• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Are Holder and Obama racists? / DOJ dismisses Black Panther case

joobz said:
Quote:
The Justice Department has explained this decision by saying that Jackson was a certified poll watcher who did not carry any weapons, that the New Black Panther website denounced the actions in Philadelphia and that the group had no national plan to intimidate voters.

Seems straight forward.
Click to expand...

Except that voter intimidation laws don't require weapons be visible for intimidation to occur. And the video clearly shows that even the unarmed Black Panthers were acting in a hostile, intimidating and threatening manner directly outside a polling place.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 states in Section 11(b) that "no person … snip … shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote." What we see on that video is a clear case of intimidation. And multiple people complained about it … including some black voters.

The Voting Rights Act was written because black voters were often kept from casting ballots by threats of physical violence. Are modern day democrats now going to blithely defend blacks who do the same thing? Sad.

Especially when ProjectVote, which Obama and democrats are intimately associated with, complains (http://www.projectvote.org/voter-intimidation.html ) because supporters of Obama at a voting center were "heckled" by a group of protestors as they went into vote. And then complain that the penalties for doing that (up to a year in prison are too lenient. Compare a year in jail to be scolded "well just don't display a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place through 2012." And I guess it would be ok to do it elsewhere or after 2012 as far as the Holder DOJ is concerned. Seems there is a double standard taking place here, joobz, even if you refuse to see it.

Here's a little more information:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/print/

Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.

… snip …

Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.

The lawyers also had ascertained that one of the three men had gained access to the polling place by securing a credential as a Democratic poll watcher, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Times.
Click to expand...
Apparently, Adams is not the only one at the DOJ making this charge.

joobz said:
So, charges weren't dropped against King. BAC, how do you respond to this?
Click to expand...

That the punishment wasn't commensurate with the seriousness of the crime.

And since you folks have decided to try Adams rather than the case based on his past history, let's look at Malik Zulu Shabazz and his past.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/shabazzstand4facts.html

Shabazz is the leader of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPP), a radical black separatist group that calls for a militant response to racism. … snip … the NBPP uses violent rhetoric, takes a paramilitary posture and often threatens violence.

… snip … the NBPP has embraced racist views and has made vilifying another minority, Jews, the center of its ideology. Although Shabazz denies that he or the NBPP are anti-Semitic, the group focuses on the Jews as the source of black oppression, of the “black Holocaust,” and of most of the world’s problems, and Shabazz led the way in accusing Jews of masterminding 9/11.

Edited for compliance with Rule 4. Do not copy lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere. Instead use a short quote and a link to the original source.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
Click to expand...
THIS is the man and organization your side of this debate is defending.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SOdhner said:
Let me try this as an example:

BeAChooser is a serial killer. This is a very serious charge, right?
Click to expand...

Except your example isn't at all similar (just desperate). You have presented no evidence that I'm a serial killer. On the other hand, we have clear evidence that the *new* Black Panthers violated the voter intimidation laws (with, apparently, the help of democrat officials since they were given democrat poll watcher status). Nor have you presented any evidence that I was taken to court for being a serial killer, as these Black Panthers were taken to court (they just decided not to show up). Nor have you presented any evidence that one or more government lawyers have stated the new district attorney ordered them to drop my case after telling them "we just aren't going to prosecute serial killers whose screen names begin with the letter B" (the equivalent of what Adams stated they were told). It's rather sad that your defense of the indefensible has come done to nonsense like the above.

Why are you so afraid to put these people under oath and get them on the record? Why?
 
Upchurch said:
It is not, as BAC suggests, the accused who bears the responsibility of providing that evidence.
Click to expand...

The responsibility of the DOJ is to investigate serious claims of misconduct. Here we have a relatively high former government official making extremely serious charges in public which you don't want the DOJ to even investigate. Charges which seem to fit the observable facts. And given the history of the Reno DOJ (in which Holder was a top official) vis-a-vis refusing to properly investigate serious allegations of criminal activities during the Clinton years, folks should be more than a little concerned that the same thing is happening now ... with Holder in command of the DOJ. How ironic given that Obama tried to attack Hillary during the Presidential Primary campaign over the corruption in her husband's administration. And we thought we'd see *change*. :rolleyes:
 
BeAChooser said:
Except your example isn't at all similar (just desperate). You have presented no evidence that I'm a serial killer. On the other hand, we have clear evidence that the *new* Black Panthers violated the voter intimidation laws
Click to expand...
What is that clear evidence?
 
Upchurch said:
Who?

eta: Ah, Unabogie.
Click to expand...

It's not that he's a conservative. It's that he's a vocal, partisan conservative who keeps making outrageous charges. I posted the link to his earlier "op-ed" where he opined that Obama was appeasing the Muslim hordes. Now he comes out with another completely unbelievable charge (that's it OFFICIAL DOJ POLICY to ignore black criminals) and his credibility is indeed relevant. Forgive me if I require slightly more evidence than this guy's word.
 
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/breaki...to-support-j-christian-adams/?singlepage=true

BREAKING: A Third Former DOJ Official Steps Forward to Support J. Christian Adams

… snip …

July 6, 2010

Several former DOJ employees have been in contact with Pajamas Media, interested in publicly supporting J. Christian Adams as he comes forward about the DOJ’s failure to enforce the country’s laws from a race-neutral perspective.

These former DOJ employees have expressed a willingness to go on record regarding Adams’ professionalism, excellent performance, and outstanding record of enforcing the law without racial bias.

Additionally, they would like to corroborate Adams’ statements about the DOJ.

And perhaps — pay attention, DOJ press liaisons — offer their own accounts regarding the DOJ’s hostility to race-neutral law enforcement.
Click to expand...
Edited for compliance with Rule 4. Do not cut and paste long tracts of text available elsewhere. Instead use a short quote and a link to the original source only.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BeAChooser said:
Except that voter intimidation laws don't require weapons be visible for intimidation to occur. And the video clearly shows that even the unarmed Black Panthers were acting in a hostile, intimidating and threatening manner directly outside a polling place.
Click to expand...
Seems the DoJ felt it was one NBP member.

I am shocked at the level of under reporting on this one as well. (Seriously I am suprized that only one newspaper ran the story.)

So either someone felt that this was no big deal, including Fox news...
 
Upchurch said:
I did look at the video you gave. It showed two guys standing there holding sticks at the polling place. I did not see them threatening or otherwise intimidating anyone.
Click to expand...

Yeah I have to say that is a low bar for intimidation. Now the reports of the shouting are much more exciting.
 
BeAChooser said:
Except that voter intimidation laws don't require weapons be visible for intimidation to occur. And the video clearly shows that even the unarmed Black Panthers were acting in a hostile, intimidating and threatening manner directly outside a polling place.
Click to expand...
I agree.

However, the video shows only King as holding a stick and had no business being there. The other person was actually a certified poll watcher.

The Justice Department has explained this decision by saying that Jackson was a certified poll watcher who did not carry any weapons, that the New Black Panther website denounced the actions in Philadelphia and that the group had no national plan to intimidate voters.
Click to expand...
The stick went too far and was why charges weren't dropped.

Do you believe the other person was being intimidating?



BeAChooser said:
That the punishment wasn't commensurate with the seriousness of the crime.
Click to expand...
For King, who held a weapon, this is a legitimate complaint and one I would like to know more about.


BeAChooser said:
And since you folks have decided to try Adams rather than the case based on his past history, let's look at Malik Zulu Shabazz and his past.
Click to expand...
As I haven't attacked Adams, this point is erroneous.



BeAChooser said:
THIS is the man and organization your side of this debate is defending.
Click to expand...
I am not defending him. I do not think he is a good person.

BeAChooser said:
Yeah, sure you do. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I do. I just happen to only hate real lies and not the imagined manufactured nonsense of political hacks.
 
Dancing David said:
Seems the DoJ felt it was one NBP member.
Click to expand...

Actually, there were 3 NBP members there and even if there was only one, does that mean it's no longer a serious crime. If only one person is at a polling station we are now going to simply ignore it? Especially if they aren't brandishing any obvious weapons. The taunts, menacing appearance and such are perfectly ok? At least as long as you're democrat? :rolleyes:
 
Unabogie said:
More from the comments section



Yep, totally dispassionate reporting you've linked to. Nothing racist about these folks. I suggest a special prosecutor.
Click to expand...

Wait, what!?!? You mean I paid $7,000 in property taxes this year and they were going to give it to me anyway!?!? Oooo... Wait til this year's "Screw With the White Man BBQ & Fish Fry!" They're gonna hear about this!

Come to think of it, I only got my wife so far & I was promised two white women! Grrr...
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
Actually, there were 3 NBP members there and even if there was only one, does that mean it's no longer a serious crime. If only one person is at a polling station we are now going to simply ignore it? Especially if they aren't brandishing any obvious weapons. The taunts, menacing appearance and such are perfectly ok? At least as long as you're democrat? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There were claims of racists statements being lobbed at voters. This is a real concern.

however, there was nothing in the video that appeared intimidating. Unless, of course, one considers a black man in a black coat intimidating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom