Of course another suit in Michigan resulted in this law being upheld, so we are getting a split in the circuits. I will say honestly I have not even read the whole decision yet, but I will and if I have any special insight, I will share it. For now, I just want to make it easier for you to find the decision, if you are inclined to read it.
The Washington Times editors and the bloggers at PowerLine are concerned that the major media aren’t interested in the New Black Panther case, which they find odd since it involves one of the media’s favorite creatures — a whistleblower. (The problem is he’s a conservative.) Fortunately, though, the Civil Rights Commission is interested:
“As voters were casting the ballots that elected America’s first black president in November 2008, a troubling incident occurred outside a polling place in North Philadelphia, the Justice Department later contended.
There, two members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense hurled racial threats and insults at black and white voters, federal prosecutors in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division alleged in a complaint accusing the group and three members of violating the federal Voting Rights Act.
The prosecutors later won a default judgment against Minister King Samir Shabazz, whom they identified as leader of the Philadelphia chapter, and sought dismissal of charges against the organization and two other members.
Now, one of the prosecutors, J. Christian Adams, has resigned from the Justice Department amid a widening flap over the case. He said he was scheduled to testify Tuesday before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission in an investigation over dismissal of the charges.”
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has posted on its home page a press release regarding Adams’ testimony scheduled for this Tuesday, July 6th. (Click on “Hearing Scheduled for July 6, 2010, 9:30 a.m. EDT” under Commission Investigations.) Also posted are numerous documents in the New Black Panther Investigation.
UPDATE 7/6/2010:Pajamas Media reports former DOJ attorneys have come forward to support Adams. In addition, in his testimony before the Civil Rights Commission today, Adams described the Voting Rights Section as lawless.
Four Christians were reportedly jailed last Friday at a Dearborn, MI, Arab festival:
“Police in the heavily Arab Detroit suburb of Dearborn say they arrested four Christian missionaries for disorderly conduct at an Arab cultural festival.”
The link above goes to Hot Air where the post states the Christians were handing out literature. The BlogProf says he has corresponded with one of the arrested men who also attended last year’s Dearborn festival, and he apparently claims they weren’t even doing that:
I received this note from David Wood of Answering Muslims:
Muslims threatened to kill Nabeel and me if we showed up again at Arab Fest in Dearborn, so we went there yesterday. They didn’t kill us. Instead, police arrested us and we got to spend a night in jail (along with two others who were video recording us). Interesting city. I feel a documentary coming on. Title: “Welcome to Dearborn.”
Is it now illegal to preach Christianity in Dearborn, Michigan? Have Sharia rules been imposed there?
David added in a later note:
Yes, we’re banned from handing out literature, but we didn’t do that. We followed the rules, and still got thrown in jail. They flat out lied about us. We can prove they lied with the video footage (just like last year), but the police took our cameras and won’t let us have the footage. There’s major oppression of anyone who criticizes Islam.”
I’d like to hear more from the police because this sounds like the arrests were made based on trumped-up disorderly conduct charges. If so, a lawsuit and court order might convince the Dearborn police not to pick the easy way out. Frankly, though, I hope there is a better explanation because it shouldn’t be this easy to get Americans to put the Sharia way over U.S. Constitutional law.
The University of California at Irvine has recommended a Muslim student group be suspended for one year.
UC President Mark Yudof said he played no role in the decision, while UC Irvine Law School President Erwin Chemerinsky was supportive, saying: “Given the seriousness of the offense, I think it’s completely appropriate to suspend them for a year.” Meanwhile, Jewish groups were heartened by the suspension, calling it a victory against hate speech, and Muslim students claimed it unfairly punished the group for the actions of a few.
Although both groups want to portray this in ways that promote their views, I think this is what most colleges do with a school organization that knowingly breaks the law. It’s no different than suspending a fraternity for intentional hazing. It’s not the speech or the arrests that got the Muslim student group in hot water; It’s that the arrests resulted from an intentional, coordinated decision by the group.
The Obama Administration claims a new email shows Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan did not thwart military recruiting at Harvard Law School because military recruiters were allowed to interview through another organization. They argue that even though Kagan banned military recruiters from using the HLS Office of Career Services — the office designed and funded to help potential employers schedule interviews with students — Kagan should be forgiven for denying military recruiters those services because they had access through another venue.
If that shows how fair Kagan is, I’m interested in her position on America’s ‘separate but equal’ laws.
In 2008, the City of Philadelphia was sued by a local Boy Scout organization over City threats to end a $1-a-year lease of city property improved substantially by the Boy Scouts. The basis for terminating the lease is the Boy Scout’s policy refusing membership to gays.
The attorney for the local Boy Scout group argued the City is using its leverage over the property to force the local group to renounce the Boy Scouts’ national policy toward gays. Instead of making it an argument about homosexuality, however, the local group is apparently trying to walk a fine line between abiding by the national policy and serving local Boy Scouts. Thus, the local group’s first witness will be a former director who struggled with conflicting demands. On the other hand, the City’s first witness is an Eagle Scout who was forced out after announcing he was gay.
One interesting aspect of the case is that the local Boy Scout group sued first, in anticipation of having its lease terminated by the City. Thus, the local group will present its case and the City will respond as defendant.
“So, let’s sum this up: A caravan of SEIU buses receive a Metropolitan (D.C.) Police Department escort to a private home in Maryland where the protesters, from all appearances, violate Montgomery County law by engaging in a stationary protest. The Montgomery County police were not informed by their cross-jurisdictional colleagues of the impending, unusually large protest pending in their jurisdiction.
What’s up with that? Had the mob decided to torch the house, the D.C. police would not have been authorized to intervene. Not their jurisdiction. They’re just escorts. Meanwhile, a teenage boy is home alone, frightened by what’s happening outside his front door.
There’s something very wrong with this picture.”
DC Police escort 500 protesters to a Maryland citizen’s home? That’s not right.
Last week, the Austin, Texas, City Council joined the Arizona boycott. I didn’t mention it at the time because, let’s face it, the liberal side of Austin is just a blip in the political world. However, apparently they are astroturfing blips:
“While the Austin city council has likely not read the bill — and neither has the White House — Barack Obama’s political organizing group has decided to take action to defend Austin’s boycott. Will they actually read the bill? Are they scheduling protests? Not exactly. In an e-mail from Organizing for America that went out last night (and provided to us by a reader), OfA announces an Astroturf campaign to flood the newspaper with letters supporting the boycott.”
At the link, Hot Air has more information on the Astroturfing effort. Meanwhile, everyday Texans are writing letters opposed to the Austin City Council’s boycott and calling for their own boycotts of Austin.