Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
01-11-2014, 10:22 AM #1
OBAMA DOJ NOMINEE EVASIVE ON WHETHER AMNESTY A 'CIVIL RIGHT'
OBAMA DOJ NOMINEE EVASIVE ON WHETHER AMNESTY A 'CIVIL RIGHT'
by TONY LEE
10 Jan 2014
During Wednesday's Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearing, President Barack Obama's nominee to be Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights refused to answer whether he believes that amnesty is a civil right, which is the belief of the person who may be his boss – Attorney General Eric Holder.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) read what Holder told the Mexican American Legal and Education Fund last year in his questioning:
Sessions then questioned nominee Debo Adegbile about whether he believed illegal immigrants had a "civil right to citizenship in America."
Creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country is essential. The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented – by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows – transcends the issue of immigration status. This is a matter of civil and human rights. It is about who we are as a nation. And it goes to the core of our treasured American principle of equal opportunity.
After Adegbile deflected the question, Sessions asked him again if he agreed with Holder about whether illegal immigrants had "a civil right to citizenship in America."
Adegbile responded by saying he was "just hearing this statement now" and said he believed that "in certain circumstances" those who "are vulnerable or not properly documented can be preyed upon because of their status," and "there are certain circumstances in which such people would need the protection of law enforcement" so that their rights are not violated under the Constitution.
Sessions then quoted Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Commission, who said comparing amnesty to the civil rights movement is an "incoherent" understanding of a movement in which law-abiding black citizens were not seeking exemption from law but the application of the laws in the manner which they were applied to whites.
When asked if Adegbile agreed with that statement, he simply answered that, if confirmed, he would give "fidelity" to the law and "enforce the laws as they are given by this Senate and the House of Representatives and duly signed by the president."
<span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.4;
01-12-2014, 08:49 AM #2
Debo Adegbile Is No John Adams
January 11th, 2014 - 6:18 am
J. Christian Adams
A smiling and smarmy Hilary Shelton of the NAACP took to The Kelly File last night to compare Debo Adegbile to John Adams. Adegbile is President Obama’s radical nominee to head the Justice Department Civil Rights Division. While at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Adegbile oversaw the inexcusable defense of cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, among other radical policies.
Shelton and other NAACP officials are trying to repair the endangered nomination by comparing Debo Adegbile to John Adams. Adams, you see, represented British solider Hugh White who fired into the crowd in Boston, killing Americans. Adams took on the unpopular representation at White’s criminal trial.
Nice try, Hilary, but Debo Adegbile is no John Adams.
While everyone has a constitutional right to a court appointed lawyer for trial, the NAACP’s representation of Mumia isn’t even close.
I was on Fox and Friends this morning to talk about the differences:
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-family: Verdana">
Mumia had been convicted and represented by counsel at his trial decades earlier. The NAACP was involved in a federal habeus corpus challenge to his conviction thirty years later. This was a civil case, not a criminal one. At this stage of court proceedings, there is no constitutional right to counsel. This is particularly so when a murderer loses before the federal trial court, and appeals an adverse decision. Adams, in contrast, was representing White at the first stage of a criminal proceeding where we now believe the accused has a fundamental right to court appointed counsel.
But there are bigger and more toxic distinctions between John Adams and Debo Adegbile.
If John Adams appeared at rallies for the British against the colonists and talked about how proud he was to represent a British solider, the comparison might be more accurate. That’s exactly what NAACP lawyers working for Debo Adegbile did. (Video here.)
Adams was content to keep his work inside the courtroom, making sure that Hugh White enjoyed a fair criminal trial where all the rights of Englishmen were respected. Adegbile presided over a racially toxic campaign to discredit American law enforcement officers as racist.
That’s why the Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement organizations are against his confirmation.
Had John Adams appeared before the king’s governor and complained about his cousin Sam Adams, and how John was on the side of the king in the larger battle of ideas between England and her colonies, the Shelton’s comparison would be apt. But John Adams did no such thing.
The NAACP, however, took on the Mumia case because it believed in his broad cause and his complaints about a structurally racist American justice system. The NAACP lawyers, including Adegbile, took on Mumia’s cause as their own. They did not merely provide fair representation inside the courtroom. The NAACP took their crusade outside the courtroom.
If Adams had adopted the Tory cause outside the courtroom and lashed out at the insanity of the colonists, Shelton’s comparison would be true. Had Adams crusaded against the American colonists on the streets of Boston, Shelton would have a point. But he didn’t. Adams was a patriot.
And what did the NAACP LDF do outside the courtroom? They peddled the corrosive and divisive notion that police departments around the country are infested with bigots and racists. This explained, you see, why Mumia was wrongly convicted in the pervasively racist Philadelphia. They incorporated Mumia’s grievances against America as their own.
The NAACP took Mumia’s case because they agreed with what Mumia was saying about structural racism in America. The NAACP was charmed by Mumia’s celebrity status among the left, and the NAACP fundraised off of it.
Rep. John Conyers calling for the release of Mumia.
John Adams suffered financially from his representation of Hugh White. The NAACP grabbed cash from all the crackpots who think Mumia was framed.
Which raises an important question Hilary Shelton and Debo Adegbile ought to answer: do you think Mumia did it? Maybe someone can ask them.
John Adams knew that Hugh White fired into the crowd. Adams represented him when nobody else would to make sure White got a fair trial, not to spring a cold-blooded killer free. But that is exactly what the NAACP LDF still aims to do — to “Free Mumia,” as tens of thousands of racialist leftists have been chanting for decades.
The “Free Mumia” crackpots have petitioned Eric Holder for action. Celebrities and elected officials have called for the murderer to be released from prison. And the NAACP LDF is still seeking that outcome. Mumia has become an organizing fulcrum for the racialist left.
So there was no shortage of lawyers who would help Mumia. The NAACP injected themselves thirty years after Mumia’s conviction because they sympathized with his cause. They crave a piece of the Mumia action.
That’s what disqualifies Debo Adegbile from serving in the United States Department of Justice. It says all you need to know about his attitude toward the American justice system, police officers everywhere, and what he will be inclined to do to police departments once he has the power to investigate them for federal civil rights violations.
UPDATE: The official Twitter feed of the cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal attacked the widow of officer Danny Faulkner for appearing on The Kelly File this week.
Mumia asks for donations in a tweet. No word if the NAACP Legal Defense Fund will get any donations received.
02-15-2014, 05:36 PM #3
American Bar Association: All-In Leftists
by J. Christian Adams
February 14th, 2014 - 12:13 pm
Many folks don’t know that the once-credible American Bar Association has gone all-in with the institutional left. Even some lawyers don’t know. Even some lawyers who are ABA members don’t know!
But thanks to the Federalist Society, we are treated to the Bar Watch Bulletin that catalogs the ideological drift of the ABA. The latest issue is out, and is full of parody, bias and more than one reason for mainstream American lawyers to end their memberships with the ABA.
ABA President James Silkenat delivered a doozy of a speech at the mid-year ABA meeting. The Federalist Society always catalogs the ideological shenanigans at ABA events. Silkenat didn’t disappoint. In is speech he used the familiar left-wing tactic of making an ideological and partisan statement, and saying it wasn’t ideological and partisan. From the Federalist Society:
ABA President James Silkenat addressed voting rights and gun violence in his remarks to the ABA House of Delegates on Monday, February 10.
Silkenat warned the House, “Voting rights in the United States are clearly under attack. Whether you agree or disagree with the Citizens United and Shelby County decisions, it is easy to see how our democracy can be undercut by rules and regulatory practices aimed at limiting full and fair voter participation. This is not a partisan issue.”
He announced that the theme for Law Day this year is “American Democracy and the Rule of Law: Why Every Vote Matters.” According to the ABA’s Law Day webpage: “Much of the struggle on voting rights began decades ago, but the work is far from complete, and a citizen’s right to cast a ballot remains at risk today.” One feature on the website asked for analysis of this political cartoon which illustrates voter ID laws and early voting curbs as obstacles in the reflecting pool under a sign stating “Wipeout Voter Fraud.”
Silkenat also discussed gun control. Choking up, he declared, “I am still heartsick that Congress was unable to respond to the tragedy that took place in Newtown. I have a farm not too far from there and know how the families involved have been destroyed by the loss of their children. But Congress failed to prevent these tragedies in the future. Many members of Congress seem more interested in their approval rating from the gun lobby than in protecting the safety of their constituents.” He emphasized, “The ABA does not get involved in politics. As an organization, we do not support political candidates.
This would be laugh-filled parody if so many lawyers weren’t hoodwinked by the pedigree of the ABA. Notice how the ABA throws itself all-in with the anti-Second Amendment left and the voter-fraud deniers who seek to erode election integrity, all the while claiming that they aren’t acting in a partisan way.
Healthcare isn’t a partisan issue. Federal control over elections isn’t a partisan issue. Guns aren’t a partisan issue. Except these days, they are all partisan issues. The way partisans get what they want is by telling you that what they want isn’t a partisan issue. ABA leaders believe so deeply in things like gun control, federalized elections and race preferences that they can’t imagine any disagreement.
The ABA is run by a bunch of zealots. The Washington, D.C., staff is even worse.
Who will be leading the ABA next year? FedSoc has the answer:
The ABA nominated Paulette Brown of Edwards Wilman in Morristown as its President-Elect for 2014-15. Brown will be the first African-American woman to head the ABA. She has donated both to President Barack Obama and Senator Cory Booker. Patricia Lee Refo was nominated as Chairman of the House of Delegates for a two-year term beginning in August 2014. She is a partner in the Phoenix office of Snell & Wilmer. In the last four years, Refo has donated to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the DNC Services Corp., the Democratic Party of Arizona, President Barack Obama, and several Democratic Congressional candidates.
The midwinter meeting was full of highlights betraying the biases of the ABA. What do the Olympics have to do with practicing law? From FedSoc:
The ABA Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity was one of the 11 prime sponsors of the Midyear Meeting program. The Commission sponsored a CLE program on Russia’s laws on homosexuality and how these laws affected the Olympics. The ABA also honored seven lawyers with its 2014 Spirit of Excellence awards, presented by its Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Profession.
The ABA is also agitating to require law schools to impose a 50 hour pro-bono service requirement for all graduates. The reason the ABA is keen to do this is because most of the pro-bono infrastructure is aimed at left-wing causes – race issues, economic justice issues, plaintiff’s work and so on. Forcing students to devote 50 hours to “pro bono” work will mean, on balance, more free labor for the left. They want law students to help them march through more institutions.
Naturally race played a big role at the ABA meeting, and FedSoc covered it. The “scandal” involves disparate bar passage rates and whether they are racially discriminatory.
An earlier and more stringent proposal to raise the passage rate to 80% within two years of graduation also failed to gain traction after the National Bar Association and the Society of American Law Teachers argued that it would have “dire consequences on law schools with racially diverse populations.” Similar concerns were expressed regarding proposed elimination of the alternative 15-point threshold. Although the decision to hold off on tightening the bar passage requirement was unanimous, at least one member indicated that the Committee did so “while holding its collective nose.”
This issue of ABA Watch is one in a long line of bad behavior by the ABA. The ABA recently supported the nomination of the radical Debo Adegbile.
If you are moderate or conservative lawyer reading this and belong to the ABA, ask yourself why. Is it the life insurance they offer? Perhaps the occasional CLE seminar? Practice tips?
Guess what — all of those things are available elsewhere. The Federalist Society, for example, offers loads of CLE credits a year. State bar associations provide life insurance options. And in the age of the internet, you don’t need a monthly glossy magazine from the ABA to tell you how to practice law. Simply, there is no reason for anyone except a leftist lawyer to belong to the ABA. The ABA ain’t what it used to be, and unless you agree with their radicalizing agenda, there is no reason for you to send them your money.
03-08-2014, 03:51 PM #4
Finally, One Obama Radical Bites the Dust
March 7, 2014 - 4:38 AM
By David Limbaugh
This week, the Senate, by a slim margin assured by opportunist Democrats up for re-election, rejected the nomination of Debo Adegbile, another radical Obama nominee, to head the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.
The feckless Democratic senators who broke ranks with his royalness are probably responding to the latest polling data showing that Obama has reached his all-time low for job performance approval. The Fox News poll found that just 38 percent approve of the president's job performance and that 54 percent disapprove. Prior to this poll, his worst rating was 40/55 percent in November 2013.
I happen to believe that Democrats are going to get a drubbing like they haven't seen for years, possibly even worse than 2010, because of Obama and despite the intramural struggles within the Republican Party.
For multiple reasons, Obama's disastrous performance hasn't backfired on him directly — apparently typical of his whole life of taking credit for meager achievements and avoiding responsibility for his failures. But though he manages to always be out of the room when blame is being assessed, he still sports long reverse coattails, such as in 2010, which was a referendum on him personally, largely because of Obamacare.
Back then, Obamacare was just a gazillion-page bill on a blackboard waiting to be implemented by bureaucratic vultures hovering over the dying body politic of freedom. Now it is a live parasite choking the life out of our health care system and squeezing dry our checkbooks. Even if Obama gets a personal exemption for his unconscionable fundamental transformations, he is toxic for those associated with him.
We'll see whether this disingenuous dissent by a few Democratic senators to save their own skins will even work. If voters are smart, it won't, because these same people have enabled this man's dismantling of the American dream every step of the way and his radicalization of every department within his reach.
For radicalization is precisely what Obama's nomination of Adegbile was all about. Obama picked Adegbile to replace another radical, Tom Perez, who was confirmed as secretary of labor without one Republican vote.
One would think that the president of the United States, the nation's chief officer to ensure that our laws are faithfully executed, would at least pretend to have a passing interest in — or even a superficial loyalty to — law enforcement. But not this president. It apparently doesn't bother him at all that Adegbile went out of his way to go the extra mile on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal, who killed police officer Daniel Faulkner in cold blood in the presence of four witnesses in 1981 and later boasted about it.
It obviously didn't bother Obama that his brazenly controversial nomination outraged the law enforcement community and severely upset the victim's widow, Maureen, whose lobbying efforts against the nominee likely led to his narrow defeat.
For as soon as Obama got word that the legislative branch dared defy him, he issued a typically truculent statement, calling the rejection a "travesty based on wildly unfair character attacks against a good and qualified public servant." Obama's conjoined twin, Attorney General Eric Holder, added, "It is a very dangerous precedent to set for the legal profession when individual lawyers can have their otherwise sterling qualifications denigrated based solely on the clients that their organizations represent."
Sorry, Messrs. Obama and Holder, it's about way more than that. It's about your ongoing attempt to politicize the Justice Department with perhaps technically qualified lawyers but those who want to implement an agenda that grossly violates any commitment to partisan neutrality and justice. For decades, liberals have been infesting executive departments across the board with leftist activists trying to advance leftist policies through the misuse of their assigned positions.
Former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams wrote that Adegbile hails from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, a group dedicated to pushing "a radical racial agenda including attacks on election integrity measures, opposition to criminal background checks for hiring, and racial hiring quotas for state and local governments." Adams linked to a legal brief Adegbile filed on behalf of the Black Student Alliance at the University of Texas at Austin maintaining that a white applicant was rightly denied admission to the University of Texas School of Law simply because she is white.
This is where Obama is taking the country. This is what this nomination was about. The Senate's rejection of Adegbile sets no precedent about whom lawyers may represent, but Adegbile's voluntary and zealous representation of the convicted cop killer was not about defending the downtrodden. It was about aligning with a leftist cause celebre years after he was in legal jeopardy for a crime he committed — the glorification of someone who actually bragged about a coldblooded murder and became a hero of the wicked left.
I hope this is a portent of further setbacks for this in-your-face president.