Congressional Democrats on firing nine US Attorneys: Politization of the Justice Department!

Congressional Democrats on the dismissal of charges against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation:...

My, how times have changed. Democrats charged the Bush White House for politicizing the US Department of Justice for firing nine US Attorneys in 2006. Besides the continual, stomach-churning apologies emanating from the White House for exercising its constitutional power, the only other bothersome thing about the entire matter was Democrats' ignorance of Clinton's unprecedented firing of US Attorneys, one of which, Jay Stephens, was investigating one of Clinton's friends in Congress, Dan Rostenkowski. No hell raising from Democrats occurred, even after Rostenkowski was indicted and convicted during the House Post Office scandal. It's helpful to note that Rostenkowski was later pardoned by the Clenis in 2000.

Even Jonathan Turley sees a problem with the Obama Justice Department's rationale behind dismissing these charges. So far, the administration's silence on this issue makes it seem that it's perfectly fine for voters to be intimidated by thugs with nightsticks, or any other weapon of choice. I seriously doubt that if the suspects had been members of white supremacy groups, the Justice Department would be so lax in enforcing provisions of the Voting Rights Act against them (and Obama's handlers love to remind me that he doesn't have it out for "whitey").

Also puzzling in this is the fact that the Obama Administration has stonewalled any attempt by Congressional Republicans to get an explanation of this action. The decision, an overrule of career civil servants at Justice, was made by Obama campaign donor, and number three at Justice, Thomas Perrelli. Dan Riehl believes this Perrelli fella shouldn't be the only one being subject to our concern. Glenn Beck is raked over the coals for suggesting that Obama's been the racist the entire time, but the rakes aren't paying attention to the evidence. They, instead, wish to focus on how the Right has supposedly increased its "racist" rhetoric since a black man took the presidency.

Let us wait to see how many Democrats cry "Polarization" at this travesty of justice...

Have a great day...

Lindsey Graham: Sotomayor's confirmation is a really big deal...

...so why should I stand in its way?

It is just being reported that Sonia Sotomayor has received approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee to have her nomination appear on the Senate floor next week. It should be no surprise that the votes were largely along party lines, with 12 Democrats supporting her and 6 Republicans opposing. What's that? You say there's one member unaccounted for? Well look no further than Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who was the lone Republican voting to approve Sotomayor's nomination to go to the Senate floor. It sounds as if Graham, and any Republican that votes for Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supremes, is hellbent on proving this mantra from liberals that opposition to a minority is racist. Liberals, of course, are of the mindset that all Latinos think alike and will see that a majority of the Republicans on the Senate Judicary committee will see this as a slight, not a disapproval of her policy stances. Who are the racists?

Like Obama, pro-Sotomayor types would like us to forget her rulings and her public statements. Her mask came loose during her confirmation hearings, and was noticed by not only righties, but some lefties as well. Her actions as a judge on the Second Circuit don't line up with her answers to questions during her confirmation hearing. Liberals and pro-Sotomayor types in the Republican party, don't care about that. They're more concerned with showing how "racist" the members of the GOP who don't support Sotomayor are. I'm close to going out on a limb and suggesting that the people who always rely on playing the "race card" to try and stifle dissent, where it is warranted, are damaging this nation...and they don't care.

We did not hear the race card being played by liberals when they decided it was ok to oppose Justice Clarence Thomas, or criticize Dr. Condi Rice every day of the week. They claimed their opposition lie in policy differences, not race. I am sure the electorate votes the same way, at least for the most part. When a person walks into a voting booth, they don't decide their votes on racial lines, they vote based on the candidate representing their views. If liberals' thoughts were correct, Michael Steele would be a US Senator, not necessarily RNC Chairman. Ken Blackwell would be governor of Ohio, not Ted Strickland. President Obama, as a US Senator, voted against Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, because he did not like their rulings, and I'd believe that about the other 21 Democrats who voted against Roberts and the other 41 that voted against Alito. It would be hypocrisy for Democrats to suggest opposition to Sotomayor is strictly based on the fact the GOP doesn't like minorities.

And when have Democrats been above hypocrisy?

Have a great day...