The Justice Department will likely not bring any civil rights charges against Darren Wilson, the white police officer involved in the death of a black teenager, the New York Times reported Wednesday.
Mr. Wilson was exonerated by a grand jury last year of any charges in the altercation that led to the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.
The announcement sent off waves of protests and riots, with accusations that the local prosecutor’s office had deliberately led the grand jury to return a “no bill” that didn’t file any charges against the officer.
Many civil rights advocates had pinned their hopes on the Justice Department’s own investigation, saying they wanted the agency to file some kind of charge against Mr. Wilson, who has since resigned from the Ferguson police force.
Now, it looks as if that won’t happen, as The Times reported that federal prosecutors are drafting a memo that recommends no action be taken against Mr. Wilson.
Now how about the arrest and prosecution of the race racketeers who have tried to have Darren Wilson lynched for taking proper action against a thug who tried to take his gun and then, after attempting to flee the scene, turned around and charged the officer. After all, there are millions of dollars of property damage that is theie responsibility, and their demonstrably false claims about Darren Wilson have caused him immeasurable damage because of his race. Seems like there are great grounds for a civil rights prosecution against them.
I realize that the Dictator-in-Chief has no respect for the Constitution -- and certainly not for the other co-equal branches of government -- but his double-whammy attack on the Supreme Court and the First Amendment shows just how unfit he is to serve in any public office.
A day after snubbing liberal activists who were pushing for tougher campaign-finance regulations, President Obama took a swipe at the Supreme Court Wednesday for its “wrong” ruling five years ago on the issue.
“Five years ago, a Supreme Court ruling allowed big companies – including foreign corporations – to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “The Citizens United decision was wrong, and it has caused real harm to our democracy.”
I'm sorry -- I thought the First Amendment read as follows.
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Obama somehow got it into his head that this allows Congress to make laws limiting verbal or written communication on political matters or the use of money to facilitate engaging in such communication. The Supreme Court, looking at the text of the First Amendment, determined that said position is contrary to the clear meaning of that portion of the Bill of Rights. It is important to note that this came after the Obama Administration argued in court that the First Amendment gave the federal government the right to prohibit or punish the publication of books intended to influence the political views of Americans.
And let's not forget Obama's previous attack on the Citizens United decision -- and the malignant racism that was at the heart of Democrat advocacy of the practice of limiting political participation.
Justice Clarence Thomas is regularly attacked and denigrated by left-wingers who struggle with the notion that there can be an intelligent, educated black man who is capable of thinking for himself. Actually, I take that isn't quite right. I really ought to have put the period after "man". But so expansive is his knowledge of the law, the Constitution, and the history of both that he can pull this obscure point out of his judicial robes to point out just how pernicious the impulse to allow government to censor speech really is.He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.
“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”
It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”
Yeah, that is right. Barack Obama stood before the people of the United States and praised legislation introduced by a fellow Democrat who preceded him in the US Senate, one of the most vile enemies of African-Americans to ever serve in the United States Senate, a despicable man who owed his election to public office to his participation in an armed assault upon a body of black soldiers during Reconstruction and the lynching of several of these soldiers, and a dangerous demagogue who was censured for his physical assault of another Senator on the floor of the US Senate and barred from the White House over the incident. Indeed, an honest observer could rightly refer to the Tillman Act, lauded today by Obama and his fellow enemies of free speech, as the "Shut Up The N*gger-Lovers Act of 1907". If I were to construct a case to demonstrate the fundamental evil of allowing government to censor and silence disfavored speech, this piece of legislation that successfully silenced the voices of those who supported constitutional rights for all Americans would stand as Exhibit A in that effort.
So today we stand at a crossroads, faced with the choice between listening to a respected jurist as he defends the First Amendment and an adjunct law school faculty member (speaking far beyond his pay grade) to defend a Jim Crow law he finds politically advantageous to support.
“It can hardly be expected
that any Negro would
regret the death of
-- W.E.B. DuBois
What a pity that the first black man to sit in the Oval Office would use the occasion of his first State of the Union address to validate the life and work of a vile racist like "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman in an effort to undermine the Supreme Court and constrict the guarantee of free speech inserted into the Constitution at the very beginning of the Republic.
UPDATE: Here is the audio of Justice Thomas speaking on the Citizens United decision. His comments on the Tillman Act are at the very beginning. (H/T Lonely Conservative)
Obama has repeatedly shown that he has no knowledge of or respect for the Constitution. Thank God that two years from now there will be a new president in the White House -- and pray to God that it is a Republican who does respect the Constitution and the rights of Americans.
I’d say it was unbelievable, were it not for the fact that those who support the surrender of liberty in the face of Islamic barbarism have been parroting this talking point for the last couple weeks.
In 1919, the Supreme Court ruled speech that presents a "clear and present danger" is not protected by the First Amendment. Crying "fire" in a quiet, uninhabited place is one thing, the court said. But "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."
Twenty-two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that forms of expression that "inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are fighting words that are not protected by the First Amendment.
If Charlie Hebdo's irreverent portrayal of Mohammed before the Jan. 7 attack wasn't thought to constitute fighting words, or a clear and present danger, there should be no doubt now that the newspaper's continued mocking of the Islamic prophet incites violence. And it pushes Charlie Hebdo's free speech claim beyond the limits of the endurable.
Now Wickham uses two old Supreme Court cases to support his argument – but he fails to note that the justices have since restricted, limited or overruled elements of the decision. For example, never since the Chaplinsky decision has the “fighting words” doctrine been held to be a valid reason for respecting freedom of speech – indeed, shortly thereafter in Terminiello v. City of Chicago the Court held that the purpose of free speech was to provoke and invite dispute, and that the angry response of those who opposed the message was not grounds for shutting down the speaker. Similarly, the Court rejected the “fire in a crowded theater” argument in Brandenburg v. Ohio, holding that only speech intended to and likely to incite violence loses First Amendment protection.
Now consider the Charlie Hebdo cartoons themselves. They are designed to invite dispute regarding religious sensitivities and provoke discussion over the degree to which religious believers have the right to impose their faith’s rules on non-believers. The threat of violence comes from offended Muslims, not the magazine. What’s more, no reasonable person can argue that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are intended to incite violence. Wickham’s argument fails all around.
But let me offer a different take on this, using the author’s argument.
It is clear that the actual danger is not drawings or words that mock Islam and its sacred things. The actual danger is Islam itself and the belief that its followers are entitled to engage in mayhem and murder to force others to abide by the tenets of that faith. Therefore the clear and present danger is not the speech or the cartoons – the actual clear and present danger is Islam itself. Maybe the time has come to ban Islam and the Quran in this country, and to close all the mosques in America as a threat to public order. After all, that would get to the real source of the violence – and would be the least restrictive means of dealing with the problem of violent outbursts over Muhammad cartoons.
Sen. Rand Paul is planning to open a political office in Austin, tapping into Texas technology talent ahead of a likely presidential bid. The space is slated to open in spring or early summer, said Doug Stafford, Paul’s chief political adviser. The Kentucky Republican is also opening a Silicon Valley office in the coming months. Austin is a rare haven for liberals in deep-red Texas, but it’s also a hot spot for start-ups and technology companies. The libertarian-leaning Paul has made overtures to the technology community — even in California’s progressive Bay Area — as he prepares for a 2016 campaign.
Paul’s message is one that resonates well in the tech industry – his father was quite popular among that segment as well. And Texas is a big source of GOP campaign funds, so having a Texas operation is a good idea from that point of view as well.
Of course, Rand Paul is also a Texas native with former leadership positions in conservative organizations in the state, and his father was a congressman from Texas. This may signal his interest in populating his presidential bid with long-time Texas political associates.
And interestingly enough, the terrorist in question is another follower of the peaceful religion that is for some unfathomable reason is frequently stereotyped as supportive of violence and terrorism.
An FBI operation foiled another plot to attack the U.S. Congress.
The video is convincing. Watch the man sitting in the front seat. Amine el Khalifi, subject of the sting, “I’ve thought about this a long time.”
A hidden camera is rolling inside a car, Amine el Khalifi sounds like his mind’s made up.
El Khalifi can be heard saying, “Listen, I’m going to go it alone. You’re not going to go with me. I’m going to put everything on my body and inside a real place. Maybe uh, Capitol or somewhere who… with main people.”
A rare, frightening look inside the mind of a would-be suicide bomber ready to strap on a vest with explosives and blow himself up at the U.S. Capitol. A lone wolf stopped by a FBI undercover sting.
When we keep seeing attacks and planned attacks in the name of one – and only one – religion, one has to ask what it is about that religion that has led to that disparity and whether or not the claims that said religion is peaceful and not supportive of terrorism are in fact a denial of reality.
By the way -- this jihadi swine is also an illegal alien, making him a member of two of Obama's favorite classes of human beings.
In tonight’s State of the Union, President Obama called for a congressional resolution authorizing his use of military force against the ISIS terrorist organization, which has seized control of large parts of Iraq and Syria. This is a step in the right direction, because US military intervention against ISIS amounts to a war that requires congressional authorization under the Constitution. A congressional AUMF might also prevent further violation of the War Powers Act of 1973, which requires congressional authorization for military actions abroad that last more than 60 days (as this one already has). Whether he intends it as such or not, the president’s request is at least an implicit acknowledgement that the president requires congressional approval to initiate wars.
Of course, one has to ask what happens if he does not get that authorization. Does he disengage from the conflict with ISIS? Or does he keep on fighting that quasi-war, despite the fact that Congress has rejected it? My guess is the latter, meaning he just wants the fig-leaf of congressional action.
But I still have to wonder why this conflict with ISIS at all. After all, in his speech Obama assured us that the problem is not Islam.
It's why we continue to reject offensive stereotypes of Muslims – the vast majority of whom share our commitment to peace.
But wait – doesn’t an authorization of force against the Islamic State constitute an acknowledgement that Islam is a part of the problem, and that there are large numbers of Muslims who are properly treated as the enemy of America and its values? Isn’t that offensive?
I raised that issue last night.
Senator Bob Menendez (D., N.J.), the highest-ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, slammed the Obama administration’s efforts to deter further sanctions against Iran.
“I have to be honest with you: The more I hear from the administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran,” he said during a hearing on Wednesday. “It feeds to the Iranian narrative of victimization when they are the ones with original sin.”
Obama has bent over backwards to placate the Iranians even as they have stalled and failed to negotiate in good faith. Obama’s iran policy has failed – but he wants to give it another go, in the hopes that maybe what has failed before will succeed this time around.
Of course, we know what it means when someone keeps doing the same thing expecting a different result.
The list of potential candidates for the presidency in 2016 is immense. The list of declared contenders, though, is nonexistent.
If the latest CBS News poll is any indication, Americans would like to see a number of potential candidates take the plunge -- but not all of them.
Now let’s look at these numbers for a moment.
Mitt Romney is well-regarded. So is Jeb Bush – though not so much as Romney. Mike Huckabee has a degree of support. But beyond that, only Marco Rubio, Scott Walker and Ben Carson have positive numbers with these GOP primary voters. The rest of the field is in negative numbers – though most of them have more undecided than anything else (Sarah Palin being the exception). We therefore have a top tier (Romney, Bush, and Huckabee), a middle tier (Rubio, Walker, and Carson), and a bottom tier of rejected wannabes that includes the bulk of Tea Party favorites.
From where I stand, here’s how I would break down these groupings.
This leads me to some important observations.
Remember, my friends – from the rise of the conservative movement in the GOP in 1964 to its success in capturing the presidency in 1980 was 16 years. In 1976 we saw the triumph of the establishment, but it was followed by the glory of conservative ascendancy in 1980. So while we would like the future to be now, we have to recognize that even an establishment victory in 2016 does not mean that our movement has failed.
H/T Hot Air
If you are responsible and actually save for your child's education, you will be taxed to pay for the children of the less responsible.
The administration wants to extend the American Opportunity Tax Credit, the administration’s signature higher-education tax benefit that’s scheduled to expire at the end of 2017, while making it more valuable to low-income students. Obama also wants to fix an issue in which those who join a government program that forgives student loan debt after borrowers make payments for 20 years can be socked with unexpected — and big — tax bills. That’s because the IRS considers forgiven debt to be equivalent to income and taxes it. Under the administration’s plan, that would end. Other parts of the administration’s plan would exempt Pell grants, which go to students from low-income families, from taxation.
The administration proposes to finance the breaks at least in part by taking away education breaks for the well-off. Details are thin, but the administration says it would “limit upside-down education savings incentives” by rolling back Section 529 education tax breaks created by President George W. Bush and repeal incentives for the Coverdell education savings program.
As I pointed out recently, there was no way that college was ever going to be free under Obama's plan -- the question was who would pay for it. Now we know the answer -- the folks who recognized that college costs money are going to foot the bill.
MSNBC’s Alex Wagner had Arsalan Iftikhar, founder of TheMuslimGuy.com, on to discuss Gov. Jindal’s comments.
“I think Governor Jindal is protesting a bit too much. He might be trying to scrub some of the brown off his skin as he runs to the right in a presidential bid,” said Iftikhar.
Wagner didn’t question his comment and the interview continued.
Could you imagine if that statement were made by a conservative on FoxNews? All hell would break loose. But since there is a freely acknowledged double standard on race when it comes to the left going after non-white conservatives...
Escalating his battle with congressional Republicans, President Obama will propose $320 billion in higher taxes in his State of the Union address, mostly by raising the rate on capital gains and closing tax loopholes for wealthier families, senior administration officials said Saturday.
* * *
The money raised would pay for a variety of the president’s domestic-spending proposals for the middle class, including an initiative for the government to pay all tuition for community-college students. A senior administration official said Mr. Obama intends to make a forceful case in his speech that the economy has recovered from the recession, and he wants “to make sure this prosperity is shared by the middle class.”
The problem with his logic, of course, is that if the middle class would already be benefiting from a recovery if there was one. The thing is, the middle class has not benefited -- the rich have gotten richer, the poor have gotten more government giveaways and we in the middle class have gotten screwed. Now Obama wants to pull out the class warfare card -- which tells me that things are the way he intended them to be all along. Now he wants to make the middle class into government dependents just like Democrats have done with the poor over the last three-quarters of a century. I say no -- I wish to remain free.