- List All


  • Web   The Point

Blogroll

+ Theology/Religion + Culture + Marriage & Family + Politics + Academia + Human Rights
Christianity Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Religion Blogs - Blog Top Sites
Link With Us - Web Directory



« Occupational hazards | Main | I was hungry, and you threw me out »

September 26, 2008

Where is the Justice Department when you need it?

In the face of the Obama fundraising and media juggernaut, Republicans are worried about losing the presidential election.

They should be even more fearful, however, about being criminally prosecuted by the Justice Department for political speech and activity protected by the First Amendment -- a clear effort by partisan career lawyers within the Civil Rights Division to help the Obama campaign.

With the end of violence targeting civil rights workers of the '60s, the Criminal Section of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division "has not pursued a criminal voting-related case in decades." However, presentations at this year's Justice Department conference confirmed a "green light" for use of these "same criminal statues to harass and prosecute political activists (particularly Republicans) who are engaging in protected political activity."

The issue is so charged, that the author of the article I'm quoting (an attorney who specializes in election law) requested to remain anonymous to avoid being targeted for prosecution by the Justice Department for exercising First Amendment rights.

No matter your party affiliation, this type of justice is infuriating. As the article states, "There are so many things wrong with this abuse of our legal process, I am not sure where to start." So let's start with getting the word out.

Read the full report here.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c635553ef010534cbe9fb970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Where is the Justice Department when you need it?:

Comments

boaty

This makes it even more terrifying:

The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign. "


http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1

labrialumn

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The answer from the Framers of the Constitution was the 2nd Amendment.

This is *serious*

I cannot emphasize that enough.

FriarThom

Thanks Angelise!

The disclaimer at the bottom of the article was very disconcerting.

"The author is an attorney who specializes in election law. The author has requested anonymity to avoid being targeted for prosecution by the Justice Department for exercising First Amendment rights."

Eight years of Bush/Cheney and look at the state of our democracy. Imagine how bad it would be if a Democrat were elected president. They'd probably throw Christians in jail for carrying a Bible or wearing a crucifix.

labrialumn

He did mention in that news release that he is used to having himself and his family lied about and defamed by others. You give us an example, Thom.

FriarThom

labralumn,

There are two opposing stories, but one and only one truth. Which story do you believe and why?

Folks,

Remember the discussion we had over journalism/worldview bias? Here's a perfect example. Apparently, Matt Blunt can do no wrong regardless of evidence to the contrary.

labrialumn

Now we can discuss logic and spin. I did not say that Matt Blunt can do no wrong regardless of evidence of the contrary.

I observed that the site the false friar (are you really either a mendicant Franciscan, or a pullet?) directed us to, and found that it was a very extreme partisan site, which mainly feared and hated Matt Blunt because he is apparently a Christian.

And I ponder how that is used by the false friar to defend the use of the armed police with threats of fines and imprisonment to prevent political opposition to Baraq Hussein Obama.

That is called spin. (at best - it is in fact the sort of thing one can expect from the sturmabteilung) The whole argument demonstrates a lack of logical thinking, though it doesn't necessarily prove a reason for that illogic.

The comments to this entry are closed.