July 17, 2010

"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... My fellow conservatives on the [U.S. Commission on Civil Rights] had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president."

87 comments:

Quayle said...

And yet we all saw the video at the polling place.

The Drill SGT said...

The article works hard to minimize the issue:


The facts of the case are relatively simple. Two men were captured on a video standing outside a polling place in a black Philadelphia neighborhood on Election Day in 2008.
One of the men had a nightstick, if an unclear agenda


As Quayle said, the agenda was clear. It leaves out the paramilitary uniforms, brandishing the club and the dialogue with the videographer.

Regardless of the importance of this particular incident, the cause of justice and civil rights is not helped if the DoJ gives the appearance that it will not enforce the civil rights laws against minorities when the evidence is clear and compelling.

Failing to be even handed in the application of laws breeds disrepect for the law and the government that creates those laws.

That is going to harm race relations greatly in the future...

Pogo said...

It is "small potatoes,” but then most of us are small potatoes.

It matters.
The race favoritism, the blind eye to thuggery, the Rev. Wright similarities; they all add to the constant drip drip drip of incompetence and corruption that is the Obama administration.

For people on the street, to see paramilitary thugs intimidate at a voting site, to read of voter fraud by ACORN and felons and illegal immigrants, to hear our new national health care head speak lovingly of socialism (and get away with it) is evidence our Constitution is being shredded.

rhhardin said...

The video at the time made its impression, and the story of prosecution for it ought to check.

If you want a conspiracy, it's likely to be a lefty need to revive racism as an issue, and hoping to create something in reaction that looks like it.

And who is Abigail Thernstrom. An appointed woman, apparently.

Ben (The Tiger in Exile) said...

It's small potatoes, sure, but I'd like truth to matter just a bit...

It annoyed me then, and the dropped prosecution annoyed me more.

edutcher said...

How about vote fraud? How about the DoJ lawyer who objected to Holder's handling of the issue? Politico shows it true worthlessness as a news organization again.

PS Ms Thernstrom is more a Massachusetts Conservative than the real thing. She's a member of the Massachusetts Board of Education and was a panel member of one of Willie's 'town meetings' on race.

EDH said...

It's the existence of video of this actual incident that gives this story legs.

You know, like if there was video of a Tea Partier actually lobbing an epithet at the procession of members of the Congressional Black Caucus that paraded through a public demonstration in front of the Capitol while the cameras were rolling.

traditionalguy said...

It is what it is. Voter intimidation is a form of strong arm robbery. Asserting that the police also have an agenda against Obama when they arrest his well financed private armies of henchman at polling places is a weak defense. The Marxist Rulers have always seen voting as a gimmick that they are free to rig and miscount until all opponents are crushed.

Hagar said...

The actual incident might have been "small potatoes" in the way our elections are run, but the Administration's reaction and general attitude to the public uproar is a very "big f.... deal" indeed!

bagoh20 said...

If you defend this episode with the NBPP, then you live in the wrong country. This ethnic and racial crap is the life support that racism is on in the U.S. Pull the damn plug already.

If your ethnicity or race is that important to you, then you are: empty, a rube, a tribal sheep and a menace. You have carved up your world on a complete accident of birth. Your identity should be based on affinity for right ideas and actions. Things you can actually claim as your own because you chose them.

In this nation we have finally arrived to where this is possible. It only requires personal will. You no longer have to stay in your place based on ethnicity. If you still choose to, it's not pride you should feel.

Tibore said...

From the National Review article linked in the Politico.com piece:

"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."

So let me get this straight:
1. There's a quantity threshold before this becomes voter intimidation.
2. Catching the act live is not sufficient, given that "no one has produced actual evidence that any votes were too scared to cast their ballots".

The first argument is a crock; there are times when the importance of an issue is determined by the numbers involved, and times when it's indicated by the presence of a triggering characteristic. Voter intimidation is what it is because it's intimidation, not because it involves masses of people at multiple locations.

And the fallacy of the second point I can illuminate this way: If a doctor finds tumors - say, during a routine examination (age-mandaated colonoscopy, whatever) - is it really important for the patient to have openly suffered the symptoms before you call it "cancer"? Or is the presence of the damn tumor enough?? That applies here: The identification of the voter intimidation lies in the fact that there were thugs intimidating voters. The video itself is Q.E.D.

I'm simply aghast that there's excuse-making about this. Oddly enough, I too share the opinion that it's small potatoes, but for the love of God, since when does the fact that it's a small case relative to the size of even the local population mean that it shouldn't be rectified? Like I said above, it's not the quantitative components of the event that make it intimidation, it's the qualitative ones. Thernstrom's commiting the logical fallacy Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection, and in doing so, she's setting the stage for more events like these to happen. She just defined a way for thugs to violate the spirit and goal of the Voting Rights Act without suffering the consequences. How is that a defense of liberty?

Quayle said...

If there were two guys with white hoods outside a predominantly white polling place, I would not call it small potatoes?

So I won't call it small potatoes now.

Hagar said...

The Administration and the MSM seem to be concentrating on beating down the "Arizona Law." What are they going to do about all the variations that already exist and the others that are popping up around the country?

Borepatch said...

Stupid conservatives!

[/sarcasm]

But the linked article is very interesting in how it glosses over the incident itself as inconsequential. The reporter has multiple quotes pointing out that the perpetrators are essentially harmless cranks who can't be expected to accomplish anything.

If we were to compare and contrast this to the same reporter's coverage of, say, "violent" Tea Party supporters (or survivalists in the Mountain West), would we find a similar set of sympathetic "boys will be boys" explanatory quotes?

The question is rhetorical. Of course we wouldn't.

stevenehrbar said...

So, Politico is spinning that it doesn't have anything to do with the NBPP, it's all about taking down Holder.

Dave Weigel is spinning that, on the contrary, it's all about rallying the right with outrage over the NBPP, and doesn't have anything to do with the DoJ.

Mmm-hmmm.

Rialby said...

I'm looking for two big skinheads to stand outside of a polling place in Nov brandishing pipes. They'll need to have time and money bc they will not be treated nicely for a long time.

Chase said...

Democrat Congressman Brad Sherman:


“I grew up during the Vietnam War, and you had people on both sides, but they were getting their facts from the same place,” Sherman said. “We have polarized political parties and, for the first time in 100 years, polarized journalism as well.


???????????????????

Jana said...

Abigail has a book. I have not read it, but Ward Connerly and Shelby Steele have nice things to say about her. That said, c'mon, if the left can drum up a Bush DOJ scandal, then all's fair for the right to do the same, I say. I'm tired of conservatives and Republicans playing nice.

Tidy Righty said...

Minorities have taken over this country! There is now one set of rules for white people and taxpayers and another set of rules for "people of color" who are a bunch of parasites on our society. Yes, we need change. We need REAL change!

bagoh20 said...

Political discourse so often drops into it's this or that as if it can't be many things simultaneously.

It is about rage on the right over being called racists, and wanting to clobber Holder and the President, and racism, and more. So what? Do we want this stuff to be acceptable or not. If it's illegal it needs prosecuted, or it will continue.

Next election when two KKK guys do the same, will we just say small potatoes and expect it to end on it's own. This is the fire in the trash can and we better put it out now.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

That is going to harm race relations greatly in the future...

Ya think.

Hubby and I were talking about this last night. I contend that many of these neo-Black Panthers and those who are trying to turn the tables race wise and institutionalize reverse racism are very young. They grew up in an education system that stressed to them that white people are always the oppressor and evil and that the US is an oppressor nation etc. They have been taught victimhood. Taught to be helpless and then told to blame someone else.

They have grown up in an atmosphere of tolerance, government support and the actual racism that they have encountered has been an anomaly. Most people in the US are fair minded and don't like to see discrimination of any kind. The neo Panthers et al need to discuss what real racism was about with their elders who will remember the 40's 50's and 60's.

However....I am very much afraid that if they keep pushing the envelope with things like ignoring this Black Panther case, the politicization of the Dept of Justice to discriminate against whites over blacks and continue with this agenda that Obama is also pushing.....taking from the rich (aka whites and hard working) to redistribute the wealth to people of color.. that there will be a terrible push back.

People are going to get tired of this and some people, who previously have been regarded as cranks and extremists, will take action. Violent action.

When people feel that they have their backs to the wall: economically, politically and feel discriminated against....they WILL find an enemy and take action. This is exactly what happened in pre WWII Germany and this is what I fear is happening and even being orchestrated now by our liberals.

I believe that they WANT a race war and they are deliberately pitting us against each other. Blacks against whites. Hispanics against whites. Poor against rich. See a pattern anyone?

vw: waria

Tidy Righty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Richard Dolan said...

Like many cases involving important principles, the particular facts of the NBP case are trivial. In that sense, Thernstrom has a point. But the controversy has always been about DOJ policy in the time of Hope & Change, and whether DOJ intends to apply anti-discrimination laws in a discriminatory fashion. The NBP case is significant only to the extent it represents an application of that policy. And if that is the DOJ policy, the principle is very far from trivial.

Nor does it matter what the motives may be among those who have raised the issue and demanded clarification from Holder's DOJ about what its policy going forward will be. Obviously matters of high principle, impacting on how the Nation is governed and the laws are applied, has political ramifications. It should. People with a political agenda ought to be raising those issues, and it is no surprise (and no answer) that they are.

A little context: Does anyone think that the facts of the Bong Hits for Jesus case really merited national attention (rather than the First Amendment principles at stake)? Conversely, when the practical stakes are very high (think, e.g., Dred Scott, Plessey or Korematsu), the decision is often driven more by practicalities (real or imagined) than principle.

To say, as the lefties now do, that the principle is not worth raising because the facts are trivial or the motives of those raising it are political is deeply perilous. They forget that what goes around comes around.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Fuck off, Tidy.

You are a Moby and I don't want any affiliation with your bullshit.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Abigail Thernstrom decrying that there is politics at play in...politics.

When the left does it, it's the gospel truth they say with hands on hips and disdainful looks.

When the right does it, why then it's just politics, shameful and nothing to see.

Tidy Righty said...

It is time to take our country back from these race hustlers and return its Christian foundation!

Those who now control our mainstream media and many other of our institutions are undermining our Christian values and promoting these radicals because they want to install a socialist regime. Well they got it with Obama. They will not be satisfied until being a white Christian is outlawed.

bagoh20 said...

DBQ: "The neo Panthers et al need to discuss what real racism was about with their elders who will remember the 40's 50's and 60's."

That would be helpful and I would hope those elders whould be angry and vocal that the battles they won are dismissed as failures by the new generation of activists who are motivated by emptiness and need for a cause rather than any real discrimination.

In fact, these new radicals are just racists, plain and simple, and have sacrificed the high ground that their elders occupied only to fight in the gutter.

One of the reason's I disagree with them is that it's nice to be on the high ground. I always seek it, before picking a fight.

Comrade X said...

It's Obama's Brutha Soldja moment. He made his choice. He shouldn't complain that people notice it.

Tidy Righty said...

Dust Bunny what's up? Where do we disagree? I am confused that you would attack me.

I agree with you when you wrote that they are ".....taking from the rich (aka whites and hard working) to redistribute the wealth to people of color.. "

traditionalguy said...

A fascinating debate is happening. The older 62 and over folks still can only see the White Racism patterns they knew and fought against in the 1960s. But 40 years later Obama's election has freed the men and women raised on a steady diet of reverse discrimination as a necessary handicap to now rebel. They are pointing out that Racial favoritism is ugly and evil when African Americans do it too, which is an indictment of those that enabled it for 40 years.

bagoh20 said...

Tidy Bowl,

Nobody is buying it. The stereotypes you are baiting don't live here. Frankly, what you are doing is worse than the stuff the NBPP promotes. At least they believe their crap. They want to win a battle. You just want the battle for it's own sake. Fail.

Hagar said...

Note also that it is not just the DoJ.
Over at the State Department, Hillary and her people have kind of staked out some areas they are interested in, while the Department in general goes on in its own way (or ways), and of course the White House does its own foreign policy anyway.
So also in the Gulf oil spill clean-up. Each department, and indeed, divisions within the departments, doing their own thing./

Paul said...

"That is going to harm race relations greatly in the future... "

Divide and conquer.

Of course the left wants to pit group against group. The very concept of identity politics plus the radical egalitarian impulses that animate leftist belief ensures a power struggle between those different groups.

That power struggle IS the left in a nutshell and always has and always will result in one group with it's boot on the neck of another.

AJ Lynch said...

My local paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer[where the incident occurred] has had a news embargo on this issue. The funny thing is I bet it will report this "conservative's" putdown of the issue.

garage mahal said...

Of course the left wants to pit group against group. The very concept of identity politics plus the radical egalitarian impulses that animate leftist belief ensures a power struggle between those different groups.

You're aware that it's the right that is pimping this story right? After not pimping it when the Bush DOJ decided not to pursue it? What changed?

HDHouse said...

traditionalguy said...
"The Marxist Rulers have always seen voting as a gimmick that they are free to rig and miscount until all opponents are crushed."

Hey! I thought we all agreed not to bring up Florida again.

Gahrie said...

If I thought we could get away with it, I would organize a national movement of white men who would dress in paramilitary uniforms, carry night sticks and stand around outside polling places, just to revel in the liberal hypocrisy.

c3 said...

Ms Thernstrom is more a Massachusetts Conservative than the real thing.

With the cries from the Left of the "vast right wing conspiracy" and with all of the statements that "that person does not represent the Tea Party movement" why are those on the Right so eager to discount a dissenting voice on the right. Isn't it possible to say "I respect Ms. Thernstrom but I disagree with her on this".

And after reading the details of the incident in Philadelphia I can see why a DoJ (be it a Bush DoJ or an Obama DoJ) might not pursue the issue. You know some times crimes occur but there just isn't enough evidence to pursue prosecution.

And on a larger note isn't the statement "there are black racists" self-evident enough without having to desperately find the case (including video evidence) to prove the point?

William said...

The Panthers are a handful of ineffectual bigots who get together to act out their hatreds and delusions of importance. The same could be said for many of the militia groups. For the left, the militia groups are an alarm bell in the night, and forceful efforts must be taken to douse the embers before they ignite a conflagration. The Panthers--they're a nasty but essentially harmless group of kooks. It's best to ignore them. Otherwise, you just feed into their exagerrated sense of self importance. Black people never violently act out their sense of grievance. Only white people do that......I don't think either the Panthers or the militias are the vanguard of a mass movement. But there is a certain amount of latent racism when you ignore one group and italicize the other.

bagoh20 said...

Garage and HD immediately trot out the only argument used to defend this administration since it started. If that's all you got, why bother. We got it - Bush's fault. Maybe Jeb will run some day and it will at least sound relevant.

Paul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul said...

"Black people never violently act out their sense of grievance. Only white people do that......"

??????????!!!!!!!

GMay said...

Shut the fuck up Tidy.

You're not even a mediocre Moby. Come back when you've upped your game.

campy said...

Please adjust your sarcasm detector, Paul.

traditionalguy said...

HD...Good shot about the Florida selective re-count. But your memory hole must be acting up. The NYT and others did complete recounts of the ballots that the Supremes stopped the Florida counties from selectively re-counting. And the winner was....do you remember or not? That fact is not part of the Dems famous Saga of Bush's Stolen Election, so it may be hard for you to remember.

garage mahal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...

The Bush DOJ believed it should be tried as a civil, not criminal case. That makes sense. The Obama DOJ decided that they shouldn't prosecute the bruthas.

The Obama DOJ did get a judgment against the guy carrying the nighstick. What else was the Obama DOJ supposed to prosecute? Wearing scary black man clothing at a voting place? Voter intimidation? Nobody ever came forward claiming that they were intimidated. And who were they intimidating anyway? Heavily black Democratic precinct voters? LOL. Great case you got there.

edutcher said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...

That is going to harm race relations greatly in the future...

Ya think.

....

I am very much afraid that if they keep pushing the envelope with things like ignoring this Black Panther case, the politicization of the Dept of Justice to discriminate against whites over blacks and continue with this agenda that Obama is also pushing.....taking from the rich (aka whites and hard working) to redistribute the wealth to people of color.. that there will be a terrible push back.


A guy named Newton summed it up nicely, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".

The Lefties, barring a few setbacks, have pretty much had things their way for 80 years. I agree a lot of people are showing every sign of being fed up and not being willing to sit back and take it any more.

HDHouse said...

traditionalguy said...
"The Marxist Rulers have always seen voting as a gimmick that they are free to rig and miscount until all opponents are crushed."

Hey! I thought we all agreed not to bring up Florida again


The only fraud was by the Demos, trying, as they always do, to rewrite the election law to suit themselves

Saint Croix said...

The dumbest thing she said was that it was a "majority black district" so the threat was no big deal. Of course if you're a minority in a majority black district, a racial threat is a very big deal. How clueless can you be?

Paul said...

"Please adjust your sarcasm detector, Paul. "

Gotcha!!

Big Mike said...

I read pretty much the same set of talking points in the Washington Post, but here's what's missing from everything, including Thernstrom's own remarks (as reported).

There was a summary judgment against the men in the video.

Holder's DOJ dropped the case after they had won it.

There is no way to interpret this decision except that it is based solely on the race of the perpetrators and not on the legality of their actions.

Paul said...

"The Obama DOJ did get a judgment against the guy carrying the nighstick. What else was the Obama DOJ supposed to prosecute? Wearing scary black man clothing at a voting place? Voter intimidation? Nobody ever came forward claiming that they were intimidated. And who were they intimidating anyway? Heavily black Democratic precinct voters? LOL. Great case you got there."

Imagine is it was two white power skinheads in an analogous situation.

Nuff said.

Garage fails again to address the larger issue of the left, it's philosophy, and it's consequences both intended and unintended.

You cannot divide people into politically favored and unfavored groups and subject them to the whims of a powerful central government and achieve a happy outcome.

Hagar said...

I think there was kind of a generational change in the Federal bureaucracy back in the Carter administration. A lot of flowerchildren and general potheads got a haircut, bought a 3-piece suit, and got a Government job. Now these people are the department heads, and with the election of Obama, they feel they have now come into their own and can dispense justice on their terms.

Tibore said...

"c3 said...
And after reading the details of the incident in Philadelphia I can see why a DoJ (be it a Bush DoJ or an Obama DoJ) might not pursue the issue. You know some times crimes occur but there just isn't enough evidence to pursue prosecution."


Before I begin, I just want to make clear that I'm addressing the argument, not the arguer, and I say this with respect. But: How is video of the two Black Panthers, one of them brandishing a nightstick at someone approaching him, not enough evidence? As I noted above, the act itself is recorded on video.

When people continue to say "there's not enough evidence", I'd really like to know what the threshold is supposed to be. It's not clear what it is about the video that fails to meet the criteria. Again, not a personal attack, but rather simple astonishment that video of the act is considered insufficient.

"Big Mike said...
I read pretty much the same set of talking points in the Washington Post, but here's what's missing from everything, including Thernstrom's own remarks (as reported).

There was a summary judgment against the men in the video.

Holder's DOJ dropped the case after they had won it.

There is no way to interpret this decision except that it is based solely on the race of the perpetrators and not on the legality of their actions. "


I agree fully, Big Mike, but that said, I do wish the judgement was not a default one due to the accused not showing up to defend themselves. The case clearly has merit, and having the judgement go against them on facts and law would be a much better argument than "No show; default judgement given". Of course, the ideal can no longer be reached now that the DoJ has dropped it...

SukieTawdry said...

And who is Abigail Thernstrom. An appointed woman, apparently.

Abigail Thernstrom is a Bush-43 appointee to the Commission and best known, I think, for her opposition to affirmative action. She does, indeed, think the Panther case is "small potatoes" and diverts attention from other problems with the Holder DOJ more worthy of our righteous indignation.

She may be right, but she's been snotty in tone and unnecessarily dismissive of opposing argument.

One thing I never see addressed: why didn't the Panthers respond to the charges? Perhaps they felt it was beneath them. Perhaps they preferred martyrdom. But it's also plausible that someone in the President-elect's "office" sent down word that once they assumed the DOJ, the charges would be dismissed. Isn't this something worth knowing?

Cedarford said...

Garage - "Nobody ever came forward claiming that they were intimidated. And who were they intimidating anyway? Heavily black Democratic precinct voters? LOL. Great case you got there."

1. 3 black Republican poll observors filed complaints they were intimidated. Slurred, then threatened, one with death, by the two Panthers. They report voter intimidation. A video appears to clearly show NBPP intimidation and a weapon wielded.

2. Based on those complaints NOT a voter complaint of "voter intimidation" but poll watcher claims of intimidation DOJ filed charges and entered a default judgment. (a separate law since the 1964 Civil Rights act reflects how "outside poll watchers, belonging to Civil Rights groups outside segregated states" were intimidated, harassed, threatened with death, and sometimes beaten and killed by criminal elements.)

3. While DOJ will not meet with members of Congresson civil rights issues, apparantly several meetings occured between DOJ lawyers (Perelli and Steven H. Rosenbaum), NAACP, and black lawyers at the White HOuse. NAACP requested the charges be dropped against the panthers and Deputy White house counsel Cassandra Butts regarging the Panther charges. Butts is former counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

4. The claim that minorities are only intimidated if they are intimidated at a "majority minority" district where their vote "really matters" is a rather novel Lefty talking point...don't you think, Garage??
A quick question, garage. Two guys dressed in KKK uniforms at a mostly white polling place, one with a club, mostly intimidating white "N8gger-lover" poll watchers...but caught on video telling the stray blacks showing up at the poll place they "best move on, white man rules, hope you babies die and make this country a better place."
Do you charge the KKK, Garage??

4. Should what Steven H. Rosenbaum, Thomas J Perelli, Kristen Clarke director of NAACP Legal Defense Fund political action div, Cassandra Butts Deputy White House counsel and former counsel to NAACP Legal Defense discuss at multiple meetings regarding getting rid of the Panthercase over objection of career prosecutors be a matter of interest?
I think it already is!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Black people never violently act out their sense of grievance. Only white people do that.......

Really. I guess you were either not born or brain dead during the Rodney King riots in LA or the recent violence over the Oakland BART trial.

How about Twana Brawley and the riots encouraged by Sharpton. The Crown riots also fomented by professional race baiter Sharpton.

I'm voting for brain dead.

Saint Croix said...

Cast of characters here.

They had default judgments against everybody. But they dropped three of the cases anyway. Apparently out of sympathy for the Black Panthers. Unbelievable.

This wasn't even a criminal prosecution, merely a civil injunction forbidding the Panthers from intimidating anybody in the future. It was frickin' uncontested.

Apparently the Obama administration concluded that the Black Panthers should be free to intimidate. And the guy with the nightstick should be free to intimidate (except in Philadelphia). And he's free to intimidate in Philadelphia after 2012.

Why this sympathy for the Black Panther party? It's insane.

And how is it political or crazy for Republicans to seek a civil injunction keeping these assholes from threatening people at polling places?

The tone deafness of the Obama administration continues to astound me.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Garage said:

"And who were they intimidating anyway? Heavily black Democratic precinct voters? LOL. Great case you got there."

According to Garage, it's impossible for thugs to intimidate voters of their same race into voting a certain way. It's only intimidation if it's across racial lines.

Curious logic, that.

So by that logic, the KKK never, ever did anything to intimidate white people. They only intimidated black people.

Is that because it never happened, Garage?

Funny, I remember the famous case of the three young men murdered in Mississippi in 1964. History books all say it was two white men, one black men; I guess everyone's wrong, and Garage is right--they were all black. They had to be all black--because according to Garage, thugs never intimidate people of their same race.

Or is that it doesn't count as intimidation? If the voters were white--it's intimidation; but according to Garage, change their skin color, and magically it's something else. If it's not intimidation, what do you call it?

garage mahal said...

Imagine is it was two white power skinheads in an analogous situation.

I imagine this wouldn't be pursued at all by the right. Just like there was no one on the right up in arms over the Bush DOJ not bringing charges against a Minutemen wearing a 9mm glock questioning and filming hispanic voters in Tuscon whether they spoke english or not.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Here's a crazy idea:

We should not allow thugs to stand outside polling places acting like thugs. Holding sticks and challenging people.

Voters should not have to navigate that, no matter what color they are.

We shouldn't have long conversations about how we need to be "understanding" and "not jump to conclusions" and all that jazz.

You show up at a polling place, and act like a thug? Someone comes right away and takes you away, and you get punished, get an injunction, and that's the end of it.

Postscript: if the government agency that's supposed to handle this, feels confident it did it's job...then why is it stonewalling, while partisans are left to make this argument?

Thugs outside polling places is a bad thing. No tolerance. Why can't Attorney General Holder and his folks bestir themselves to say that, in no uncertain terms?

Alex said...

We should not allow thugs to stand outside polling places acting like thugs. Holding sticks and challenging people.

Of course we should allow it. Crackers need to be put in their place.

Paul said...

"I imagine this wouldn't be pursued at all by the right.'

Yeah because we're all racist white power skinhead lovers here on the right.

Asshole.

"Just like there was no one on the right up in arms over the Bush DOJ not bringing charges against a Minutemen wearing a 9mm glock questioning and filming hispanic voters in Tuscon whether they spoke english or not."

Was the Glock holstered or in his hand? Were the Hispanics illegals and voting intelligibly? In the Black Panther case 3 black Republican poll observers filed complaints they were intimidated. Slurred, then threatened, one with death, by the two Panthers. Were any of the Hispanics threatened with physical violence? Was the man in question involved with a group that advocates the extermination of every Hispanic, like the Black Panthers advocate for whites?

Keep ducking the larger issue of the inherent catastrophic consequences of the left's agenda to divide everyone into identity groups, and empower a central government to administer "justice" to these groups as it sees fit.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

There go the right again, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the power of numbers. Their war on mathematics continues unabated, whether the issue is racial demographics or budget balancing...

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

And who were they intimidating anyway? Heavily black Democratic precinct voters? LOL. Great case you got there.

But the rabbit-hole dwellers miss that the "intimidation" was to agitate against Obama, despite the fact that the vote went overwhelmingly for him in the first place...

"The facts of the case are relatively simple. Two men were captured on a video standing outside a polling place in a black Philadelphia neighborhood on Election Day in 2008. One of the men had a nightstick, if an unclear agenda — though a member of the black nationalist New Black Panther Party, he had earlier professed loathing for the Democratic "puppet" candidate, Barack Obama, who went on to overwhelmingly carry that precinct."

Dust Bunny Queen said...

But the rabbit-hole dwellers miss that the "intimidation" was to agitate against Obama, despite the fact that the vote went overwhelmingly for him in the first place...


It doesn't matter who they were agitating for or against. It is against the law..period... and they should have been prosecuted.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Ritmo:

Hey smartypants, let me space this out in short phrases so you can grasp it, ok?

I don't care

(pause, digest)

who they were trying

(pause)

to intimidate

(it's a big word, sound it out)

or whether they succeeded

(raise your hand if you are confused)

or not

(absorb that, then move one)

because we should not allow

(reflect)

anyone

(maybe look up that word?)

to do this sort of thing

(almost finished)

ever.

(Good job! Go rest because all that thinking was really, really hard)

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

It doesn't matter who they were agitating for or against. It is against the law..period... and they should have been prosecuted.

How can someone claim that they were intimidated into doing something when they did the opposite of what the person allegedly intimidating them wanted?

I remember when you argued that someone allegedly throwing snowballs at a car in D.C. should be thrown in jail without so much as being tried in court first.

Thernstrom is right. This is just a political issue. (Hey, let's get the Black Panthers!). You guys are pretending there's something legal at stake when it's been demonstrated that too many on the right long ago lost the ability to differentiate between politics and principles.

traditionalguy said...

Who will play Inspector Holder-Clouseau in the movie version to be called Pink Panther meets Black Panther.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

God love the real conservatives who don't hate half their country and know how to have both a sense of humor about life and a deep and realistic appreciation for it, like TG.

c3 said...

Garage;
And who were they intimidating anyway? Heavily black Democratic precinct voters? LOL. Great case you got there.

while I agree with the essence of your point hopefully as a liberal you appreciate the argument that if even one voter felt intimidated it was a problem. Lets not forgot all of those folks "offending" by a generic prayer at a sports event.

Tibore;
A good point but then again I'm not a lawyer and I don't have a working knowledge of what will and will not play in court.

Fr Martin Fox said...

So...

If the facts are so clear, that Holder did just the right thing...

Then why not come out swinging?

Isn't some Republican congressman demanding hearings?

Give it to him!

The Dems will run the hearing.

Holder can show up, and demolish the petty Republicans, right?

It's a grand-slam, right?

Because, we're told, the thing is really nothing.

AC245 said...

The Obama DOJ did get a judgment against the guy carrying the nighstick. What else was the Obama DOJ supposed to prosecute? Wearing scary black man clothing at a voting place? Voter intimidation? Nobody ever came forward claiming that they were intimidated. And who were they intimidating anyway? Heavily black Democratic precinct voters? LOL. Great case you got there.

GasRage is, as usual, lying. This lie that Obama/Holder gave up because the case was too difficult to win is born of the Journolistic fever swamps.

The DOJ had already won a default judgment on the civil charges that had been brought against the NBPP members. The only thing they had to do to complete the "win" was not drop the charges before sentencing.

But for some reason - which still hasn't been explained - Obama/Holder did drop the charges before sentencing, throwing away a case that had already been won.

Lynne said...

My thoughts from a post at my blog:
Suppose one group gets wind of a plan by another group to intimidate certain voters at the polls. What happens when, say, armed Stormfront supporters show up to 'protect' white voters from armed New Black Panthers? The resulting chaos could shut down the polling place- to say nothing of the innocent voters who could get caught in the crossfire.

My husband has a friend who works as a cargo pilot. A few years ago he had a brief layover in a Caribbean nation. As it happened, that nation had just held an election. He told my husband that the newspapers were touting the election as a great success because "only a few people were killed on election day."

Is this what we want?

Ignoring this possibility won't make it go away. In fact, ignoring it makes it even more likely.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

How can someone claim that they were intimidated into doing something when they did the opposite of what the person allegedly intimidating them wanted?


It doesn't matter whether the intimidated person was intimidated into doing something or not doing something. The actions of the target of the initimidation are immaterial in the law as applied to voting.

It is the action and intention of the person DOING the intimidation that is the point and that is exactly the illegal act of intimidation that occured and was ignored by the DOJ.

If you try to intimidate me into buying chocolate ice-cream and I tell you to stuff it and buy strawberry.....that doesn't make you innocent of intimidation.

It just makes me a stronger person than you.

It also doesn't mean that I might not have been intimidated by you a bit or for a while. It means that I'm not buying your effing chocolate ice cream.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I remember when you argued that someone allegedly throwing snowballs at a car in D.C. should be thrown in jail without so much as being tried in court first.

Yes?? People get arrested and thrown in jail all the time without a trial first.

Drunk drivers, drunk in public, domestic violence actions, people in the act of committing assault and battery by throwing snowballs at others to just name a few. People are rountinely arrested and detained for the safety of the public as a whole and later charged and sent to trial.

So what?

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

It also doesn't mean that I might not have been intimidated by you a bit or for a while. It means that I'm not buying your effing chocolate ice cream.

So, according to Jane Jetson Hairdo Lady, it's possible to intimidate someone without them feeling intimidated. I appreciate the clarification of your unique definition.

People get arrested and thrown in jail all the time without a trial first... People are rountinely (sic) arrested and detained for the safety of the public as a whole and later charged and sent to trial.

So what?


I'm so glad that Jane Jetson Hairdo Lady has appointed herself arbiter of administrative detentions - especially when it comes to people alleged to have committed an act that doesn't currently pose a danger to "public safety".

Any more ridiculous (and tyrannical) ideas you'd like to propose?

Rialby said...

I guess I feel this way... in light of all the trouble in the world, Holder's dismissal of a slam dunk case against these thugs is probably not the worse thing he's done. But then again, tell that to Al Capone who was sent away for tax evasion. Sometimes you don't get wrongdoers for the worst things they've done.

Bruce Hayden said...

The problem is the appearance of running the Department of Justice as a racial fief. I should add that the AG has not only had the charges dropped (after getting the default judgments dismissed), but he has also refused to respond to subpoenas, etc. from the Civil Rights Commission.

The one thing that is likely here is that one of the first orders of business of the House Judiciary Committee of the next Congress will be subpoenas to Holder, at al. on this subject. And, I would not be surprised to see that they extend to the apparent DoJ policies of only reviewing minority claims of discrimination and not requiring that dead, moved, etc. voters be removed from voting rolls, as required by law.

downtownlad said...

Wow - I've never seen so many Caucasians claiming victimhood as there are on this thread. Too funny.

Never even heard of this story until 3 days ago, when I learned about Megyn Kelly's racist rant.

Revenant said...

Nobody thinks the NBPP is a serious threat. But neither is the Klan, these days -- heck, the NBPP probably has more members.

This is about whether or not the government enforces civil rights laws fairly and equally. If the President doesn't support that then he SHOULD be "really damaged", and his attorney general SHOULD be "brought down".

Tibore said...

"downtownlad said...
Wow - I've never seen so many Caucasians claiming victimhood as there are on this thread."


Wow - I've never seen the defense of principle that applies across any and all racial categories be characterized as "Caucasians claiming victimhood".

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Oh boo hoo Ritmo doesn't like my Mad Men avatar.

I guess I'm going to have to change.

Here's one just for him

Ritmo Brasileiro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ritmo Brasileiro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Methadras said...

Leftards always deny what they see right in front of them.