The New Black Panthers/Voter Intimidation

[bloodyminded]

I don't come on this site mouch anymore. However, once in awhile, when bored, I'll be watching the news and something like a black panther saying "kill cracker's babies" will cause me to say "hey, I wonder how the lefty loons on Mapleleaf are going to rationalize this one". And I visit the site, and sure enough, am never dissappointed.

As if anyone's justifying this idiocy.

We just don't fall to the floor whining about black peoplea re oppressing whites.

Hey lefty loons: stop being so predictable. Some things are objectively wrong.

I know your knee jerk multiculti training has conditioned you to explain away every bizarre behavior as "rich white guy's fault", but come now. Get serious.

Nice: you take someone's views, caricature them beyond recognition, a round peg in the square hole of your right-wing politicized world-view...and then berate us for your own caricature.

[kimmy]

Every one of J. Christian Adams's allegations have been refuted, and the decision not to file a case was made before the Obama Administration took officeand Eric Holder was sworn in as Attorney General......there goes your racist narrative!

Sewell claims that the decision to drop the cases was made by career lawyers, and not by political appointees.

This article (which was written in May 2009, long before the current controversy) directly disputes that. It claims that the career lawyers were continuing to pursue the civil case (and court documents show they were doing so as late as May 2009) and that the cases were dropped abruptly in mid-May.

While the claim that criminal charges were dropped for racial reasons is clearly incorrect, the claim that there was political interference in the decision to drop civil cases against these men has not been refuted at all.

-k

[kimmy]

I make no apologies for going after the right wing for using sex to sell their messages, because these are the same hypocrites who call for sexual abstinence and bans on abortion and birth control. The sexually frustrated should not be allowed to get away with using sex to sell their advertising, their on-air personalities, and especially their politicians, while calling for sexual repression elsewhere....sometimes even on the same damn shows! Billo, for example, will get on his soapbox about immorality (when he's not busy making harassing phone sex calls) and show "immoral" videos over and over again on an almost continuous loop. And it's open season on the bimbos who degrade themselves by parroting foxnoise propaganda for a career move!

So the short version is that you'll stoop to sexist attacks if it's convenient to your purposes.

If there is any question about who is doing the most to fan the flames of racism in America, Mediamatters answers the question:

FNC has hosted New Black Panther fringe group more than 50 times

Fox News takes a radical fringe group and packages them so that they can keep average white dolts supporting the corporate mob who is robbing the country blind!

Which would you say did more to fan racial tension in the United States: Fox coverage of the NBPP, or the media "newsgasm" over the Duke lacrosse rape case?

-k

[WIP]

Sure. But how does allowing belligerent armed thugs to stand outside a polling station help minorities vote?

I noticed that you didn't directly address the examples of minorities having their voting rights infringed on some examples were provided to you previously. Is your concern only for white voters?

And how does declining to prosecute those polling station thugs protect minority rights?

-k

The fake outrage over this story was about a black president and his black attorney general denying the rights of white voters. Now white nationalists are just trying to spin whatever they can out of it to keep their phony outrage alive, until they find another excuse.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The fake outrage over this story was about a black president and his black attorney general denying the rights of white voters. Now white nationalists are just trying to spin whatever they can out of it to keep their phony outrage alive, until they find another excuse.

This is too funny...coming from the land of Human Rights Commissions hearings convened at the drop of an offending hat.

[Shady]

Washington Post Ombudsman rips paper for lack of coverage. He must be a Fox News associate!

Why the silence from The Post on Black Panther Party story?

Thursday's Post reported about a growing controversy over the Justice Department's decision to scale down a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. The story succinctly summarized the issues but left many readers with a question: What took you so long?

For months, readers have contacted the ombudsman wondering why The Post hasn't been covering the case. The calls increased recently after competitors such as the New York Times and the Associated Press wrote stories. Fox News and right-wing bloggers have been pumping the story. Liberal bloggers have countered, accusing them of trying to manufacture a scandal.

...

But in this case, coverage is justified because it's a controversy that screams for clarity that The Post should provide. If Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his department are not colorblind in enforcing civil rights laws, they should be nailed. If the Commission on Civil Rights' investigation is purely partisan, that should be revealed. If Adams is pursuing a right-wing agenda, he should be exposed.

Washongton Post

[punked]

Bush Appointed Conservative on Civil rights commission says whole investigation was made up to try and get at Obama!

“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,” said Thernstrom, who said members of the commission voiced their political aims “in the initial discussions” of the Panther case last year.

“My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president,” Thernstrom said in an interview with POLITICO.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39861.html#ixzz0u3frdAin

Shady and his lying conservatives.

Edited July 18, 2010 by punked

[kimmy]

I noticed that you didn't directly address the examples of minorities having their voting rights infringed on some examples were provided to you previously. Is your concern only for white voters?

I'm concerned that everybody should have the right to vote, and that attempts to prevent people from voting should be dealt with by the law.

My particular interest in this case is that it appears that the law has chosen not to deal with these defendants, and that that decision may have been influenced by political factors rather than legal ones.

I have looked over the cases that yourself and Da Shwa have cited, and the only one that appears to me to be a relevant comparable was the 2006 Minuteman incident in Arizona. I would be interested in knowing what the reasons for not pursuing that case were.

Regardless, if the DOJ f'ed up in 2006 by not pursuing that case, it doesn't justify repeating the error now.

The fake outrage over this story was about a black president and his black attorney general denying the rights of white voters. Now white nationalists are just trying to spin whatever they can out of it to keep their phony outrage alive, until they find another excuse.

The outrage is, and always has been, over the appearance that the decision to not pursue cases against these goons was made based on their race.

-k

[punked]

I'm concerned that everybody should have the right to vote, and that attempts to prevent people from voting should be dealt with by the law.

My particular interest in this case is that it appears that the law has chosen not to deal with these defendants, and that that decision may have been influenced by political factors rather than legal ones.

I have looked over the cases that yourself and Da Shwa have cited, and the only one that appears to me to be a relevant comparable was the 2006 Minuteman incident in Arizona. I would be interested in knowing what the reasons for not pursuing that case were.

Regardless, if the DOJ f'ed up in 2006 by not pursuing that case, it doesn't justify repeating the error now.

The outrage is, and always has been, over the appearance that the decision to not pursue cases against these goons was made based on their race.

-k

Accept Bush's appointed person to the body which decided not to pursue it is saying that they had not reason to. Then Obama won the election and they waited until they could blame it on him, then politically have been trying to kick up a storm. Say on top the news Kimmy.

[kimmy]

Accept Bush's appointed person to the body which decided not to pursue it is saying that they had not reason to.

The group Abigail Thernstrom belongs to did not make the decision to not pursue the case against these men. The group Abigail Thernstrom belongs to is investigating the decision.

Then Obama won the election and they waited until they could blame it on him, then politically have been trying to kick up a storm. Say on top the news Kimmy.

The civil cases against these 3 men were filed in January 2009, while the Bush people were still in charge of the DOJ. The civil cases were being pursued until May 2009, when two of them were suddenly dropped and in the third the DOJ walked away with just an order that the night-stick guy can't carry weapons within 100 feet of polling stations in Philadelphia until after the 2012 election.

The decision to drop the 2 cases and let the 3rd guy off scot-free was made well after Eric Holder became AG.

-k

[punked]

The group Abigail Thernstrom belongs to did not make the decision to not pursue the case against these men. The group Abigail Thernstrom belongs to is investigating the decision.

The civil cases against these 3 men were filed in January 2009, while the Bush people were still in charge of the DOJ. The civil cases were being pursued until May 2009, when two of them were suddenly dropped and in the third the DOJ walked away with just an order that the night-stick guy can't carry weapons within 100 feet of polling stations in Philadelphia until after the 2012 election.

The decision to drop the 2 cases and let the 3rd guy off scot-free was made well after Eric Holder became AG.

-k

Again read the article by politico.

[kimmy]

Again read the article by politico.

It doesn't support the claim you're making.

But when it comes to the investigation that the Republican-dominated commission is now conducting into the Justice Department’s handling of an alleged incident of voter intimidation involving the New Black Panther Party — a controversy that has consumed conservative media in recent months — Thernstrom has made a dramatic break from her usual allies.

Her committee is investigating the DOJ handling of the incident. They didn't make the decision not to pursue charges.

-k

[punked]

It doesn't support the claim you're making.

Her committee is investigating the DOJ handling of the incident. They didn't make the decision not to pursue charges.

-k

And they are only investigating because they think they can get Obama not because they care.

[kimmy]

And they are only investigating because they think they can get Obama not because they care.

That the commission may be comprised of partisan hacks does not detract from the seriousness of the allegations. These allegations need to be investigated; that the investigation is being done by partisan hacks undermines the process.

-k

[Shady]

That the commission may be comprised of partisan hacks does not detract from the seriousness of the allegations. These allegations need to be investigated; that the investigation is being done by partisan hacks undermines the process.

-k

Exactly. And if the allegations are true, Obama deserves to be "gotten" as punked said. Unfortunately punked is an Obamabot. Nothing that happens while he's President is at all attributed to him, or in any way his fault in any shape, matter, or form. It's the case now. It'll be the case 4 years from now if he's still President.

[lictor616]

That the commission may be comprised of partisan hacks does not detract from the seriousness of the allegations. These allegations need to be investigated; that the investigation is being done by partisan hacks undermines the process.

-k

latest developments seem to confirm Kimmy's POV:

"More evidence of Justice racism

Attitude to race-neutral enforcement of voting-rights act described as 'hostile'"

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=180129

"Two former U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have corroborated key elements of the explosive allegations by a third former attorney that the Voting Section of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division is refusing to enforce the law against black defendants.

On July 6, former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that the Voting Section is dominated by a “culture of hostility” toward bringing cases against blacks and other minorities who violate voting-rights laws.

One of Adams’ DOJ colleagues, former Voting Section trial attorney Hans A. von Spakovsky, told WND he saw Adams was being attacked in the media for lack of corroboration. He said he knew Adams was telling the truth, so he decided on his own to step forward.

In an affidavit dated yesterday, von Spakovsky stated, “I can confirm from my own experience as a career lawyer that there was a dominant attitude within the Division and the Voting Section of hostility towards the race-neutral enforcement of voting-rights law.”

Von Spakovsky also asked another old colleague, former DOJ Special Counsel for Voting Matters Karl S. Bowers Jr., to go on the record. Bowers is now in private practice in South Carolina.

In his own affidavit, Bowers stated: “In my experience, there was a pervasive culture in the Civil Rights Division and within the Voting Section of apathy and in some cases outright hostility towards race-neutral enforcement of voting-rights laws among large segments of career attorneys.”

In his affidavit, von Spakovsky, now a Senior Legal Fellow in the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., backed up Adams’ testimony that Voting Section staff lawyers were harassed by their colleagues for working on a case brought against a black activist.

According to von Spakovsky, former Voting Section Chief Christopher Coates was harassed “over his work on the Brown case because they did not believe that the Justice Department should file any lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act against black defendants, no matter how egregious their violations of the law.”

Von Spakovsky also confirmed Adams’ allegations that the DOJ has brought “hundreds” of cases against white defendants but only two cases against black defendants. He agreed with Adams that DOJ’s dismissal of most charges in one of the cases after the Obama administration took over in 2009, the New Black Panther Party voter-intimidation case, was “unprecedented.”

In his affidavit, von Spakovsky further confirmed Adams’ allegation that the DOJ is deliberately refusing to enforce Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, widely known as the “Motor Voter” law. Section 8 requires state and local election officials to remove ineligible voters from voter lists.

According to Adams, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes, an Obama appointee, told Voting Section employees the department “has no interest in enforcing” Section 8 because “it has nothing to do with increasing turnout.”

Von Spakovsky told WND the administration’s refusal to enforce Section 8 is politically motivated.

“The left doesn’t like Section 8, because they want as many people on the rolls as possible, even if they’re ineligible.”

Von Spakovsky contended that enough ineligible felons voted in Minnesota to catapult the Democratic candidate, comedian Al Franken, to victory in the razor-thin 2008 U.S. Senate race.

Adams, now a PajamasMedia blogger, alleged in a blog post yesterday: “The Department is not allowing Christopher Coates to comply with his subpoena [from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission]. These two affidavits give you an abbreviated understanding about why that is. If he were permitted to appear and tell the truth, the lid blows off.”

Von Spakovsky said the DOJ was placing Coates in an “untenable” position by ordering him not to comply with the subpoena, forcing him to choose between exposing himself to legal jeopardy and keeping his job."

Edited July 19, 2010 by lictor616

[kimmy]

von Spakovsky explains the decision to proceed with a civil case rather than a criminal case against the NBPP goons:

First of all, although the Civil Rights Division has a Criminal Section, the vast majority of its voting-rights prosecutions are civil cases conducted by the division’s Voting Section. Whenever someone violates the Voting Rights Act and does so in a way that is potentially both a civil and a criminal violation, the division must decide whether to proceed first with a civil or a criminal case. With most voting cases, the decision is usually to go with a civil case, particularly if there are elections coming up in the near future. That is because civil cases have a lower burden of proof and give the government the opportunity to obtain almost immediately a temporary injunction to stop the defendants from engaging in the same wrongful behavior as the case winds its way through the federal courts.

Criminal cases can take longer to develop, particularly since the government usually has to convene a federal grand jury to return an indictment. Also, criminal cases focus like a laser beam on individual defendants, whereas civil cases can include an organizational defendant (like the NBPP).

The focus for the Civil Rights Division is always on the best way to get the remedy that is needed to stop and prevent the recurrence of the voter intimidation or other wrongful behavior as soon as possible. In this particular case, when the decision was being made in January of 2009, the division knew there was going to be another election in May in Philadelphia. The fastest to way to make sure there would be no thugs in paramilitary uniforms and jackboots smacking batons into their fists at polling places in the upcoming election was to file a civil complaint and obtain a restraining order against the individual defendants and the New Black Panther Party. In fact, one of the defendants dismissed from the case was once again credentialed as a Democratic poll watcher in the May election.

(emphasis mine)

I earlier said I wished I had more information about the 2006 Arizona Minuteman incident, and von Spakovsky provides that as well:

These same liberals are making the false claim that the Bush administration failed to file similar charges against members of the Minutemen, “one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006.” “Allegedly” is the correct term to use: While I was not at the Justice Department in 2006, I have talked to sources inside the Civil Rights Division who were and who have first-hand knowledge of the facts of this matter. The Voting Section sent lawyers to Arizona to investigate these allegations. They were told that the people in question (who were apparently there with some sort of English-only petition) did not enter the polling place and stayed outside the state-imposed limit around polling places where campaigning is forbidden. No one (including Democratic poll watchers) saw them talking to any voters while they were there — nor could the lawyers find any evidence that they prevented or discouraged anyone from entering the polling place (which is directly contrary to the witnesses in the NBPP case, who testified that they saw voters approaching the polls turn around and leave when they saw the Panthers blocking the entrance to the polling place).

The Voting Section was not able to make any recommendations to move forward with a lawsuit because the career lawyers assigned to the case could not find any evidence to support the claims being made. In fact, the Voting Section even referred the case to the criminal section (headed up by Mr. Kappelhoff, the trusted Obama confidant), who also declined to do anything about it. There was no viable case to be “dismissed” by the Bush administration.

(full editorial)

-k