Increasingly the J in DoJ, points more to jihad than to justice.
Lema Bashir was at the center of Virginia failing to mail military ballots in time in 2008. The same mistakes repeated in 2010 and United States military voters were heavily disenfranchised in 2010 because of in-actions by Bashir and DOJ throughout 2010. Disenfranchising the military vote is policy. You could make a case that bad mistakes were made in 2008 but that when those same mistakes are made and made worse in 2010 by a devout Muslim who calls Israel "northern Palestine," I submit that it is no accident but deliberate policy.
Bashir is featured in this White House produced video about all the muslims in the executive branch. Another hard sell Obama production of those whose interests clearly diverge from proud Americans. Obama was promoting on the White House website at the same time as his crippling submission speech to the ummah in Cairo (June '09) Notice in the video she refers to Israel as “North Palestine." Her family comes from there and she is militantly opposed to Israel.
Of the many astounding things about this video, one is the fact that the White House allowed it to go out with the supercharged term “North Palestine.” Of course another amazing thing is what is this person doing with such a prominent role in “defending” the voting rights and strength of military voters??? Keep in mind that all through 2010, the Voting Section at DOJ had a IRAQ Navy Vet (Lt. Commander Sabatino Leo) and they refused to allow him to work on military voting cases. Holder was even asked about this omission by Senator Sessions in an oversight hearing. How does one explain the totally lackadaisical approach to military voting rights in 2010?
Previous to her seditious career at the Department of Justice, Lema Bashir was a legal adviser with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) in Washington, D.C. The ADC:
- Opposes U.S. aid to Israel
- Opposes ethnic profiling of Arab Americans
- Supports Palestinian "martyrdom" campaigns in Israel
ADC in 2004 contributed $1,000 to the congressional campaign of Cynthia McKinney (D – Georgia). Samer Khalaf (Chairman of the ADC Political Outreach Committee in New Jersey) and Hareth Raddawi (a Board member of ADC’s Chicago branch) made personal contributions to McKinney’s campaign as well.
ADC identifies five major objectives that govern its activities:
(a) “Empowering Arab Americans”: A key means of achieving this is voter registration in large numbers.
(b) “Promoting civic participation”
(c) “Supporting freedom and development in the Arab World”
(d) “Defending the civil rights of all people of Arab heritage in the United States”: After the beginning of the U.S. war on terror, a perceptible shift occurred in the orientation and activities of ADC. It suddenly became a strident voice protesting what it said were plans by the Bush administration to curtail the civil liberties of Arab Americans. It depicted all anti-terrorism efforts by the Justice and Treasury Departments as unfair persecution based on ethnic discrimination. And it endorsed the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004, which was designed to roll back, in the name of protecting civil liberties, vital national-security policies that had been adopted after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
ADC was a co-plaintiff in the first major legal challenge to a section of the Patriot Act -- specifically Section 215, which allows for government access to such information as medical, educational, and library records pursuant to a terrorism investigation. The organization has also endorsed the Community Resolution to Protect Civil Liberties campaign, which tries to influence city councils to pass resolutions of noncompliance with the provisions of the Patriot Act.
ADC was a signatory to a March 17, 2003 letter exhorting members of the U.S. Congress to oppose Patriot Act II on grounds that it contained “a multitude of new and sweeping law enforcement and intelligence gathering powers … that would severely dilute, if not undermine, many basic constitutional rights.” Fellow signers included the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the American Library Association, the Arab American Institute, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Immigrant Defense Project of the New York State Defenders Association, the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Council of La Raza, the National Immigration Law Center, the National Lawyers Guild, People for the American Way, and Women Against War.
he Georgia and San Francisco chapters of ADC were signatories to a February 20, 2002 document composed by the radical group Refuse & Resist, condemning military tribunals and the detention of immigrants apprehended in connection with post-9/11 terrorism investigations. The document accused the U.S. government of rounding up and incarcerating large numbers of Arab, Muslim and South Asian immigrants without cause.
(e) ADC's fifth major objective is “Encouraging a balanced U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East”: In effect, this means discouraging American support for Israel, which ADC views as an oppressor nation that routinely violates the human rights of Palestinians. In August 2006 ADC drew up, for its supporters to sign, a petition that read: “If the United States is to be taken seriously as a peace making nation, it cannot continue to provide the weapons being used by Israel to kill hundreds of innocent people in such brutal and inhumane ways.” In ADC's view, America has more than once been guilty of genocide against foreign populations -- sometimes directly through the use of its own military might, and in other cases indirectly, through Israel.
In 1994, then-ADC President Hamzi Moghrabi said, “I will not call [Hamas] a terrorist organization. I mean, I know many people in Hamas. They are very respectable … I don’t believe Hamas, as an organization, is a violent organization.” Two years later, his successor, Hala Maksoud, defended Hamas’ partner in Mideastern terrorism, Hezbollah. “I find it shocking,” Maksoud said, “that [one] would include Hezbollah in … [an] inventory of Middle East ‘terrorist’ groups.” In 2000, new ADC President Hussein Ibish characterized Hezbollah as “a disciplined and responsible liberation force.” James Abourezk called Hamas and Hezbollah “resistance fighters.”
ADC was a signatory to a MAY 20, 2004 Joint Muslims/Arab-American Statement on Israeli Violence in Gaza, which "strongly condemn[ed]" Israel's "indiscriminate killings of innocent Palestinians, including many children," and its "demolition of Palestinian homes." The organization has also expressed its view that Israel’s security barrier in the West Bank is an illegal "apartheid wall." As noted by Debbie Schlussel, when Israel released hundreds of Hezbollah prisoners in early 2004, Imad Hamad, ADC’s Midwest Regional Director, openly celebrated the freedom of "the Heroes." This sentiment was consistent with ADC's longstanding pattern of praising both Hezbollah and Hamas.
ADC formerly ran ads in its publication ADC Times for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which in 2001 President Bush shut down for funneling millions of dollars to Hamas.
ADC is composed of five major departments:
(a) The Legal Department is staffed by a team of full-time attorneys who provide advice and referrals “whenever Arab Americans face discrimination.” “Since the attacks of September 11,” ADC laments, “our … community is becoming increasingly vulnerable. The documentation of hate crimes or discrimination based on ethnicity, nationality or religion is important to our community as a collective.”
Lema Bashir, a legal adviser with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) in Washington, D.C., said the group sees spikes in employment discrimination not only after events such as Sept. 11, but also when violence occurs in the Middle East, inflammatory stories appear in the media or even certain movies gain popularity.
In the years since the attacks, Bashir said, the types of complaints filed with the ADC have changed.
"The more common types of employment discrimination reported immediately after Sept. 11 were verbal and physical harassment, and termination because of race, religion or national origin," Bashir said.
Fast forward to Barack Hussein Obama's crusade to install devout Muslims in senior positions in his administration and all branches of government, enter Lema Bashir.
Bashir is very active in subversive, anti-American efforts:
Lema Bashir at launch of report Americans on Hold: Profiling, Citizenship, and the "War on Terror" - yes, it's an America bashign report by the usual suspects CAIR,
In the 2008 presidential election, 17,000 soldiers, sailors, and Marines mailed home completed ballots that were never counted.
Usually these ballots didn’t get home in time, mostly because they weren’t sent overseas early enough. One cause of this catastrophe is the Keystone Cops routine the Department of Justice Voting Section uses to enforce federal laws protecting the rights of military voters. Unfortunately, all signs point to a comic sequel in the upcoming November elections.
Congress tried to fix the problem last year by mandating that all ballots must be sent overseas at least 45 days before the election. But Military Voter Protection Project Director M. Eric Eversole has accused Justice Department officials of encouraging states to seek an exemption to the law. The law indeed grants states the right to ask the Pentagon to opt out of the law. Even worse, Eversole says the Department is telegraphing to states that it doesn’t want to pursue litigation to enforce the law.
Some voting rights are more important than others, it seems. Where have we heard this before?
Exemptions to the 45-day mailing mandate were supposed to be rare, and granted only for the most extreme emergencies. States had plenty of time to amend their laws to comply with the new 45-day window. Many states did nothing. Instead of aggressively enforcing the new protections, Justice has told states that the waiver provisions are ambiguous and encouraged waivers in numerous ways.
Senator John Cornyn, upon learning of the DOJ’s wobbly view of the new law, made it clear to the Pentagon in a recent meeting with Undersecretary Clifford Stanley that the Pentagon — which has the power to grant waivers — calls the shots. Cornyn’s message was the Pentagon should ignore any milquetoast attitudes emanating out of the Voting Section at Justice. Expect Senator Cornyn’s office to watch this issue like a hawk, which thankfully he is when it comes to military voting.
But Senator Cornyn has more reasons to worry than he knows. The investigative methods used by Justice in military voting matters are wholly inadequate. And even when the bureaucracy stumbles across violations, the Voting Section is timorous, and reluctant to aggressively litigate disenfranchisement of military voting rights.
One need only look at 2008 for proof. That year the Justice Department set up no telephone hotline for military voters to complain if they didn’t receive their ballot in time. No email address for the armed services was in use either. No outreach via military email, such as the daily “Early Bird,” took place. In fact, on the DOJ webpage devoted to military voting, all complaints are referred to the Pentagon. Naturally, after being detoured to the Pentagon, the aggrieved solider will learn the Pentagon has no enforcement power at all! Justice does.
A document filed in the military voting case of McCain v. Cunningham makes plain the disinterested enforcement system at DOJ for military voters. In 2008, the McCain campaign learned that the Commonwealth of Virginia was sending ballots out far too late for them to ever be successfully returned before the election. The campaign responded by immediately commencing a lawsuit.
Think about that: the very day before a historic election, a presidential campaign — with the distracting whirlwind of activity and bustle — was able to do what the bureaucrats at DOJ are paid to do, and didn’t: figure out Virginia was breaking federal law and file a lawsuit.
An affidavit of Voting Section attorney Lema Bashir in the case tells you all you need to know about how ineffective the DOJ investigative methods are during election season. It can be read here.
“On September 30, 2008,” Bashir notes, “I spoke with Vickie Williams” at the Virginia State Board of Elections. Williams was in charge of monitoring the mailing of military ballots. You’ll note this conversation occurred only 35 days before the election.
Until Congress stepped in last year, the statute set no mailing deadline, and DOJ was only requiring ballots to be mailed 30 days in advance. The Military Postal Service Agency had recommended 60 days, but bureaucrats inside DOJ were stuck in their ways and refused to budge from the 30-day tradition despite calls from all quarters to do so. In a rebuke to the bureaucrats, the new law now requires 45 days.
And what was the extent of the DOJ’s efforts to figure out if the thousands of Virginians serving overseas had their ballots mailed in time? On September 30, “Ms. Williams assured me that all of Virginia’s localities had sent absentee ballots to all UOCAVA voters who had requested an absentee ballot up until that date. She told me that she would send a follow-up email to [the Pentagon] with the specific dates when each locality had mailed such ballots,” the affidavit states.
Ms. Williams assured that all was well. Except it wasn’t. Actually, many ballots in Virginia were mailed overseas just a couple of weeks before the election. There was no chance they would ever be returned in time to be counted.
On Halloween 2008, the DOJ learned they had gotten a trick courtesy of the Virginia State Board of Elections when Ms. Williams called back with some bad news. She told the DOJ that her system never really could “provide the information requested” such as “the specific dates when each locality in Virginia had mailed such ballots.” Nobody actually knew what was going on — not Virginia, and obviously not the Justice Department either. The election was just four days away and the witches brew of electoral catastrophe was boiling.
One wonders what was happening from September 30 until October 31. Will the DOJ use this same broken system again in 2010? I’d suggest the DOJ look outside the bureaucracy, to the private sector, where experts on systems management exist that can fix this mess and prevent it from happening again. Turning inward to the bureaucracy for answers is likely to yield the same sorry results. But I’ll bet virtually nothing changes because a bureaucrat’s first instinct is to deny that a problem exists.
On November 3, the day before the election, the McCain campaign — unable to convince the DOJ it needed to act, and fast — filed a lawsuit to protect military voters. And not until November 14, 2008, did the DOJ do what it should have done weeks before — file papers in court to protect Virginia voters serving overseas in the military. Eventually the United States took the place of the McCain campaign and litigated the case.
Remember, this same mess played out all over the country, but the whip-smart investigative methods of the DOJ never could detect it. Seventeen thousand trashed military ballots prove it.
Amazingly, the Virginia State Board of Elections (SBE) is continuing to advocate positions in the ongoing (yes, ongoing) litigation which are hostile to military voting rights. Those responsible for these disgraceful positions should be removed, or Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli should be allowed to assume management of the defense. Cuccinelli does not suffer fools gladly, particularly ones seeking to make it harder for soldiers and sailors to vote. No doubt he would settle the case immediately and agree to protect our servicemembers fully.
But the single Bashir affidavit, filed in the single military voting case arising out of the 2008 election where 17,000 military votes were trashed, tells you everything you need to know.
While our soldiers patrol dangerous frontiers in Korea and south Asia, looking hard for any signs of danger, the DOJ has a very different approach when it comes to detecting compliance by states with federal law. Airmen glued to radar screens and sailors listening hard to the sounds from towed sonar arrays have a right to expect better from bureaucrats in Washington. They put their lives on the line for us. The DOJ should do more than take the word of Vickie Williams at the Virginia SBE that all is well, all is quiet, no problems to report. And the DOJ should respond with overwhelming force when signs appear that states aren’t ready to comply with the new federal 45-day mailing mandate. Requests for waivers from the 45-day mandate should be denied. In fact, requests for waivers should trigger a DOJ investigation.
We owe these heroes no less.
Read the affidavit. Her efforts to "protect" US soldier voting rights would be comic if they weren't so treasonous.
The three ranking members of the House of Representatives with oversight over military voting issues and the Justice Department sent a devastating letter to Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez. The curtain has been pulled back, and the DOJ spin that they are doing everything they can to protect military voters has become a laugh line.
Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith, Armed Service Committee Ranking Member Buck McKeon, and Elections Subcommittee Ranking Member Kevin McCarthy all joined forces to describe the clownish DOJ enforcement tactics in the letter. The problem for Eric Holder is that in just a few weeks, these three will probably shed the title “ranking member” and replace it with “chairman.”
Military ballots were required to be sent by September 18 under federal law. Some states, such as New York, received an extension to October 1. Despite these hard deadlines, nearly a third of states have failed to comply with the law. Military ballots have not been sent and in some cases this means our soldiers overseas are going to lose their right to vote. The public is beginning to see why.
“Public records” and media reports, like the many here at PJM, have “painted a picture of widespread noncompliance with federal law aided and abetted by an enforcement authority that is entirely ineffective,” the congressmen say. Strong stuff, that “aided and abetted” comparison, for it is a term mostly used to describe a criminal enterprise.
The laughs keep coming in the letter: “What we find most troubling about this situation” is that the DOJ “not only failed to ensure compliance but apparently” — get ready for it — “was not even aware when widespread noncompliance occurred.” Perhaps DOJ lawyers should bookmark PJM, because we were reporting on noncompliance days before they made their first calls into places like Illinois and Arkansas!
Here’s the best part: “The only way Members of Congress, the public” and the voters learned that ballots required to be mailed by September 18 hadn’t mailed is because “private organizations took it upon themselves to inquire” — emphasis added on inquire. What the congressmen are pointing out is that the DOJ never picked up the phone. It was the Military Voter Protection Project — an organization run by Lt. Commander (Res.) Eric Eversole that organizes teams of volunteer law students to do the DOJ’s job for them. These volunteers protected our soldiers for free, while bureaucrats in Washington making more than $140,000 a year dropped the ball. Eversole knows firsthand the ineptitude of the DOJ military voting rights management — he worked at the Voting Section and saw it firsthand.
So how did private citizens learn about violations of federal law in places like New Mexico, New York, Arkansas, and Illinois before the DOJ did? That’s where the story shifts from comic to tragic.
Simply, DOJ lawyers trusted informal emails from state election officials without firsthand knowledge that ballots had mailed. The emails came days after the deadline and didn’t even certify that the ballots mailed by the deadline. They only certified they had mailed.
Certified may be too strong a word. The three ranking members note they were “vague and misleading assertions of compliance.” For example, New York’s email message that “purportedly” certifies that all ballots were mailed by the deadline says only the ballots were “transmitted.” “That ‘certification’ includes no assurance that the reports it refers to are true, and does not even purport to state that the ballots were mailed by the October 1 deadline rather than the October 5 date of the email.”
The response of the DOJ lawyer to this motley “certification”?
“Thanks very much for the update,” he wrote back.
Fast forward to October 2010:
The curtain has been pulled back, and the Department of Justice spin that they are doing everything they can to protect military voters has become a laugh line.