research on your conservative candidates for offices of Senator and House of Representatives, as that is where the power lies for keeping the chief exec in check.
  8. metal


    Jul 26, 2004
    Not quite Detroit
    I was out with a few buds last night. Of course Obama came up.
    He's such a great person all my friends talk about him all the time. (especially after a few pops)
    BTW he's real popular here on the north side of 8 mile.
    Almost everyone I know (with the exception of one particular woman) really, really likes him.:supergrin:
    One bud in particular really would like to "reach out and touch him"
    I think he's a little nuts (or maybe just really drunk) for wanting to see the commander in chief up close like that but who am I to judge.:whistling:
  9. lawman800

    lawman800 Juris Glocktor

    as the USSS descend upon Sterling Heights, Michigan....
  10. metal


    Jul 26, 2004
    Not quite Detroit
    :laugh: with all the crap we give that guy here I'm surprised they aren't at half of our houses yet:rofl:
    Besides my buddy lives in Warren:whistling:

    Edit: PS Mr USSS guy the above post was humor...
  11. lawman800

    lawman800 Juris Glocktor

    As long as your buddy in Warren doesn't try to NCIC the good president, the USSS might just schedule him for a regular visit instead of an exigent visit.
  12. metal


    Jul 26, 2004
    Not quite Detroit
    that would be a bad thing huh:supergrin:
  13. Holder was saving all those investigative resources for ACORN...:rofl:
  14. lawman800

    lawman800 Juris Glocktor

    Those RICO investigations sure take a lot of resources when the trail leads back to the Community Organizer In Chief who was their lawyer and who said ACORN's agenda is his own.
  15. ronduke


    Jan 24, 2007
    Justice concludes black voters need Democratic Party

    Ben Conery

    KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

    The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

    The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.

    Several federal and local politicians would like the city to challenge the decision in court. They say voter apathy is the largest barrier to black voters' election of candidates they prefer and that the Justice Department has gone too far in trying to influence election results here.

    Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department's decision "racial as well as partisan."

    "On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election," he said. "That is un-American."

    The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other locals as well. They bristle at federal interference in this city of nearly 23,000 people, two-thirds of whom are black.

    In interviews in sleepy downtown Kinston - a place best known as a road sign on the way to the Carolina beaches - residents said partisan voting is largely unimportant because people are personally acquainted with their elected officials and are familiar with their views.

    "To begin with, 'nonpartisan elections' is a misconceived and deceiving statement because even though no party affiliation shows up on a ballot form, candidates still adhere to certain ideologies and people understand that, and are going to identify with who they feel has their best interest at heart," said William Cooke, president of the Kinston/Lenoir County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

    Mr. Cooke said his group does not take a position on this issue and would not disclose his personal stance, but expressed skepticism about the Justice Department's involvement.

    Others noted the absurdity of partisan elections since Kinston is essentially a one-party city anyway; no one among more than a half-dozen city officials and local residents was able to recall a Republican winning office here.

    Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He said the ruling was based on "what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction" and how it affects blacks' ability to elect the candidates they favor.

    "The determination of who is a 'candidate of choice' for any group of voters in a given jurisdiction is based on an analysis of the electoral behavior of those voters within a particular jurisdiction," he said.

    Critics on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are not so sure. "The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism," said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates."

    Located about 60 miles from the Atlantic Coast in eastern North Carolina, Kinston has a history of defying governmental authority. During Colonial times, the fledgling city was known as Kingston - named for King George III - but residents dropped the "g" from the city's name after the American Revolution.

    In Kinston's heyday of manufacturing and tobacco farming, it was a bustling collection of shops, movie theaters and restaurants. Now, many of those buildings are vacant - a few have been filled by storefront churches - and residents are left hoping for better days.

    In November's election - one in which "hope" emerged as a central theme - the city had uncommonly high voter turnout, with more than 11,000 of the city's 15,000 voters casting ballots. Kinston's blacks voted in greater numbers than whites.

    Whites typically cast the majority of votes in Kinston's general elections. Kinston residents contributed to Barack Obama's victory as America's first black president and voted by a margin of nearly 2-to-1 to eliminate partisan elections in the city.

    The measure appeared to have broad support among both white and black voters, as it won a majority in seven of the city's nine black-majority voting precincts and both of its white-majority precincts.

    But before nonpartisan elections could be implemented, the city had to get approval from the Justice Department.

    Kinston is one of the areas subject to provisions of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires the city to receive Justice Department approval before making any changes to voting procedures. Kinston is one of 12,000 voting districts in areas of 16 states, almost exclusively in the South, that the Voting Rights Act declared to have had a history of racial discrimination.

    In a letter dated Aug. 17, the city received the Justice Department's answer: Elections must remain partisan because the change's "effect will be strictly racial."

    "Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office," Loretta King, who at the time was the acting head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, wrote in a letter to the city.

    Ms. King wrote that voters in Kinston vote more along racial than party lines and without the potential for voting a straight Democratic ticket, "the limited remaining support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more."

    Ms. King is the same official who put a stop to the New Black Panther Party case. In that case, the Justice Department filed a civil complaint in Philadelphia after two members of the black revolutionary group dressed in quasi-military garb stood outside a polling place on election last year and purportedly intimidated voters with racial insults, slurs and a nightstick.

    After a judge ordered a default judgments against the Panthers, who refused to answer the charges or appear in court, the Justice Department dropped the charges against all but one of the defendants, saying "the facts and the law did not support pursuing" them.

    Ms. King's letter in the Kinston case states that because of the low turnout black voters must be "viewed as a minority for analytical purposes," and that "minority turnout is relevant" to determining whether the Justice Department should be allowed a change to election protocol.

    Black voters account for 9,702 of the city's 15,402 registered voters but typically don't vote at the rates whites do.

    As a result of the low turnout, Ms. King wrote, "black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections."

    "It is the partisan makeup of the general electorate that results in enough white cross-over to allow the black community to elect a candidate of choice," she wrote.

    Mrs. Thernstrom of the civil rights commission blasted the department's interpretation of the law.

    "The Voting Rights Act is not supposed to be compensating for failure of voters to show up on Election Day," she said. "The Voting Rights Act doesn't guarantee an opportunity to elect a 'candidate of choice.' ... My 'candidate of choice' loses all the time in an election."

    When asked whether Justice had ever "either granted or denied" requests either "to stop partisan elections or implement partisan elections," Mr. Miyar, the department spokesman, said it was impossible to retrieve past decisions on that basis.

    But he did provide, based on the recollection of a department lawyer, a single precedent - a decision during the Clinton administration denying a bid from a South Carolina school district to drop partisan elections.

    That decision employs similar reasoning and language as the Kinston ruling: "Implementation of nonpartisan elections ... appears likely to deprive black supported candidates of meaningful partisan based support and to exacerbate racial polarization between black and white voters."

    But the 1994 decision doesn't mention the necessity of the Democratic Party and doesn't mention low turnout among black voters in that school district as a factor affecting their ability to elect candidates they prefer.

    Kinston City Council member Joseph Tyson, a Democrat who favors partisan elections, said nothing is stopping black voters in Kinston from going to the polls.

    "Unfortunately, I'm very disappointed with the apathy that we have in Kinston among the Afro-American voters," he said.

    Mr. Tyson, who is one of two black members of the six-member City Council, said the best way to help black voters in Kinston is to change the council's structure from citywide voting to representation by district. Kinston voters currently cast as many votes in the at-large races as there are council seats up for election - typically three, or two and the mayor.

    "Whether it's partisan or nonpartisan is not a big issue to me, whether or not the city is totally represented is what the issue is to me," he said. "If you have wards and districts, then I feel the total city will be represented."

    Partisan local elections are a rarity in North Carolina. According to statistics kept by the University of North Carolina School of Government in Chapel Hill, only nine of the state's 551 cities and towns hold partisan elections.

    The City Council could take the Justice Department to court to fight decision regarding nonpartisan elections, but such a move seems unlikely. The council voted 4-1 to drop the issue after meeting privately with Justice Department officials in August.

    "What do I plan to do? Absolutely, nothing," Mr. Tyson said. "And I will fight, within Robert's Rules of Order, wherever necessary to make sure that decision stands."

    The Justice ruling and Kinston's decision not to fight it comes in the wake of a key Voting Rights Act case last year. In that decision, the Supreme Court let a small utility district in Texas seek an exemption from the law's requirements to receive Justice Department approval before making any changes to voting procedures. But the court declined to address whether the law itself is constitutional.

    Critics of the law argue it has changed little since its 1965 inception and that the same places the law covered then no longer need Justice Department approval to make changes to voting procedures.

    Proponents, including Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., said the law is still necessary to ensure equal voting rights for all Americans.

    In Kinston, William Barker is the only City Council member who voted to continue discussing whether to challenge the Justice Department's ruling.

    He said he voted against eliminating partisan elections because the proposed new system would declare a winner simply on who received a plurality of votes instead requiring candidates to reach certain threshold of votes based on turnout.

    "Based on the fact that the voters voted overwhelmingly for it, I would like to see us challenge it based on that fact. My fight is solely based on fighting what the voters voted on," he said. "It bothers me, even though I'm on the winning side now, that you have a small group, an outside group coming in and saying, 'Your vote doesn't matter.' "
  16. lawman800

    lawman800 Juris Glocktor

    I couldn't read more than halfway due to the gagging and the reflexive instinct to throw my laptop off a cliff.

    Is this what our country has come to after 200+ years of freedom? Loretta King saying that Blacks have to vote Democrat or else they are deprived?

    Do they realize they are just saying Blacks have no free will and only know the party vote? It's them, the DOJ, who are the ones who are racist here. Low voter turnout is a voluntary action of the voter, not party affiliation.

    Ack... forget it, I don't want to be banned or put on a DOJ watchlist. Those bastages....
  17. Hack

    Hack Crazy CO Gold Member

    Loretta King has fallen far from what her father represented, IMO.
  18. lawman800

    lawman800 Juris Glocktor

    IMHO, nobody in his family carried on his legacy and did honor to his name. They were too busy fighting over his estate and what money they can get out of the King legacy.
  19. ronduke


    Jan 24, 2007
    Next week, Attorney General Eric Holder will speak at a banquet featuring the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism financing case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.
  20. What I'd Like to know is how come the DOJ investigation into Gov Bill Richards (Gov D-NM) being on the take/influence peddling locally in NM suddenly vanished? Some higher up just canned that investigation.

    If Holder ordered that investigation to cease (either alone or from orders on high) thats pretty explosive. Makes the Black Panther circus look minor league.