In Praise Of Holder And Obama

These racists love Holder and Obama because Holder and Obama love them back.

Video: New Black Panthers grateful to Holder for ‘payback time’

Leaders of the New Black Panther Party express joy in a newly available video that Attorney General Eric Holder tolerated their voter-intimidation activities and dropped a case against them.

In the video below, Malik Shabazz, president of the New Black Panther Party, explains at a NBPP meeting why New Black Panthers were sent to polling places with batons. His comments include some jokes, as when he cracked to members “You know we don’t carry batons…. PSYCHE! I’m just playin’.” Shabazz goes on to explain that his brother got a pass from the Obama Justice Department because “Justice Department leadership changed into the hands of a black man by the name of Eric Holder.” Good to know.

J. Christian Adams, the Department of Justice attorney who resigned because the Department of Justice would neither prevent nor allow him to testify on the case, did note that some people in the DOJ “argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation. Less charitable individuals called it ‘payback time.’”‘

Adams also testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that he “I was told by Voting Section management that cases are not going to be brought against black defendants [for] the benefit of white victims.”

See also:
New Black Panther Party President Admits to Philadelphia Voter Intimidation; Holder’s Justice Department Still Silent
Karl Rove on Black Panther Case: White House ‘Thumbing Its Nose’ at Voter Rights
Holder’s Justice Department has a racism issue
The Racism Of King Samir Shabazz And The New Black Panther Party (Video)
New Black Panther Leader Defends Group in Voter Intimidation Case
Rethinking the New Black Panther case
Back Channels: Panther case dismissal needs explanation
Holder’s Black Panther Shame
King Shamir Shabazz, Whom Attorney General Eric Holder Let Off the Hook, Wants to Kill White Babies
Former DOJ Attorney Alleges “Lawlessness” in Civil Rights Division
Holder’s Justice Is Not Colorblind
Listen to the hateful, violent words from Black Panther being shielded by Obama (w/shocking video)
Ugly in any color

Racial Motive Alleged in a Justice Dept. Decision
“Megyn Kelly: ‘Racist Media Satan'”
Obama Justice Is Willfully Blind
It’s Not A Crime, It’s Effective Community Organizing!

Let’s recap, the New Black Panther Party is every bit as vile and virulently racist as the Ku Klux Klan. The Obama/Holder Justice Department intervened to protect the New Black Panther Party. Why is that?

/so much for the “post racial Presidency”, can you just imagine what would have happened if the Bush Justice Department had intervened to protect the Ku Klux Klan?

Seven Days, Three Stories, One Obama Appointee/Terrorist Sympathizer

It all started out innocently enough last Saturday, that is, of course, if you think the United States actually needs a special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Obama names U.S. envoy to Islamic Conference

President Obama announced Saturday the appointment of Rashad Hussain, a White House lawyer, to be his special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Obama made the announcement in a video conference to the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar. In his message, Obama called Hussain “an accomplished lawyer and a close and trusted member of my White House staff,” who would strengthen his policy of outreach to the world’s Muslims.

Then reporters, apparently unlike the White House vetters, started digging into Rashad Hussain’s background.

Obama’s Islamic Envoy Quoted Defending Man Charged With Aiding Terrorists

President Obama’s new envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference, Rashad Hussain, is at the center of a controversy over remarks attributed to him defending a man who later pleaded guilty to conspiring to aid a terrorist group.

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs quoted Hussain in 2004 as calling Sami al-Arian the victim of “politically motivated persecutions” after al-Arian, a university professor, was charged in 2003 with heading U.S. operations of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The United States has designated the Palestinian Islamic Jihad as a foreign terrorist group as far back as 1997. At the time of al-Arian’s arrest, then Attorney General John Ashcroft called it “one of the most violent terrorist organizations in the world.”

Al-Arian pleaded guilty in 2006 to conspiracy to aid Palestinian Islamic Jihad and was sentenced to more than four years in prison.

Sounds bad for Hussain right? Never fear, when confronted with this disturbing sympathy for an admitted terrorist conspirator, the White House immediately rolled out story number one.

The White House says the controversial remarks defending al-Arian two years earlier were made by his daughter — not by Hussain. Both were part of a panel discussion at a Muslim Students Association conference, but the reporter covering the event told Fox News she stands by the quotes she attributed to Hussain, who was a Yale Law student and an editor of the Yale Law Journal.

The Web version of the 2004 article in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs was later edited to delete all of Hussain’s comments. Editor Delinda Hanley told Fox News she believes the change was made in February 2009, though she does not recall who requested the edit.

Hanley remembered telling the group’s webmaster: “Let’s just take out the quotes since they have been attributed to the wrong speaker.”

Someone’s obviously lying. So, when the reporter refused to back down, out comes story number two.

He Said, She Said

Late Tuesday a White House official spoke with Hussain and confirmed to Fox News that Hussain did attend the 2004 event. The official says Hussain went with plans to discuss civil rights in the wake of 9/11, but remembers the conversation turning to Sami al-Arian’s case. According to the White House official, Hussain has “no recollection” as to whether or not he made the comments attributed to him.

We’ve now gone from flat out denial to a non-denial denial, he just can’t remember. But wait, there’s more, we’re not done yet, there are actual audio tapes and transcripts that exist! Cue up story number three.

President’s Envoy to Islamic Conference Admits Having Made Controversial ’04 Remarks

Presented with a transcript of his remarks at a 2004 conference, Rashad Hussain, President Obama’s nominee to be special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, issued a statement Friday evening acknowledging having criticized the U.S. government’s case against Sami Al-Arian, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to conspiracy to aid Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Originally, the White House claimed that Hussain denied having made the comments, attributing them instead to Al-Arian’s daughter, Laila.

But Politico’s Josh Gerstein obtained an audiotape of the remarks, in which Hussain said that Al-Arian’s case was one of many “politically motivated persecutions.”

On Friday evening, Hussain admitted having made them and the White House backed off its insistence that Hussain hadn’t made the comments, though both noted that he did so in the context of disagreeing with the way the government pursued the case against Al-Arian, making clear not to address the specific criminal charges.

“As a law student six years ago, I spoke on the topic of civil liberties on a panel during which I responded to comments made about the al-Arian case by Laila al-Arian who was visibly saddened by charges against her father,” Hussain said in a statement. “I made clear at the time that I was not commenting on the allegations themselves. The judicial process has now concluded, and I have full faith in its outcome.”

Hussain, currently in the White House counsel’s office, said, “I made statements on that panel that I now recognize were ill-conceived or not well-formulated.”

Busted! Now, will Hussain be thrown under the bus where he belongs?

See also:
Islam envoy retreats on terror talk
Obama Envoy Admits ‘Ill Conceived’ Remarks Defending Terror Suspect
Obama OIC envoy designate admits to improper remarks in defending terror suspect
Obama OIC envoy designate admits to improper remarks in defending terror suspect
Cal Thomas: Who is Rashad Hussain?
Should We Believe Rashad Hussain?
The case of Rashad Hussain
The case of Rashad Hussain, part 2
Rashad Hussain’s Troubling Ties
Is White House Attorney Involved in Media Cover-up?
Questions for America’s New OIC Envoy Rashad Hussain
Event Attended by Obama’s Muslim Envoy Was Held by Group With Troubling Views, Ties
Pro-jihadist Rashad Hussain: Obama appointee’s connection to Soros

Is it just me or does it seem like pretty much everyone Obama appoints is some kind of anti-American radical or political miscreant?

/it’s really hard to believe that the Obama White House vetting process is this inept and ineffective, they have to know these peoples’ backgrounds and yet they appoint them anyway, because they’re fellow travelers

Is The Obama Administration Insane Or Just Mind Numbingly Stupid?

Let’s see, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of the world’s worst terrorists, has already confessed to masterminding 9/11 and tried to plead guilty multiple times to a military commission at Guantanamo Bay. Now, most right thinking people would say, fine, let the scumbag plead guilty, execute him, and be done with it. But nooo, not the Obama Administration, that’s too easy, Eric Holder has a better idea.

New York trial for 9/11 suspects

Alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is to be sent from Guantanamo Bay to New York for trial in a civilian court, the US has confirmed.

Attorney General Eric Holder said he would be transferred from the US prison camp in Cuba with four other suspects.

Mr Mohammed has admitted planning the 9/11 attacks, the US military says.

The move is part of US President Barack Obama’s effort to close Guantanamo, but some relatives of 9/11 victims say they oppose a federal court trial.

Responsibility for the case will go to the Southern District of New York, with proceedings taking place near Ground Zero.

The five men have until now been facing prosecution at US military commissions in Guantanamo. The government had faced a 16 November deadline to decide how to proceed in their cases.

Speaking in Tokyo ahead of Mr Holder’s announcement, Mr Obama said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would face “most exacting demands of justice”.

Bringing al-Qaeda to New York

Candidate Barack Obama urged a return to pre-9/11 counterterrorism-by-courts. President Obama’s Justice Department overflows with lawyers who spent the last eight years representing America’s enemies. Thus, Friday’s announcement that top al-Qaeda terrorists will be brought to New York City for a civilian trial is no surprise. That doesn’t make it any less inexcusable.

The treatment of jihadist terror as a mere law-enforcement issue, fit for civilian courts, was among the worst of the national-security derelictions of the Nineties. While the champions of this approach stress that prosecutors scored a 100 percent conviction rate, they conveniently omit mention of the paltry number of cases (less than three dozen, mostly against low-level terrorists, over an eight-year period, despite numerous attacks), as well as the rigorous due-process burdens that made prosecution of many terrorists impossible, the daunting disclosure and witness-confrontation rules that required government to disclose mountains of intelligence, the gargantuan expense of “hardening” courthouses and prisons to protect juries and judges, and the terrorists’ exploitation of legal privileges to plot additional attacks and escape attempts.

In placing the nation on a war footing after the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration invoked the laws of war to detain terrorists as enemy combatants and to try those who had committed provable war crimes by military commission — measures that were endorsed by Congress despite being challenged in the courts by some of the lawyers now working in Obama’s Justice Department. This military-commission system provided due-process protections that were unprecedented for wartime enemies, including the right to appellate review in the civilian courts. But they protected national-defense information from disclosure.

This commission system is tailor-made for the 9/11 plotters, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suicide-hijacking mastermind who is brazen in taking credit for that and numerous other attacks against the United States. In fact, last December, KSM and his four co-defendants indicated to the military judge that they wanted to plead guilty and move on to execution. But then the Obama administration swept into power and undertook to repudiate many of Bush’s counterterrorism practices, declaring its intention to close Gitmo within a year and forcing a moratorium on military commissions so the process could be “studied.” Friday’s announcement that KSM and the other 9/11 plotters will be sent to federal court in New York for a civilian trial is the most significant step to date in Obama’s determination to turn back the clock to the time when government believed subpoenas rather than Marines were the answer to jihadist murder and mayhem.

It is difficult to quantify how dangerously foolish this course is. As they demonstrated in offering to plead guilty while bragging about their atrocities, KSM and his cohorts don’t want a trial so much as they want a soapbox to press their grievances against the United States and the West. With no real defense to the charges, they will endeavor to put America on trial, pressing the court for expansive discovery of government intelligence files. Having gratuitously exposed classified information on interrogation tactics and other sensitive matters in order to pander to Obama’s base, the Justice Department will be in a poor position to argue against broad disclosure, even if it were so inclined. As the court orders more and more revelations, potential intelligence sources and foreign spy services will develop even graver doubts about our capacity to keep secrets. They will reduce their intelligence cooperation accordingly, and the nation will be dramatically more vulnerable.

Moreover, the transfer of the worst al-Qaeda prisoners into the U.S. will grease the skids for many, if not most, of the remaining 200-plus Gitmo terrorists to be moved here. This will be the worst of all possible outcomes. These are trained terrorists who have been detained under the laws of war, but most of whom cannot be tried because the intelligence on them cannot be used in court. We are still holding them because they are deadly dangerous and because no other country is willing to take them off our hands. Once inside the United States, they will indisputably be within the jurisdiction of the federal courts — which are staffed by judges predisposed against wartime detention without trial. As long as the terrorists were at Gitmo, those judges were reluctant to order them released into the U.S. — a transfer that would violate federal law. If the terrorists are already here, though, judges will not be as gun-shy. Inevitably, some will be freed to live and plot among us.

The Obama Left delusionally argues that running these risks will make us safer. The international community will see how enlightened we are, the fable goes. The hostility of America’s enemies will melt away. They’ll lay down their bombs and stop attacking us. As observed by former attorney general Michael Mukasey — who presided over terrorism cases as a federal judge — “We did just that after the first World Trade Center bombing, after the plot to blow up airliners over the Pacific, and after the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. In return, we got the 9/11 attacks and the murder of nearly 3,000 innocents.”

So Now Khalid Sheikh Mohammad Is A 9/11 “Suspect”

Team Obama has to postpone these trials until after the 2010 elections or this will go down as the biggest “own-goal” of the century millenium.

See also:
New York to host terror trial
9/11 suspects face New York trial
9/11 mastermind, 4 others to face trial in New York
Strong reaction to announcement of 9/11 trial in New York court
9/11 Plotters Trial Divides New York
Reaction Mixed as Alleged 9/11 Mastermind Will Face Trial in New York
UPDATE 1-New York split over plan to try Sept. 11 plotters
Families of 9/11 victims divided over decision to hold trial in New York
Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani disagree on trials
9/11 comes full circle in New York City
Why Bring KSM to the United States?
The Worst Decision by a US President in History
Justice Denied
9/11 mastermind, 4 others to face trial in New York
Holder in the dock as critics focus on New York 9/11 terror trial
U.S. Republicans blast Obama decision on Gitmo
Mukasey Fears Attacks on New York During Trial of 9/11 Defendants
Mukasey: ‘very high’ risk of attack over NYC 9/11 trial
The World’s Worst Al Qaeda Terrorists, Coming Soon To A U.S. City Near You

So, instead of quietly letting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed plead guilty and executing his terrorist ass, we’re going to drop him onto U.S. soil in New York for a public spectacle. And, make no mistake about, it, once card carrying ACLU defense attorneys get a hold of this case in Federal court, it will become a circus, a crusade against the policies of the Bush administration. A trial in civilian court will drag on for years, cost millions of taxpayer dollars, cause untold security headaches, endanger American lives, embarrass the U.S. government, disclose classified information, hamper ongoing intelligence operations, give aid and comfort to the enemy, etc., etc.

For what? The Obama administration has already hinted that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will never go free, even if aqitted. So what’s the point of conducting a sham civilian show trial where the outcome is already predetermined? There is absolutely no upside to this stunt, other than to pantomime the boneheaded and discredited liberal ideal that terrorism is a law enforcement problem, rather than warfare against Western civilization.

/seriously, sometimes I think people in the Obama administration stay up late at night thinking, how can we best screw up America tomorrow?

When Seven Former CIA Directors Tell You You’re Drunk, You’d Better Lie Down

Ex-CIA Chiefs Decry Holder Interrogator Probe in Letter to Obama

Seven former directors of the Central Intelligence Agency on Friday urged President Obama to reverse Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to hold a criminal investigation of CIA interrogators who used enhanced techniques on detainees.

The directors, whose tenures span back as far as 35 years, wrote a letter to the president saying the cases have already been investigated by the CIA and career prosecutors, and to reconsider those decisions makes it difficult for agents to believe they can safely follow legal guidance.

“Attorney General Holder’s decision to re-open the criminal investigation creates an atmosphere of continuous jeopardy for those whose cases the Department of Justice had previously declined to prosecute,” they wrote.

“Those men and women who undertake difficult intelligence assignments in the aftermath of an attack such as September 11 must believe there is permanence in the legal rules that govern their actions,” the seven added.

The letter was signed by former directors Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet, John Deutch, R. James Woolsey, William Webster and James R. Schlesinger.

. . .

in their letter to Obama, the directors wrote that not only is there a significant personal burden put on agents forced to defend themselves, “but this approach will seriously damage the willingness of many other intelligence officers to take risks to protect the country.”

They added that the president has the authority to decide which legal recommendations to permit for interrogation methods, but at no time is public disclosure helpful for intelligence officers trying to protect the U.S. from further attacks.

The directors also warned that if the investigations are opened up, they fear that the assistance given to the United States by foreign intelligence agencies may jeopardize future cooperation.

“Foreign services are already greatly concerned about the United States’ inability to maintain any secrets. They rightly fear that, through these additional investigations and the court proceedings that could follow, terrorists may learn how other countries came to our assistance in a time of peril,” they wrote. “As a result of the zeal on the part of some to uncover every action taken in the post-9/11 period, many countries may decide that they can no longer safely share intelligence or cooperate with us on future counter-terrorist operations.

See also:
Text of Letter (PDF)
Ex-CIA chiefs seek halt to interrogations probe
Former CIA Chiefs Ask Obama to Stop CIA Probe
Former C.I.A. Chiefs Protest Justice Inquiry of Interrogation Methods
Ex-CIA chiefs urge Obama to drop abuse investigation
CIA chiefs: Obama’s partisan witch hunt will compromise national defense
Former CIA chiefs promote a cover-up
Holder Declares War On The CIA

Let’s recap, these imnterrogations were already thoroughly investigated years ago by carreer prosecutors. Reopening these investigations will demoralize CIA employees, devestate morale at the agency, and compromise national security. Foreign intelligence agencies will be hesitant to cooperate with the CIA for fear any resulting U.S. legal proceedings will reveal their sources and methods.

/in light of this letter from 35 years worth of CIA directors that was delivered today, it should be a no-brainer for Obama to do the right thing and end Holder’s investigaton, but seeing as how we’ve gotten to this point in the first place, I have my serious doubts that the welfare of the United States will be Obama’s first priority