Meet Obama’s Pick for Labor Secretary: ‘A Radical’s Radical’

President Barack Obama gave a glowing rollout Monday to Thomas Perez, his choice to lead the Labor Department after an aggressive stint as the nation’s chief civil rights enforcer. But the nomination quickly ran into trouble as a Republican senator declared he would block the nomination until GOP concerns about Perez’s Justice Department tenure are addressed.

Further, former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams alleged that Perez a “radical’s radical” in an interview on Mark Levin’s radio show.

“This is a man for whom law is a nuisance … this is a man who is advancing a radical agenda by using his power in the Obama administration,” Adams told Levin.

As TheBlaze’s Meredith Jessup points out, Adams also alleges that Perez provided false testimony in the Black Panther voter intimidation case.

In 2010, former DOJ civil rights attorney J. Christian Adams resigned in protest of the Obama administration’s handling of a [voter] intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party. A month later, Adams told Fox News that Perez provided false testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the Black Panther case. In his testimony, Perez told the commission that the facts of the case – NBPP members dressed in military-style fatigues standing in front of a polling location armed with billy clubs — didn’t amount to voter intimidation under the law.

Read more here.

This Is the Comprehensive List of Those Supporting Occupy Wall St.

“Show me your friends and I’ll tell you who you are.”

Proverbs 13:20:

“He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm.”

List:

“Local” supporters:

Communist Party USA

The American Nazi Party

Revolutionary Communist Party

Black Panthers

Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan

CAIR

Some big names in the political world have also lent support to the cause:

President Barack Obama

Vice President Joe Biden

Nancy Pelosi

International Leaders and Governments:

Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei

Hugo Chavez

Revolutionary Guards of Iran

The Govt of North Korea

Communist Party of China

Hezbollah

You Should Have Listened to Farrakhan When You Were At His Table: New Black Panthers

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND ITS ‘PRIORITIES’

Let us count the ways of Barack Obama’s Justice Department, run by the corrupt Eric Holder. The dismissal of the Black Panther case has continued to haunt Holder. When asked about the dismissal just as recently as this month, Holder said that the focus on this case demeans “my people.” Maybe it’s just me, but when you’re the Attorney General of the United States your “people” are all American citizens .. not just the black ones.

Now the latest story that has the Justice Department in the spotlight is this: Justice Department sues on behalf of Muslim teacher, triggering debate. You may remember a story where a Muslim government school teacher wanted to take three weeks off of her job to take a pilgrimage to Mecca. The school denied her request. Now Obama’s Justice Department is suing, accusing the district of violating her civil rights by forcing her to choose between her job and her faith. Our corrupt Attorney General says that protecting the civil rights of Muslims is a “top priority” for his department.

So we are going to make Muslims a top priority of our Justice Department while ignoring the voter intimidation actions of “his people” (his words). The former SEIU official who called for the deliberate takedown of Wall Street, JPMorgan specifically, so as to cause another financial crisis? Well now we have Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah, who has sent a letter to our corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder, asking for an investigation into Lerner’s threat of financial “terrorism.” Based on the track record of Obama’s Justice Department, I doubt this letter will even make it past the mail room.

Why won’t the Justice Department let Christopher Coates testify on New Black Panther Party case?

J. Christian Adams, a former Department of Justice official, has gained a lot of media attention as a whistle-blower in the dismissal of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) voter intimidation case. His testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has raised a great deal of concern and questions about the current racial mandates at the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.

While Adams’ statements about the racial directives within the division have caused public distress, they have not given rise to action as his testimony, though partially corroborated, is in some regards hearsay. Christopher Coates is perhaps the one man who could provide substantive answers to back up Adams’ claims.

Coates was the chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department who led the team of attorneys that brought the initial case of voter intimidation against the NBPP. In May 2009, Coates was allegedly ordered to dismiss the charges against the NBPP.

On January 5, 2010, the Department reassigned Coates to the U.S. attorney’s office in Charleston, South Carolina. Some have speculated that the reassignment was in retaliation for his prosecution of voting rights violations against black defendants, specifically the NBPP and a case in Noxubee County, Mississippi (U.S. v. Ike Brown, a case in which a black political boss in Mississippi, Ike Brown, was accused of voter suppression).

A DOJ spokesman, Xochitl Hinojosa, told The Daily Caller in a brief e-mail that “Christopher Coates requested the transfer to South Carolina.” But despite DOJ’s position, some still question whether Coates’ reassignment was voluntary and why the DOJ won’t allow him to speak about the NBPP case.

Read more here.

NAACP Direct Tie to Black Panthers

In the past 24 hours, more than a few pundits and writers have noted that the NAACP resolution accusing Tea Partiers of racism is hard to swallow when the NAACP seems unconcerned with the New Black Panther voting intimidation case. Their points would be valid by analogy only. Their points are even more valid, though, because of a direct, rather than just analagous, tie between the NAACP and the Panther case.

It was first reported here at the Washington Times that “Kristen Clarke, director of political participation at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in Washington, however, confirmed to The Times that she talked about the case with lawyers at the Justice Department and shared copies of the complaint with several persons. She said, however, her organization was ‘not involved in the decision to dismiss the civil complaint.'”

Ms. Clarke testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights a few months back that that account was wrong. But J. Christian Adams, the main lawyer who built the case against the Black Panthers, contradicted her when he testified to the commission on July 6. Here is the exchange between Mr. Adams and commission general counsel David Blackwood:

MR. BLACKWOOD: During the decision making process about the Panther case, did you hear that anyone at the Department was consulting with any outside groups such as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund?
MR. ADAMS: Well, I did, but we were also consulting with outside groups. We visited the Southern Poverty Law Center. We visited the Anti-Defamation League and would have probably hired them as an expert in this case if it had gone forward. Because of course the Black Panthers, they’re a militant, anti-Semitic group. They’re not just black nationalists. They hate Jews. And the ADL has an extensive database on this organization.
MR. BLACKWOOD: But the — Your communications with the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center I assume were related to the substance of the case.
MR. ADAMS: That’s correct.
MR. BLACKWOOD: Do you know whether anybody was consulting as to whether to proceed or the merits of the case with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund?
MR. ADAMS: Well, listen. This is not firsthand. But I was told by section management that NAACP members or staffers were talking with the Voting section attorney in March of 2009 and asking, “When is this case going to get dismissed” which, of course, is interesting to hear for the first time that someone’s even thinking about dismissing the case that you’re in the middle of building. And that was — It seemed strange. But it didn’t really give me much pause other than to think that’s a really strange request.
MR. BLACKWOOD: Well, all press reports indicated a conversation between Kristen Clark of the Legal Defense Fund and a Laura Coates of the Department. Who is Laura Coates?
MR. ADAMS: She is a line attorney in the Voting section, no relation to Christopher Coates.
MR. BLACKWOOD: And according to the press reports Laura Coates reported this contact, this conversation, with Kristen Clark of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund “to her superiors.” Do you know whether that occurred?
MR. ADAMS: I do. And if Mr. Coates were able to comply with his subpoena and testify under oath I’m quite confident that he would be able to share the full details of those communications as conveyed to him.
MR. BLACKWOOD: But you’re not in the position to do that.
MR. ADAMS: Other than they existed and you accurately — and that I characterized them as a request as to when the case was going to be dismissed as conveyed to me by Mr. Coates.

Read more here.

New Black Panthers, You’re Free To Go — Not So Fast, Arizona

So I guess all that hysteria about the Arizona immigration law was much ado about nothing. After months of telling us that the Nazis had seized Arizona, when the Obama administration finally got around to suing, its only objection was that the law was “pre-empted” by federal immigration law.

With the vast majority of Americans supporting Arizona’s inoffensive little law, the fact that Obama is suing at all suggests that he consulted exclusively with the craziest people in America before filing this complaint. (Which is to say, Eric Holder’s Justice Department.)

But apparently even they could find nothing discriminatory about Arizona’s law. It’s reassuring to know that, contrary to earlier indications, government lawyers can at least read English.

Instead, the administration argues, federal laws on immigration pre-empt Arizona’s law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Read more here.