Washington DC: In light of a Washington Times report today that political appointees at the U.S. Department of Justice forced career prosecutors to drop and/or reduce charges against men observed intimidating Philadelphia voters last election day, Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie is calling for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate this alleged obstruction of the Voting Rights Act by the Obama Administration.

“From all accounts, this was a clear-cut violation of peoples’ right to vote without fear and intimidation, but the Obama Administration appears to be trying to sweep it under the rug,” said Massie. “After all of the allegations about the Bush Administration politicizing the Justice Department, this smacks of either extreme ignorance or extreme hubris on the part of their successors. Whatever the case, an independent investigation is needed to get to the bottom of what’s going on over there.”

According to media reports, on November 4, 2008, Malik Zulu Shabazz, King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense were seen on national television standing outside a Philadelphia polling place in military-style uniforms. Jackson was an official poll watcher that day, representing the 14th Ward Democratic Committee.

Bartle Bull, a long-time civil rights activist who was working as a poll watcher in the area, said in a government affidavit that he saw the men using a nightstick to intimidate voters. Bull said their “clear purpose” was to “intimidate voters with whom they did not agree.” He also said he heard them tell a white poll watcher, “you are about to be ruled by a black man, cracker.”

A civil suit filed by the Justice Department in January alleged the men violated the Voting Rights Act “by continuing to direct intimidation, threats and coercion at voters and potential voters.” After none of the men appeared in court to face the charges, the government sought a default judgment against them.

According to interviews and documents obtained by the Times, the lawyers were later ordered to reverse themselves and ask for the cases against Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson to be dismissed. A default judgment was pursued against King Samir Shabazz to simply prohibit him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of an open polling place until November 15, 2012.

Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar told the Times: “Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law.”

“We’ve got reports of one of the most blatant violations of the Voting Rights Act in recent memory, and the Obama Justice Department is essentially taking a pass. What’s wrong here?” asked Massie. “One could easily surmise that this is Chicago-style payback for helping Obama win the election. That would be a crime in Washington. The only way to find out who did what and for what reason is to bring someone in from the outside to get to investigate these very troubling allegations.”

The Washington Times article, “Career lawyers overruled on voting case; Black Panthers had wielded weapons, blocked polls,” by Jerry Seper, is available online at http://tw6.us/65.

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi or Devon Carlin at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21′s website at www.project21.org/P21Index.html.

Ken Salazar took over at the Department of Interior and recently it was announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would proceed with the proposal Bush and then Sec. Dirk Kempthorne had devised. Needless to say this angered a lot of people who, it seems, just assumed that Obama would oppose delisting because it was a Bush initiative.

From the Washington Post:

While the White House declined to comment on Salazar’s move, it has clearly caused a headache for the administration. Lawmakers have called senior Obama aides to question the decision, environmental groups have filed a Freedom of Information Act request to probe the decision-making process, and experts inside and outside the administration predict that the issue will end up in court.

Interesting enough, the WaPo article seems to be suggesting that Ken Salazar acted on his own in making this decision, even quoting Norman J. Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

“where they’re used to making their own decisions and going ahead with them.”

“It takes a while to get your sea legs on that front, especially if you’re a member of Congress,” Ornstein said.

But it gets better. The article cites an “anonymous” House democrat.

“I just don’t see what this does for us,” the lawmaker said. “Here we are alienating people who did the most — who did a lot to help us in the last election.”

This statement seems to me to indicate quite strongly that certain members must believe that Obama “owes” them, perhaps for campaign votes, and should have opted to not delist the wolf. So much for science.

Bob Irvin, senior vice president for Defenders of Wildlife, seems to think Salazar operated on his own.

“Making the decision to adopt the Bush administration’s flawed delisting proposal the same week that the president pledged his commitment to the Endangered Species Act certainly calls into question whether the Interior Department was coordinating as closely as one would expect to have done with the White House,”………. “This was a controversy that did not need to happen.”

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist’s brain to realize that if delisting was going to proceed, the case would end up in court and that’s surely where it is headed as massive numbers of environmental groups have already promised. What will be interesting in this case is that for the first time, at least in recent memory, you’ll have supporters of the Obama election pitted against Obama’s administration.

Add to that interesting cocktail the question of how will the judges react who have to this point ruled in opposition to George W. Bush, not necessarily for the wolves. If I’m sitting in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming, I’m understanding that we may never get control over wolves and there’s a good chance to be witness to the disappearance of deer, moose and elk, along with many other wildlife species.

We know that Obama stated he will use science in making environmental decisions. The question remains whose science will he use? See ya’ll in court!

Tom Remington

I thought it would be fun to bring it back and have a look and listen to see if any of his predictions have come to fruition.

It didn’t take Risch long to show his true colors. On his very first vote, Risch joined Crapo and 10 other liberal Republican and 54 Democrat senators to stop a Republican filibuster, which would have continued debate and allowed for possible amendments to the huge omnibus public land grab bill currently before the U.S. Senate.

The “Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009” will cordon off more than 3 million acres from energy leasing by restricting various areas as “federal wilderness” or “wild and scenic” river way. The Act includes 160 separate land measures including Senator Crapo’s Owyhee Wilderness. It also includes 45 pork laden earmarks including a $461 million legal settlement to restore a minimum of 500 salmon to the San Joaquin River in California. The Act is expected to cost $10 billion.

Senator Coburn (Okla) argued it’s foolish to add acreage to the federal government’s responsibility – already 650 million acres – when it can’t even properly manage the properties it has. “We’re not exactly suffering from a shortage of wilderness,” he said.

As bad as the federal land grab is, which is being rammed through by senators who each have their pet projects included, the fact that Risch and Crapo went against the Republican majority and stopped a Republican filibuster is just as disconcerting? Debating amendments is a fundamental principle of effective law making. With these processes taken out, the laws Congress makes are sure to be unjust.

Senator Jim Demint (SC) angrily stated, “If my colleagues on my side continue to accept this, there’s going to be no such thing as a Republican Party.”

I seem to recall Risch campaigning that if you voted for Rammell it would split the vote, LaRocco would win, and the Republicans would lose their ability to filibuster. Well, I guess that rhetoric is out the window! I also recall him saying his first priority was to sponsor a bill to eliminate all earmarks (see KTVB’s taped U.S. Senate debate, October 2008). I guess he meant, unless the earmarks are attached to a bill he likes. So much for Senator Risch’s integrity in keeping campaign promises.

The only thing that surprised me with Risch’s vote is how fast he confirmed everything I warned you about. Too bad those of you who voted for him didn’t believe me. Now we’re stuck with another sell out Republican for six more years. By the time Crapo, Risch, and Simpson are finished voting with the Democrats, maybe the whole State of Idaho will be owned by the federal government.

Rex Rammell
2008 Independent Candidate for the U.S. Senate
367 Talon Dr.
Rexburg, Idaho 83440

While she’s grateful for “our nation’s greatness and endless opportunity…” which made it possible for “a fatherless, racial minority of modest means rise to the most powerful position in the world,” Borelli says, and even “excited… about Barack Obama’s achievement,” she’s reserving judgment until she sees what kind of President Barack Obama turns out to be for not only racial minorities, but all Americans.

“I would be deeply thankful to have a black President who expands opportunity for all of us while protecting and extending freedom,” says Borelli. “But will Barack Obama turn out to be that kind of President? A black Jimmy Carter would be nothing to be thankful for,” she adds. “But a black Ronald Reagan would be a precious gift to the nation.”

In a new commentary entitled “Black Backing of Barack Should Not Be Unconditional,” Borelli writes: “Barack Obama’s election is a capstone on black Americans’ struggle for equality… It is quite possible to be black and be proud – even excited – about Barack Obama’s achievement while opposing him politically. This black woman, for instance, did not vote for Obama. Furthermore, I don’t believe his policies are sound.”

Borelli points out that the wealth distribution policies advocated by Obama during his campaign “punish success and rewards underachievement.” She adds:

“That’s not how our predecessors raised themselves up from bondage, poverty and racism. Who’s going to work harder if the extra benefit is taken away and given to someone who didn’t work as hard? It’s no way to set our nation back on a stable economic course.”

On energy, Borelli notes Obama’s cap-and-trade emissions proposal “pick[s] energy winners and losers.” Hurting power-generating industries such as coal would electricity more expensive, and disproportionately hurt minorities and the poor. “No one should be grateful for that,” she says.

Borelli further notes: “Although it’s amazing that a black was elected President, it’s ironic that Obama’s leftist policies are likely to hurt the very people he claims to want to help… Unfortunately, the ‘we’ in Obama’s ‘Yes We Can!’ literally means collectivism and a statist government that stifles our liberties.”

Nevertheless, Borelli notes, Obama has not yet been sworn in, and as such, he retains ample opportunity to embrace free-market policies that would give others the opportunities and prosperity he and his family have enjoyed.

“Anyone can ‘grow’ in office,” she says.

Borelli’s commentary can be found in the Washington Times at http://tinyurl.com/6oq55p or on the National Center for Public Policy Research website at www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVBorelliObama91108.html.

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21′s website at www.project21.org/P21Index.html.

And add this video to the mix as well.

America this week faces an historic crisis in our financial system. We must pass legislation to address this crisis. If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy. People will no longer be able to buy homes and their life savings will be at stake. Businesses will not have enough money to pay their employees. If we do not act, ever corner of our country will be impacted. We cannot allow this to happen.

Last Friday, I laid out my proposal and I have since discussed my priorities and concerns with the bill the Administration has put forward. Senator Obama has expressed his priorities and concerns. This morning, I met with a group of economic advisers to talk about the proposal on the table and the steps that we should take going forward. I have also spoken with members of Congress to hear their perspective.

It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration’s proposal. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time.

Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night’s debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.

I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so.

Following September 11th, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis. We must show that kind of patriotism now. Americans across our country lament the fact that partisan divisions in Washington have prevented us from addressing our national challenges. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country.

There will always be people who will have an issue with the killing of any animal and some to the extreme of any living thing whether plant or animal. We witness everyday people who ignorantly support the protection of a handful of animals while being responsible for the deaths of more than they saved. For that, I offer no cures nor do I pretend that I can in all honesty have any marked alterations to their beliefs. I expect nothing different in return either.

With that being said, we have all come to learn, some of us much sooner than others, that Alaska’s Sarah Palin is an “outdoors” person, having grown up in the wilds of Alaska learning to hunt and fish and like many of us growing up in similar geographical locations that provide us outdoor activities, it has become very much a part of our lives. Some people have a problem with that much because they didn’t grow up in it and have very little tolerance for those of us who have. Life goes on.

What Sarah Palin is being haunted by is her support of the use of planes and helicopters to manage wolf populations in a few remote areas of Alaska and some, including hunters, have a problem with that. For those Alaskan wildlife experts, whom Sarah Palin listens to for advise and recommendations, they see aerial wolf management as a bad thing but a necessary thing, albeit controversial. More on this in a moment.

Back to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi has been a U.S. Congresswoman for the state of California since 1987. She was elected as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 4, 2007. We can only conclude then that Speaker Pelosi approves of the slaughter of as many as 40,000 animals in the state of California from just one event!

The end of September, just about one year ago, the state of California, with the approval of the California Fish and Game Department, poured 16,000 gallons of rotenone, a chemical commonly used to kill fish, into Lake Davis in Plumas County northwest of Lake Tahoe. This action resulted in what the San Francisco Chronicle described as leaving 41,000 pounds of dead fish to be scooped out of the lake.

Some 41,000 pounds of dead fish have since been scooped from the lake at the northern headwaters of the Feather River in Plumas County. The carefully hatched plan was to kill virtually every living thing in the high Sierra lake and its tributaries, assuring that the pike would be exterminated.

The goal here was to kill unwanted species of fish in order to then be able to restore the lake to provide better recreational and fishing opportunities for California residents. In fairness here, members of the California Fish and Game Department really didn’t want to have to do this but felt it was necessary.

“No one wants chemicals dumped in their lake to kill fish and we don’t like doing it, but you have to look at the big picture,” said Steve Martarano, a spokesman for the Department of Fish and Game. “It’s something we needed to do and we gave it our best shot.”

So, where’s the outrage?

Actually, the use of rotenone to kill off what is commonly referred to as “crap” fish from waters in order to restore “game” fisheries, is perhaps more common that many of us know. Of course it doesn’t come without some disputes but the facts remain the facts. 41,000 pounds of dead fish equates to an awful lot of dead animals. Again I ask, where’s the outrage?

It’s true that California F&G spokesman Steve Martarano isn’t on the ticket with John McCain as his vice presidential nominee. It’s also true that there are fewer of those who stand up for the rights(?) of fish than do wolves. Aside from “Finding Nemo” most fish stories are about deadly sharks.

Granted there is a mysticism about the wolf, mostly because the majority of people don’t understand the animal. Their perceptions are mostly built from story books, pretty pictures and a movie or two.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I do not and would not approve of hunting, in the classic definition of what us hunters do, from an airplane, a helicopter or any other airborne mechanical device or balloon, etc.. For those that know me, they know that I even have a difficult time with the use of tree stands to hunt from and other things like bait and hounds. Most of that is because I never grew up with any of that so it isn’t a part of my hunting past.

Shooting wolves from an airplane is a tough pill to swallow no matter who you are, but as Cal. F&G spokesman said, “…you have to look at the big picture.” You also have to look at the entire picture as why Alaska feels they have to do this.

For one, the Alaska Constitution says that game animals have to be managed to provide game for its citizens, including subsistence hunting for the natives. Unless you are willing to find a way to travel into these remote areas, we have to believe that the caribou and moose populations are in danger of reaching a point where they can no longer sustain viable populations. It would be irresponsible for Alaska’s wildlife managers and the governor, to do nothing about it. They would be violating their own laws.

Secondly, these areas are remote. They are open to the hunting and trapping of wolves and other animals but it is so difficult to access, nobody will venture in to hunt a wolf because there is little value in doing so. The pelts aren’t worth that much and the cost of getting into these regions makes the effort far from worthwhile.

It is far reaching and disingenuous to state, as I have read countless times, that Sarah Palin is offering high-priced wolf hunts from airplanes in order to make money for the fish and wildlife department. If you think I’m kidding, give the Alaska Department of Fish and Game a call and tell them you want to book an aerial wolf hunt. You’ll soon discover you can’t and you’ll also find out what is involved in being able to get a permit to go on a shoot.

It’s a terrible thing to be a part of something like that but it has to be done, much the same way as killing 41,000 pounds of fish in Lake Davis, California. Is there a difference between the life of a fish and the life of a wolf?

While Alaska continues to struggle to find effective ways to control wolf populations, while protecting herds of caribou and moose, some will continue to call Sarah Palin an animal killer. That is of course their choice to do such and I assume, because this isn’t merely a political stunt, then Nancy Pelosi should also be considered an animal killer.

Wildlife management takes on many forms, much of it the vast majority of Americans are ignorant to. I could have quite easily picked on any politician from just about any state in the Union in order to show that we all contribute to the death of living things everyday. Some we refuse to look at and others we focus on.

If we can get beyond the gruesome images the animal rights groups put up and with an open and honest approach, we soon can come to realize that taking a few wolves conserves the life of many others.

Tom Remington

When I read all this malarkey, I am reminded of a parrot a co-worker of mine used to have. After work one afternoon, I went with this guy to his beach-side condominium. From previous conversations at work, I knew Dave had a parrot. He had told me some of the shenanigans this parrot, named Julio, had gotten into since becoming of member of Dave’s family. One thing I was told is that the parrot was really only loyal to one person and that happened to be Dave. He merely tolerated the rest.

I discovered, and fortunately not he hard way, that Julio was most noted for his deceptive practice of luring unsuspecting newcomers to his cage. What person would not be fascinated and immediately attracted to a beautiful green parrot, especially one that could talk – quite eloquently for a bird I might add.

As I walked in the front door, I was almost immediately greeted with, “Hello! Hello! Come here!”

I’ve not been around talking birds much in my life. I do recall one time visiting a small animal farm in which they had a myna bird, a smallish black bird that I believe is somehow related to the starling family of birds. One of the attractive things about a myna bird is its ability to mimic sounds it has heard before, much like a parrot but I think a parrot is a bit more intelligent, as you will soon discover. This myna bird happened to pick up on and seemingly enjoyed mimicking the phrase, “F&*% you!”

Julio on the other hand was suave, debonair even. He was soft spoken in his greeting of, “Hello” and “Come here!” With a smile on my face, I approached the cage stopping at about three feet away. My learned tendencies when it comes to animals, kept me from getting any closer. I guess I’ve had too many dog bites, etc. to have a great desire for closeness with animals I’m not familiar with.

“Hello! Come here! Come here!” Julio pleaded. Who could resist? This bird, even though he was just a bird, perhaps with a brain the size of a pea, could woo anyone. He had me from the first hello! (sorry)

I stepped a bit closer and for some stupid reason, perhaps because I was simply overtaken with he bird’s calmness, soft pleas and charisma, I began to stick my finger into the cage.

“Don’t do that!” Dave yelled. “The little bastard will bite the end of your finger off!”

I retracted my finger and hand and took a step back. Now that I had learned some of the truth about the bird, his pretty green colors weren’t quite so pretty anymore. I soon lost interest in Julia and turned my attention to other more important things.

Are there similarities between Julio and Barack Obama? I tell you what. You stick your hand in the cage and see if he bites.

Tom Remington

Mr. McCain was running late, but once on board he took about 5 minutes to make some brief comments. He congratulated Hillary Clinton for the efforts she put into her campaign and then acknowledged that Sen. Barack Obama would be the presumptive counterpart in the race for the White House representing the democratic party.

From there Sen. McCain informed us that he has already extended an invitation to Sen. Obama to participate in 10 town hall-type debates/meetings between now and November’s general election. The first one is tentatively scheduled for June 12, 2008 at Federal Hall in New York City. McCain awaits a response to his invitation from the Obama camp.

John McCain also took the opportunity to begin what appears to be the theme for his upcoming campaign telling us that Obama’s perspective of things is skewed, he is inexperienced and cannot lead this country. He says that Obama denies that the troop surge in Iraq was effective and pointed out that in all this time, Obama has not sought any kind of briefing with Gen. Patreus.

The facilitator of the conference then instructed us to press *1 on our phone dials if we had a question or comment for the Senator. By the time I fumble with my cell phone, of which I totally despise, I got put on the “first come first served” list but didn’t get to ask a question. Maybe I’ll be faster next time.

I would say Sen. McCain fielded around six questions dealing with an array of topics, none of which were any I intended to inquire about. I was surprised in a way to listen to the questions asked and found myself asking, “Why ask that?”

Most of the questions were non confrontational, except for one that asked the Senator if he was going to change his tone with conservative voters and stop using liberal talking points in dealing with them. Needless to say that question didn’t get a lot of response.

Jim Geraghty of National Review got me chuckling.

Is it accurate that June 3, 2008, was the moment that America began providing care for the sick? And on a slightly more serious note, when your opponent goes on these rhetorical flights of fancy, how do you bring him back down to earth? How do you persuade people that this isn’t so world-changing, and that Americans did in fact care for the sick before yesterday? (emphasis is mine)

From there McCain explained that this was one of the reasons he is seeking the town hall meetings, so that both can respond to the same questions.

I was surprised at the brevity of the conference but grateful that I had a chance to participate. I need to practice with my fingers and get that *1 down pat.

For those wondering what I was going to ask the Senator, here is my question exactly as I had written it down in preparation.

Senator McCain – Thank you for taking time and addressing my question. In an email you sent to supporters yesterday, you spoke of “the right change” in comparing your ideas with those of Senator Obama. At what price does a gallon of gas at the pumps have to reach before you will reconsider your position of no drilling in the United States and offshore?

Maybe next week!

Tom Remington