Tag Archives: justice department

Weasel Zippers » Blog Archive » Obama Justice Department Awards $400,000 In Grants To Group That Includes Former Weather Underground Radical Bernardine Dohrn…

Weasel Zippers » Blog Archive » Obama Justice Department Awards $400,000 In Grants To Group That Includes Former Weather Underground Radical Bernardine Dohrn…

I would say this is unbelievable, but is it really?  Why can’t people see what’s going on?  It’s so obvious.


Via National Review:

Bernardine Dohrn has a history with the Justice Department. More specifically, in the early 1970s, she was one of the FBI’s most wanted fugitives because of her actions with the Weather Underground, a violent radical organization.

Times have changed. In 2010 and 2011, the Justice Department saw fit to give $400,000 in grants to an organization that lists Dohrn as a member of its board of directors: a $150,000 grant in September of 2010 and a $250,000 grant a year later.

Check out Weasel Zippers for more great stuff.  

I want you to do your own homework too.  Look at the groups getting grants, subsidies and other money from this administration.


Advertisements

2012 WTF #20 – To ID or Not to ID

2012 WTF #20 – Hmmm – Is it just me or does this seem suspicious to anyone else?  The Justice Department’s civil rights division on Monday declared its opposition to new photo ID requirement for voters in Texas because many Hispanic voters lack state-issued identification (just like they did with S. Carolina’s similar law last year.)

In a letter to Texas officials the Justice Department said Hispanic voters in Texas are more than twice as likely than non-Hispanic voters to lack a driver’s license or personal state-issued photo ID. The department said that even the lowest estimates showed about half of Hispanic registered voters lack such identification.

Uhm, excuse me, OK, so then how do they buy a beer?  Maybe they don’t drink!  OK, so how do they cash their paychecks then?  But Kurt, maybe they use direct deposit!  How do they open a banking account then?   But Kurt, maybe they don’t have jobs so they don’t need a bank account!  OK then how do they get money?  Well Kurt, maybe they get state assistance while they’re trying to find a job!

OK, but then that is where this gets really interesting.  To apply for Federal Welfare, all applicants are given a list of REQUIRED documents to bring to sign up including: “proof of income, ID, and utility bills or other proof of residency” (see “How to Apply for a Welfare Program” section, http://www.welfareinfo.org/)

SO… you shouldn’t need an ID to prove you are who you say you are when voting in elections, but you damn well better have ID proving you are who you say you are to get government assistance?  Where is the outrage!  These people need help!  They shouldn’t have to prove that they are who they say they are or even that they need help!  Just give them the money already!   SHEESH!

Our government is sooo ridiculous sometimes it’s almost funny.  ALMOST!

Oh and in case you didn’t hear, James O’Keefe, who “screwed” over ACORN, just released a video from Vermont and New Hampshire showing one of his employees going into multiple voting areas, giving a different name each time and being handed the REPUBLICAN primary ballot without ever being asked for ID (note: he went for the Republican to show this problem is NOT a partisan issue, but can be exploited by anyone with the desire to.)

ARTICLES
Justice Dept
http://news.yahoo.com/justice-dept-opposes-texas-voter-id-law-144238429.html

James O’Keefe Video


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/13/OKeefe%20Video%20Exposes%20Voter%20Fraud-Friendly%20Policies%20in
%20Vermont

SUPPORTING MATERIAL
http://www.welfareinfo.org/

Rule of Law » Holder’s Quiet Court Attack on Religious Freedom

Rule of Law » Holder’s Quiet Court Attack on Religious Freedom

While I was searching for a picture for this post I was appalled at how far some groups had gone to disparage religion.  What’s worse is the things we held most to be true are now being challenged by people in the government like that weasel Eric Holder and his whole corrupt DOJ.  If the Supreme Court of the United States decides to step into even one case, it opens the door for them to step in and tell ALL churches what they can and can’t do.  Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?

The following is an article I got from PJ Media and was written by  J. Christian Adams.  This court case is a big deal and all people of faith should know about it.  I have heard about it at various times while it was making its way to the Supreme Court.  We need to wake up and see what’s happening to religion in our country before it’s no longer protected and the government decides which teachings from the bible churches can to teach and which ones are forbidden, or “hate speech”.

Please read Mr. Adams article here:

Eric Holder’s Department of Justice has quietly advanced legal arguments in direct conflict with Catholic teaching and the teaching of other Christian denominations. If the Department of Justice prevails, the Catholic Church and other churches will have a difficult time preserving doctrinal traditions central to church teaching, particularly in church schools. The quiet and radical legal attack comes with perilous political risk, because active Catholics may determine Obama’s fate in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, and Wisconsin.

Like so much from this Justice Department, Holder’s radical legal positions are at odds with long American traditions. This latest species of Holder’s radicalism is a frontal attack on faith communities.

In the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Holder’s DOJ argued that a church cannot fire an employee for acting contrary to church teaching, and contrary to an employment contract that incorporates that teaching. A teacher filed a complaint to the government about how the school handled her narcolepsy, which presumably would involve sleeping at work. The church school then fired the teacher because the church forbids lawsuits among believers based on 1 Corinthians 6:1-8. (“But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!”)

This particular Lutheran church had well established dispute resolution mechanisms within the church, and based on church teaching.  Instead, the teacher went to the government, contrary to church teaching.

Holder’s Justice Department believes that religious schools should not be able to enjoy a longstanding exemption to various employment laws which conflict with church teaching, or, the “ministerial exception.”

Assistant to the Solicitor General Leondra R. Kruger (photo below) argued that the religious school could not fire the teacher for filing a complaint to the government even if church teaching forbids it. (Some background on Kruger herehere, and here).  At oral argument, Kruger advocated positions so extreme that even Justice Elena Kagan appeared to reject them.

It’s not hard to see where this slippery slope slides.  What if a teacher in a Catholic school does something directly contrary to Catholic teaching? Or, consider this possibility offered by American Catholic:

Then, too, what also about Catholic women using this principle to sue the Catholic Church in the United States because they are excluded from the priesthood? There’s absolutely no doubt that when it comes to ordination, the Catholic Church discriminates in favor of males. Should SCOTUS be able to tell the Catholic Church in the United States that it must redress the imbalance?

Yes…if, as an organization, the Catholic Church is bound by federal employment discrimination statutes.

No…if, as an organization, the U.S. Catholic Church is exempt from federal employment discrimination statutes.

Far fetched? Not to Kruger.

At oral argument, she wouldn’t categorically preclude the possibility. Instead, she told the Court that the government interest isn’t currently sufficient to justify an assault on the male priesthood. Kruger said “the government does have a compelling and indeed overriding interest in ensuring that individuals are not prevented from coming to the government with information about illegal conduct.” In other words, even if church doctrine prohibits you from settling disputes with the church through the government, the Obama administration cares not. Holder wants informants, or as the DOJ prefers to call them, complainants.

You can read the transcript of the argument with details of Kruger’s assault on religious independence.

Sometimes the radicalism of Obama’s Justice Department is on full display, like when it sues Arizona or blocksSouth Carolina voter ID. Other times, the radicalism creeps along the margins, as Kruger did at the Supreme Court, arguing that the long respected ministerial exception to church doctrine is no longer respected by this president and his Justice Department.

Expect a decision very soon in the case.  Let’s hope if Kruger gets her way, the voters notice in November.

Thanks pjmedia.com

%d bloggers like this: