Christian Woman Seeking Christian Roommate is Charged on Civil Rights Violations

A 31-year-old Grand Rapids, Michigan woman advertised for a Christian roommate, on her church bulletin board, and is charged with civil rights violations. She faces "several hundreds of dollars in fine and "fair housing training." Odd, though... the unnamed person who filed the complaint says he saw the ad on a church bulletin board.

Christians Seeking Christians

The complaint's name is blacked out in the Michigan Department of Civil Rights document, but does show that Fair Housing Center of West Michigan v (the first name of the offending woman is given here). Find the link here at ToddStarnes.

Tell me, when are we Americans going to put a stop to this? How many Muslims would live with a Christian? Not many, if any.

“This is outrageous,” said attorney Joel Oster, with the Alliance Defense Fund. His organization is representing the woman free of charge. “Clearly this woman as a right to pick and choose who she wants to live with.”

Oster said he’s sent a letter to the state asking them to dismiss the case as groundless...“The First Amendment guarantees us Freedom of Religion,” he said. “And we have the right to live with someone of the same faith. The Michigan Department of Civil  Rights is denying her rights by pursuing this complaint.”

Christians shouldn’t live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians,” he said. “It is completely absurd to try to penalize a single Christian woman for privately seeking a Christian roommate at church–an obviously legal and constitutionally protected activity,”

The civil rights attorney said she is going ahead with this case and plans to pursue it.

Here's two questions: what if the ad goes out with no mention of Christianity. A Muslim responds. Is it a civil rights violation if the Muslim asks if the ad owner is Christian? Or...if a Christian answers an ad for roommate and is turned down because he/she is not Muslim, would the Muslim be looking at civil rights charges against them?

So, there must have been something offensive in the ad, right?

It included the words, “Christian roommate wanted” along with her contact information. Had the ad not included the word “Christian,’ she said it would not have been illegal.

I am becoming fearful of my own country. We are losing our freedom day by day and minute by minute. Really, we must do something about so-called Civil Rights in this country, and we MUST NOT forget that we must do something.

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook
Content Scrapers: Until I can figure out what to do about your confiscation of my work for your own website, please be sure to give a link back as shown above.

Christian Adams with Megyn Kelly: DOJ Atty Resigns DOJ in Black Panther Protest Video

Megyn Kelly interviewed J. Christian Adams, the Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney who was the lead attorney in the prosecution of the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation at a Philadelphia poll place. In what Adams says is the clearest example of voter intimidation in the history of his career was judged guilty, then DOJ Civil Rights Division was ordered to dismiss the charges and drop the case. See the video below.

New Black Panthers - Voter Intimidation in Philadelphia

Adams resigned his position and left the DOJ for private practice in May 2010. This quote is from his commentary in The Washington Times:

Most disturbing, the dismissal is part of a creeping lawlessness infusing our government institutions. Citizens would be shocked to learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims....Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.

In The Washington Times, Adams made these points:

1) The dismissal of the Black Panther case "was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law." 

2) Some in the Department "abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New black Panthers.

3) Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Tom Perez "inaccurately" testified to the House Judiciary Committee

4) "Most corrupt of all, the lawyers who ordered the dismissal - Loretta King, the Obama-appointed acting head of the Civil Rights Division, and Steve Rosenbaum....

5) Some inside Justice say this is an isolated incident, but other similar cases happened at polling places in Philadelphia, including one targeting Hillary Rodham Clinton. Adams says "the law clearly prohibits even isolated incidents of voter intimidation.

6) The evidence shows that voters were affected by intimidation, but even if it didn't, the law demands punishment of "an attempt."

7) Some co-workers argued the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation. "Some called it payback time.

Note that Kelly asked for a statement from the DOJ, and part of their answer to Adams is that he "is a Conservative." What does being Conservative or Liberal have to do with Human Rights? (Thanks to Lonely Conservative for the video)




Christian Adams and Megyn Kelly on Black Panthers Voter Intimidation (video)


Related and Background:

DOJ Dismisses Black Panthers: Black Panther Voter Intimidation Dropped

Black Panthers Win: Voter Fraud Wins: Voter Rights Lose

Obama Sics DOJ Civil Rights Div on Arizonas Immigration Law

I ask again: What happened to State's Rights? When Obama said yesterday that he would ask his administration to "closely monitor and examine the civil rights" of illegal aliens in Arizona, he had already done the asking. The Civil Rights Division of the DOJ are looking into Arizona's new law, which 70% of the people there support, to determine if it violates civil rights laws. Do you have any doubt that this DOJ will support Arizona? I don't.

Illegal Aliens invade Roger Barnett's Ranch (trial photos)

Read the story of Roger Barnett a few paragraphs down.

The "Civil Rights Division" of the DOJ is the same department that dismissed all the charges against the New Black Panthers when they so clearly intimidated voters at a Philadelphia polling place during the 2008 presidential election. Apparently, a Black man standing at the door with a billy stick was not intimidation. All charges were dropped, and the circumstances under which they were dropped were gut wrenching to freedom loving Americans who respect and revere our polling spots.

Obama said the "recent efforts in Arizona," ....threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans...." What fairness? What is fair for the legal residents of Arizona who can no longer sell their property because illegals stream over their land daily, often leaving behind drug paraphanalia and trash, including needles. What is fair about lives being threatened, and sometimes snuffed out. What "basic fairness" is the President speaking of? It surely is not fairness to legal residents. If there were federal concern about legal residents, we would not have illegal aliens flooding across the border.

What about this Arizona man, Roger Barnett, who after 10 years of illegals using his ranch as a entry point, began rounding up the illegals and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol. They destroyed his property, broke into his home and killed his cattle. Sixteen damn illegals sued him for $32 million dollars for violating his civil rights. He was ordered to pay the illegals $77,000.00 to the illegals. The case is on appeal, and in essence Barnett is winning, but it has been a long, expensive and emotional road. Here are some additional details leading up to the appeal.

Roger Barnett Trial Photo

Just a side note: We have the right to face our accusers in court. Well, these 16 accusers used pseudonyms in the lawsuit out of "fear of adverse action based on immigration status." Absurd.

The new Arizona law:

 "would make Arizona the only state to criminalize the presence of illegal immigrants through an expansion of it's trespassing law." 

We have lost all remnants of common sense?

Arizona has the ball rolling. I hope we see other states follow in their footsteps. Good job Arizona, and don't be intimidated by the thugs in Obama's Department of Justice.

Related and Background:
Obama's Immigration is My Illegal Aliens

Black Panther DOJ Coverup: Civil Rights Commission Request Ignored: In Your Face DOJ Racism

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has, for months, sought an explanation from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) of how the dismissal of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case was handled. Finally, subpoenas were issued to DOJ attorneys and those subpoenaed have been instructed to not appear in court, and not to give over any subpoenaed documents. That's your Obama Justice Department at work folks.

 New Black Panthers outside Philadelphia Polling Place November 4, 2008

The background on the story is that three New Black Panther thugs, garbed in para-military-looking garb, planted themselves outside a Philadelphia polling place during the November 2008 presidential election day - one wielding a nightstick. It was caught on tape. A voter intimidation lawsuit was filed. For five months the men refused to show up in court. A judge asked for a final judgment. Then DOJ civil rights attorneys got involved and completely dismissed the case. Now we know why.

From Jennifer Rubin writing for Commentary Magazine:

The Justice Department has ordered its career trial lawyers who have been subpoenaed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights not to appear to provide testimony or give documents in the investigation of DOJ’s dismissal of the New Black Panther Party voter-intimidation case. The Washington Times explains:

Joseph H. Hunt, director of the Justice Department’s Federal Programs Branch, ordered the lawyers’ silence in a letter to the attorney for J. Christian Adams, the lead attorney for the department in the New Black Panther case. The letter said “well-established” and “lawful” Justice Department guidelines prohibited Mr. Adams’ cooperation in the commission probe.

Todd Gaziano, a member of the Civil Rights Commission says the guidelines cited do not apply...

Our job places a premium on our role as a watchdog of federal and state enforcement agencies, and to that end, Congress has instructed all agencies to comply fully with our requests,” he said. … [Gaziano] said the Justice Department “had it exactly backwards” when it suggested that there could be negative consequences for those who comply with the commission’s subpoenas. He said a lawyer cannot refuse to comply with a subpoena he knows to be lawful.

I say good luck to Mr. Gaziano. He should watch his back. The Walpinization of Gaziano is being planned as I type. You may remember Inspector General Gerald Walpin who was fired by the White House for doing his job and revealing millions of stolen funds by AmeriCorp. The White House illegally fired Walpin - but hey so what (thumbing of haughty noses). Gaziano will be next.

Rubin says a source told her that that J. Christian Adams was "not quite" threatened with the loss of his job, but plainly...

...he and his colleague, Christopher Coates, the voting rights section chief, are being strong-armed to disregard a lawful subpoena. This is abject lawlessness, the sort of executive imperiousness that, if practiced by a Republican administration, would bring howls of protest from Congress, the media, and liberal lawyers’ groups.  

The Obama Justice Department doesn’t want to respond to a subpoena because they have a personnel rule? Next thing you know they’ll be claiming executive privilege for a social secretary. Oh yes, that’s right … [already done that!]

While the DOJ spokesperson continues to claim there never a case supporting voter intimidation, Rubin says DOJ lawyers object

But of course the lawyers disagree, claiming that their best legal judgment was overridden by political appointees without justification. They have a story to tell, with documents, firsthand accounts of meetings and conversations and e-mails with the political appointees’ own remarks, which they say will substantiate their position. But the Justice Department won’t let any of that out, nor will it say what specifically about the case lacked factual or legal support.

The options according to Rubin are for attorneys to appear before the Commission in defiance of Obama and Holder et al, and risk their jobs, or some kind of deal may be negotiated to help the DOJ cover their tracks or "Congress might wake up, fulfill its obligation to conduct some real oversight of the Obama administration, and actually hold a hearing on the matter."

The administration acted upon their own racial prejudice and said that voter intimidation is fine and dandy when the Black Panthers want to take control, complete with nightstick to protect their vote, but not yours or mine. Can you imagine, had any Republican ignored and then thwarted subpoenas from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission? The DOJ's actions are blatant, in-your-face racism. I encourage you to read Black Panthers Win: Voter Fraud Wins: Voter Rights Lose and hear Bartle Bull's account of that day in Philadelphia. Mr. Bull's civil rights activity goes back to Senator Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. As an American voter, you need to know what Bull had to say about Philadelphia. Thanks to the incredible news-sleuthing abilities of Larwyn.

Linked by Storm' Normn' - thank you!

Related background: and the rest of the story:

 DOJ Dismisses Black Panthers: Black Panther Voter Intimidation Dropped

DOJ - Black Panther Voter Fraud Absolved

James Winfrey is Rosa Parks Arrested Sign Grabber: Maxine Johnson has Rosa Parks Sign

James Winfrey is the Rosa Parks arrested sign grabber. Maxine Johnson had the Rosa Parks sign. Mr. Winfrey, wearing a blue t-shirt with the word "volunteer" on the back, took a sign from the seat in front of the woman, Maxine Johnson, who is said to be a serial St. Louis Liberal activist. The forum took place at Jefferson College in Lebanon, MO and the College has a policy of "no signs." See the best video available of Maxine Johnson below.

Maxine Johnson

If the video is playing automatically, I apologize. I do not know how to turn it off until ready for viewing. In the video, you'll see three woman parade down the aisle with a sign picturing Rosa Parks plastered against their mid-sections. The meeting is already underway - McCaskill is already talking. The woman walk as though they are bridesmaids making their way to the alter. The crowd begins yelling "no signs, no signs." McCaskill must stop her presentation. Mr. Winfrey is standing just across the aisle from the woman with the sign, in his "Volunteer." He crosses the aisle, grabs the paper, crumples it and throws it on the ground as he walks back to where he was standing. The woman comes after him and others come after them both. Mr. Winfrey is arrested and she is escorted from the room. The controversy was on

did their usual crack reporting and got it all wrong. In an interview with CNN's Kirin Chetry, Maxine Johnson said this:

...the security guard said have your purse checked. We had the posters opened in front of our bodies and they were to pass at two other security officers. They checked our purses, and they saw the posters open wide on our bodies and they told us going into the gymnasium. You walk down the middle aisle and sit down on the floor, and then all of a sudden the crowd start saying hey put up your signs, put up your posters, put up your signs. And I was just curious because I knew it was a Rosa Parks sign, the highway we just got off of was called Rosa Parks, and I couldn't understand the connection between the Rosa Parks sign and the hearing. It was no relation. And finally, I just told the senator yes, ma'am, senator, we will comply and I sat down in my seat, rolled the sign up, and a reporter asked to take a picture and the gentleman to my right in the bleachers suddenly leaped from the bleachers, ran to me.

Sometimes, when you want to believe you are in the middle of fracas, your mind works quickly, as did Ms. Johnson's daughter:

And it happened so quickly my daughter said he twist my arm, pushed me on to her, snatched the sign out of my hand and as he walked away I realized that he crumbling up my sign. And before I knew it, I leaped out of my seat to go retrieve my sign. And I snatched it from him and said don't you take my sign. And before I knew it, I had four or five officers on me and one on him.

The video clearly shows that Winfrey didn't touch her, let alone twist her arm or push her anywhere. When it is played back in slow motion, you can can see Winfrey's left hand on the chair in front of Johnson and he grabs the sign on the seat of that chair with his right hand. Once you see the video, it's clear that it was probably one of the two women with her that abused her arm.

Later in the conversation, Johnson said she was able to go to the emergency room to get her arm checked out (presumable the one that Winfrey "twisted,"). She was very proud of the fact that she has good health care and she wants it for everyone, and that's why she was at this forum. Chetry didn't have the guts to ask Johnson why she believes ObamaCare will provide insurance equal to what she has today. You'll see the difference in her story and the video below. Chetry asks Johnson why she said there was a "racial element" to the incident:

Well, they looked at me and said can't you read? Can't you read? As we looked around the room, there were several people in the room that had other signs. There was a person that had a sign that says "Ni**er, Obama." Obama's like Hitler. And you know, my point is, there were signs that were not allowed, why did the officers allow this in the room? And then we complied and there were other people with signs, they were not black.

There was about 3,000 people, about 30 African Americans and then I asked another and I said, what was the problem it was Rosa Parks, a historical figure. Why was it such a threat? A woman says it wasn't Rosa Parks. You were the threat, you are a black woman. (INAUDIBLE) the people who took our report, they say, ma'am, we cannot guarantee your protection. You must leave this town. We cannot protect you. You don't know these people. They're nasty. It was clearly racial.

There was some more conversation from Johnson, something like: "McCaskill, she's not black. She doesn't know the struggle that black[s] have to... (and the rest was inaudible). I did find a video (not posted here) of three others in the crowd holding yellow "Don't tread on me" flags. The flags were held by each corner. They looked to be the size of a piece of notebook paper. I think one man was telling a police officer that the flag said the same thing the logo on his shirt said.

There are numerous wide shots of the crowd and there are no sign of signs anywhere else in the audience, let alone signs with the "N-word." In the video, you'll hear Johnson saying "there were no Blacks or African Americans in the crowd. You see at least about 8 Blacks in the video. McCaskill apologizes for "two people" getting involved who should not have.

A question for McCaskill: could Mr. Winfrey been charged with seeing to it that no signs were visible - after all he was a volunteer, apparently for Jefferson College because McCaskill said he was not on their team. This video is from ConservativeTVOnline. I plan to go back often.

Please take a few minutes to watch this video - stick with it to the end because there is plenty of misinformation that this video debunks. This real reporting - the kind that CNN doesn't have a clue about.

James Winfrey - Maxine Johnson

A note: The above photo of Ms. Johnson was allegedly taken at a Spring protest. Ms. Johnson's home is embroiled in an eminent domain battle. If what I have read is correct, her home is slated to be taken from her to make room for a "planned redevelopment project. If this is the case, I wish her the best because I am completely opposed to homes and businesses being snatched for any reason except for a national highway - and even then...

Missing the Point of the Black Panther Story: Megyn Kelley and Eric Shawn

I love Megyn Kelly and I love Eric Shawn on FOX News, but this morning as they reported the Black Panther voter intimidation case, they missed the point. See update below. The fact that the case was dismissed, even after a default judgment, is one story and it is an outrageous story, but the real story is that the case was dismissed AFTER the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice got involved.

Front-line lawyers were in the final stages of completing that work when they were unexpectedly told by their superiors in late April to seek a delay after a meeting between political appointees and career supervisors, according to federal records and interviews. [A DOJ spokesman] said that after a "thorough review" of the complaint, top career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division determined the "facts and the law did not support pursuing the claims against three of the defendants.

Update: Read the updated outrage here.

Obama: 2001 Constitution a Negative Charter - Redistribution of Wealth

In this video, Barack Obama, then an Illinois Senator, explains:

 1) That political and economic justice - through "redistribution of wealth" was not addressed by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights movement. 

2) Our Constitution DID NOT BREAK FREE of constraints, at the time of the Civil Rights movement, placed there by our Founding Fathers 

 3) At the time of the Movement, the Warren court interpreted our Constitution as a "charter of negative liberties." 

 4) The focus was lost during the Movement that would have channeled "community organizing" into changes for "redistributive change." 

Obama on Changing the U.S. Constititution

 PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT: 

MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we're joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago. 

 OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. 

And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. It [the Constitution] didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, it says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted. 

One of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that. 

MODERATOR: Let's talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you're on Chicago Public Radio. 

KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn't terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point? 

 OBAMA: Maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn't structured that way. You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out.

You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. The court's just not very good at it and politically it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.