The Zimmerman verdict —

Will be: not guilty.

The prosecution over-charged and under-investigated.

That said:

Zimmerman New Black PanthersThere will be some explosions as a result.  A riot plan is prepared.

Gird thy loins people and be prepared to stand up for what exists and what is right.  If one measure can stand for a not guilty verdict for O.J. Simpson, then another measure can stand for a not guilty verdict for George Zimmerman.

Or can they?

Again, in my aerie in the Sierra Nevada mountains, I don’t much care one way or the other.  It’s quite wonderful to be disconnected.

To those who willingly crowd yourselves into cities and urban environments I say: live it, love it.


h/t to TexasFred for the graphic.



Ted Cruz to Megyn Kelly: Eric Holder Should Resign For ‘Unprecedented’ ‘Willingness To Disregard The Law’

From the

In an interview with Megyn Kelly on America Live, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) reflected on his extensive history as an attorney and used it to weigh in on the increasing scandals surrounding current U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

“The conduct of the Justice Department does not inspire confidence. We have seen pattern after pattern with respect to investigation of the media. We have seen the Department of Justice willing to seize the phone records, to seize the emails of this network, of the Associated Press and by all appearances the attorney general went before Congress, stated he had nothing to do with it, it’s become public that he did in fact have quite a bit to do with it. The attorney general needs to come forward and explain what the truth is and why he told Congress something different,” said Cruz.

Pressure, ladies and gentlemen.  There is pressure.

I say: let the pressure increase and increase to bursting.

I want things to break in DC.



John Mitchell -- Miss Me Yet[Thanks to Conservative LA (@ConservativeLA) for the above graphic!]


Perjury charges for Dimwit?

How long, really, did Mr Holder think that he could obfuscate, deflect, cajole and lie outright before someone took him to a bit of task?  After all, he is not Barack Hussein Obama.


Clearly, the entire Philadelphia New Black Panther Party event, along with Fast & Furious, the IRS scandal in concert with the AP & Fox News reporter blowup is only based but upon racial prejudice and bias.

Except when it’s not; as in: all of the above incidents.




New Black Panthers to Philadelphia: hello, we’re back, just in time for Tuesday’s election!


But the national leader of the group, Malik Zulu Shabazz, told a radio interviewer in September that the New Black Panthers – labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and others for its anti-white and anti-Semitic rhetoric – might be out monitoring some polling places again in 2012.

“I will say that as this election comes up in November, we will consider our options,” he told WABC Radio’s “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” show. “And we will consider the fact whether we will legally and lawfully go to the polls again to make sure there is no intimidation against our people, which was our intent in 2008.”

But Malik Zulu Shabazz told the interviewer, “No, sir,” when asked if any poll-watchers would have nightsticks or other weapons.

The group’s Philadelphia leader, King Samir Shabazz, who brandished the billy club in 2008 and was slapped with a federal injunction aimed at preventing that from happening again, claimed to the Daily News that he and fellow NBPP activist Jerry Jackson had shown up at 12th and Fairmount four years ago because of rumors that white skinheads would disrupt voting.

Further, a video we all know and love:

A replay of 2008, anyone?




No surprise here: Federal Court finds Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution

From the

A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.

The ruling came as part of a motion by the conservative legal watch dog group Judicial Watch, who had sued the DOJ in federal court to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents pertaining to the the New Black Panthers case. Judicial Watch had secured many previously unavailable documents through their suit against DOJ and were now suing for attorneys’ fees.

Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:

The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.

In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.

The New Black Panthers case stems from a Election Day 2008 incident where two members of the New Black Panther Party were filmed outside a polling place intimidating voters and poll watchers by brandishing a billy club. Justice Department lawyers investigated the case, filed charges, and when the Panthers failed to respond, a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the Panthers defendants. But after Obama was sworn in, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissed charges against three of the defendants, and let the fourth off with a narrowly tailored restraining order.

“The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence showing the Obama Justice Department is run by individuals who have a problem telling the truth,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The decision shows that we can’t trust the Obama Justice Department to fairly administer our nation’s voting and election laws.”

Lies, ladies and gentlemen.  LIES, again and again and again — motivated solely by Leftist philosophy, racist views, divisive tactics, class warfare, ignorance, naivete, inexperience.

Obligatory reading and linkage: an excellent Washington Times opinion piece from Virginia voting rights attorney J. Christian Adams here.  Mr Adams writes:

On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.

Of course, you wouldn’t be shocked to read THE OBVIOUS that we all — as Conservatives — know:

Most disturbing, the dismissal is part of a creeping lawlessness infusing our government institutions. Citizens would be shocked to learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.

Some of my co-workers 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.” Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the Voting Section.

Refusing to enforce the law equally means some citizens are protected by the law while others are left to be victimized, depending on their race. Core American principles of equality before the law and freedom from racial discrimination are at risk. Hopefully, equal enforcement of the law is still a point of bipartisan, if not universal, agreement. However, after my experience with the New Black Panther dismissal and the attitudes held by officials in the Civil Rights Division, I am beginning to fear the era of agreement over these core American principles has passed.

Past BZ posts:

– Eric Holder: clearly racist;
– Racism in the TEA Party: not quite;
– Obama as a racist himself;
– Philadelphia voter intimidation ignored;

Coming next post: government vs business in the current administration.