New Black Panther Party Leader - ... you want freedom ... kill some crackers

[daveman]

Cowardly little men like you people are frightened by the Negro. You are only "brave" when you have a gun or have a half-dozen other people to back you up. You'll never change.

Talking to yourself again?

 

[Ravi]

In case anyone is interested, here is one article on the voter intimidation in Arizona. The case was dropped by the Bush administration.

Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment

You have to scroll down to read the article.

 

[Care4all]

immie, did you think all the guns and rifles at the different Obama rallies and speeches were as intimidating as a billy-club?

I don't liker either, but the loaded guns, scares me much more...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

immie, did you think all the guns and rifles at the different Obama rallies and speeches were as intimidating as a billy-club?

I don't liker either, but the loaded guns, scares me much more...

I'm not Immie, but I'll answer and say NO. The reason being is that openly carried weapons is somewhat the norm in those areas. Oh and "speeches" isn't spelled with an "a".

 

[Lonestar_logic]

In case anyone is interested, here is one article on the voter intimidation in Arizona. The case was dropped by the Bush administration.

Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment

You have to scroll down to read the article.

Did you read "Border Patrol rescues migrant from well"?

 

[Tech_Esq]

immie, did you think all the guns and rifles at the different Obama rallies and speaches were as intimidating as a billy-club?

I don't liker either, but the loaded guns, scares me much more...

Loaded guns were at 2nd amendment rallies not Obama rallies.

I get the feeling some folks on the left have tried to blur this distinction. I don't think having guns were any president is, is a good idea.

I think guns at a 2nd amendment rally is perfectly appropriate.

 

[Foxfyre]

In case anyone is interested, here is one article on the voter intimidation in Arizona. The case was dropped by the Bush administration.

Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment

You have to scroll down to read the article.

Assuming that's a legitimate site, Ravi, and it looks pretty suspect as a leftist blog site the way it is laid out, where is the evidence the Bush administration dropped the case? IF...and that's a big IF....the information shown is correct, then of course those people should have been prosecuted and appropriate consequences imposed. It should not be tolerable no matter who does it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

It is not only the thought that they might bash your brains in on your way out of the precinct. Typically thugs don't do that and definitely not when they might be arrested for doing so. They have someone follow you home and then in the middle of the night when you are asleep they attack.

Immie

True. I'd rather they find me at home, but that's me. I'd have a better shot there.

Do you have kids?

How about kids that go to school in the neighborhood?

As for the argument that they were there to prevent McCain supporters from intimidating voters. That is bullshit. No one showed up and if they were coming in groups, these two thugs would not have been a problem and don't even try to tell me that one or two McCain supporters are going to go into a neighborhood like that to scare people off. That would have been a suicide mission.

Immie

Unless there was a Charles Bronson movie that followed, the issue would end at my doorstep.

 

[Ravi]

In case anyone is interested, here is one article on the voter intimidation in Arizona. The case was dropped by the Bush administration.

Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment

You have to scroll down to read the article.

Assuming that's a legitimate site, Ravi, and it looks pretty suspect as a leftist blog site the way it is laid out, where is the evidence the Bush administration dropped the case? IF...and that's a big IF....the information shown is correct, then of course those people should have been prosecuted and appropriate consequences imposed. It should not be tolerable no matter who does it.

It's not a leftist blog site...it is a cached page of a newspaper. Newspapers normally don't keep stories on their sites past a few years.

That the charges were dropped is a matter of court record, I don't think it was picked up by the media.

But there was no outrage over this...which makes some of us scratch our heads that the NBP thing is getting so much attention.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

immie, did you think all the guns and rifles at the different Obama rallies and speeches were as intimidating as a billy-club?

I don't liker either, but the loaded guns, scares me much more...

Apples and Oranges. No one is attempting to enter a polling place at the rallies .


But yeah guns are more intimidating than billyclubs which is why I'm making sure I have mine on voting day. (Oh calm down people i'm not going to stand outside a polling place like a hypocrite and harass people)

 

[Tech_Esq]

In case anyone is interested, here is one article on the voter intimidation in Arizona. The case was dropped by the Bush administration.

Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment

You have to scroll down to read the article.

Assuming that's a legitimate site, Ravi, and it looks pretty suspect as a leftist blog site the way it is laid out, where is the evidence the Bush administration dropped the case? IF...and that's a big IF....the information shown is correct, then of course those people should have been prosecuted and appropriate consequences imposed. It should not be tolerable no matter who does it.

I agree, both with your analysis and the outcome, that if the facts as stated are true, they should have been prosecuted.

I did note that every single "source" quoted in the article was either from the left or sympathetic to the complaining individual.

 

[Coyote]

Sworn testimony is hearsay?

In his sworn testimony he admitted he had no first hand knowledge of the events or conversations he was claiming to know about.

Read what he has to say for yourself. That is if you can pull your head out of your ass long enough.

Today, I testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the Department of Justice's hostility to race-neutral law enforcement. I hope these hearings spur those responsible to explain their actions to Americans.

Now wipe the brown stuff out of your eyes and read the transcript. It's full of stuff like:

MR. BLACKWOOD: Now we've had several witnesses who were present at Fairmont Street and they indicate that the Department of Justice lawyers, part of a roving team, met with them on Election Day to take some statements. Do you know who those individuals were?
MR. ADAMS: I do not actually. I knew 1 that there was a team deployed to Fairmont Street, but I don't know who the individuals were.
MR. BLACKWOOD: Do you know whether those individuals took written statements from any of the witnesses?
MR. ADAMS: I know they took statements from the witnesses.
MR. BLACKWOOD: Did you actually see them?
MR. ADAMS: I did not.​

 

[The Infidel]

Can you imagine the shit storm that would come down if white guys had of done this? Guess it's ok though because it was done by a bunch of radical black guys. That's America for you.

They did. Minutemen attempted to intimidate hispanic voters. Case was dropped by the Bush DoJ.

Guess Fox didn't think it newsworthy eh? That's America for you.

Proof?


No, I didnt think so....

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

In case anyone is interested, here is one article on the voter intimidation in Arizona. The case was dropped by the Bush administration.

Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment

You have to scroll down to read the article.

Ravi please stop with the lies....

MORE PROOF SHE IS LYING

http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/04-23-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf
Bartle Bull

 

[Ravi]

In case anyone is interested, here is one article on the voter intimidation in Arizona. The case was dropped by the Bush administration.

Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment

You have to scroll down to read the article.

Ravi please stop with the lies....

MORE PROOF SHE IS LYING

http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/04-23-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf
Bartle Bull

What are you trying to say...that the case wasn't dropped? It was.

 

[Immanuel]

I hate to say this, because I respect both you and Coyote, but I believe you two have suffered from this confirmation bias. The facts have been presented and you both ignore the facts. Those two men were there to intimidate voters. It does not matter whether or not anyone was actually intimidated by them, but that was what they were there for.

IMHO the important part of this equation is intent, not success.

You made a good point a couple of days back about the fact that this was a majority black precinct and there was no need for them to be there to intimidate voters. You are, of course, right in that respect, but need is not a factor either. They were there and they made a very clear statement of intimidation. Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow. is this fact or opinion or hearsay?

They might not have been intimidating to you, but if I were a white man living in their neighborhood and voting at that precinct, I would have been intimidated. I don't know whether or not I would have decided not to vote, but I would have been extremely uncomfortable having a man who probably did not agree with my position, standing outside with a nightstick in his hand while I voted.

Immie

Have the facts been presented or, opinions? I agree with intent when it comes to accusations like "racism" - intent matters. But laws can't be decided on intent alone.

Was any voter intimidated or claim to have been intimidated?

I think this National Review article says it best:

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 three 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.

(entire article in link​

Only 3 cases in 45 years! That is a hell of a high bar.

Ms. Thernstrom is perfectly welcomed to her opinion and I respect that she (allegedly (since I do not know anything about her) a conservative expresses a difference of opinion from other conservatives. I have been known to do so as well.

That does not change the fact that despite the rarity "3 cases in 45 years" or the difficulty of successful prosecution "legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation" that these two should have been prosecuted. If you let them get away with it in one precinct in 2008, then in 2010, they will be in five.

Neither does the fact that the NBPP is a small insignificant organization matter. To Ms. Thernstrom they may be small and insignificant, but not to the people living around them.

Edit:

Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow. is this fact or opinion or hearsay?

Coming from me it is hearsay. I heard it on one of the videos I have seen. I think, but cannot swear, that it was the Fox Interview with Dr. Malik Zulu Shabazz. The one where I earlier said that he seemed like a likable man and stand by that.

Immie

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

No, it's not that - it's whether or not voter intiimidation took place with sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the law - that is what matters, whether the law is upheld. Otherwise - you could claim "intimidation" just because I looked at you funny when you were voting.

And was it blown out of proportion? Seems like it - it morphed into 3 men all carrying billy clubs and even guns in some accounts, but in the end, only one had a nightstick, and that one had an injunction against him.

The law shouldn't be politically biased - is it in this incident? All we seem to have is one man's hearsay account of what went on the DoJ - and there is no evidence at the moment supporting his claims.

IF voter intimidation is such a hot issue, why aren't these same people clamoring for a look at the case of the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters dismissed under the previous administration? That guy actually had a gun.

It is because of this hypocrisy - and lack of strong evidence - combined with a hell of a lot of emotionally-charged accusations of "racism" being flung around by both sides - that I am very skeptical.

These things need to be decided by law, not emotion and if the Civil Rights Commission is looking into it, then I am convinced it will be done in accordance with the law and not political partisanship.

The man with the baton was already found guilty by the DOJ...then the charges were dropped before sentancing at the direction of Eric Holder. Then J Christian Adams, one of the attorneys involved in the case, testified under oath that he was told not to pursue cases where there are white plaintiffs and black defendants in any type of civil rights case.

I know I'm lumping it all together fast but I've been researching this thing so much my patience level is zero.

I've been researching it too....is there any evidence beyond hearsay? For example Adams made claims of things said when he wasn't even there. Adams own credabilty is itself strained since he was a part of the DoJ that was found by an independent commission to have been inappropriately politicized in it's hiring practices and it's decisions on what cases to pursue.

What actual evidence is there that is not hearsay - that Adams was told that?



Depends on what they were doing - just standing there, but not blocking people - I wouldn't care. If they were attempting to block me, get information from me, or interact with me - then yes, I would have a problem. But would that meet the requirements of the law?

Do you have a problem with a Hooded KKK member standing in front of a polling place with a baton?

KKK has a history - a well documented history of racial intimidation, murder, and violence - so yes, I would have a problem but I'm not sure "my problem" would meet the requirements of the law which should be strict because it's a fine line between "free speech" and "intimidation".

If your answer in not Yes to both then you and I will not see eye to eye in this discussion.

See my answer....

Yes it is his word, under oath, as the only evidence. YOu are right.

As far as the history of the KKK, which we all know, here is some video of NBPP leaders that you may not have seen.

Khallid Muhammad's Speech - Kill The White Man - Video
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3MbqupVxMY]YouTube - Black Panthers Say That Blacks Have To "Kill Some Crackers And Their Babies!"[/ame] (this is the same guy with that baton beating it off his hand at the polling place...here is that video too )
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]


SOunds pretty violent to me.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Just to clarify a couple of things. This is from the record of the Civil Rights Commission hearing:

The lawsuit sought
4 a permanent injunction against each of these
5 defendants from in part engaging in coercing,
6 threatening or intimidating behavior at polling
7 locations during elections.
8 The record reveals that each of the
9 defendants was served with a complaint; however, none
10 of them contested the charges, and a default was
11 entered against them. As a matter of law, that meant
12 that none of the factual allegations contained in the
13 complaint were contested by the defendants.

So, this was what was at stake when the Obama Justice department pulled the rug out. A permanent injunction from "engaging in coercing, threatening or intimidating behavior at polling locations during elections".

Now why in the hell would you not want that injunction in place? It is outrageous that they would prevent such an injunction.

As I stated in my response to Coyote, the Court had entered a judgment in the case and as a matter of law the prima facie case was proven by the government.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

In case anyone is interested, here is one article on the voter intimidation in Arizona. The case was dropped by the Bush administration.

Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment

You have to scroll down to read the article.

Ravi please stop with the lies....

MORE PROOF SHE IS LYING

http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/04-23-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf
Bartle Bull

What are you trying to say...that the case wasn't dropped? It was.

The testimony that I just linked for you in the 2nd link..from April 2009 was from this very case. The civil case was not dropped by bush and you have blatantly swallowed and repeated a lie that it was.

@ coyote...read the testimony in the 2nd link, the entire testimony. YOu dont have all the information of the case and the behavior of the 2 individuals that you did not see in the video i just linked for you. (the last of the 3 videos.)

 

[hortysir]

In case anyone is interested, here is one article on the voter intimidation in Arizona. The case was dropped by the Bush administration.

Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment

You have to scroll down to read the article.

Liar.
Nowhere is that said in the article.

From your link

Wyn Hornbuckle, spokesman with the Arizona U.S. Attorney's Office, said the office has received some isolated reports of voter intimidation and other issues, such as voter fraud. However, he said, it would be premature to talk about those reports.
"The U.S. Attorney continues to monitor the situation and will prosecute any violation of criminal law if such violation exists," he said.

Did ya think no one would read your link, and just take your word?