by Jack
Democrats say government ID cards are absolutely necessary for illegals so they can conduct business here in America. Democrat leaders warn us if Congress doesn’t act soon to come up with an amnesty plan the President will be forced to borrow the power and do it himself…borrow the power?
So, let me understand this: The democrats say illegal immigrants need an ID card to survive here. Further, this is the humane thing to do. They need to cash checks to buy food or get medical treatment and an ID is just part of being able to do normal things in America we all do. Democrats warn the illegals shouldn’t have to live in fear of being caught without a valid ID.
However, on another level they tell us a voter ID for US citizens is bad! It’s an offense against minorities to deprive them of voting. It’s not humane and it would place an unnecessary hardship on many citizens. Even thought everyone in America apparently carries an ID card anyway, which is why illegals need one.
Next, if Republican’s don’t join Obama with his amnesty plan for illegals the Republicans will force him to “borrow” the power necessary to implement a plan all on his own? So either way, it’s the Republicans fault, a damned if you, damned if you don’t sort of situation that only a liberal can call reasonable and logical.
Obama is poised to usurp the legislative powers granted to Congress by executive fiat. Obama rules by unconstitutional fiat, he has done this before, he will do it again. If his power grabs continue to go on unchallenged in court I fear for our tripartite protections.
The answer is quite simple: Providing illegal aliens with identification cards is more important than providing identification for legitimate voters.
Democrats depend on the former to get their domestic wage slaves and fear the latter will put them out of office.
The President was out on the circuit today.
I have to say he sounded fairly shrill and desperate as he lied through his teeth about how Republicans refuse to “work with him” to get things done for the folks.
He also whined like a child that he had tried…he tried to do things for the peeps but meanie Republicans in Congress have struck down “every single serious idea” to help the middle class.
This is how a man without a conscience manages to sleep at night. He defines “serious ideas” as anything he wants to do and how he wants to do it. He expects a rubber stamp brigade. Collaberation and compromise are not in his vocabulary and so he can claim that Republicans shoot down all the “serious” ideas. He’s a my way or the highway kinda guy, the imperial president if ever there was one.
The New Black Panther guy…Shabaz (sp)… warned those white folks on voting day that they were going to see “what it was like to be ruled by a black guy”. He wasn’t talking pleasantries from the menacing tone either. So, now we know. How do we like it so far?
The carefully chosen audience today, I would bet, was uninformed and A. Working for the government in some capacity or, B On some form of assistance. They might be feeling a slight pinch in their wallets but they have jobs or they have the crumbs this dictator in waiting has tossed them to keep them dumb and happy. (He’s tried so hard after all)
What a sorry excuse for a leader. He’s got Harry Reid running interference in the Senate so he doesn’t have to risk declining to sign any of the 150 bills already passed by the House by Republicans and Democrats.
Oh! Pardon me, old story, now its 290 House bills that Harry is sitting on so Obama can whine and screech in front of safe audiences. I’d like to see him try to pull that crap in front of a Tea party audience or any group of Americans that don’t fawn all over him.
As for the ID idea…its noise to distract from the garbage pretending to be our federal government.
It’s a fact that over the last 14 years US born workers are losing big time in the job market in America:
So the talking points about America needing all of this foreign labor and should have ID is a crock.
Tell me, what exactly is the Democrat plan for the natural born citizens of America and their children? Liberal Democrats have pushed prices to the sky on groceries, meat, poultry, gasoline, energy from coal, and healthcare. They have created the longest non recovery in fifty years or more and before its over may usher in the next big depression. Aand the wizzards of smart that bashed Bush foreign policy have even managed to make the world a more dangerous place. God their good. But at what? Destroying America that’s what!
All those silly women in the front row smiling at the President had better wake the hell up; their kids futures are going down the drain.
(End of rant)
All I see is a plan to destroy citizens jobs and businesses. I see plans that drive big corporations overseas or to Mexico…and flood the nation with illegal immigrants many of them unattended children, and many of them ill with contagious diseases.
The world is blowing to pieces in the ME, our economy is in negative territory and we have a Screecher-in-Chief as our leader with his comrades in Congress who can think of nothing better to do except get those illegals an ID.
You have got to be kidding me!
“The New Black Panther guy…Shabaz (sp)… warned those white folks on voting day that they were going to see ‘what it was like to be ruled by a black guy’.”
Tina, you are foaming at the mouth. Wipe yer chin.
Libby you are spewing the politically correct response, get a mind…and then use it.
Tell me, what exactly is the Democrat plan for the natural born citizens of America and their children?
Isn’t that special…border agents are also getting sick from dealing in close quarters with the “children” pouring across the border.
The Democrats are staging this stunt.
Off Topic: Obama give a pass on wind farm killing of eagles —
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/California-wind-farm-gets-a-pass-on-deaths-of-5583233.php
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/feds-give-wind-farms-the-ok-to-kill-eagles-for-30-years/
Tina, you expect far too much from Blame The Victim Libby.
At least we have one well informed liberal who understands how lawless this administration is and is speaking out to stop Obama.
Liberal Law Professor Jonathan Turley Thinks Congress Could Win Its New Lawsuit Against Obama:
“Left-wing law professor Jonathan Turley baffled his MSNBC cohorts on Wednesday when he claimed House Republicans have a real case in their lawsuit against President Obama for executive overreach, explaining that “there’s no license for going it alone in our system.”
On Wednesday, House Republican Speaker John Boehner announced plans to file a lawsuit on behalf of the institution of Congress accusing President Obama of abusing the power of the White House to unconstitutionally rewrite domestic laws.
Turley, a George Washington University law professor who supports much of President Obama’s agenda, has already opposed this White House before — most notably on the lack of notification to Congress before the transfer of five dangerous Taliban prisoners from Gitmo (RELATED: Turley: I Don’t Think There’s Much Debate’ That Obama Broke Law).”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/25/liberal-law-professor-jonathan-turley-thinks-congress-could-win-their-new-lawsuit-against-obama/#ixzz35wdKuFmi
Tina: “The New Black Panther guy…Shabaz (sp)… warned those white folks on voting day that they were going to see “what it was like to be ruled by a black guy”. He wasn’t talking pleasantries from the menacing tone either. So, now we know. How do we like it so far?”
Yeah, this is one of the craziest, most racist things you’ve ever written. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Chris you should have yourself analyzed. Anyone who continues to support an administrations whose choice for Attorney General refuses to sentence a man for egregious civil rights violations because he is black hasn’t the ability to determine if someone is racist. anyone who supports selectively applying the law based on race is no friend to equal justice.
Anyone who continues to support the most divisive and race conscious administration in recent history, an administration that deserves severe criticism an is handled with kid gloves based on his race (And party), definitely has no business judging me.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Tina: “Anyone who continues to support an administrations whose choice for Attorney General refuses to sentence a man for egregious civil rights violations because he is black”
Happily, the attorney general did not refuse to sentence a man for egregious civil rights violations because he is black, so you are simply talking nonsense.
There goes Chris again tossing slurs, speciously calling Tina a racist again. And he complains when I call him an a$$hole.
A shovel is a shovel is a shovel. The same applies to this a$$hole.
Tina, The Magnificent English Major has no sense of shame.
I did not call Tina a racist. I pointed out that what she was something racist. Work on your reading comprehension, Pie.
World Tribune:
In fact had Holder done his job to serve the American people and sent a strong message that in America everyone’s rights will be protected under the governance of two black men with authority it would have gone a long way toward further healing of racial tensions in this nation. Instead his actions sent the message that blacks can act like Southern racists prior to 1965 and they won’t be held accountable…a terrible message based in revenge, hatred, and ignorance.
This decision might explain the knock out game and mob attacks. It certainly helps to explain the attitude taken by the Florida prosecuter and the administration in the Trayvon Martin case.
Eric Holder accused the American people (Read whites) of being a “nation of cowards” on race. I believe the man was projecting. He has acted as a coward in has capacity as Attorney General, taking sides in order to maintain his black credentials…he will not be accused of being an Uncle Tom.
See also here and here:
If I’m talking “nonsense” I’m in good company. I’m in the company of attorney Bartle Bull who stood in the faces of white racists in the sixties who were acting just like Shabaz was to deny blacks the vote and worked to see that blacks were not intimidated.
,b>Reverse discrimination is just as ugly as its evil twin…our Justice Department should know that!
Tina, your first source is a birther who believes Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. Here’s a sample of his totally sane, rational, not at all prejudiced writing:
“Why should 5-year-olds be confronted with such disturbing issues such as homosexuality, same-sex marriage and sodomy, which are grossly inappropriate for their age?
The reason is simple: The goal of secular progressives is to indoctrinate the youth. This is why public schools — even at the elementary level — are pushing the homosexual agenda. Same-sex “marriage” is not — and never has been — about expanding the benefits of marital unions. Most homosexuals, especially young males, are not interested in getting married. They are aggressively promiscuous. For many, a stable, monogamous relationship is the last thing on their minds. Rather, the purpose of same-sex marriage is to legitimate homosexual behavior, thereby making it morally acceptable and part of the social mainstream. In short, it’s about fostering a cultural revolution — one that overturns Judeo-Christian civilization.
…
The homosexual agenda is cultural Marxism masquerading as “progress.” Its goal is to redefine the family into an appendage of the homosexual movement, seeking to transform men and women into interchangeable parts. Children don’t need two daddies or two mommies. They need a father and a mother. Same-sex marriage is not just wrong. It goes against nature, morality and God. That’s why — like every other attempt at social engineering — it is doomed to fail. The cultural wreckage, however, will be immense. America is sliding toward Sodom and Gomorrah.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/5/america-home-of-the-gay/
“Good company,” my ass. You get your information from deranged bigots.
The decision not to file a criminal case against the NBPP members was made by the Bush administration, Tina. Unless you’re alleging that the Bush administration also had a policy of not prosecuting black perpetrators of voter intimidation, your charges are ludicrous.
Re #15 Chris : “I did not call Tina a racist. I pointed out that what she was something racist. Work on your reading comprehension, Pie.”
Sheesh what magnificent and duplicitous ass from hell you are. A silly, juvenile and quintessential left win a$$hole. How is “Yeah, this is one of the craziest, most racist things you’ve ever written. You should be ashamed of yourself” materially, and linguistically distinguished from calling Tina a racist?
Listen you simpleton English major attempting and failing at the usual sh*t-for-brains, left-wing weasel wording — go f&^k yourself with that laughable and idiotic denial. Seriously, go f&^k yourself you horrid and toxic little creep.
ROTFLMAO!
Dear Magnificent English Major Creep From Left-Wing, Slur Mongering Hell,
By the way, what Tina noted can hardly be called racist, she was simply relating a fact on record about the racist Black Panthers.
No, she didn’t just quote them. She literally said that she now knows what it’s like “to be ruled by a black guy.” That is racist. As is the broader campaign to make it appear as if the Obama administration gave any special treatment to the NBPP. It’s the same logic that leads radical right-wingers to believe everything Obama does is based on his race (see also: Rush Limbaugh claiming that the Affordable Care Act, which applies to everyone, is a form of “reparations” for African-Americans.
I wish you luck in your treatment for your Tourettes syndrome, Pie.
I agree that the radical homosexual agenda is to indoctrinate children through our public education system and I don’t think it is appropriate for public schools to teach specifics about sex or morality to teenagers much less five year old kids.
Your objection is ridiculous!
Public schools should not be indoctrination centers.
Sex education in public schools should stick to the basics of reproduction, IMHO.
Your alignment with people who endorse sexual indoctrination in public schools probably makes you seem like a “deranged idiot” to other people.
So what? Opinions are just that and nothing more.
But since you see yourself as automatically right you have no room for alternative thought…its not to be allowed! It isn’t even a slim possibility that you could be trampling all over the rights and lives of others who happen to see things differently than you do. As a member in good standing of the PC crowd you are justified to call that person despicable names and discredit him.
This makes you one of the most intolerant and bigoted people on earth but you are too indoctrinated yourself to see it.
Chris: “The decision not to file a criminal case against the NBPP members was made by the Bush administration,”
Chris, where did you get this idea from? It’s not even logical since the NBPP voter intimidation incident took place in November 2008, just two month before Bush’s term ended and Obama was sworn in placing Holder as AJ.
Did Eric Holder Commit Perjury in Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case? Watchdog Publishes Some Revealing Documents:
“A conservative watchdog group on Wednesday questioned the accuracy of sworn testimony given by Attorney General Eric Holder in the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) voter intimidation case. Questions surrounding Holder’s testimony come in the wake of a recent court ruling that also calls into question the veracity of sworn testimony from Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez regarding the Justice Department’s decision to drop its voter intimidation lawsuit against the group.
Documents recently obtained by Judicial Watch indicate that top political appointees at the DOJ were closely involved in the decision to dismiss the NBPP lawsuit, which multiple DOJ officials, including Holder, have denied in their sworn testimony. The group claims that the records, which include internal DOJ email correspondence, “directly contradict testimony by Perez, who testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political leadership was involved in the decision.”
Judicial Watch secured the documents pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit: Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice.
The DOJ initially refused to turn over the documents, arguing they didn’t show “any political interference whatsoever.” However, a federal judge disagreed with their assertion and in a July 23, 2012 ruling, Judge Reggie B. Walton in Washington, D.C. District Court ruled:
The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision making.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/08/08/did-eric-holder-commit-perjury-in-black-panther-voter-intimidation-case-watchdog-publishes-some-revealing-documents/
Watchdog Group Raises Questions About Veracity of Holder Testimony on New Black Panther Party Scandal:
AUGUST 08, 2012
Court Ruling Puts New Focus On Voter Intimidation Scandal.
“Judicial Watch uncovered information that top political appointees at the DOJ were intimately involved in the decision to dismiss the NBPP lawsuit. These documents, which include internal DOJ e-mail correspondence, directly contradict sworn testimony by Perez, who testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political leadership was involved in the decision. The documents were obtained by Judicial Watch pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (No.10-851)).”
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/watchdog-group-raises-questions-about-veracity-of-holder-testimony-on-new-black-panther-party-scandal/
I missed this from the above Judicial Watch article. The complaint may have been filled during Bush’s term, but it was Holder who dismissed all but one minor charge against one NBPP member.
“Regarding the Attorney General’s knowledge of the NBPP decision, Judicial Watch also obtained two e-mail reports sent by former Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Loretta King to Holder.
The first report, entitled “Weekly Report for the Week ending May 8, 2009,” was sent on May 12, 2009, notes: “On May 15, 2009, pursuant to court order, the Department will file a motion for default judgment against at least some of the defendants” in the NBPP lawsuit. The report further notes that the NBPP “has been identified as a racist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League and the founders and members of the original Black Panther Party.”
The second report, entitled “Weekly Report for the Week ending May 15, 2009,” was sent on May 18, 2009, demonstrates that the DOJ did an abrupt reversal on the NBPP issue: “On May 15, 2009, the Department voluntarily dismissed its claims” against the NBPP and two of the defendants, the report noted. The DOJ moved for default judgment against only one defendant.”
Chris you are wrong about how that case played out.
September 25, 2010, CNN:
See also here.
There may be a new development in the “birther” issue…stay tuned.
“She literally said that she now knows what it’s like “to be ruled by a black guy.” That is racist.”
Too far into the PC mindset to recognize a bit of sarcasm?
The comment was born of Obama’s much less than stellar record as president, not his color you race conscious, hall monitoring idiot! Obama is “ruling” the nation like a despot…he is not leading the nation as president, he is dictating as a political ideologue, and if you don’t see that you are just willfully blind.
The radicals running the party you favor and the radicals you believe are just poor innocents trying to be welcomed in society are in fact scum who will turn, are turning, this country into a third world garbage dump with your naive help. I will do anything in my power to save this nation from the likes of those who do politics by division, who have trashed our economy, our healthcare system, our schools, and our children’s futures and who have corrupted the very meaning of decency and equal rights. Your team and their radical, special rights, Marxist and fascist inspired agenda have finally awakened the patriot citizens that have been restrained because we were taught to mind our manners. You are going to find out what its like to be confronted at every turn and to be mocked and made the butt of countless sarcastic and demeaning jokes…and its about time. The heady days of the radical sixties revolutionary scum is now ending.
America is calling and we will answer the call.
Tina, many things have informed Obama’s policy positions and/or decisions over the last six years, but to assert that “blackness” is one of them is racist.
I’m sorry, but it is. And no yowling about political correctness will mitigate this nasty situation. Though I am glad to see you finally come clean … so to speak.
Well said Tina and I’m right there with you. It may be too late for our children, but not for our grandchildren.
I’m even seeing signs of change in my own son who said all of those kids coming across illegally from Mexico needs to be sent back. This administrations radical agenda is even turning off those who once believed he’d be a great leader and are now seeing what a failure he’s been for America and the world.
Did you see this?
Newspaper Reversal: ‘We Were Wrong’ — Obama Worse than Bush
“The Billings Gazette, a Montana newspaper that endorsed President Obama over John McCain in 2008 (but went with Romney in 2012) admitted Friday that they were wrong — Obama is in fact worse than his predecessor, George W. Bush. Apparently, the potential collapse of Iraq (and the disastrous worldwide consequences sure to follow) was the last straw.
“[W]e were wrong,” the editorial page notes,”We said things couldn’t get much worse after the sub par presidency of George W. Bush. But, President Barack Obama’s administration has us yearning for the good ol’ days when we were at least winning battles in Iraq.”
According to the site Left in the West, this is what the “Billings Gazzette” wrote about Obama in its 2008 presidential endorsement:
At this extremely challenging time, America needs a uniter, not a divider. In this economic turmoil, America needs a thoughtful, cool-headed optimist who envisions a bright future for all citizens. After several years in which worldwide respect for America has been diminished, our great nation needs a new leader who can inspire confidence at home and abroad.
Obama is that leader. As Gen. Colin Powell said last week, Obama is the president America needs now “because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities. … He has both style and substance.”
In their reversal today, the Billings Gazette editorial board does not stop with Iraq. The laundry list of their disappointments is wide and deep: Obama’s un-American surveillance state, the Bowe Bergdahl swap, the mishandling of the VA, the “boondoggle” of ObamaCare, and the administration’s many sins against the media.
Without even getting to the economy, the editors sum it up with, “[T]aken in completely, these demonstrate a disturbing trend of incompetence and failure.”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/06/27/newspaper-reversal-we-were-wrong-obama-worse-than-bush
Gazette article:
http://m.billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/article_f7f51100-0eb8-5726-922f-b1bf460fcf87.html?mobile_touch=true
Libby no need to be “sorry” over this idiotic assessment of my comment, “many things have informed Obama’s policy positions and/or decisions over the last six years, but to assert that “blackness” is one of them is racist,” since I did not say that nor did I intend to say it. RULED is the operative word…ruled Libby! Shabazz is the one obsessed by color. I am offended by the term “ruled”. I am particularly offended because that is exactly what the president is attempting to do through executive orders, a phone and a pen (12 struck down by the Supremes recently). His willful bypassing of Congress, his use of Reid as blocker in the Senate, his failure to execute our laws faithfully, and his Czars writing law all point to the ruling nature of his tyrannical approach to the presidency.
Chris: “The decision not to file a criminal case against the NBPP members was made by the Bush administration,”
Peggy: “Chris, where did you get this idea from?”
From reality, Peggy.
Politifact:
“On Jan. 7, 2009, the Bush Administration Justice Department announced that it filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members. Specifically, they were alleged to have violated Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits intimidation, coercion or threats against “any person for voting or attempting to vote.” The aims of the lawsuit were fairly limited: “The Department seeks an injunction preventing any future deployment of, or display of weapons by, New Black Panther Party members at the entrance to polling locations.” In other words, the aim was to make sure they didn’t do something similar again in the future. This section of the law does not subject violators to criminal penalties (fines or jail time, for example).
The Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, which handles all racially motivated voter intimidation offenses, determined that “the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes,” according to testimony provided by Thomas E. Perez , Assistant Attorney General, on May 14, 2010. Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler confirmed to PolitiFact that that determination not to file criminal charges was made prior to the filing of the civil case.
In other words, the decision not to pursue criminal charges was made by the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division prior to the Obama administration.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/23/bill-oreilly/bill-oreilly-blames-obama-administration-not-pursu/
The Obama administration prosecuted the man with the nightstick to the fullest extent the Bush administration thought possible. The other two were not punished, but if there really was a racial motive here, none of them would have been.
This is yet another phony scandal.
“…the decision not to pursue criminal charges was made by the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division prior to the Obama administration.”
Nice try but the decision was made by radical activists working in the Justice Department as Bush was exiting the stage. The left media would love to portray this as a Bush controlled decision but the REALITY doesn’t support the spin. As I posted above:
Just as Lois Lerner has been an activist government employee so were some lawyers working in the Justice Department. The incident, two months prior to Bush leaving, was directed by these activist lawyers and after January 1st, under the direction of the new AG, Eric Holder.
Tina: “There may be a new development in the “birther” issue…stay tuned.”
I just feel sorry for you.
About that Christopher Coates testimony…
“Towards the end of his abbreviated testimony (the Republican Chair of the Commission abruptly cut off questioning) I asked Coates whether he thought Bradley Schlozman, the disgraced former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, was his friend. Schlozman, mind you, was the man the Office of the Inspector General found was engaging in a putsch of the Civil Rights Division by illegally politicizing hiring of career attorneys (one of his hires was Christian Adams, which Coates, in his testimony, heartily approved of). During his stormy tenure at DoJ, Schlozman was overheard saying he wanted to hire “right thinking Americans” as opposed to “disloyal” Democrats and liberals. He once emailed that he was interviewing a “lefty… I will never hire” and made repeated reference to whether someone was on the “team,” which the OIG found to be code word for “conservative.”
Not only did Coates acknowledge that Schlozman was his friend, but confirmed that Schlozman had recommended him for a position as an immigration judge (so much, by the way, for his commitment to the civil rights division). Indeed, most damning, Coates affirmed that he was the subject of an email cited by the OIG in which Schlozman characterized a “former ACLU” attorney as a “true member of the team” – which, as the OIG report found, meant he fit the conservative philosophy championed by Schlozman.
But it didn’t stop there. Coates went on to defend Schlozman’s illegal hiring practices because the Civil Rights Division was “almost totally left liberal.” Coates further testified that he objected to a characterization of him that he was “more” conservative then he was 20 years ago – implying that, for some time, Coates considered himself a conservative. Indeed, Coates testified that if John McCain had been elected, he would have stayed as Section Chief.
It is against this background that we must analyze the filing of the New Black Panther party case. From the time of the incident to the time of filing, approximately two months passed. From the time of the incident to the time of the filing of the “J” memo, a memorandum summarizing the facts and law to justify the filing of a lawsuit, barely 45 days had passed.
Let’s contrast that with other statements that Coates said with regard to investigations of voter intimidation. In the case of Noxubee, Mississippi, where DoJ did intervene to protect white voters against a conspiracy by black officials to diminish their voting rights, the investigation took the better part of almost two years before a complaint was filed. In the case of Pima, Arizona, where members of the Minutemen were intimidating Latino voters with fake badges and videocams, and where one man was openly displaying a holstered weapon (which led to one of the more incredible statements made by Coates – that because the weapon was holstered, it was legal and, therefore, not important in the intimidation analysis), an attorney was sent, the investigation took 2 years and resulted in federal observers – no lawsuit – being sent to Pima in the next election. In another case involved armed agents of the Mississippi government intimidating elderly black voters, including asking them who they voted for, that investigation took many months and resulted in Schlozman killing any proposed lawsuit. And with respect to protecting white voters, in two separate cases in Mississippi and Alabama, where Coates said there were clear cases of discrimination against white voters, “prolonged” investigations resulted in no action being taken by the Justice Department. Taken together, these cases show a Department of Justice — of either stripe — that is thorough, deliberate, and very careful in determining the appropriate action and remedies available to them.
But with the Panthers, the investigation took barely weeks, and for most of that time Christian Adams was flailing around with email messages to right-wing and Republican operatives looking for names of witnesses. Just 10 days prior to the filing of the “J” memo, the emails showed that there were no complaints by voters received with regard to the Panther precinct. Indeed, the emails showed that Adams knew they had no case. And Adams, in another email, wrote that he was in a rush to get it done.
The complaint itself shows great haste. The complaint is extremely vague in its allegations, doesn’t name any specific individuals who claimed they were intimidated, and its remedy basically asks for nothing short of a lifetime and global ban on the New Black Panthers, despite the absence of any evidence other than the YouTube video. If you read any good complaint filed by DoJ — including the one in Noxubee, ironically, drafted by Coates — this stands out in stark contrast for its sloppiness and vague and general allegations. Indeed, the complaint continues to refer to voter, not poll watcher, intimidation, where the evidence showed then and shows now that not a single voter complained about the Panthers. Coates said the “absence” of actual voter complaints didn’t bother him. Really? This complaint shows haste, pure and simple.
Remember, at this time Coates was still the Section Chief of the Voting Rights division. He probably knew, or suspected that his time as Chief was up with the new Administration. His candidate, McCain, has lost. His mentor, Schlozman, had been purged, and his friend, Hans von Spakofsky, had seen his nomination to the Federal Election Commission torpedoed by his own tarnished legacy at Justice, and Coates’ own embrace of conservative purge had been exposed in the OIG report. In Coates’ eyes, the hated “left liberals” would be coming into power within a matter of weeks and would review the matter if he did not file the suit right away.
Therefore, we can and should infer from the testimony and evidence surrounding Christopher Coates is that the lawsuit on the Panthers was a rush to judgment — filed long before it was ripe, before a full investigation was completed, and contrary to longstanding practices whether the defendants be black or white. Let’s not forget that there have been only 3 11(b) filings in the history of the statute spanning nearly 45 years, and there must be a reason that great care is taken before it is pursued. None of that care is evident in the complaint. Even the remedy sought is suspect. In Pima, Arizona, where GUNS were involved, the remedy sought was sending federal observers. In Mississippi, where GUNS were involved, there was no remedy at all. Here, where a single person had a nightstick, the equivalent of a lifetime ban was sought. Justice is, for all its faults, proportional. There was no proportion in the original Panther complaint.
And what we can also infer is that Christopher Coates, conservative ally of Schlozman and von Spakofsky, seeing that the Civil Rights Division would be returning to its historical mission of protecting the rights of minorities as well as white voters, was going to do one last thing as Section Chief to spit in the eye of the new Administration. And he did, and that takes us to where we are today.
This doesn’t excuse the New Black Panther party or its members of its racist, idiotic ideology. It doesn’t excuse their behavior in front of the polling place in Philadelphia, or the racist taunts and threats made by them against the Republican and McCain poll monitors. Racism has no place in America. But surely, one can take from the manner in which the case was handled, that some doubts should be resolved in favor of the Justice Department’s second look at the case; that given other situations where 11(b) suits were not filed on behalf of white and black voters (scenarios testified to by Coates himself) it is clear the wheels of the Department of Justice grind slowly, methodically, and deliberately, and that policy was clearly thrown off the bus by Coates and Adams. Which makes DoJ’s decision to only pursue the case against the one defendant (with the billy club) all the more a case of prosecutorial discretion — not an evil left-wing conspiracy as alleged by Coates and Adams. And if that wasn’t enough, DoJ’s decision to fully engage this July in the Noxubee case to protect white voter should put to rest any crazed idea that there is any pattern or practice of not protecting the white vote.
I haven’t even begun to address the broader and just as spurious allegations that Coates and Adams have made. But to the extent that their house of cards rests on the decisions made in the New Black Panther case, the collapse of those cards is of their own, hurried, partisan making — the faint, last gasp of the ideological remnants of the Bush/Gonzales/Schlozman regime.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-yaki/new-black-panthers-coates_b_743608.html
Chris: “I just feel sorry for you.”
Why Chris? Because opinions will hurt people?
I feel sorry for you! Especially if that opinion turns out to be backed up by fact.
Will it? I dunno, but I’m not afraid to take a look even if some snot nosed know it all like you will use looking as excuse to try to damage my reputation.
Huffington blather to set the stage:
“the disgraced former”
“…engaging in a putsch ( a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow) of the Civil Rights Division by illegally politicizing hiring of career attorney” (no evidence offered; link not supplied)
“was overheard saying”
Typical smear tactics o color the facts. As to the cases cited the biggest difference is that they were investigated.
According to Jennifer Rubin, under Obama, investigations and testimony were unnecessary and quashed early on:
John Fund: President Obama’s Justice Department continues to stonewall inquiries about why it dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party>…
Is there anything under this administration that isn’t divisive and broken?
Tina: “Nice try but the decision was made by radical activists working in the Justice Department as Bush was exiting the stage.”
Fascinating claim. Care to provide any evidence for it? Which “radical activists working in the Justice Department” are you referring to?
As HuffPo points out, several similar voter intimidation cases were thrown out during Bush’s tenure with no similar outcry:
“Let’s contrast that with other statements that Coates said with regard to investigations of voter intimidation. In the case of Noxubee, Mississippi, where DoJ did intervene to protect white voters against a conspiracy by black officials to diminish their voting rights, the investigation took the better part of almost two years before a complaint was filed. In the case of Pima, Arizona, where members of the Minutemen were intimidating Latino voters with fake badges and videocams, and where one man was openly displaying a holstered weapon (which led to one of the more incredible statements made by Coates – that because the weapon was holstered, it was legal and, therefore, not important in the intimidation analysis), an attorney was sent, the investigation took 2 years and resulted in federal observers – no lawsuit – being sent to Pima in the next election. In another case involved armed agents of the Mississippi government intimidating elderly black voters, including asking them who they voted for, that investigation took many months and resulted in Schlozman killing any proposed lawsuit. And with respect to protecting white voters, in two separate cases in Mississippi and Alabama, where Coates said there were clear cases of discrimination against white voters, “prolonged” investigations resulted in no action being taken by the Justice Department. Taken together, these cases show a Department of Justice — of either stripe — that is thorough, deliberate, and very careful in determining the appropriate action and remedies available to them.”
The idea that the lack of a criminal case against the NBBP was due to the influence of “radicals” determined not to prosecute black perpetrators just doesn’t hold water when there are so many other examples of cases where perpetrators of other ethnicities were punished even less.
As to why I feel sorry for you, I thought that was obvious. You still think there might be something to the birther conspiracy theory, even though Barack Obama revealed his legal birth certificate as far back as 2008, and later released another form of legal birth certificate because that wasn’t enough for the idiots. If you still want to entertain such nonsense, you are so gullible and mind-poisoned as to be deserving of pity.
Re #21 Chris :
Yeah, and pigs have wings, you insane Soros whore.
Hmmm, according to Chris voter intimidation and fraud from the Black Panthers gets a pass and sanctioned by Obama and Holder because the Bush administration chose not to pursue some voter intimidation cases that were most likely bogus political machinations.
Funny how that works as a justification in the “mind” of a left wing zealot.
Pie, what Chris is saying is it’s Bush’s fault, even though the Black Panther’s committed their voter intimidation acts in Nov. 2008 when Obama won the presidency and Holder became the AJ who was in charge of the case.
That darn Bush must be still running the country to still be blamed for everything this administration has screwed up for the last six years.
Peggy: “Pie, what Chris is saying is it’s Bush’s fault, even though the Black Panther’s committed their voter intimidation acts in Nov. 2008 when Obama won the presidency and Holder became the AJ who was in charge of the case.”
Once again I have to question your basic literacy skills, Peggy. Read the Politifact article again. The Bush administration DOJ chose to file a civil case–NOT a criminal case–in January 2009, a month before Obama’s inauguration. You’re literally arguing that it doesn’t make sense to say that Bush was responsible for something that happened while he was still president.
The Obama DOJ achieved the results that the Bush DOJ wanted–an injunction–against the man with the nightstick. They didn’t end up prosecuting the other two men involved. But that is fully consistent with the way both the Obama and Bush DOJs have operated in voter intimidation cases for years; there is no reason to suspect a racial motive…unless, of course, one is obsessed with Obama’s race.
Chris, and I’ll question your ability to understand the basic sequence that took place from Nov. 2008 until May 2009. Since this was a CIVIL Rights violation it’s understandable why the investigation didn’t lead to “criminal” charges while civil charges were filled.
What YOU are missing is when the defendants failed to appear for their appointed court date the prosecutor should have been awarded a win by default. Instead Holder’s line attorney supervisors overruled the default judgment. Must be nice to have friends in high places so some people can just not show up to court as required and still win. That sure doesn’t sound like equal justice to me. Nope more like good old cronyism.
Also, note below that Bush, during his term, did have a case where the defendant was black and the plaintiff was white. US vs Brown. So, you trying to say Holder did what his predecessor would have done doesn’t hold water at all.
Especially note Judge Walton’s ruling:
“In July 2012, Judge Reggie Walton dismissed the Justice Department’s denial, finding that political appointees did interfere with prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.[14]”
From Wikipedia:
“Legal proceedings[edit]
The Department of Justice became aware of the incident on Election Day and started an inquiry. Under the Bush administration, a criminal investigation into the incident was started, but later dropped.[10]
Instead, in January 2009, less than two weeks before the Bush administration left office, the civil rights division of the Department of Justice filed a civil suit under the voting rights act against four defendants, namely, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Jerry Jackson, NBPP chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, and the NBPP itself. The lawsuit accused them of using uniforms, racial insults and a weapon to intimidate voters and those who were there to assist them.[2] The case remained open when the Obama administration took office a few weeks later.
In April 2009 Bartie Bull, a former civil rights lawyer who was serving as a poll watcher at the polling station where the incident occurred, submitted an affidavit at Justice’s request supporting the lawsuit, stating that he considered it to have been the most severe instance of voter intimidation he had ever encountered.[2][5] When none of the defendants who were charged appeared in court to answer the charges, the career attorneys pursuing the lawsuit assumed that they would win it by default. However the career attorneys’ move to pursue a default judgment against the defendants was overruled by two of their line superiors, Loretta King, who was acting Assistant Attorney General and Steve Rosenbaum, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General.[3]
Legal precedents[edit]
Since the voting rights act was enacted in 1965, only a handful of cases under the act have been pursued by the Justice Department. One such case filed by the Department during the Bush administration, known as United States v. Brown, was one of the first voting rights cases which involved a white plaintiff and a black defendant. The case precipitated deep divisions within the Justice Department. Some employees felt that the voting rights act was passed because historically, it was minorities who had been disenfranchised and that the department should therefore focus on cases filed by minorities, while others felt that it was intended to protect all voters in a race-neutral manner. Employees who worked the Brown case have described being harassed by colleagues due to the widespread belief that civil rights laws should not be used to protect white voters. One Justice Department official stated that “The Voting Rights Act was passed because people like Bull Connor were hitting people like John Lewis, not the other way around.”[8]
Controversy over political involvement[edit]
Hans A. von Spakovsky stated that internal e-mails from the Department of Justice released under a Freedom of Information Act request show that political appointees were “intimately involved” in the decision to drop the case, including former deputy attorney general David Ogden, Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli and attorney general Eric Holder, and that Perez may have committed perjury by denying this in his testimony before the Civil Rights Commission.[11]
In October 2010, a draft report from the Civil Rights Commission was posted on the political website TPM Muckraker, stating that political officials had been extensively involved in the decision to dismiss the case, and that the Department of Justice had attempted to conceal their involvement.[12] Civil Rights Commission chairman Gerald A. Reynolds confirmed that the draft was authentic, but said that it was not the most current version of the draft, and declined to immediately release the newest version or describe what revisions had been made to it.[13] The Justice Department denied the allegations in the report.[12]
In July 2012, Judge Reggie Walton dismissed the Justice Department’s denial, finding that political appointees did interfere with prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case
So, yes Chris you are right “criminal” charges were sought and dropped by the Bush AJ.
But, your claim that the both DOJs would have come up with the same verdict is BS. And it has nothing to do with Obama’s race on those who want fair and equal justice, at least on my part. But race sure appears to be a very important factor for Obama and Holder as Judge Walton rightly decided.
More very interesting reading below, especially the section on the “Civil Rights Commission,” which shows just how corrupt Holder and his minions are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case
I do hope you were able to follow all of the above so I don’t have to question your literary and comprehension abilities. Come on, think really hard. I know you can figure it out.
The similarities between the NBPP and the Brown/Noxubee county cases is notable bringing to question how and why Holder chose to not pursue the Black Panther case instead of instructing his line attorneys to overturn the default award.
The US vs Brown case.
“In 2006 the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit under the Voting Rights Act alleging that the local Democratic party chairman, Ike Brown, had conspired to orchestrate “relentless racial discrimination” against white voters.[7][8] On August 27, 2007, the Court entered a remedial order in United States v. Brown (S.D. Miss). On June 29, 2007, the Court entered judgment for the United States. The Court’s 104-page opinion held that the Voting Rights Act is a colorblind statute and protects all voters from racial discrimination, regardless of the race of the voter.
The Court ruled that Defendants had an illegal discriminatory intent to discriminate against white voters. In its complaint, the United States alleged that the practices of local election and party officials discriminated against whites in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The United States entered in a consent decree with the Noxubee County superintendent of general elections, administrator of absentee ballots, registrar, and the county government. The consent decree prohibited a wide range of discriminatory and illegal voting practices, and required these officials to report such incidents if they received information that they were continuing. This consent decree was approved by the district court and filed simultaneously with the filing of the complaint.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noxubee_County,_Mississippi#Recent_news
United States of America
vs.
Ike Brown, Noxubee County Democratic Executive Committee; Noxubee County Election Commission:
Summary:
http://www.adversity.net/noxubee/default.htm
How many Black Panthers and left wing blowhards can dance together on the head of a pin? The bottom line is this: one administration filed a civil case, the next did nothing except to interfere with due process and then allow the case die on the vine. Black Panthers got a pass on their policy of voter intimidation.
Chris must be absolutely delighted. He got what he wanted. The Magnificent English Major got to produce several pages of blather and get his usual jollies speciously insulting Tina and Peggy for their “reading comprehension” and other snotty remarks. Especially fun for him — calling them racists and then denying it with his absurd I only said what she wrote was racist.
Pie: “How many Black Panthers and left wing blowhards can dance together on the head of a pin? The bottom line is this: one administration filed a civil case, the next did nothing except to interfere with due process and then allow the case die on the vine.”
That’s not true. They got an injunction against the ringleader–that’s exactly the punishment the Bush DOJ pursued, except they tried to get the other two as well. You may think the Obama admin should have got an injunction against the other two as well, but that’s not “allowing the case to die on the vine.”