Posted on 07/19/2011 2:28:41 PM PDT by jazusamo
While Obamas Justice Department dismissed a critical voter intimidation case against a radical black revolutionary group, its going after a pro life advocate the agency calls one of the most vocal and aggressive anti-abortion protestors.
Ironically, the administration claims that the pro life advocate, a Maryland man named Richard Retta, intimidated and interfered with women seeking abortions in Washington D.C.-area clinics much like members of the New Black Panther Party did to white voters during the 2008 presidential election. The difference is that the Black Panthers, clad in military attire, used weapons, racial insults and profanity to deter voters.
Judicial Watch obtained records that show political appointees at the DOJ ordered the Black Panther case dismissed after the administration colluded with leftwing groups. JWs investigation also revealed that the official Obama appointed to head the DOJs civil rights division, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, lied under oath to cover up the Black Panther voter intimidation scandal.
Now Perez is pursuing a pro lifer for violating a Clinton-era law (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act) that prohibits any sort of interference with a woman seeking an abortion. Retta physically obstructed a patient and volunteer escorts attempting to enter the Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, according to a DOJ complaint filed a few days ago. He also frequently walks very closely beside patients as they walk to the clinic and he follows them into the street and oncoming traffic. Sometimes he yells at them, the feds claim.
In announcing the lawsuit, Perez vowed to pursue similar cases, saying that individuals who seek to obtain or provide reproductive health services have the right to do so without encountering hazardous physical obstructions. If one unarmed guy is considered such a threat, then a barrier of big, muscular, armed men intimidating voters during a presidential election certainly merits attention from the agency charged with enforcing the law and defending the interests of the United States. Yet that case got dismissed.
Sorry, but if the complaint that I read is true, this guy did break the law. He was overly aggressive. He was so close he stepped on a woman's shoe and broke the strap. I am against abortion unless the mother's life is in danger (a very rare occurrence), but I'm for the rule of law. My opinion is not the law. Just because the other side is picking and choosing which laws to abide by doesn't mean that I will. I have no empathy for those that kill abortion doctors or bomb clinics claiming they do it because they believe in the sanctity of a human life. It's so hypocritical.
Once she's President, I'll bet one of her lawyers can find a clause in the Patriot Act which would justify putting all of the corrupt bunch into Gitmo to be followed by military tribunals.
Ah, sweet dreams of would-be totalitarians hoist upon their own petards...
Cheers!
I can agree with some of what you said but when you brought in the bombing of clinics and killing of abortion doctors you lost me, it’s got no place in this scenario.
meanwhile holder is releasing terrorists ... no problem.
If i was to guess that the people the “justice” department were going after were white would I be correct?
I wonder if it were the mother of a teen getting an abortion, would the DOJ do this as well. Sadly, yes... with the ACLU, NOW and others on board.
Yet there are those who come across our borders and kill, they allow that as well.
I have it figured out, they get off on death, period.
It has to do with the rule of law. It is not illegal to perform an abortion. As much as I may detest an abortion, I cannot condone those that would take the law into their own hands. This person did just that. And so do those that bomb clinics and kill abortion doctors.
Br>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.