Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Black Panthers / Eric Holder: What's your take?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Did Holder swear to uphold justice and subvert it based on "what happened in the 60's" according to him and Obama? |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
|
Can you point me to a single voter that reported being intimidated? There was no case. Simple as that. Just because you pee your pants at the sight of a skinny black guy doesn't mean everyone does.
|
Anonymous
I believe a judgement was entered against the Black Panthers; and although you were not appointed the judge in this instance that should mean something. I know when you are not satisfied with the system you feel it is OK to ignore it or in this case for someone to inexplicably subert the process for racial reasons. It is called situational ethics or values. If the state of Wisconsin had skinny troopers wielding batons you would have shit, since you are being graphic in your speech. |
Anonymous
|
JONATHAN TURLEY
Res ipsa loquitur ("The thing itself speaks") BlogBioLatest ColumnCorrections -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- « Who Needs Surgery? Bam, Bam, Bam, You Have A New HipIn California, It’s BYOTP » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DOJ Official: Black Panther Decision a “Travesty of Justice” Published 1, September 26, 2010 Bizarre , Congress , Criminal law , Politics , Society 49 Comments This week Congress held hearings on the controversial decision by the Obama Administration to drop charges against Black Panther members for voter intimidation in Philadelphia in 2008. I have previously criticized the decision since I fail to see how these pictures did not show intimidation and the Obama Administration has created a dangerous precedent (if not an invitation) for other groups to engage in the same practices at polling places. In the hearing, Christopher Coates, former voting chief for the department’s Civil Rights Division, called the decision a “travesty of justice” and deepened the controversy over the policies and practices in that division. Coates testimony has long been resisted by the Administration, particularly after former Justice official J. Christian Adams came out in July with a stinging rebuke of the decision. Adams claimed that the Administration showed open hostility to cases where victims were white and defendants were black. Coates seemed to back up such claims and said that the Obama Administration abandoned a “race-neutral” approach to enforcing the Voting Rights Act. What was strange in this case is that the Justice Department had already secured a default victory but suddenly moved to dismiss the charges. In return, the Black Panthers reportedly agreed to not carry “weapon[s]” near a polling place until 2012 – a rather bizarre agreement. I am a bit surprised by the relatively little media coverage given the testimony. One can disagree with the testimony, but it clearly raises substantial concerns and policy questions. This is clearly not a huge case and I would not think that it would normally generate a major sanction. Indeed, it was overblown when it occurred by conservative sites. Nevertheless, it was worthy of prosecution and the dismissal of the action magnified the controversy over the future standard for intimidation cases. My concern remains the standard created for future cases. I would think that the decision would embolden other groups from skinheads to extreme religious groups in “policing” polling places. I can understand if this was viewed as simply a minor case, but it would seem to have warranted some formal sanction, even a small one. In the very least, the Administration needs to give a more substantial account of the decision to drop the case. With Coates’ testimony, this controversy will only grow — particularly with the possible Republican takeover of the House. Source: LA Times Jonathan Turley Share this: StumbleUpon Digg LikeBe the first to like this post. 49 Responses to “DOJ Official: Black Panther Decision a “Travesty of Justice”” Feed for this Entry Trackback Address -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Anonymously Yours 1, September 26, 2010 at 7:57 am Well at least we know the DADT policy is in force at polling places as well…But then again…if you are gonna rig elections might as well be more clandestine as in Kentucky…fix the vote…to go your candidates way…. 2 culheath 1, September 26, 2010 at 8:10 am “I have previously criticized the decision since I fail to see how these pictures did not show intimidation….” You know, with all due respect, intimidation must be in the eye of the beholder, because my impression when I, a liberal white guy, first saw the portrayal of the situation, my impression was that the BP guys were there to prevent possible intimidation of black voters – just saying. 3 Elaine M. 1, September 26, 2010 at 8:38 am I read/heard opposing opinions on this matter earlier. I found it hard to know who was getting the story right. Here’s an article I found this morning. From National Review Online The New Black Panther Case: A Conservative Dissent Never mind this one-off stunt by fringe radicals; the DOJ is engaged in much more important voting-rights mischief. By Abigail Thernstrom JULY 6, 2010 4:00 A.M. (Note: I believe Thernstrom is vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.) http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243408/new-black-panther-case-br-conservative-dissent-abigail-thernstrom Excerpt: Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes. Perhaps the Panthers should have been prosecuted under section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act for their actions of November 2008, but the legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation — the charge — are very high. In the 45 years since the act was passed, there have been a total of three successful prosecutions. The incident involved only two Panthers at a single majority-black precinct in Philadelphia. So far — after months of hearings, testimony and investigation — no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots. Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case. A number of conservatives have charged that the Philadelphia Black Panther decision demonstrates that attorneys in the Civil Rights Division have racial double standards. How many attorneys in what positions? A pervasive culture that affected the handling of this case? No direct quotations or other evidence substantiate the charge. Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, makes a perfectly plausible argument: Different lawyers read this barely litigated statutory provision differently. It happens all the time, especially when administrations change in the middle of litigation. Democrats and Republicans seldom agree on how best to enforce civil-rights statutes; this is not the first instance of a war between Left and Right within the Civil Rights Division. The two Panthers have been described as “armed” — which suggests guns. One of them was carrying a billy club, and it is alleged that his repeated slapping of the club against his palm constituted brandishing it in a menacing way. They have also been described as wearing “jackboots,” but the boots were no different from a pair my husband owns. A disaffected former Justice Department attorney has written: “We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere.” “Indications”? Again, evidence has yet to be offered. Get a grip, folks. The New Black Panther Party is a lunatic fringe group that is clearly into racial theater of minor importance. It may dream of a large-scale effort to suppress voting — like the Socialist Workers Party dreams of a national campaign to demonstrate its position as the vanguard of the proletariat. But the Panthers have not realized their dream even on a small scale. This case is a one-off. There are plenty of grounds on which to sharply criticize the attorney general — his handling of terrorism questions, just for starters — but this particular overblown attack threatens to undermine the credibility of his conservative critics. Those who are concerned about Justice Department enforcement of the Voting Rights Act should turn their attention to quite another matter, where the attorney general has been up to much more important mischief: his interpretation of the act’s core provisions. The department has just proposed new guidelines intended to assist the “covered” jurisdictions in their efforts to comply with the demands of section 5, which forces “covered” states to obtain federal approval (“preclearance”) for all proposed changes in voting procedure. All southern states are “covered”; so are Texas, Arizona, Alaska, and numerous scattered counties in New York, California, and elsewhere. Redrawn districting maps are changes that must be precleared. 4 LeftTurn 1, September 26, 2010 at 8:43 am Who was intimidated? After the 2003 mayoral election in Philly? What about the Minute Man with the gun at the Hispanic polling place? This reeks of usual non story that whips up the GOP/Fox news viewers base. 5 Elaine M. 1, September 26, 2010 at 8:58 am From TPMMuckraker Bush-Era Voting Section Chief: DOJ Biased Against White People Ryan J. Reilly | September 24, 2010 http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/bush-era_voting_section_chief_doj_biased_against_whites.php Excerpt: Coates was put in place back in 2008 during the Bush administration under Attorney General Michael Mukasey. He replaced the former chief, John Tanner, who resigned after making controversial comments that voter ID laws primarily affected white people because the elderly often don’t have identification and that “minorities don’t become elderly the way white people do: They die first.” Coates apparently underwent an ideological conversion after an African-American woman was chosen over him as a deputy section chief in July of 2000, according to an article in American Prospect, and became an ally of Bradley Schlozman, who was found to have politicized the division. The Black Panther hearing has brought out former DOJ official Hans von Spakovsky as well as J. Christian Adams, lawyer who worked on the case and later resigned over the way it was handled. This is the most coverage the Civil Rights Commission has gotten in a long time, there’s a variety of reporters in the audience as well both television cameras C-SPAN is streaming it live. That’s what Republican Commissioner Abigail Thernstrom, who has dissented from her conservative colleagues on the matter, said the majority of the commission was going for all along. “This doesn’t have to do with the Black Panthers; this has to do with their fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration,” Thernstrom said in an interview with Politico. 6 Anonymously Yours 1, September 26, 2010 at 9:03 am Elaine, I suppose I am still in denial…about those years…. 7 Elaine M. 1, September 26, 2010 at 9:06 am AY, What years? The Bush years? 8 Anonymously Yours 1, September 26, 2010 at 9:12 am Elaine M., The Twilight Zone was a pretty good show….but there were some episodes I do not remember…. 9 Elaine M. 1, September 26, 2010 at 9:14 am AY, Are you talking about the TV show–or your own personal “Twilight Zone?” 10 Anonymously Yours 1, September 26, 2010 at 9:21 am Elaine M., Was Bush ever elected? 11 Anonymously Yours 1, September 26, 2010 at 9:27 am In answer to you question to the first part I was in denial the entire term until I could not deny the truth anymore…..then Rod Serling says it best: 12 Nal 1, September 26, 2010 at 9:38 am Unsubstantiated allegations against DOJ don’t stand up to facts. … the Obama DOJ obtained judgment against one defendant in the New Black Panthers case and requested additional judgment against black leaders in Mississippi who were found to have discriminated against white voters. The injunction doesn’t sound like an “agreement”. The term “deadly weapon” does not appear in the injunction, the term “weapon” does appear. 13 Elaine M. 1, September 26, 2010 at 10:17 am Ay, “Was Bush ever elected?” Yes…in 2004. 14 eniobob 1, September 26, 2010 at 10:49 am Two Guys? I could take you to some spots that you would wish you had an armored vehicle to ride in. 15 Anonymously Yours 1, September 26, 2010 at 11:11 am No Elaine M., if you will search the State of Ohio…..there are still missing ballot boxes from areas that had higher voter turn out and tended towards Democrats…..That was the last state with the some of the large amount of electorates that put Bush/Cheney over the edge….google it… So he was appointed by Default and Pulled a Johnson…..Google up Archie Parr the Duke of Duvall County….it was some what akin to whats going on in NO right now….. However, I do recall that Chicago had the most voters with the same basic address but with different plot numbers…… 16 Blouise 1, September 26, 2010 at 11:31 am Quite frankly, I could easily go along with culheath’s suggestion … for me this is another blooper in the same frame with Shirley Sherrod … election cycle ramping 17 Blouise 1, September 26, 2010 at 11:37 am AY and Elaine, I swear we are from the same family and probably separated as toddlers … Rod Serling is a particular hero of mine “The Twilight Zone” was my #1 preference back in the day. Voter fraud in Ohio along the Johnson lines? Good god, yes … and along every other line one can imagine. It is suspected that both parties spent as much time cheating as they did campaigning. They don’t call us a swingin’ state for nothin’. 18 Elaine M. 1, September 26, 2010 at 11:46 am Off Topic: From ABC News ‘Pulpit Freedom Sunday’ to Defy IRS Pastors Across the U.S. Say They Will Defy Law and Talk Politics By KEVIN DOLAK Sept. 25, 2010 http://abcnews.go.com/US/definat-pastors-irs/story?id=11726610 Excerpt: Nearly 100 pastors across the country planned to take part in Pulpit Freedom Sunday, an in-your-face challenge on Sunday to what the government says can and cannot be said in church. The pastors, along with the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based nonprofit Alliance Defense Fund, are reacting to a law stating that churches are not allowed to support politicians from the pulpit, according to the ADF. The growing trend is a challenge to the IRS from the churches, and may jeopardize their all-important tax-exempt status. But some pastors and church leaders said they are willing to defy the law to defending their right to freedom of speech. Federal tax law, established in 1954, prohibits churches and tax exempt entities from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Pulpit Freedom Sunday is an initiative organized by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian nonprofit organization, which according to its website seeks to “defend the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.” “We believe that a pastor has a right to speak whatever he believes without fearing the government will somehow censor what he says or threaten to take away his tax exemption,” ADF spokesman Erik Stanley said. He said the group believes that the 1954 amendment, sponsored by then Sen. Lyndon Johnson, D-Texas, is a violation of the Constitution. According to the ADF, the government’s monitoring of the content of pastors’ and churches’ speech is a violation of the Free Speech Clause. The IRS will be keeping an eye on the planned activities. “We are aware of recent press reports, and will monitor the situation and take action as appropriate,” IRS spokesman Robert Marvin said. In 2008, 33 pastors took part in the first Pulpit Freedom Sunday, when they defiantly spoke of politics to their congregation. According to Stanley, even though all the pastors involved recorded their sermons and sent them to the IRS, only one church was investigated by the IRS, and the audit was dropped after several months. This year the numbers have tripled and the participating pastors again will be videotaping their sermons and sending them directly to the IRS. “The whole goal is to foster a lawsuit where we could challenge the constitionality of the law,” Stanley said. “We believe if a federal judge looked at the constitutionality of what the IRS has done, it wouldn’t take long for the judge to strike it down as unconstitutional. 19 Elaine M. 1, September 26, 2010 at 11:49 am AY, I remember the controversy over the Diebold voting machines. Published on Thursday, August 28, 2003 by the Cleveland Plain Dealer Voting Machine Controversy by Julie Carr Smyth http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm Excerpt: COLUMBUS – The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.” The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O’Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. – who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush – prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O’Dell’s company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election. O’Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors – known as Rangers and Pioneers – at the president’s Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party’s federal campaign fund – partially benefiting Bush – at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington. The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election. 20 rafflaw 1, September 26, 2010 at 12:10 pm I have to agree with Elaine and others here that this Black Panter Party nonsense is just one more Fox News spin to try to embarass and defeat the Obama Administration. Why doesn’t the story ever go into the total lapse of DOJ and Civil Rights Commission work on the successful attempts in Florida and other states to disenfranchise Minority voters in 2000? Elaine, I don’t mind if the Pastors go into partisan politics from the pulpit, but if they do, they should immediately lose their tax free status! 21 Elaine M. 1, September 26, 2010 at 12:21 pm rafflaw, “I don’t mind if the Pastors go into partisan politics from the pulpit, but if they do, they should immediately lose their tax free status!” I’m in total agreement with that statement! The pastors are doing this with the goal of fostering a lawsuit. They’re hoping the 1954 amendment will be found unconstitutional. 22 Elaine M. 1, September 26, 2010 at 12:23 pm Blouise, I’m still a toddler at heart. And I loved “The Twilight Zone” too! 23 Blouise 1, September 26, 2010 at 1:01 pm Elaine M. 1, September 26, 2010 at 12:21 p rafflaw, “I don’t mind if the Pastors go into partisan politics from the pulpit, but if they do, they should immediately lose their tax free status!” I’m in total agreement with that statement! ======================================================== I concur 24 Elaine M. 1, September 26, 2010 at 2:14 pm From Media Matters Fox News overlooked voter-intimidation allegations against Minutemen July 19, 2010 http://mediamatters.org/research/201007190022 In contrast to Fox News’ repeated hyping of voter-intimidation charges against members of the New Black Panther Party during the 2008 election, a search of the Nexis database indicates that Fox News’ top shows did not report on similar allegations that members of the Minutemen harassed Hispanic voters at an Arizona polling center in 2006. Excerpt: Minutemen were involved in similar voter-intimidation case in 2006 Armed Minutemen allegedly attempted to intimidate Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006. A November 8, 2006, Austin American-Statesman article reported (from the Nexis database): “In Arizona, Roy Warden, an anti-immigration activist with the Minutemen, and a handful of supporters staked out a Tucson precinct and questioned Hispanic voters at the polls to determine whether they spoke English.” The article continued: “Armed with a 9mm Glock automatic strapped to his side, Warden said he planned to photograph Hispanic voters entering polls in an effort to identify illegal immigrants and felons.” Civil rights attorney “said he reported the incident to the FBI.” A November 8, 2006, Tucson Citizen article (from Nexis) reported that Diego Bernal, a staff attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) “said he reported the incident to the FBI.” The article also reported that Pima County elections director Brad Nelson said: “If intimidation or coercion was going on out there, even though it might have been outside the 75-foot limit, it’s something we take very seriously, and we’ll be looking into it.” Perez testified that Bush-era DOJ “declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation” against Minutemen. As Media Matters noted, Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, cited the Minutemen case in his May 14 testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and said that “the Department declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation, notwithstanding the requests of the complaining parties.” From Perez’s testimony: In another case, in Arizona, the complaint was received by a national civil rights organization regarding events in Pima, Arizona in the 2006 election when three well-known anti-immigrant advocates affiliated with the Minutemen, one of whom was carrying a gun, allegedly intimidated Latino voters at a polling place by approaching several persons, filming them, and advocating and printing voting materials in Spanish. In that instance, the Department declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation, notwithstanding the requests of the complaining parties. 25 eniobob 1, September 26, 2010 at 2:15 pm Fox whopper: DOJ said Voting Rights Act wasn’t violated in New Black Panthers case: http://mediamatters.org/research/201009240054 26 Elaine M. 1, September 26, 2010 at 2:18 pm eniobob, Thanks for the link! 27 Blouise 1, September 26, 2010 at 2:29 pm eniobob, Thanks Teabaggers love this stuff and there will be more coming … Fox knows its audience … Keep on shining the light … it saved Shirley Sherrod who I believe they planned to ride all the way into November … they’ve been forced to go to Plan B 28 eniobob 1, September 26, 2010 at 3:55 pm Elaine M., Blouise: Quite Welcome! 29 Lottakatz 1, September 26, 2010 at 5:38 pm Electronic voting (HAVA: the Help America Vote Act) is another faith based initiative from the Bush administration. You cast your vote and take it on faith that it isn’t flipped, is scanned properly if at all, is tabulated properly if at all… There is no certainty that any election outcome where the vote is made electronically is accurate. 30 Harry Highwater 1, September 26, 2010 at 6:56 pm Mr Turley, I’m a long-time reader and you could call me a fan, so I am sincerely and respectfully scratching my head. What’s the intimidation here? Could you provide a link to an image showing the “intimidation”? From the images I’ve seen, including the image you’ve published here, the “intimidation” is … what? Maybe cuz I live in a big city, I’m just not terribly intimidated by seeing black people … 31 Bdaman 1, September 26, 2010 at 7:55 pm In May 2009, the Obama/Holder Justice Department dropped charges in a voter intimidation case against Malik Shabazz, a leader of the New Black Panther Party, despite having already won a summary judgment against him, and his New Black Panther Party colleagues King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson who were video-taped outside polling place in Philadelphia intimidating voters as they arrived on election day, 2008. In July 2009, when Congress began looking into the matter, someone named Malik Shabazz visited the private residence at the White House. http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/09/24/which-malik-shabazz-visited-white-house-in-july-2009-mr-president/ 32 Bdaman 1, September 26, 2010 at 7:56 pm Service Employees International Union (SEIU) member Steve Caddle of Houston, Texas has been caught registering 23,207 fake voters in Harris County alone due to the hard detective work of Catherine Engelbrecht and her “True the Vote” project http://www.publiusforum.com/2010/09/26/texas-seiu-member-registers-23207-fraudulent-voters/ 33 Bdaman 1, September 26, 2010 at 7:59 pm ” I am a bit surprised by the relatively little media coverage given the testimony. One can disagree with the testimony, but it clearly raises substantial concerns and policy questions.” Stephen Colbert: Dems’ Trained Clown Trotted Out to Distract From Obama DOJ Scandal http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/09/24/stephen-colbert-dems-trained-clown-distracts-from-obama-doj-scandal/ 34 Elaine M. 1, September 26, 2010 at 8:04 pm Bdaman, OY! Enough with the links to Breitbart websites! 35 Buckeye 1, September 26, 2010 at 8:07 pm rafflaw I don’t mind if the Pastors go into partisan politics from the pulpit, but if they do, they should immediately lose their tax free status! We should never have been given tax free status. Latest kick – Pastors have Pulpit Freedom Sunday in defiance of the IRS laws about politics in the pulpit. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/25/pulpit-freedom-sunday-chu_n_739379.html?ref=twitter 36 Bdaman's Other Birther 1, September 26, 2010 at 8:24 pm I think Bdaman gets side tracked a little to much. It happened one summer day when he fell out of that tree over looking the roadway near the Hwy. The branch broke and he fell, that was just fine until that semi came barreling down the road and hit him. He ain’t been the same since. Say that’s right Darryl. 37 pete 1, September 26, 2010 at 9:29 pm Bdaman 1, September 26, 2010 at 7:56 pm Service Employees International Union (SEIU) member Steve Caddle of Houston, Texas has been caught registering 23,207 fake voters in Harris County alone due to the hard detective work of Catherine Engelbrecht and her “True the Vote” project how many of the 23,207 fake voters actually voted? 38 naschkatze 1, September 26, 2010 at 10:04 pm Obama is so weak that it is frightening. I’ve been trying to find the story of the 100 pastors who today were supposed to blatantly mix politics in with their sermons. I’ll almost bet Obama and the IRS will not respond by taking away their tax exempt status and you will find the movement growing so that all the churches will retain their tax status and politic like hell if I can use that expression in connection with the churches. 39 Blouise 1, September 26, 2010 at 10:09 pm Preachers and the IRS … another teabagger diversion … they just keep churning them out … 40 Buckeye 1, September 26, 2010 at 10:51 pm naschkatze http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/25/pulpit-freedom-sunday-chu_n_739379.html?ref=twitter 41 Elaine M. 1, September 26, 2010 at 11:44 pm Here’s the direct link to the ABC News article I posted in an earlier comment: From ABC News ‘Pulpit Freedom Sunday’ to Defy IRS Pastors Across the U.S. Say They Will Defy Law and Talk Politics By KEVIN DOLAK Sept. 25, 2010 http://abcnews.go.com/US/definat-pastors-irs/story?id=11726610 42 Pangea Masi 1, September 27, 2010 at 6:42 am I must apologize for a type-o in my preceding post. It should be early 1995, and not 1994. 43 tomdarch 1, September 27, 2010 at 3:12 pm I don’t think I know enough about what those two morons did in front of that poling place and I know that I don’t know much about the federal statute that covers this activity. It’s entirely possible that criminal charges should have been pursued. I really don’t know. Nonetheless, for Prof. Turley to reference the testimony of Mr. Coates, without explaining the obvious partisan political aspect of his recent actions, or to explain that this is a “Sherrod-esque” Fox/Breitbart piece of hype is an important failing. We’re back to the Reagan years. Ronbo (or, actually, his speech writers) loved to explain political issues using isolated anecdotes that reinforced unfounded stereotypes. These carefully chosen (or sometimes carefully fabricated) anecdotes often flew in the face of the big-picture reality. A classic was the (possibly true) story of one woman from the (largely “black”) South Side of Chicago who skillfully defrauded the welfare system. Despite being one isolated instance, Reagan would use the story repeatedly to criticize the public safety net. This single instance was meant to condemn the welfare system as a whole, and to associate welfare with “black” Americans, thus making it undesirable among Regan’s voters who were almost exclusively “white”. (Specifically, 98% of the people who voted for Regan in 1980 were “white”.) In reality, the majority of people receiving welfare at the time were “white”, but you would never know that listening to Reagan. So, today, we have Fox, Breitbart, et al. plucking isolated anecdotes out to play on the biases and stereotypes of their target market in order to get righter-wing Republicans elected and further the interests of their corporate financiers. This isolated “New Black Panter” story stands in complete contrast to the many, many accounts of anti-minority/anti-Democratic voter manipulation and intimidation from around the country. It’s fantastic for these people because it’s based on visual imagery of “angry, armed, violent black men” – one of the deepest, most central and visceral of the racist stereotypes that have pervaded American culture for literally centuries. Bah. It will be nice in a couple of years, when all of the hard work that Obama and the Democrats are trying to do now to repair the economy and the nation. It’s too bad the hysterical, “low information” voters will have put a bunch of irresponsible, disingenuous Republicans in power so they can claim the credit for it. (and create a new cycle of crisis for them to feed off of…) 44 Bdaman 1, September 27, 2010 at 4:22 pm “I think Bdaman gets side tracked a little to much.” you know me all to well I hate doing drive bye’s but been so busy from being distracted I mean side tracked I haven’t had the time to spend here with you as of late. I’m sorry, where were we? Oh yea, forgot, surfs up. Maybe it’s the water in my ear or is dat da eeerrr from my lungs. If your a resident of the SE U.S. especially Florida we have a tough 7-10 days as multiple tropical systems are forecast. Possible T.S. Nicole 24-36 hours, movement NE across Western Cuba and up the state. GFS then pulls an area North from near Costa Rica and Nicaragua and develops another system (Otto) South of the Yucatan Pass by next Monday then up the West Coast of Florida. You should stock provisions. Better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it. Plus you can always return what you don’t use if you keep your receipt. By a generator, take it back in 30 days in an un opened box. CMC moves Nicole ? up the state and exit Jax.Fla. and continues up the eastern seaboard. Then brings two systems one from the East and the other similar to the GFS forecast above. You should stock provisions. Better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it. Plus you can always return what you don’t use if you keep your receipt. By a generator, take it back in 30 days in an un opened box. Sorry already said that 45 Blouise 1, September 27, 2010 at 4:36 pm Bdaman, Stay safe … try to stay dry … for future reference, kids love freeze-dried strawberry slices (good treat to keep in your emergency bag) 46 Buckeye 1, September 27, 2010 at 5:16 pm tomdarch Mr. Reagan’s folowers were indeed mostly white – still may be for all I know. Nancy Reagan rejoiced in all the “beautiful white faces” she saw in the crowd at one of their functions. Shirley Jackson Lee’s congressional hearing on voter’s who were prevented from voting was a real eye opener. Who is more intimidated at polling stations, whites or minorities? Take a guess. 47 ishobo 1, September 27, 2010 at 10:58 pm @tomdarch It will be nice in a couple of years, when all of the hard work that Obama and the Democrats are trying to do now to repair the economy and the nation. – I think you are confused or delusional. 48 Blouise 1, September 27, 2010 at 11:50 pm ishobo 1, September 27, 2010 at 10:58 pm @tomdarch It will be nice in a couple of years, when all of the hard work that Obama and the Democrats are trying to do now to repair the economy and the nation. – I think you are confused or delusional. ========================================================= … or right 49 Byron 1, September 29, 2010 at 7:37 am I think this November I am going down to DC with a confederate flag and a white hood and some baseball bats to make sure no white folk are intimidated at the polls. I wonder how long I would last before I was arrested, I doubt the DOJ would let me off with a request to not carry my bats until 2014. What should have happened is that a bunch of people should have run those 2 thugs off and I would expect to have the living bejesus beaten out of me if I did the above. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Name * Email * Website Comment You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> Notify me of follow-up comments via email. Subscribe by email to this site -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- « Who Needs Surgery? Bam, Bam, Bam, You Have A New HipIn California, It’s BYOTP » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Turley Tweets Click here to follow the blog on Twitter. VOTED THE #1 LEGAL THEORY AND LAW PROFESSOR BLOG OF THE TOP 100 LEGAL BLOGS BY THE ABA JOURNAL IN 2008 Categories Select Category Academics (625) Animals (97) Bizarre (4548) Columns (91) Congress (792) Constitutional Law (1450) Courts (711) Criminal law (3138) Environment (493) International (1165) Justice (861) Lawyering (945) Media (634) Military (303) Politics (2806) Religion (1035) Science (111) Society (5088) Supreme Court (278) Testimony (31) Things That Tick Me Off (21) Torts (1044) Uncategorized (359) USA Today (69) Top Posts Is the Scott Walker Story Just the Tip of the Koch Brothers' Political Iceberg? Supreme Court Upholds Use of Dying Statements as "Non-Testimonial" Evidence Thomas Condemns His Critics As Undermining The Supreme Court The Obama Administration Inserts Provision Into UN Security Council Measure To Protect Mercenaries From War Crimes Prosecutions Mistrial Declared in New York After Juror Suddenly Announced That She Previously Saw The Defendant . . . Dragging The Victim Across a Bridge Horn-O-Plenty: Inmate Found With 30 Items During Cavity Search Florida District Attorney Refuses To Prosecute Citizen for Videotaping Officer in Public Fourth Grader in New York Suspended Over Kick Me Sign Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Westboro Church Iran Protests Symbol for London Games As Hidden Zionist Message Recent Posts Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Westboro Church California Teacher Suspended For Rattling a Table to Get Attention of the Class Florida District Attorney Refuses To Prosecute Citizen for Videotaping Officer in Public Mistrial Declared in New York After Juror Suddenly Announced That She Previously Saw The Defendant . . . Dragging The Victim Across a Bridge Gas Overwhelms Cook-Off: Texas Police Officer Suspended After Allegedly Throwing Tear Gas Canister Into Competitor’s Booth Recent Comments Elaine M. on The Obama Administration Inser… rafflaw on Is the Scott Walker Story Just… Mike Spindell on Thomas Condemns His Critics As… michellefrommadison on California Teacher Suspended F… ackbark on Supreme Court Rules In Favor o… Mike Spindell on Is the Scott Walker Story Just… James M. on Supreme Court Rules In Favor o… Buddha Is Laughing on The Obama Administration Inser… ian on Supreme Court Rules In Favor o… Jill Chavez on The Obama Administration Inser… rafflaw on Is the Scott Walker Story Just… James M. on California Teacher Suspended F… Tony C. on The Obama Administration Inser… Tony C. on The Obama Administration Inser… rafflaw on Supreme Court Rules In Favor o… Archives March 2011 (9) February 2011 (152) January 2011 (172) December 2010 (178) November 2010 (168) October 2010 (122) September 2010 (116) August 2010 (149) July 2010 (146) June 2010 (165) May 2010 (175) April 2010 (187) March 2010 (189) February 2010 (178) January 2010 (186) December 2009 (197) November 2009 (197) October 2009 (205) September 2009 (186) August 2009 (176) July 2009 (181) June 2009 (169) May 2009 (190) April 2009 (187) March 2009 (184) February 2009 (192) January 2009 (193) December 2008 (165) November 2008 (177) October 2008 (149) September 2008 (121) August 2008 (157) July 2008 (182) June 2008 (139) May 2008 (154) April 2008 (146) March 2008 (166) February 2008 (124) January 2008 (108) December 2007 (168) November 2007 (162) October 2007 (130) September 2007 (109) August 2007 (194) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Theme: K2-lite by k2 team. Blog at WordPress.com. RSS Entries and RSS Comments |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
Yes, an injunction was won against one individual prohibiting him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a polling place for 3 years. It appears that it is you, not me, that is not satisfied with the system. Not surprisingly, you once again don't have a clue what you are talking about.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. But, I've spent a lot of time in Wisconsin and the troopers -- who are frequently not skinny -- do wield batons. I have never had a baton-related shit. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
What the fuck is this? Now you are going to spam your own thread. Are you begging to your posts deleted? |
Anonymous
This is inaccurate. The case had been *won* by the government on a default judgment. I can assure you it is most unusual for federal prosecutors to back off on a case they have already won. And, let's get to the bottom line. Do you really think that the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department is committed to race-neutral enforcement of civil rights laws? I think the answer is pretty clearly no. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
Yes, the NBP didn't contest and a default judgement was won. That doesn't mean that a contested case would have been won and I doubt a much different outcome could have been obtained.
I think the Civil Rights Division under Bush was stocked with right wing hacks who had no interest whatsoever in pursuing civil rights enforcement. As for the current situation, I think it is much better though probably not perfect. |
Anonymous
According to some of the posts above, it actually sounds like they were consistent with cases of white intimidation, sUch as the minuteman case. I think the issue is not racial bias. I was surprised to find that the government is uniformly lax on these cases where a show of force is made but no direct violence or specific threat is made. And it seems consistent with the previous administration. I think that maybe we should be mad about the overall lax treatment of such things and not try to make this yet another race issue. |
Anonymous
Jeff, one of us does not know what we are talking about. My understanding was that a judgement was entered because the Black Panther dudes did not even show up. Please note when no one contests charges, a case with witnesses is not presented. Your interest in facts being presented has no merit when the other guys do not contest the charges. (You may want to work on changing that to your satisfaction.) Eric Holder stepped in after the judgemnet had been gained by the Bush department of Justice. Holder's position as we now know was to take care of "my people." The racially movtivated request was for a silly restraining order. You know very well that individuals employed by the justice department have put their careers on the line and publicly sworn, I think, that cases where blacks are defendants and whites are victims hold no interest for Mr. Holder and company. |
Anonymous
I think it is a race issue plain and as clear as Holder could make it. "MY PEOPLE" I am pretty slow sometimes, but I don't have to review this 480 times to get the message. Obama and Holder are racists! |
Anonymous
I find it hard to keep track. Is Mr/s 480 the same poster as Mr/s B.O., or do we have two different obsessives on here? To set an example that might clear up such confusion I decided to sign on so you'll know I'm the same guy when we meet again. |
Anonymous
Same guy -- I thought I was signed on and my ID would show. Apparently not. Call me "takoma". |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
480 is the same as "pass the weed". BO, aka, panty sniffer is different (and also hasn't mentioned BO for a few days). |
takoma
Member Offline
Member Offline
I don't suppose there is any way to stamp our postings with the last few digits of our IPs or something like that, so we could keep track of which come from the same person? |