navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Real Race Politics
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic Real Race Politics Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648


0 posted 2010-07-06 09:13 PM


This is who Eric Holder is refusing to prosecute for voter intimidation in the City of Brotherly Love, Philadelphia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN67KJdd6Mw

Why is our 'post-racial' President silent on this?


© Copyright 2010 Denise - All Rights Reserved
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

1 posted 2010-07-06 09:31 PM


"Before any penalties could be handed down - and after Obama appointed Eric Holder to run the Justice Department - charges were dropped against everyone but Samir Shabazz. The court prohibited him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of any Philadelphia polling place through 2012.

The Justice Department has explained this decision by saying that Jackson was a certified poll watcher who did not carry any weapons, that the New Black Panther website denounced the actions in Philadelphia and that the group had no national plan to intimidate voters."

CBS News

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

2 posted 2010-07-06 09:44 PM


A nightclub is a weapon, and it was he who was brandishing it. The slap on the wrist that they gave this dangerous moron is a disgrace. He should have been criminally charged and prosecuted. Being told "now don't do that again within 100 feet of a polling place", is unacceptable.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

3 posted 2010-07-06 10:07 PM


Maybe you need to ask Bush why his DOJ filed a civil instead of a criminal suit.

"Shortly before President George W. Bush left office, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the two men."

- CBS News

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
4 posted 2010-07-06 10:18 PM


The video has been seen by millions, Denise, and his actions were very clear to everyone - whether they care to admit it or not.


...and anyone who thinks Obama is a post-racial president lives on another planet.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

5 posted 2010-07-06 10:56 PM


"The video has been seen by millions, Denise, and his actions were very clear to everyone - whether they care to admit it or not" - Balladeer.

Does that mean you think the Bush DOJ dropped the ball when they filed a civil instead of a criminal suit?



JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

6 posted 2010-07-06 11:02 PM


"The slap on the wrist that they gave this dangerous moron is a disgrace. He should have been criminally charged and prosecuted. Being told "now don't do that again within 100 feet of a polling place", is unacceptable." - Denise

So your issue is really with the court, isn't it since it was the court not Holder, Obama or his DOJ who did the wrist slapping?


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
7 posted 2010-07-06 11:10 PM


Were the charges  dropped because it was a civil suit? Did the DOJ declare that Jackson did not carry a weapon (like nightstick?) because it was a civil suit? If it were a criminal suit, does that mean the nightstick would then be considered a weapon?

Lefties can spin it any way they want. The facts are that the Dems hired Black Panther goons to stand in front of the doors in a threatening manner, nightstick brandishing, to intimidate people. Attempting to deny it, regardless of the actions of the DOJ, is foolish and makes one look like he/she thinks there is nothing wrong with actions like these....perhaps, to Dems, there IS nothing wrong, you know, the same Dems who accused tea-partiers of intimidation tactics.
So nice to have it both ways.....

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

8 posted 2010-07-06 11:51 PM


Jackson wasn’t carrying a nightstick, shabazz was the only one with a nightstick. The police didn’t arrest him, they asked him to leave and he did. Suggests to me they didn't think a crime had been committed. Jackson as a certified poll watcher and resident of the building had every right to be there, didn’t he? I think it was way over the line for shabazz to be carrying a nightstick. But, considering open carry is allowed in PA, beyond me to even guess if carrying a nightstick might actually be a crime.
How threatening were shabazz and Jackson? Well the guy who called the police stated that he wasn’t afraid, that he actually walked between Jackson and shabazz to enter the polling place. Plus, in the videos people can be seen entering and leaving the building.

I would have felt intimidated and believe shabazz meant to intimidate. But, after doing a little more research, seems he failed, miserably. There were no reports of anyone leaving the polling place because they felt intimidated and according to Republican poll watchers, they saw no one leave or walk away.

“The facts are that the Dems hired Black Panther goons to stand in front of the doors in a threatening manner, nightstick brandishing, to intimidate people.” - Balladeer

Which Dems were that? Have something to back up that accusation?


[This message has been edited by JenniferMaxwell (07-07-2010 12:51 AM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
9 posted 2010-07-07 12:16 PM


Which Dems were that? Have something to back up that accusation?

No, I'm sure it was just a coincidence.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

10 posted 2010-07-07 12:30 PM


So again you just made up something and tried to pass it off as fact?
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

11 posted 2010-07-07 12:39 PM


See what I meant Grinch, just making up stuff?
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

12 posted 2010-07-07 03:08 AM


A nightclub...is...a WEAPON?

I took this seriously, and actually it is.

It's in the eighty percent percantile bracket of small businesses that can succeed in a recession.
www.Ijustmadethatup.com

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

13 posted 2010-07-07 03:20 AM


I guess that's not even funny, because it's a FACT--a verifiable expletive fact that prior to Hurricane Katrina, 85 percent of the New Orleans working population were working for independant, small business owners.

Even if I could say seventy percent--still HUGE.

I'll check my archives of Times Picayunes/Gambit newspapers, but the family has become adamant about me throwing the past away.

But I've been known to stash things...

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

14 posted 2010-07-07 05:56 AM


Shabazz is a Democratic poll watcher. Who hires them, Republicans?

A nightstick is a weapon and weapons are forbiddent at polling places. That alone should have gotten him arrested. The police dropped the ball on this one, as did the DOJ under Bush for only bringing a civil complaint, and under Obama for even dropping the civil complaint.

I don't think it makes it any better that he failed in his attempt to scare people away from voting. The attempt was made. People were intimidated but voted anyway. Good for them.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

15 posted 2010-07-07 06:13 AM


Oh Denise, forgive me.

The truth as I know it is that we, the toilet bowl of the nation, have been sucking down benzines and all his bad butt cousins--like all those ethyls and their numbered counterparts, like we were doing "cancer" shots from a hot chick wearing nothing but test tubes...

I am only of interest to our government if I DON'T die of cancer.

I hope you all fare better.

I truly do.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
16 posted 2010-07-07 06:18 AM


So again you just made up something and tried to pass it off as fact?
See what I meant Grinch, just making up stuff?


Well, it was nice while it lasted, ...spots, leopards and all that stuff.....even the musketeer call goes out. My fault for responding to you at all. I'll have to work on that......

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
17 posted 2010-07-07 06:21 AM


Shabazz is a Democratic poll watcher. Who hires them, Republicans?

In some circles that would be considered a valid question, Denise. I don't think here is one of those circles.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

18 posted 2010-07-07 06:50 AM


"Shabazz is a Democratic poll watcher." - Denise

I can't find his name on the list. Perhaps you could point it out?

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

19 posted 2010-07-07 07:28 AM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzoY-ofQBSI&feature=related

I've lost seventy five percent of my family--on both sides--to cancer, cancer directly related to "quality of life" chemicals...

There is no thing we can find to eat, no water to drink, no air we can inhale that goes incontaminate--and still we distract ourselves with partisanship parlee'...

Jenn? I say I want a revolution.

Denise? I want the same from you.

I want us to work together to find a way...is that incredibly naive? Reb?

Tell me it's not.


To hell with divisions, I want algebraic formula, I want a quantum unity leap...

Or will we squabble over nonsense like this?

It reminds me of a Pearl Drops commercial.

Sorry. I am literally sick of smelling gasoline, and I know we are not the only ones.

I'm reading thoughts from really smart people, people who are too smart to allow themselves to get caught up in distractions.

Do something, please. Before you end up like me...unable to focus, with lesions on your cerebrum, experiencing bouts of rage that physicians will prescribe with stuff that immobilizes whatever capacity you might have left...do something real.

I beg you. Work together.

It's not about Republicans nor Democrats. It's about money and world wide corporations that are feeding off of our system and other government systems conjointly.

Stop fighting each other.

We...are being raped.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

20 posted 2010-07-07 07:32 AM


And shabazz didn't identify himself as being a certified poll watcher either. Not on the list, didn't represent himself as such. Maybe he was a Republican plant? Sort of like those who impersonate Tea Partiers to make them look bad?
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

21 posted 2010-07-07 07:48 AM


sigh
nakdthoughts
Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200
Between the Lines
22 posted 2010-07-07 08:05 AM


I hear you,  Karen...


M

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

23 posted 2010-07-07 08:10 AM


“The facts are that the Dems hired Black Panther goons to stand in front of the doors in a threatening manner, nightstick brandishing, to intimidate people.” - Balladeer


“you toss in something like that and blow your credibility and reason out of the water” - Balladeer


Karen, maybe a new thread might help?

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

24 posted 2010-07-07 08:23 AM


I love you, Mo.

And Jenn? I really can't kee;p up with a thread. I'm counting on you to help me.

I'm really sick, and I know the winds will change, and I'll feel better, but I want you all, all of you to know, this stuff makes you sick.

It smells bad out there.

I want you all to know, too, I was working hard to be a better me, but now? I really don't see the point.

Even my kids are like, "Smoke all ya want, Mom. It don't matter anyhow."

*tears*

But ya'll be good people.

And I really did beat the comp at chess..It took me 35 times. And I used to be good, too.


JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

25 posted 2010-07-07 08:38 AM


Oops, double post, sorry.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

26 posted 2010-07-07 08:41 AM


You don't have to do more than you can, Karen, no one expects it. Just start the thread and pop in when you feel up to it.

There is a sense of hopelessness. Perhaps the bickering is a defense/escape mechanism, a way to put the fear aside if only for a little while?


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

27 posted 2010-07-07 10:07 AM


I don't even know where or how to start.

I AM SO FILLED WITH RAGE.

I want BP to face charges of manslaughter.

I live here--I know these guys, I know their families....and they KNEW.

Guys don't go out on a rig that's shaking like a virgin on her wedding night without people knowing--those guys were scared to go to work and scared NOT to--scared they would be fired--and they would have been....

"Not enough mud goes dat deep."

"Dat" is a quote, too.

I am so enraged---people keep saying that we are unlucky--UNLUCKY?

Our levees failed after numerous previously filed complaints, (records under water) and now evidence shows, that the BP corp. also knew that they were operating a "shaky" rig--the evidence mounts that AGAIN, deregulation played a major part in the O.S. of BP--with ties to Halliburton with ties to our former Commanders-in-Chiefs, and we, the citizens of Louisiana have been screaming, for fifty years, regarding the loss of our (YOUR) wetlands for nearly a century-as storm after storm wiped out our natural barrier islands, and YES, our own local government officials pocketed monies while we took the nation's toxic waste up the olr wazoo, and Federal Government also failed us, because, yanno? I think somebody should have said something regardikng the RICO law and the Marcellos family, because if you think that the fact that we are a port city that docks SHIPS doesn't factor into graft--well..I'd have a story to write if I could get half of these old folks to talk about it. But I digress and they are...dead.

Let me explain something about where I live--it's called the Westbank, but it is actually EAST. That is how screwed up we are. I have recipes in my head from people who lived their entire lives here and only saw the lights of New Orleans.

They never crossed the river and never wanted  to do so...

I'll stop. I am starting to sound like James Carville.

But I do warn you all--a documentary (don't everybody groan at once) by the name of GASLAND shows, on a map, the damage done to the land of our nation by natural gas wells, and there were only two places I could spot that remained "green"


One was Florida. (Congrat's Floridians) and the other was The Grand Canyon.

And damn.

I've forgotten the question...

OH

I wanted a thread about an ecological revolution....

I want more, yes MORE government incentive, for wind turbines, solar panels, I am sitting here wishing I could afford all the cool technology other countries have--hell, I live in a swamp and I want a water conservation unit thingie.

I want our communities to start co-opting these empty lots into community gardens. I want..gasp..hydroponics, so we won't have to worry so much about Bad Boy Benzines and all of his Easy Ethyl girlfriends.

I'd also like to borrow some gonads so I can say this stuff out loud, because um, me and my family are already the Liberal Atheists Who Despise All That is ... not government.

And I am not getting this?

People who enjoy tea bagging, resent being called tea baggers, reset being called ignorant although the terminology was already encultured, and now, NOW? Even NOW, they demand smaller gov't and deregulation of corporate BULLIES, YEP, DRIL BABY DRILL., yer gonna need that petroleum when you get bent over your non existent tax deducts...cause really, all the government is trying to do is make people pay more to get rich.

If you REALLY REALLY believe that supporting that plan is supporting a socialist/marksist<---I swear I saw someone spell it that way--and let's all gasp and say COMMUNIST--let us follow the freaking money.

If you went to WalMart in the past week, chances are you just threw your MONEY, your energy--IN GOD WE TRUST--you probably spent at least 36 hours of your time, supporting a communist regime that supports forced abortion, and child labor. Taiwan must be amazing. EVERYTHING is made there.

And they don't really believe in Jesus, they prefer their money in Euros.

There's a lot of stuff to be ticked off about...

Pick a card, Jen, any card...You too, Denise.

I say we have a budget crisis. So we start, at home, and we start properly fixing things so that we don't have to keep buying very pricey ineffective duct tape--no offense to duct tape. I like the stuff very much.

Hmmm...who makes it, though?

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

28 posted 2010-07-07 10:24 AM


He was identified in the news pieces that I have heard about him as one of the poll watchers, Jen. If he technically wasn't on one of the official lists, he was at least there with the consent of one who was on the list, a fellow radical New Black Panther who was hired by the local Democratic Party.

That everyone isn't outraged over this blatant display of racism and its subsequently being swept under the rug by the DOJ is beyond my ability to understand.

On another note, I sympathize with your plight Karen. You and the others harmed by this BP disaster are in my thoughts and prayers daily. And I sincerely pray that BP and the Administration get their acts together and do everything possible to alleviate the devastation and suffering.


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

29 posted 2010-07-07 10:35 AM


Thank you Denise.

I know I'm off topic, but you've always been kind to me, and I appreciate that very much.

Now. I'm sorry. Racism?

*smile*

I just discovered what real picante' tastes like--what racism? Me and Andrew Bordain are gonna get bloaty-beer-pigged together one day.

Ain't got no racists here, man. Just gumbo.



JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

30 posted 2010-07-07 11:23 AM


“In recent years, many minority communities have tended to align with the Democratic Party. Over the past two decades, the Republican Party has launched a series of 'ballot security' and 'voter integrity' initiatives which have targeted minority communities. At least three times, these initiatives were successfully challenged in federal courts as illegal attempts to suppress voter participation based on race.

The first was a 1981 case in New Jersey which protested the use of armed guards to challenge Hispanic and African-American voters, and exposed a scheme to disqualify voters using mass mailings of outdated voter lists. The case resulted in a consent decree prohibiting efforts to target voters by race.

Six years later, similar 'ballot security' efforts were launched against minority voters in Louisiana, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Indiana. Republican National Committee documents said the Louisiana program alone would 'eliminate at least 60- 80,000 folks from the rolls,' again drawing a court settlement.

And just three years later in North Carolina, the state Republican Party, the Helms for Senate Committee and others sent postcards to 125,000 voters, 97 percent of whom were African American, giving them false information about voter eligibility and warning of criminal penalties for voter fraud - again resulting in a decree against the use of race to target voters.”
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Jim-Crow-Intimidation26aug04.htm


“Perhaps the Panthers should have been prosecuted under section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act for their actions of November 2008, but the legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation — the charge — are very high. In the 45 years since the act was passed, there have been a total of three successful prosecutions. The incident involved only three Panthers at a single majority-black precinct in Philadelphia. So far — after months of hearings, testimony and investigation — no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots. Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case.”

- Abigail Thernstrom, National Review

I found the language in the video you posted very offensive, Denise, and yes, I'd call it racist. But that video has nothing to do with what happened at the polling place. Unfortunately hate radio jock Beck has been implying that particular hate speech occurred then. That seems very dishonest and an attempt to distort what actually happened. And why would he want to do that?

“Here’s something about national news. When it’s potentially bad for, or could be misconstrued to blame, liberals, and it’s real, Fox News does a great job researching and hyping it. At the same time, Media Matters does a great job adding controversy to the way Fox reports its news. And in the end, the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, which began on Fairmount Avenue in 2008, may end up being a backdoor campaign tool for the GOP in 2012.”

http://blogs.philadelphiaweekly.com/phillynow/2010/07/07/new-allegations-statements-and-hope-for-gop-regarding-new-black-panther-case-in-philly/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_c ampaign=new-allegations-statements-and-hope-for-gop-regarding-new-black-panther-case-in-philly

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

31 posted 2010-07-07 12:23 PM


Jen, in addition to the video, eyewitnesses also produced sworn affidavits attesting to the racist inflammatory comments directed toward whites as they were entering and leaving the polling place by the Panthers. So, yes, hateful, racist speech like you heard on the tape did occur at the polling place. It shouldn't matter that they were unsuccessful in their intimidation attempts. But maybe that is why only civil charges were filed. Maybe criminal charges would have been filed if they had been successful in scaring any voters away. But I guess Holder would have ordered those dropped as well, who knows. But it is disgraceful that the civil charges were dropped even AFTER winning a default judgement when the Panthers failed to appear for their hearing.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

32 posted 2010-07-07 02:46 PM


There was a judgment against shabazz, the DOJ dropped the suit only against the other two. This happened well over a year ago, why are you bringing it up now? Did you mention it a year ago when the suit was dropped? Has something changed since then? I hope you’re not going to be beating Gracie, too.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/cityhall/Feds_Quietly_Drop_Suit_Against_New_Black_Panther_Party.html


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

33 posted 2010-07-07 02:59 PM


Yes I did bring this up here when it first happened. I'm bringing it up again now because it just seems to have made the national news with the testimony of the attorney who resigned so that he could testify in front of the Civil Rights Commission, having been forbidden by the DOJ to comply with a lawful subpoena, as were the other attorneys who chose to keep their jobs and ignore the subpoenas.

[This message has been edited by Denise (07-07-2010 04:24 PM).]

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

34 posted 2010-07-08 08:35 AM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ_dt5KjCmo
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

35 posted 2010-07-08 11:56 AM


It's no surprise to me that they play 'kill the messenger' when they can't defend the activities in question.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

36 posted 2010-07-08 02:18 PM


I didn’t get it, why anyone would post that offensive, foul language, racist video in #1 on a family site in a G rated forum? Why not just post the video taken at the polling place? Was it because the polling place video wasn’t inflammatory enough? Was it because it didn’t show shabazz or Jackson threatening or interfering with voters in any way? Was it because all it showed was a rather mild incident, a Republican poll watcher questioning shabazz who didn’t at that time use threatening, racist or foul language? I didn’t get it but now I do,  fanning the flames of racial hatred.

I have reported the video as containing rule violations, profanity (bleeping in audio is like @#$%) and advocating harm to human beings. Will await the mods and admins decision on it.


Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354
Listening to every heart
37 posted 2010-07-08 05:01 PM


Serenity:
quote:
I beg you. Work together.



That's all I wish for Serenity. Is that we, as a United Nation...a United States...would work together.

Yes, we had a Civil War.

One would think we might have learned something.



We seem determined to divide ourselves. I find myself praying constantly.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

38 posted 2010-07-08 08:29 PM




     Standards of proof in criminal cases are higher and the cases are more difficult to make.

     In lawsuits, the standards can be as low as "the Preponderance of the Evidence," meaning just of 50%.  If the suit was won against Shabazz, it was carried with that level of proof.  If it was dismissed against his confederates, it was dismissed because it was unlikely that that level of proof could be met.  It would seem logical because the discussion so far has indicated that the suit against Shabazz was followed through.

     If there is evidence that Shabazz was in fact an agent of the Democratic party, then it should appear in competent press reports.  Why not quote them?  Why not talk about this in terms that can be dealt with as concretely as possible?

     If Denise is worried that she won't get a good ear here, she must understand that the last time we had to deal with this sort of stuff was when Fox news and the Republican Party attacked a perfectly decent community organizing group and produced doctored tapes that forced them out of business.  The Republican Party lauded the  fraudulent film makers, and the Community organizing group has not recovered.

     The Republican Party has a history of this sort of stuff, including election fraud in Florida and in other situations that Jennifer mentioned earlier in this thread, resulting in judgements against the party and its affiliates.  To believe new Republican allegations of this sort requires more than the smears and allegations the Republicans customarily put forth.  It actually requires some solid proof.

     I am willing to listen to it, but I really expect it to be solid enough to overcome the historical handicap the Republicans have lamed themselves with other the years.

    

    

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
39 posted 2010-07-08 09:41 PM


Another, "Well, the republicans did it..." to justify everything. Why am I not surprised?
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354
Listening to every heart
40 posted 2010-07-08 09:51 PM


Bob:
quote:
The Republican Party has a history of this sort of stuff


and the Dems don't?

Really, Bob. At this time, and arena, we all need to disengage in cynicism, and really see the problems at hand. We need to quit undermining one another. I'm not asking that you agree with one side or another; I am asking, however, that we all work together. I think as a whole we have an entire community that is far more intelligent than the people who have been elected to benefit themselves.

I am for the United States. Aren't you?


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

41 posted 2010-07-08 10:56 PM




    
quote:


and the Dems don't?

Really, Bob. At this time, and arena, we all need to disengage in cynicism, and really see the problems at hand. We need to quit undermining one another. I'm not asking that you agree with one side or another; I am asking, however, that we all work together. I think as a whole we have an entire community that is far more intelligent than the people who have been elected to benefit themselves.

I am for the United States. Aren't you?



     I was talking about legal judgements against the party and the way the party did business, Sunshine.  To the best of my knowledge, the Democrats have no judgements against them, nor have they been found legally responsible for election fraud.  They have screamed loudly about the Democrats and made many accusations, and many of those many accusations have been aired in these pages.

     Those accusations have been largely for voter fraud, particularly upsetting to the Republicans because it threatens to allow new voters onto the rolls.  New voters have by and large proven to to have been Democratic voters.  As have minority voters, by and large.  Sadly for the Republicans, while they have made many many accusations of registration fraud, they don't seem to have have much success in obtaining convictions.  The refrain heard in these pages is, "Just wait!" but the convictions never seem to materialize.

     On the other hand, the judgements have  gone against the Republicans in Florida, Ohio, Michigan and other states for systematic attempts to strike Democratic voters from the rolls, and, in South Carolina, for example, to try to intimidate them to stay away from the polling places by use of legal threats.  Attempts to use these tactics have affected tens of thousands of especially black and other minority voters.

     I certainly am a Democrat from personal conviction, but if you've followed by comments in these pages, you should be reasonably clear that I am not an uncritical Democrat.  You can check for yourself about what my quarrels are with this administration and with the direction the party has been taking.  You should also be aware that I have admiration for the occasional Republican or Republican position, and that I've said as much in these pages as well.

     Your appeal that we all work together should be familiar to you as one that has come from my pen as well, and with reasonable frequency.

     Yes, I am for the United States.

     No, I do not believe that getting voters thrown off the voting rolls by what has been legally determined to be fraud, is anything that I should support, and I find it upsetting that you would support such activity.  Or that you would consider it to be identical or even equivalent of being accused of getting Mickey Mouse registered to vote when the company that has been accused of trying to do so pointed out the bizarre violation itself, and only turned the registration in to the registrar because it was legally mandated to do so anyway.

     Because that's the way the election laws happen to be written.

     Suggesting that I'm anti-American because I don't agree with your way of seeing the two Parties in this country, I hope, is not your idea of how we need to stop undermining each other.  If it is, you might consider a thread that would discuss the subject on a more serious level rather than one that suggests that I'm anti-american for not agreeing with your presuppositions or having different information.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

42 posted 2010-07-09 12:09 PM


"Civil Rights Commissioner: "[N]o citizen has even alleged that he or she was intimidated from voting." In an April 23 hearing on the DOJ's decision in the case, Civil Rights Commissioner Arlan Melendez noted that "no citizen has even alleged that he or she was intimidated from voting," which "was clear to the Justice Department last spring, which is why they took the course of action that they did." From the April 23 Civil Rights Commission hearing:

MELENDEZ: My remarks are going to be brief because I think far too much of our time has been consumed on this seemingly unnecessary investigation. Citizens should be able to vote without intimidation, and it is our Commission's duty to investigate complaints from citizens that their voting rights have been infringed.

In this case, however, no citizen has even alleged that he or she was intimidated from voting at the Fairmount Avenue Polling Station in 2008. This absence of voter intimidation was clear to the Justice Department last spring, which is why they took the course of action that they did.

This absence of voter intimidation was clear to the members of this Commission as well, or at least it should've been. Our investigation has been going on now for the better part of a year. We have wasted a good deal of our staff's time, and the taxpayers' money.

Main Justice: "[N]o voters at all in the Philadelphia precinct have come forward to allege intimidation." A July 2 article on Main Justice reported that "no voters at all in the Philadelphia precinct have come forward to allege intimidation" adding, "The complaints have come from white Republican poll watchers, who have given no evidence they were registered to vote in the majority black precinct. "
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007060063


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

43 posted 2010-07-09 04:24 PM


That's a serious accusation you are making against me concerning my intent, Jennifer. Care to rethink that?

I posted this not to fan the flames of racial hatred but to shine a spotlight on those who actually do, and on the hypocrisy of those in the administration who condone it by sweeping their wrongdoing under the carpet.

More on the DOJ:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/lawlessness-at-the-doj-voting-section-told-not-to-enforce-purging-the-dead-or-ineligible-from-voting-rolls/?singlepage=true

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

44 posted 2010-07-09 05:09 PM


I have been thinking about it, thinking about it a lot, Denise. I have class tonight, don't have time to get into it very much right now.

Something for you to think about. Do you really believe that video is appropriate for a G rated forum on a family site? Do you think posting something that contains profanity and advocates killing people/babies isn't a rules violation?

Even I don't post stuff like that. Not that I haven't wanted to on occasion, but I haven't - unless I inadvertently missed something.

I said what I felt and I'll stand by it no matter the consequences.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
45 posted 2010-07-09 07:19 PM


Do you think posting something that contains profanity and advocates killing people/babies isn't a rules violation?

Ignorance is not always bliss. No one here advocated killing babies...someone the DOJ gave a pass to, did. SHould people be aware of it? Yes. Would your complaint be as adamant if it had been a thug with republican ties saying things like that? I find it unlikely. You may find it irritating that a person you have made excuses for is being exposed for what he really is but throwing allegations at Denise is a sad way to show it.

The video has been on national tv in prime time, assuredly while children were still up. The stations had no problem with that. Your complaint is subterfuge, nothing more. The man is a hate-mongering sleazebag...period.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

46 posted 2010-07-09 10:08 PM


You don’t know me at all Balladeer, if you think I’d give racism a pass under any circumstances.

Now let’s clear up something, I’m not calling Denise a racist nor was I implying she advocated anything. What I said, or tried to say, was that posting video like that when it was unnecessary is fanning the flames of racism, and that the content of the video, just like the content of a poem or prose piece, again, in my opinion, violated site rules.  That issue has been sent to the mods/admins and they will decide on it. I’m sorry I didn’t object sooner and I’m even sorrier that no one else has come forth to object. Does what’s aired on tv set the standard for what’s allowed here on the site? If it does, I sure didn’t get the memo.

Shabazz is indeed, in my opinion, a racist and a hate monger, but more than that he’s a  nobody. He had his day in court, the case is over. Why post his racist rants? What purpose does that serve?

“In this case, however, no citizen has even alleged that he or she was intimidated from voting at the Fairmount Avenue Polling Station in 2008. This absence of voter intimidation was clear to the Justice Department last spring, which is why they took the course of action that they did.”

It would be entirely possible to discuss Adams’ claims, the DOJ decision, etc. without posting the video. Whether shabazz is a hate mongering racist has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he attempted to keep voters from casting their ballot. That was what the lawsuit was about.



Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

47 posted 2010-07-09 10:16 PM


quote:
I said what I felt and I'll stand by it no matter the consequences


You could have easily voiced your displeasure with the video, Jen, without pronouncing, mistakenly, that my intent in posting it was to fan racial hatred.

quote:
Do you really believe that video is appropriate for a G rated forum on a family site? Do you think posting something that contains profanity and advocates killing people/babies isn't a rules violation?


No, I didn't find it a rules violation. If I did I wouldn't have posted it. I view it as a slice of life. Sometimes life is ugly. There was no profanity that could be heard, and only one word that was bleeped out, with no way to discern what that word might have been, unlike here, in a written format, where one can decipher by rhyme or number of asterisks used in an attempted disguise. But I'll defer to the consensus of the moderators on that since you have chosen to lodge a complaint.

I do think, though, that his racist rant shown on that video relates directly to the charges against him of his attempted intimidation of WHITE voters. It shows the content of his character, and it shows the types of people that this administration deems worthy of its protection. In this case it wasn't the victims.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

48 posted 2010-07-09 11:03 PM


What victims, Denise?

"In this case, however, no citizen has even alleged that he or she was intimidated from voting at the Fairmount Avenue Polling Station in 2008. This absence of voter intimidation was clear to the Justice Department last spring, which is why they took the course of action that they did."

How can you possibly go forward with a case of voter intimidation if there are no victims? That’s like charging someone with robbery when nothing has been stolen. It’s bogus.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
49 posted 2010-07-09 11:29 PM


I would have felt intimidated - Jennifer
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

50 posted 2010-07-09 11:49 PM


And I also said I believed shabazz meant to intimidate.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
51 posted 2010-07-09 11:50 PM


We don't know how much clearer the evidence can be than having the Panthers caught on video wearing paramilitary garb, wielding billy clubs and shouting racial threats at potential white voters in front of a polling place. Indeed, Bartle Bull was an eyewitness. He's also a former civil rights attorney and publisher of the ultra-liberal Village Voice. He called it "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen." http://patriotpost.us/edition/2010/07/09/digest/
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

52 posted 2010-07-10 12:12 PM


Now take a look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU

See the woman standing just a few feet behind shabazz and Jackson. She was there, I wasn’t. She saw/heard what was going on, I didn’t. Does she look fearful or anxious to you? She sure looks very relaxed to me, chatting on her cell, just hanging out. Not the way most women would behave if two guys, one of them a brute and the other carrying a nightstick, were acting in a threatening or intimidating manner.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

53 posted 2010-07-10 12:20 PM


quote:
In July 2009, I interviewed poll watcher/witness Christopher Hill, whom Shabazz and Jackson called “cracker” several times while Shabazz brandished his baton.

“They physically attempted to block me,” Hill recounted. He also saw a group of elderly ladies walk away from the polling site without voting while the duo preened in front of the entrance. “If you’re a poll watcher, you shouldn’t be dressed in paramilitary garb,” Hill said, as he wondered aloud at what would have happened if he had showed up in the same sort of costume.

In May 2009, I reported on the affidavit of civil rights attorney and poll watcher Bartle Bull, who witnessed the NBPP thuggery in Philadelphia and reported on billy club-wielding Shabazz’s election day boast: “You’re about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”

In the fall of 2008, just days before he showed up to hector white poll workers, Shabazz told the Philadelphia Inquirer:

“I’m about the total destruction of white people. I’m about the total liberation of black people. I hate white people. I hate my enemy… The only thing the cracker understands is violence… The only thing the cracker understands is gunpowder. You got to take violence to violence.”


http://michellemalkin.com/2010/07/09/whitewashing-black-racism/

Those who were intimidated, whether they voted or not, are the victims. Some were intimidated into not voting according to one eyewitness. Not lodging a formal complaint does not mean that there weren't those who were intimidated.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
54 posted 2010-07-10 12:34 PM


Jenn, if you are trying to sell the idea that the jerk was not intimidating (although you acknowledge he was) and people did not feel intimidated by his presence and his actions, you are not going to convince anyone. If it were reversed and a white man stood out there, banging his nightstick on his hand, calling blacks coming in to vote, racial slurs, you would be livid, screaming about such repulsive republican tactics. Instead, you try to promote the idea that no one was intimidated because no charges were filed. You can say anything you want. The video speaks for itself. If those are they kinds of people you wish to excuse, then that says it all, doesn't it?
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

55 posted 2010-07-10 12:46 PM


Yep, those, I believe, were the guys referred to in my post #42.  

"The complaints have come from white Republican poll watchers, who have given no evidence they were registered to vote in the majority black precinct."

Bull and Hill were MaCain supporters, Republican poll watchers. Do you know who the woman was in the video, was she ever interviewed by Fox?

Where do poll watchers go if they want to threaten/intimidate voters? Do they go where most of the voters are going to vote the way they want them to?

Gee, you know what this reminds me of? Remember the spitting and N word discussion when you, Denise and Balladeer, said the incidents couldn't have happened because you couldn't see or hear it on the video. Well, ditto. There were at least half a dozen Republican poll watchers at the scene and none of them captured shabazz or Jackson threatening/intimidating voters.



JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

56 posted 2010-07-10 12:53 PM


Yep, the video does speak for itself. It shows no voter intimidation and a woman smack dab in the middle of the scene who isn't in the least bit fearful about what shabazz or Jackson are doing.  
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

57 posted 2010-07-10 12:55 PM


I came back to apologize for being, in this thread, what I deplore in politics--a distraction.

The fact that I was ill and much into my cups is no excuse.

I find the video very disturbing, and a blatant display of unnecessary emotional muscle.

I also find the politics of the previous electoral years, although subtle, even more disturbing. Pastors, Reverands, spiritual leaders insinuating persuasively how their congregations should vote? The notorious long lines and shortage of voting machines in predominantly Democratic demographic areas, the appalling world-wide embarrassment of the fiasco in Florida, and the list does go on.

We can recognize shabazz for what he is--and personally, I would like the past to rectify itself by not repeating itself in the future.

What cannot be denied is that President Obama WON this election.

If I made a fool of myself by voicing despair, it's because even if this is a game to you all, it's a new season.

I'd kinda like to get on with it, m'self.

If you guys still want to argue about this stuff, I guess you have the right, no pun intended.

I'm simply suggesting we get on with what is pending, most obviously. I'm not saying dirty political games should be tolerated--what I am saying is we should prioritize.

If the Republicans and the Democrats want to have a very nasty divorce, fine.

But the children come first.

Learn how to fight the fair and proper and fight. As a judge would say-Hell, even Dr. PHIL would say that you have to set aside the personal pain and make plans to act responsibly for the future.

Can we possibly have a discussion about a positive path for the future of our nation?

I'm not saying we should forget the past, not at all. I'm simply saying that we can no longer afford to rehash the errors of our ways, on both sides.

We have not lived up to the promise of..even our cartoons. Unless you are a Tom and Jerry fan.

There is a better way to live, to be, and both sides can win--and if we don't stop this, both sides will lose and we'll take the world down with us.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
58 posted 2010-07-10 01:04 AM


Karen, I wish I could see a positive path for our future but I can't, not with the direction we are headed. I literally grieve for our country.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

59 posted 2010-07-10 01:45 AM


How can you have a postive path to the future when the party of No, the party whose primary goal is to see the President fail, does nothing but bash leaders we the people elected instead of working together to help find solutions for our problems?

These threads are a good example of the misinformation and scare tactics  Republicans spread via Fox and hate radio.
The hate and lies started with  socialism/fascism/marxism/communism, claims the President was a radical Muslim, a radical white hating bigot, "death panels" and now they're back to fanning the flames of racism again as Palin followers did before the election.

Their tactics are devisive, they pander to racists and and radical Christians. Their lies and misrepresentation of facts are legion and it's well past time to call them out on it.

The Tea Party folks are the same old Republicans who put Bush in office for two terms but are ashamed to admit it. I can forgive them for the first term, but even after seeing his total incompetence, war mongering agenda, finding out how he lied to the American people and led them into a war the killed thousands of innocents, their own sons and daughters, and tanked the treasury, they went right ahead and gave him the green light to keep on doing it to us.

Their goal now is to put another Neocon puppet at the helm, fill the House and Senate with airheads like Bachmann who will toe the party line, fill the pockets of their wealthy cronies with tax deductions and drill baby drill until there's no hope at all for this beautiful world.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

60 posted 2010-07-10 02:28 AM


Karen, none of us are smart enough to know the answers or the path. All we can do is what we feel is right, care for ourselves, those we love, find joy in the moment, share it and if you’re a prayer, pray. A good read for distraction, Mankell’s “Chronicler of the Winds.” Shows that even in troubled times, there is consolation that can carry you through.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
61 posted 2010-07-10 07:53 AM


Serenity, I think post #59 indicates pretty clearly how difficult the road will be.

Sighing along...

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

62 posted 2010-07-10 08:42 AM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKO6W2NfUnQ&feature=related
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

63 posted 2010-07-10 11:28 AM


quote:
I worked closely with the former chief of the Voting Section, Christopher Coates, during my time at the Justice Department. He was a voting rights giant. He brought cases to stop racial discrimination as far back as 1976, just a decade after passage of the Voting Rights Act. Coates was a former attorney with the ACLU, and while at Justice, he was instrumental in bringing the case against the New Black Panther Party.

Because he believed in race-neutral enforcement of the civil rights laws, his powers as voting section chief were slowly sucked away by the Holder Justice Department.

Eventually made an intentionally powerless figurehead, Coates was transferred to South Carolina to work in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. His courageous going-away speech to the entire Voting Section and to the deputy assistant attorney general left little doubt about the “change” at Justice:

I have never assumed that I was entitled to ignore that clear language in federal law and therefore ignore incidents where evidence showed white voters were discriminated against or where the wrongdoers were themselves members of a minority group. … I have had many discussions concerning these cases. In one of my discussions concerning the Ike Brown case, I had a lawyer say he was opposed to our filing such suits. When I asked why, he said that only when he could go to Mississippi and find no disparities between the socioeconomic levels of black and white residents, might he support such a suit. But until that day, he did not think that we should be filing voting rights cases against blacks or on behalf of white voters.

I believe that one of the most detrimental ways to politicize the enforcement process in the Voting Section is to enforce the provisions of the Voting Rights Act only for the protection of certain racial or ethnic minorities; or to take the position that the Voting Section is not going to enforce certain provision of any of the voting statutes the Voting Section has the responsibility to enforce. Such decisions carry with them obvious, enormous implications for partisan political struggles.

Coates was not issuing a hypothetical warning for some future dereliction of the Department’s duty. The danger had already arrived.

United States v. Ike Brown

Coates and I learned about the hostility towards equal enforcement of the civil rights laws long before United States v. New Black Panther Party. Coates brought, and we won, the case of United States v. Ike Brown arising out of Mississippi.

Brown was the head of the Democratic Party in Noxubee County, a majority black county. The party ran the Democratic primaries, which served as de facto general elections, and Brown made no secret about his desire to see every government office in the county held by a black officeholder. Brown ran a Tammany Hall-style political operation. During one election, he literally stuffed illegal ballots he knew were marked for black candidates through an optical scanner in front of a crowd of angry citizens shouting provisions of Mississippi law at him.

“You ain’t dealing with Mississippi law, this is Ike Brown’s law,” he replied.

Brown organized teams of notary publics to roam the county collecting absentee ballots. In many cases, the notaries cast the ballots themselves instead of the voters.

Brown took absentee ballots to his home the night before the election, and put yellow sticky notes on them instructing compliant poll workers — whom he chose — why the ballots of white voters should be rejected. The poll workers complied, and canceled their votes.


http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/j-christian-adams-you-deserve-to-know-%e2%80%94-unequal-law-enforcement-reigns-at-obamas-doj-pjm-exclusive/?singlepage=true

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

64 posted 2010-07-10 02:47 PM


Ah well...

And I've been told I can't even go train for the pelican program. (I tend to forget a lot of  things, like um, oil makes me sick.)

So no, I'd be a hindrance and more of a nuisance than a help there as well.

Just like I am....here.

I guess it's on to Plan B--I'll find me a piano player and go be a French Quarter Freak, pretend I don't know and don't care and try to amuse the folks who come here to forget for a while.

OH.

I won another game of chess though.

My father once said that heroes will come from unlikely sources. I'm getting a bit curious now.

My love to all.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

65 posted 2010-07-10 04:37 PM




     Out of context, Mike.

     Let me get this straight, because I come to this late.  White Republican Poll watchers ran into trouble at a majority Black precinct because they felt that a Black Panther was intimidating voters.

     Which voters was he intimidating?  Was he intimidating any of the minority white voters?  

     You come forward with no complaints from these voters, though I confess, you might have come forward with such complaints and I might have missed them.  Are there any such complaints?

     The Republican Poll watchers, as a matter of pure courtesy, were these poll watchers blacks or were they whites?  It should make no difference, but I would hope that, as a matter of politeness, some of the black Republicans would have done the poll watching to avoid possible unnecessary friction.  Was that courtesy observed or not?

     What was the nature of the challenges that the Republican poll watchers were upset about?  You report that there was profanity, but apparently there is no presentation here of any film from the poll.  Perhaps I have this information confused.  If I do, I'd appreciate some correction about the details.

     Two people were not charged.

     You make assumptions about why they were not charged.  Why do you make these assumptions when one of the three was not only charged but apparently convicted as well?  Doesn't the conviction belie your primary assertion that there was no action?

     The more reasonable conclusion is that there was no grounds for a winable case, since in one of the the three cases such an outcome was pursued, and a conviction was obtained.  Why would you set such a conclusion aside in favor of a less reasonable conclusion?

     More importantly for me, did the Republican Poll Watchers find reason to question the registration of any of the Republican voters at this precinct, or any white voters at this precinct, or were they only examining Democratic or Black and Democratic voters?  Is there any breakdown of which voters they attempted to eliminate from voting and what the grounds were they used to disqualify them?

     And did their reports of difficulties with The Black Panthers have anything to do with the sorts of queries they may or may not have been making?

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

66 posted 2010-07-10 04:56 PM


The case was already won, Bob, awaiting sentencing by a judge. Justice, on the condition that Shabazz refrain from being within 100 feet of a polling place with a weapon of any kind until 2012, (something that is illegal anway), dismissed all charges, after they had already won by default when the Panthers failed to appear for their hearing.

One of the complainants was a Democratic poll watcher, 'cracker' though he may have been.

In addition to the video evidence there were also sworn affidavits submitted by eyewitnesses. It was a slam dunk case according to the attorneys who had worked on it.

[This message has been edited by Denise (07-10-2010 06:04 PM).]

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

67 posted 2010-07-10 08:03 PM


"One of the complainants was a Democratic poll watcher, 'cracker' though he may have been." - Denise

Who was that?

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

68 posted 2010-07-10 09:32 PM


I don't know his name, Jen. I heard it mentioned in one of the tapes about it that I had heard, and that he was one of the ones who had called the police, and was refered to as a white Democratic poll worker, but I don't recall that a name was mentioned.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

69 posted 2010-07-10 11:35 PM


Thanks for the response, Denise, though I am a little disappointed you don’t have the source. Hadn’t heard that claim before and wanted to check it out.

Is “cracker” a racial slur? Like when shabazz used the word, was that actually a slur or is it more like slang or something?


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

70 posted 2010-07-11 12:59 PM


Sorry I don't remember where I heard it, Jen. I may have even heard it on the news.

Yes, cracker (probably derived from whip-cracking slave owners or corn-cracking farmers) is meant to be a slur against white people, as is honky (might mean "red-eared person" or "white person" from the term "honk nopp" in the west African language, Wolof). But slurs against the white race in general don't seem to carry the same politically incorrect label as do the slurs against individual nationalities and other races.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

71 posted 2010-07-11 03:14 AM




     I don't use it, Denise.  It's not terrific language, and I notice that you reserve it for the Democratic campaign worker, while not addressing my questions about the Republicans.

     My comments about the conviction for one and the failure to convict for the other two still stand, however.

     Perhaps what you're suggesting is that the case against Shabazz was so poor that the only reason he was convicted was that he failed to appear?  In which case, you may well be talking about a miscarriage of justice.

     I suspect not, of course.

     What about those Republican Poll Watchers.  I trust you won't speak of them in such unflattering terms.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

72 posted 2010-07-11 03:18 AM




     I did have a wonderful moment, Denise, when you spoke about Shabazz carrying a nightclub.  I really did know what you meant, and I've said the same thing myself on more than one occasion.  I think it's part of the poetic process that our brains hand us gifts like that, and it's up to us to see if we can find some way of putting them into poems.  I envy you having your brain hand you that one, and I hope you can find some lovely use for it.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

73 posted 2010-07-11 09:31 AM


I was being facetious, Bob, when I referred to the poll worker that way, you know a take-off on what Shabazz was calling all the white folks. If I had been referencing a Republican poll worker in that sentence and in that context I would have done the same. I didn't mean it in a derogatory sense, more of a smack at Shabazz's hatred of white folks, Republican, Democratic, or whatever. Just my way of sticking up for all us crackers, I guess. It is a very funny word, though, isn't it?!

You can read the statements of the attorneys who worked on the case. I have no reason to doubt the seasoned attorneys' opinions at the Justice Department that the case was a slam dunk.

Nightclub is a cross between a Billyclub and a Nightstick.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
74 posted 2010-07-11 12:02 PM


quote:
I have no reason to doubt the seasoned attorneys' opinions at the Justice Department that the case was a slam dunk.

I'm curious, Denise. Have you ever heard a lawyer say the case he was trying was pretty weak but he was going to give it a shot anyway? I haven't. Seems to me, every pending case is a slam-dunk right up to the point it is won or lost. Then, either way it goes, it becomes a miracle and the lawyer either walked on water or was unjustly crucified.  

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

75 posted 2010-07-11 12:17 PM


I've never been involved on either side of the law in having to use an attorney so I can't speak from personal experience on that one, Ron. But in this case I guess we'll never know now since Holder ordered it dropped.

The determination in the Voting Rights Division since Holder took over, according to the sworn testimony of Adams, to not prosecute cases when blacks are the offenders and whites are the victims is unconscionable. Justice should be color blind, as I'm sure you would agree.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

76 posted 2010-07-11 12:35 PM


J. Christian Adams:

- longtime conservative activist
- 2004 Bush campaign poll watcher in Florida
- volunteer with the Republican National Committee’s National Republican Lawyers Association
- hired by Bradley Schlozman who was at the center of the U.S. attorneys scandal
             “Schlozman discussed hiring "right-thinking Americans" and ridding the Civil Rights                        Division of "pinkos", "commies", and attorneys perceived to be unacceptably liberal.”

Bartle Bull:

- Calls himself a Democrat but supported McCain/Palin in 2008 and other Republican candidates now.
- Spoke out against Obama before the election
- Lives/practices in New York but in 2008 went to PA on Election Day to support/poll watch for McCain

The attorneys supporting Adams’ claims re the DOJ

- Were also Scholzman hires
- No longer at the DOJ
- Now working for Right leaning firms

Just curious, Denise. What do you think would have been the appropriate punishment/sentence for the three New Panthers? And in the case mentioned below, do you think the Bush DOJ was wrong to drop the lawsuit? Is a glock less lethal than a nightstick? Is confronting Hispanic voters, while carrying a gun, taking names, photographing them while waiting to vote less intimidating than using a racial slur I won’t repeat?

“Fox News refuses to report on Bush-era DOJ decision that undermines GOP activist's claims”
...
“Bush-era DOJ chose not to prosecute a similar case against Arizona Minutemen
Perez: "[T]he Department declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation" in 2006. In his May 14 testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the DOJ's civil rights division, highlighted a case that completely undermines the notion that the DOJ's decisions in the Black Panthers case were unprecedented or racially motivated. Perez testified that in 2006, the DOJ "declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation" "when three well-known anti-immigrant advocates affiliated with the Minutemen, one of whom was carrying a gun, allegedly intimidated Latino voters at a polling place by approaching several persons, filming them, and advocating and printing voting materials in Spanish." [U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 5/14/10]”
... http://mediamatters.org/iphone/research/201007050005

Brown's a color, isn't it?
.

"And sent him homeward, Tae think again."

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

77 posted 2010-07-11 02:46 PM


All cases of voter intimidation should be investigated and prosecuted if warranted. The DOJ should be investigated and purged of any and all racially motivated determinations. ALL the people should have equal protection under the law. Race or ethnicity should not enter into the decision making process in whether to pursue a case or not in any way shape or manner, wouldn't you agree?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

78 posted 2010-07-11 02:52 PM


This should be investigated as well: Democratic Primary fraud perpetrated by Obama camp against Hillary campaign:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwewillnotbesilenced2008.com%2Fvideo%2Findex.htm&h=3f39ccU0hMSowxF70890oNyX6uA

Won't be holding my breath, though.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
79 posted 2010-07-11 05:17 PM


quote:
All cases of voter intimidation should be investigated and prosecuted if warranted.

I would certainly agree with that assertion, Denise, so long as your "if warranted" qualifier was meant to cover both prosecution AND investigation? There's not enough resources in the world to investigate every kook who yells fowl whenever things don't go their way. I can't imagine anyone wanting us to waste time and money pursuing allegations with no hope they'll ever lead to anything concrete.

There, however, is where we run into problems.

Every decent American, Denise, wants voter intimidation eliminated. But where we are in complete agreement on that, it's always going to be much more difficult (impossible!) to agree which claims are credible and which are not.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

80 posted 2010-07-11 06:05 PM


Sorry Denise, I don't go anywhere near facebook. Could you give me just a clue what you're referring to? Thanks!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
81 posted 2010-07-11 06:55 PM


it's always going to be much more difficult (impossible!) to agree which claims are credible and which are not.

Feel free to call me a simpleton, Ron  but, in my book, a fellow in Black Panther garb, beating a nightstick against his hand while making racial slurs at whites entering to vote, is really not that difficult to call credible.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

82 posted 2010-07-11 07:10 PM


Allegedly “beating a nightstick against his hand while making racial slurs at whites entering to vote.” Where are the videos showing shabazz at the polls  “beating a nightstick against his hand while making racial slurs”, where are the statements from “whites entering to vote” alleging shabazz slurred or intimidated them? They simply don’t exist, do they?
.

"And sent him homeward, Tae think again."



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
83 posted 2010-07-11 08:01 PM


Jenn...the videos  with the nightstick are clearly visible. You did better when suggesting he was a republican plant.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

84 posted 2010-07-11 08:26 PM


Carrying a gun in the open is allowed in PA, what’s the law re nightsticks?

I know you can’t take a gun into a polling place, but what’s the law re having one outside a polling place in PA? Does that law also apply to nightsticks?

After nearly two years, and all the recent Fox hype about the incident, still no voters have come forth to allege they were intimidated. Guess it was only the girly men Republican poll watchers who felt intimidated.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
85 posted 2010-07-11 08:38 PM


aha...I see things are back to normal. Enjoy...
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

86 posted 2010-07-11 08:44 PM


Guess that means you don't know the answer to those questions. No problem, Balladeer, Denise lives in PA, maybe she knows.


JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

87 posted 2010-07-11 08:55 PM


And the Republicans did have a plant. Bull was there trying to look like a Republican poll watcher. Bad Dem!
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

88 posted 2010-07-11 10:08 PM


My only concern, Ron, is that race play no part in the evaluation, investigation, or prosecutorial decisions that are made. According to Adams' testimony it does. That needs to be addressed so that justice is applied equally to all.

Blackjacks (nightsticks, billyclubs) are prohibited offensive weapons anywhere and at anytime in PA.

Here is a complete list of offensive weapons that are prohibited in PA:

Under §908(a) (relating to Prohibited offensive weapons) of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, a person commits a Misdemeanor of the 1st degree if, except as authorized by law, he makes repairs, sells, or otherwise deals in, uses, or possesses any offensive weapon.  A prohibited offensive weapons is defined as any of the following that can cause serious bodily injury and serve no common lawful purpose

Any bomb or grenade

A machine gun

A sawed-off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches

A firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge

Any blackjack, sandbag, or metal knuckles

A dagger, knife, razor, or cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or otherwise

Any stun gun, stun baton, taser or other electronic or electric weapon

Any other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose

A license is required for concealed weapons in PA but not for open carry, except in Philadelphia where a license is also required for open carry.

Firearms, open carry and concealed, are allowed in all locations except:

Off-limits places in PA and what makes them off-limits:

1. Court Facilities - PA Title 18, Chapter 9, Subsection 913

2a.*Grounds and buildings of Elementary and Secondary schools(K-12 grades), whether the school is private or public. There is an affirmative defense for "other lawful purposes" however there is no case law determining on what that includes. To be safe, its wiser to assume it does not include our carrying "rights". - PA Title 18, Chapter 9, Subsection 912

2b. Within 1000ft of a school unless you have a license/permit issued by the state in which the school is located - US Title 18, Part I, Chapter 44, Subsection 922(q)

3. Casinos - by regulation Title 58, Part VII, Chapter 465, Subsection 465a.13

4. Certain Department of State buildings - by regulation

5. ****Places off-limits by Federal Law or regulation, IE: military installations(exceptions for hunting at some bases), Federal Government buildings, after the security check point in airports,etc.

6. Any private property where a landowner, tenant or person so authorized to maintain property has asked you to leave because you are carrying, or where the property owner or tenant has placed signs or placards denoting that guns are forbidden - Title 18, Chapter 35, Subsection 3503

7. Detention facilities, correctional institutes, or mental hospitals - Title 18, Chapter 51, Subsection 5122

So unless a polling place is located at one of the above restricted locations, you can also open carry there.

Here is the previous link for you Jen, 'unfacebooked'.
http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/video/index.htm

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

89 posted 2010-07-11 11:12 PM




     If there are criminal violations or civil violations of the law, bring charges or bring suit if you have standing in the case.  If you don't have standing in the case, get enough information to find the lawyers that represent those people who do and contribute to the cause.  You don't have to accept non-action by the department of justice, as I understand things; that's simply one means of approaching the issue.  The problem would be in finding some fashion in which you would be supporting a party that had standing in a case or the case that goes to the heart of the issue that gets you upset.

     I guess I'm speaking to Denise, here.  Complaining about the Department of Justice doesn't seem to be a particularly effective thing to do, except in terms of getting yourself angry.  If in fact there is discriminatory enforcement of civil rights laws, that's simply flat out wrong and it requires a legal means of redress, doesn't it?

     My feeling is that the civil rights laws are sloppily enforced overall, and that the majority of the discrimination has been and continues to be against minorities.  My feelings aren't worth squat.  Any discrimination is an abomination, and you have as much right to be upset as anybody else.  Having the sense of it coming in the direction of the majority is novel and upsetting for those of us occasionally on the receiving end of it because we really are NOT used to it.  We have a right to object as well, certainly, and we should.

     It should make us, among other things, all that much more zealous in eliminating all discrimination, no matter where it is directed.  Since it starts more easily against minorities, we should be at least as careful about discrimination against minorities as we are against discrimination directed against ourselves.

     Support civil rights lawyers who bring suit against discriminatory practices against situations that you believe to be unjust.  If you don't like the Situation with the Panthers, support bringing suit there; don't depend on the Department of Justice to do all the work for you.  Sometimes the government will not be on your side.  Minorities know this very well.  You should too.

     Simply because I'm more on the side of the minorities in this business doesn't mean that the rules of community organizing shouldn't be useful to you as well.  You feel you have a legitimate gripe.  You have others of a like mind.  You can use the legal system and the political system, too; and you should.

     It's American as all get-out.

     We have occasional disagreements about the facts, and we have occasional massive differences of opinion, but I don't see that anybody want something bad (at least in their own frame of reference) for the other folks.  It's simply that the other folks disagree.

     And we all know that those other folks are like, don't we?  

     Makes me shudder to even think of them.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

90 posted 2010-07-11 11:35 PM


This case gets stranger by the minute. According to the info you posted Denise, and thanks very much for that, it seems that in PA possessing a nightstick is a first degree misdemeanor yet the police must not have thought so since they didn’t arrest shabazz. The injunction against shabazz prohibits him from brandishing a weapon outside a polling place until 2012. Does that mean that AFTER 2012 he can?  Not making sense to me, seems like there’s something missing.

As for the other link, really couldn’t get much out of it because of all the screaming in the background. I’m guessing that you’re trying to show there were irregularities at some of the Dem caucuses. But there were also irregularities at Republican caucuses. Do you want those investigated also? Guess I’m missing your point.



Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

91 posted 2010-07-11 11:36 PM


It costs money to bring law suits, Bob. Unfortunately I have none. Well, I have some, enough for living expenses, but that is shrinking daily as well.

The Civil Rights Commission is holding an investigation, so we'll just have to hope they do the right thing.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

92 posted 2010-07-11 11:49 PM


Sometimes the police give people a pass. They asked him to leave and he did. If he refused I'm sure they would have charged him with the weapons offense.

That ruling prohibiting him from carrying a weapon outside a polling place until 2012, didn't make any sense to me either. It sure seems like it could be interpreted that he can in 2012. I guess the Justice Dept. wasn't familiar with PA law when they came up with that doozy.

The videos are easier to watch on the individual YouTube videos, further down. The screaming only lasts a few seconds and then it goes into the interviews. 2000 complaints of fraud were reported in the Texas Caucus alone. They were all ignored by the DNC. Yes, I think all instances of fraud should be investigated, regardless of party.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

93 posted 2010-07-13 09:00 AM


Letter to the President:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=177957

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

94 posted 2010-07-13 12:09 PM


I don't know about the Philadelphia police, but where I live, anyone actually threatening another person with physical harm doesn't get "a pass" from the police. Did those Republican poll watchers file complaints with the police alleging they were actually threatened or saw others being threatened? If so, what was the outcome?
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

95 posted 2010-07-13 01:13 PM


The "brandishing a weapon" part of the injunction made no sense to me. Checked a little more and read that the actual injunction banned shabazz from being within 100 feet of any polling place through 2012, there was no mention of limiting it to "brandishing a weapon" within 100 feet. Wonder which is true?
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

96 posted 2010-07-13 02:48 PM


Found it:
http://www.slideshare.net/LegalDocs/findlaw-voting-rights-new-black-panther-party-figure-shabazzs-weapons-order

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

97 posted 2010-07-13 08:50 PM


I've personally seen the police give people passes who should have been arrested. I think sometimes they just want to try to placate a situation if at all possible and only take stronger action if the situation can't be resolved any other way. It may also have something to do with being understaffed and overworked too. They seem even more reluctant to make arrests when they didn't actually observe something themselves, but only arrived after the fact. Shabazz probably wasn't shooting off his mouth when he saw the police heading his way. Since the police got him to leave the scene, maybe the eyewitnesses decided to just report it to the Voting Rights Commission, or maybe that it what the police advised would be the best course to take.

quote:
The defendant King Samir Shabazz is
ENJOINED from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of any open polling location on any election day in the City of Philadelphia, or from otherwise violating 42 U.S.C.§  1973i (b);

This Court shall maintain jurisdiction over this matter until November 15, 2012 to enforce this Order as necessary;



Although the weapons enjoinment is redundant, since his weapon of choice is always and everywhere illegal in PA, at least now there is no way he could legally open carry a gun (not that he could even obtain the required license, having been on tape advocating murder), and the enjoinment is not restricted by date. It is for any election day in the City of Philadelphia. The date is merely when the Court's jurisdiction over the matter will terminate.

A slap on the wrist.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
98 posted 2010-07-13 09:01 PM


Of course it is, Denise. Any attempt to not recognize the DOJ as being racially biased is to deny reality. The race card has been played ever since Obama became president, normally by Obama, who began it even during his presidential campaign. Now the NAACP is picking up the torch for support. Get used to it. It will be used for as long as Obama occupies the Oval office, and probably even beyond that to excuse his failings.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

99 posted 2010-07-13 09:05 PM


And now we hear from the slanderous racists known as the NAACP:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=178801

Unbelievable. Clean your own ranks of its racists before you go looking for them elsewhere.

These people are trying to push back the progress made in race relations in this country by more than 100 years. It's no wonder we have groups like the Panthers and Farrahkan's group.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

100 posted 2010-07-13 10:09 PM


I believe that Michelle Obama, having been at their convention, and lending it an air of legitimacy, should come out and denounce this divisive and slanderous resolution and call for a halt to all this hate-mongering rhetoric.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
101 posted 2010-07-13 10:15 PM


Don't hold your breath there, Denise. Even if she wanted to, I don't think Obama would let her. It suits his purposes too well.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

102 posted 2010-07-13 10:16 PM


This is a clarifying article on Civil vs. Criminal cases in the Voters Rights Division of the DOJ:
http://www.allamericanblogger.com/11208/new-black-panther-case-handled-under-bush-not-so-fast/

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

103 posted 2010-07-13 10:18 PM


No, I'm not, Michael.

It's so sad that there are elements in this country that don't want racial harmony and do everything in their power to stir up strife.

Martin would be saddened and ashamed of them. They are not of the same spirit.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

104 posted 2010-07-13 10:39 PM


quote:
St. Louis Tea Party Coalition Resolution
July 12, 2010

Whereas, the National Coalition for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was founded to advance the position of minority groups, and

Whereas a hallmark of the NAACP has been to do the important work of identifying and exposing remaining vestiges of racism and discrimination, and

Whereas the NAACP vocally stands against the discriminatory and harmful practice of labeling people with a broad brush, and

Whereas the NAACP decided to launch their 101st National Convention with a resolution condemning the Tea Party movement and labeling millions of their fellow Americans who subscribe to the movement as “racists”, and

Whereas the “Tea Party movement” is a label applied to patriotic Americans who have expressed their political free speech in the grand tradition of all that is American, that being the spirited expression of viewpoints in a 100% peaceful manner, and

Whereas, it is a hallmark of America that we settle our disputes civilly and avoid the gutter tactic of attempting to silence opponents by inflammatory name-calling, and
Whereas the very term “racist” has diminished meaning due to its overuse by political partisans including members of the NAACP, and

Whereas, the NAACP had an opportunity to preserve some semblance of legitimacy by standing up for Ken Gladney, the victim of a vicious racist battery conducted by a black avowed communist, even labeling him an “Uncle Tom”, but chose instead to use the opportunity to mock the St. Louis Tea Party, and

Whereas, the NAACP has refused to denounce the New Black Panther’s call to murder white cops and their babies, and

Whereas, the NAACP does its entire membership a grave disservice by hypocritically engaging in the very conduct it purports to oppose,

Now therefore be it resolved that the St. Louis Tea Party condemns the NAACP for lowering itself to the dishonorable position of a partisan political attack dog organization, and,

Be it further resolved that the St. Louis Tea Party calls on similar organizations to join in unanimous condemnation of this despicable behavior, and

Be it further resolved that we demand that the NAACP withdrawal their bigoted, false and inflammatory resolution against the tea party for any further consideration, and

Be it further resolved that these organizations call on the Internal Revenue Service to evenly apply their standards and consider the tax-exempt status of the NAACP considering the degree to which they are engaging in habitual partisan political behavior.

Adopted unanimously, this day, July 12th, in the year of our Lord, 2010.


http://biggovernment.com/jhoft/2010/07/13/we-will-not-be-silenced-st-louis-tea-party-passes-resolution-condemning-naacp-racism/

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

105 posted 2010-07-13 11:33 PM



Which reminds me, did the IRS ever hire those 16,000 “thugs” to enforce Healthcare?

[This message has been edited by JenniferMaxwell (07-14-2010 12:52 AM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
106 posted 2010-07-13 11:50 PM


no voters alleged they felt intimidated/threatened, no one filed a  complaint with the police, there were half a dozen or so Republican poll watchers, some inside and some outside, yet none of them captured video, audio or even a still of shabazz acting in a threatening/intimidating manner towards voters,

hmmm...that sounds familiar. Oh, yes, it was the conversation about tea-partiers using racial slurs and acting in a threatening manner, which were never captured on any of the numerous video or audio devices present, the ones which the police never arrested anyone for and which no formal complaints were issued.

Funny how opinions and perspectives change when the shoe goes on the other foot, isn't it?

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

107 posted 2010-07-14 12:08 PM


Those incidents, the racial and homophobic slurs were captured. Those with younger eyes and ears saw and heard. But there is no video, audio or stills, none at all of shabazz threatening/intimidating voters to even question.
The spitter was never arrested because a positive identification could not be made by the vicitm and unfortunately, hurling racial or homophobic slurs is not a crime in this country.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
108 posted 2010-07-14 12:30 PM


Those incidents, the racial and homophobic slurs were captured.

Show me. Last time I heard, the 100,000 dollar reward for producing one had not been collected. let's see them, please.

Two instances where there were no videos or audio and you use that as an excuse to excuse one and villify the other with the reasoning that "younger eyes and ears heard them". Prove it.

Shoe on other foot....


JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

109 posted 2010-07-14 12:45 PM


I posted links several times to those videos that also included comments indicating many others heard them. If you really want to see them, try the site Search feature.


JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

110 posted 2010-07-14 12:53 PM


I think it was a pretty fair outcome on the shabazz/NBP case - no voters alleged they felt intimidated/threatened, no one filed a  complaint with the police, there were half a dozen or so Republican poll watchers, some inside and some outside, yet none of them captured video, audio or even a still of shabazz acting in a threatening/intimidating manner towards voters, and the police didn’t think, even though he was carrying a nightstick, he was enough of a threat to arrest. Also, during the approximate hour shabazz was there, Republican poll watcher inside the building never called police to report voters were being threatened/intimidated. And even the Republican poll watcher who later did call police, admitted he didn’t feel threatened, stated that he walked between Jackson and shabazz to enter the building. I think it was a good call on the part of the DOJ.

Isn’t posting a video showing racist hate mongering likely to stir up strife?


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

111 posted 2010-07-14 03:55 AM




quote:


My only concern, Ron, is that race play no part in the evaluation, investigation, or prosecutorial decisions that are made. According to Adams' testimony it does. That needs to be addressed so that justice is applied equally to all.

Blackjacks (nightsticks, billyclubs) are prohibited offensive weapons anywhere and at anytime in PA.




     I notice that your description here, Denise, states that "blackjacks" are prohibited offensive weapons anytime and anywhere in PA.  I also notice that in the quotation from the law code you include below, that "Blackjacks" is included along with what sounds like a legalistic description of brass knuckles.

     However, in your description of weapons that are considered illegal you are explicit about Blackjacks yet place billyclubs and nightsticks in brackets afterward, as though you considered them a subcategory of blackjacks, and not as a separate, banned category.  

     The law did not mention billyclubs or nightsticks at all, at least in the part you quoted to us, though it may mention them in some other portion of the law  you didn't choose to quote.  Would you please show that part of the law?

     You may not be away of the distinctions between the sort of weapons represented by billyclubs, and the sort of weapons represented by blackjacks, and why it might make sense to forbid possession of a blackjack and not a nightstick, but you should know, in case you don't know already, that a blackjack is commonly a spring-loaded weapon with a substantial weight at one end.  As a result is is easily concealable, while a two or two and a half foot night-stick, these days often produced with am L-shaped wooden projection to make it more effective as a come-along device and for use, if necessary as a tonfa, should the owner be trained in use of that weapon, is not at all easily concealable.

     The black-jack is a weapon designed for bone-crushing attacks, and it takes a great deal of training to use it with less than very damaging effect.  It is simple to crush a skull with it with what would seem to be a minimum of effort, and, like brass knuckles, it is hard to justify using it at all for situations without believing that the outcome could easily be lethal.  Brass knuckles, for example, were often carried in the trenches in the first world war, and were often part of combat knives.  A tap of a black jack on the back of the hand could shatter the bones there without much effort.

     At one point blackjacks were issued to some police officers, and there were pockets sewn into their pant legs for them.  I don't believe they been in use for quite a while, because of the potential danger.

     Nightsticks, on the other hand, are fairly regularly issued.  It is hard to keep them out of the hands of citizens because anybody who wishes to can carry a cane by claiming a bit of a limp.  In this slightly longer form, a stick can be even more effective, with some training.

     It may be possible that Mr. Shabazz was acting poorly.  Indeed, he was apparently convicted of acting badly.  I would be interested the definitions you seem to have supplied for billyclubs and nightsticks, however, and their being subcategories of Blackjacks.  

     I would also suggest that calling the NAACP racist is an interesting reappraisal of history.

     I would be particularly be fascinated to hear all the stories about the Ku Klux Klan members being hung from trees for talking trash about black women over the last hundred years or so, or the numbers of white men who've been tarred and feathered by mobs of black men.  Or the numbers of white churches that the NAACP has encouraged people to bomb.

     Strange Fruit indeed, Denise.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
112 posted 2010-07-14 07:32 AM


Actually, you didn't, Jennifer, or you would be 100 grand richer by now. Your posted videos showed no such thing except what you cared to interpret, and nothing vocal to back it up.

I find it so interesting how Bob and Jennifer go to bat for such a sleazeball like Shabazz and badmouth the Tea Partiers. Jennifer claims, after seeing the videos, that she would have felt intimidated and yet claims that, since no one complained, no one felt intimidated.  Bob supplies rhetoric questioning whether a nightstick is actually a weapon. How many people have you seen walking around with nightsticks lately, Bob, outside of law enforcement? Are there, like, special holsters people buy to carry their nightsticks while in public? Do bars and businesses have "check in your nightstick" rooms where people can place them, such a coat rooms? Can nightsticks be used by people who limp? I suppose so although a person using Shabazz's nightstick as a cane would not have been over 18 inches tall. Bob would go to such lengths as to bring hangings, tar and featherings and all sorts of atrocities from the past to make some kind of a point. Is his point is that blacks can act any way they want because they were mistreated in the past, why not just excuse all blacks from following any laws? If they are stopped, they can just say, "My great grandfather was tarred and feathered one hundred fifty years ago, and the police will have to let them go.

Sorry, folks. I know you're in a tough situation, having to defend someone like Shabazz for purely political reasons, but these arguments you're tossing up really don't cut it. Jenn will swear there was no intimidation because there was no proof while swearing there WAS tea party intimation with no proof. Imagine what she would be saying if the tea partiers showed up at rallies with nightsticks!

The videos speak for themselves, contrary to all words written here to justify them.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

113 posted 2010-07-14 09:27 AM


Your interpretation of what I showed, said, and wanted to do is completely wrong, Balladeer. But everyone needs a hobby, so if misrepresenting my intentions and the facts I presented makes your day, have at it and keep up the good work!

But I do feel bad for poor Gracie. Couldn’t you at least give her a break?

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

114 posted 2010-07-14 01:40 PM


A truncheon or baton (also called a cosh, Paddy wacker, billystick, billy club, nightstick, sap, blackjack, stick) is essentially a stick of less than arm's length, usually made of wood, plastic, or metal-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baton_(law_enforcement)

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
115 posted 2010-07-14 03:17 PM


The description of a Blackjack gets a little more specific a bit further down the page you linked to Denise and when it comes to specific definitions courts tend to be fairly pedantic.



By the way I think Samir Shabazz and his pink panther mates are wingnuts. Do they support the Democrats? Almost certainly. Did the Dems ask them to stand outside a polling station dressed like the A-Team waving sticks? Heck no – that’s just plain ludicrous, they may have been there as card carrying Dems but the suits and sticks idea was all of their own making.

Samir Shabazz is exactly the same as those right wing militia nut jobs that are latching onto the whole Tea Party thing – they’re simply unwanted idiots gate crashing a party.

Neither are worth arguing about if you ask me.

.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
116 posted 2010-07-14 03:20 PM


OMG. My backscratcher is really a blackjack?!



Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

117 posted 2010-07-14 03:47 PM




    
quote:

Bob supplies rhetoric questioning whether a nightstick is actually a weapon. How many people have you seen walking around with nightsticks lately, Bob, outside of law enforcement? Are there, like, special holsters people buy to carry their nightsticks while in public? Do bars and businesses have "check in your nightstick" rooms where people can place them, such a coat rooms? Can nightsticks be used by people who limp? I suppose so although a person using Shabazz's nightstick as a cane would not have been over 18 inches tall. Bob would go to such lengths as to bring hangings, tar and featherings and all sorts of atrocities from the past to make some kind of a point. Is his point is that blacks can act any way they want because they were mistreated in the past, why not just excuse all blacks from following any laws?



     Denise, I asked you about how it was defined in PA law, not in Wikipedia, since you were trying to make your comment sound as though it had legal backing, and was made with the weight of PA law behind it.  Perhaps you weren't doing so, and were simply shooting from the hip, as Wikipedia has done here.

     A two foot long or so police baton or Billy club or nightstick is not same thing as a nine inch long blackjack.  "Cosh" is the English slang for blackjack, and the word "sap" has also been used, although these two instruments don't have the spring loaded feature you will often find in a blackjack.  You can make a cosh or a sap simply by putting a few handsful of sand in the end of a sock and wetting it down.  You don't even need to have any rigidity to it at all; the function is that of a weight swung on the end of a rope or chain or piece of fabric or the like.  The slightly longer version, cane length, in Japanese, is called a jo, and the six foot long version is called a bo.  Each weapon is different, has different characteristics, has different uses, and requires different skills.  

     I don't know a lot about firearms.  I do know a bit about sticks and knives and swords, though I'm seriously short of any skill level.

     As for you, Mike:
quote:

Bob supplies rhetoric questioning whether a nightstick is actually a weapon.



     Show me where I said that or say straight out that you were distorting my comments, Mike.

     I said that a nightstick was not the same thing as a blackjack, despite the silly thing that wikipedia said here.  If you've done any police-work, you should be able to tell the difference on sight, every time.  Both are weapons, as you know.  As you know, blackjacks can usually be hidden away in a coat pocket or a standard pants pocket while nightsticks must have special pockets built into uniforms for them or must have special rigs for placing them onto a belt.

quote:

Bob would go to such lengths as to bring hangings, tar and featherings and all sorts of atrocities from the past to make some kind of a point.



     Well, yes, Bob certainly would.

     You see, when Denise is chucking around the concept of "racism" so easily in terms of how Blacks are talking about others, I thought it might be useful to remind Denise exactly what it was that defined the Black Experience with "racism."  Was that untoward of me?  To set some sort of understanding of what the term in real life terms?  

     I thought I was being concrete and practical.

     I thought, you see, that with all this talk about equality that Denise was bringing up, that she would want the experience of racism to be defined the same way for whites as it is for blacks.  Any degree of racism is unacceptable, mind you, but to talk about the NAACP of all organizations being racist sort of takes the cake.  The NAACP has had to fight for every inch of progress its made, including in education, and the right to have integrated housing, the right to have an integrated medical system — blacks have died for lack of transfusions available at white only hospitals.  Intermarriage was forbidden until recently, and the slurs have certainly not stopped.  

     We might also talk some time about the legal system.  I mentioned earlier other things that are quite fresh in Black memory, and are certainly fresh in mine.  They happened in my lifetime, and they happened in Mike's lifetime.  They are racism.

     Tell me how what Denise is complaining about is racism like that.

     It's worth complaining about.  It's worth seeking a remedy for.  

     It's also worth keeping a very firm perspective on, such as I believe has gone by, here.  

quote:

Is his point is that blacks can act any way they want because they were mistreated in the past, why not just excuse all blacks from following any laws?



     It is Bob's point to remind whoever wishes to read what Bob says that racism continues to be an active element in the politics of the far Right.  That Rush Limbaugh thinks nothing of saying that the President of the United States would not have been elected if he weren't Black.  That while the entire episode that we are talking about here is being framed as a matter of the Obama administration, it was an occurrence of the last election cycle and was dealt with under the previous administration, though the elements of racism are clear in its being brought up now and its being blamed on a Black President and a Black Attorney General.

     Mike's proposal that we not hold blacks responsible for obeying any law is a red herring, albeit a particularly noisome one.  The question is why does the country countenance attacks on Blacks now simply because we have a Black President.  Why is what Mr. Limbaugh said not denounced by those who follow him so avidly?

     The only reason that I can think of that makes any sense to me at all is that they agree with him, and what that says about the quality of thinking in this country is stupefying, and what it says about the amount of racism in this country is horrifying, regardless of what your evaluation of President Obama as a President.

     And there, I think, are your real race politics.


    



Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

118 posted 2010-07-14 04:33 PM


Whatever term you wish to use to describe the item that Shabazz was carrying, the Court enjoined him from displaying any weapon in the future near any open polling place, in order to prevent a repeat of his  behavior. So they must have considered his nightstick a weapon.

Although the different types of batons may have differing descriptions, we've always used the terms interchangeably here, rightly or wrongly. But if you don't consider a nightstick as falling under the blackjack prohibition, then it would surely fall under:

Any other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose

I think your backscratcher is safe Ron!

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
119 posted 2010-07-14 06:08 PM


Bob, your real race politics are all Obama's. Everytime he gets in a jam or doesn't get what he wants, he pulls out the race card. He even used it against the Clintons while trying to get the nomination. he is definitely of the mind set of "When all else fails, scream race."

There are your race politics, Bob.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

120 posted 2010-07-14 08:57 PM




     Nonsense, Mike.  

      I've heard little but race and ethnicity from the right since before the election, starting with rumor mongering about the President's Religion (though what's wrong with being a Muslim is beyond me, The President has been characterized as a Muslim or a Racist black Christian since early in the campaign).  Then the Right began to toss up stuff about him being Nigerian.  Then he was criticized for his black friends, never mind that Doctor Gates was a professor at Harvard and was a well recognized scholar in the field.

     Then Mr. Limbaugh has been keeping up a reasonably steady stream of talk about him, including some of his recent remarks.  Then he has been criticized from being involved with black community organizing and ACORN.

     I think it's been fairly ugly.

     I think the President has mostly kept his mouth shut about it, because he doesn't want to polarize the country.  I think most of the issue about the Black Panthers and about Acorn are about race, since neither organization is or was ever very large, and near as I can tell, certainly about ACORN, the Right went well out of its way to spread malicious lies and rumors about that organization without backup, and used the power of Fox news to drive that organization out of business.

     I'd call that racist, as well, since the purpose of ACORN was to help Blacks get organized, get a vote proportional to their size as a community, and act as a group in their community interests.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

121 posted 2010-07-14 11:29 PM


quote:
Adams testified that the Obama Administration used a political appointee to scrutinize former Voting Section Chief Christopher Coates. When that political appointee delivered the order to dismiss the Black Panther case, he admitted that he had not even read the memos in support of proceeding with it. Additionally, Adams mentioned that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) lobbied in March 2009 to have the case dismissed.

During the Hearing, Adams refused to answer several questions concerning specifics on the DOJ’s handling of the case, citing fears that he would be revealing deliberative information. However, Adams confirmed that political appointees – not career attorneys – made the decision to dismiss the case.


http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2010m7d9-Justice-Dept-whistleblower-ignored-by-news-media

Interesting. The NAACP lobbied to have the Panther case dismissed. So perhaps their 'resolution' calling the Tea Parties racist is just their way of deflecting scrutiny away from their actions in this matter that is now in the news.

I don't think the NAACP is what it started out to be, Bob. I think over the years it has become very politicized and racist in its own right. Racism is racism, no matter whom is directed toward. And they cannot go back over 50 years ago to justify their bad behavior and wipe out over a half century of progress in race relations in this country.

quote:
Enter Hans A. von Spakovsky, “a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and a former counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Justice Department.”

He rebuts:

This “downgrade” talking point is apparently supposed to excuse the Obama administration’s decision to dismiss virtually the entire civil voter intimidation case and to neuter the injunction sought against the one remaining defendant so substantially that what was left was little more than a minor annoyance.

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

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

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

Once the division obtained a judgment and an injunction in the civil case, they could have decided to further pursue a criminal prosecution against the individual New Black Panthers, but the number one priority had to be getting a civil injunction as expeditiously as possible before the next election.



So, this left-wing excuse (that criminal charges weren’t also brought) may strongly support what the Civil Rights Commission is now trying to focus on — and what the DOJ is desperately trying to cover up.

Indeed, the person who would have been responsible for making a recommendation on whether to file a subsequent criminal charge against the individual New Black Panther defendants was Mark Kappelhoff, the “career” chief of the Criminal Section and a former ACLU lawyer. Besides being a big contributor to Democratic candidates like Barack Obama and John Kerry, as well as the DNC, Kappelhoff was considered such a liberal loyalist that he was moved into the political position of chief of staff to the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights by the Obama transition team almost as soon as they came in the door.

Sources tell me that Kappelhoff never recommended a criminal case against the baton-yielding thugs, so the claim that the Bush administration is somehow responsible for “downgrading” this case is complete nonsense.

http://www.allamericanblogger.com/11208/new-black-panther-case-handled-under-bush-not-so-fast/


This case was handled as a civil case initially because there was an upcoming election in Philadelphia in May. Civil cases can move faster than the more time consuming criminal cases.

A criminal case could have been persued after the civil case, but it was important in light of the coming election to at least get a court order to prevent similar incidents at the next election.

Not only did the DOJ under Holder not bring criminal charges, they didn't even allow the civil default to stand.

I hope this clarifies that this case was not mishandled or downgraded by Bush but rather swept under the rug by Obama.

You haven't heard little but race from the right, Bob. You have heard disgreement with policy and disgust with the hypocrisy, with the arrogance, and with the lack of transparency from this administration. It is those who are being criticized who are attempting to use charges of racism in an attempt to shut down the debate.  And my complaining about the Panthers is not indicative of my being a racist. It is indicative of my disgust that they are, and that they, along with the Nation of Islam, promote racism and hatred of whites and Jews.

It's not about race. It's about truth and integrity.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

122 posted 2010-07-14 11:45 PM


quote:
The commission probing allegations that the Justice Department wrongly abandoned a case against the New Black Panther Party has formally called for a federal investigation into claims that the department's Civil Rights Division will not pursue black defendants.

In a letter sent Wednesday to Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, the chairman of the bipartisan commission said testimony last week from an ex-Justice official raised "grave questions" about whether the division is "color blind" in its enforcement of the law.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/14/civil-rights-panel-urges-federal-probe-following-testimony-black-panther-case/


YES! Perhaps there is hope that we can eventually move forward and have a truly color-blind justice system.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

123 posted 2010-07-15 03:50 AM




     Media Matters, the Liberal research organization, has checked into some of the allegations.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007070020


     You should make a point of not taking Media Matters at its word, but of checking out its source material, for which it provides links and references.  I did, and it seemed to check out well.

     Have a look at how it deals with some of the observations your sources make.  I believe they are dealt with very well indeed.  

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

124 posted 2010-07-15 05:12 AM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtH7vH4yRcY
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

125 posted 2010-07-15 06:24 AM


There was an article I posted before that showed that the tea parties are representative by percentage of the general population. Race has nothing to do with it. Can the NAAPC say that? Of course not.

Media Matters proves to be nothing more than a left wing propaganda mouthpiece.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
126 posted 2010-07-15 08:28 AM


I did the same, Denise. Those are easily ignorable by the left because they factually disagree with the left agenda.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

127 posted 2010-07-15 09:06 AM


“As the figure shows, even as we account for conservatism and partisanship, support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment. We're not saying that ideology isn't important, because it is: as people become more conservative, it increases by 23 percent the chance that they're racially resentful. Also, Democrats are 15 percent less likely than Republicans to be racially resentful. Even so, support for the Tea Party makes one 25 percent more likely to be racially resentful than those who don't support the Tea Party.

Similar results obtain for racial profiling and the ability for authorities to detain people without putting them on trial. Again, controlling for ideology (conservatism) and partisanship, support for the Tea Party increases the probability that individuals agree that it's okay to “racially profile someone on account of their race or religion” by approximately 27 percent. Support for the Tea Party also increases the probability, by 28 percent, that the authorities should have ability to detain individuals without being charged, for as long as authorities like. Of course, in both cases, conservatism also matters: increasing the likelihood that people will agree with racial profiling and indefinite detention by 30 and 33 percent, respectively.”

http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

128 posted 2010-07-15 10:24 AM


It's a shame, isn't it Michael?

LOL gotta love those trick questions, Jen.

So it’s racist for people to think that blacks can do as well as whites if they apply themselves similarly?

Is it not racist to think that blacks can’t do as well as whites if they apply themselves similarly?

This is an example of the valid predictor of racism among tea party supporters? You have got to be kidding me. Did this professor get his degree out of a crackerjack box or a box of Fruit Loops?

Liberals see racism where they want to see it, and they especially see it when and where their ideology dictates they should see it. And University Race Studies Departments see it wherever they look as a way to justify their existence.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

129 posted 2010-07-15 12:53 PM


I didn’t expect you to agree, Denise, but I was hoping for something a little more challenging and informative than “Did this professor get his degree out of a crackerjack box or a box of Fruit Loops?”

The statements in the poll (not necessarily the percentages) do seem to reflect what we’ve seen in this forum.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
130 posted 2010-07-15 01:15 PM


quote:
So it’s racist for people to think that blacks can do as well as whites if they apply themselves similarly?

The thing about racists, Denise, is that they almost never see themselves as racists. They think they're just exercising common sense.

If blacks could do as well as whites simply by applying themselves, then they WOULD do as well as whites. If 10 percent of the population is black, for example, then 10 percent of the top CEOs in this country should also be black. If 10 percent of the population is black, then 10 percent of all college graduates should be black. If 10 percent of the population is black, then 10 percent of the unemployed ranks should be black. It's simple statistics, Denise, not rocket science. And, like most of math, it's pretty much infallible.

You might just as well claim that women, as a whole, could make just as much money as men if they applied themselves similarly. And yet, statistically, we know they don't?

Racism, like sexism, isn't something open to personal opinion. It's a mathematical fact.

p.s. I don't think the distribution of race in the Tea Bag Party proves anything except the distribution of race. I've lived in towns that were both racially diverse and exceptionally prejudiced. You don't have to be white to hate everyone else who is different.



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
131 posted 2010-07-15 05:08 PM


My vote is for the Fruit Loops, Denise.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
132 posted 2010-07-15 05:37 PM



quote:
My vote is for the Fruit Loops,


And if enough people support them Mike they might just win.



Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

133 posted 2010-07-15 08:26 PM




     It's been a while since I've had a chance to check in.  I see that the Right Wing folks have decided to chuck out the Media Matters reference without considering it.

     My suggestion, when I presented it, was that folks should consider that it came from a left wing source and check out the references for factual content, which can be verified.  The content of the Media Matters piece is also set up so that it is pretty much presented with researchable factual content right along, which is right out there in the open for anybody to look at and evaluate.

     That the folks on the right have decided not to do that suggests that they are not nervous about the possible propaganda element in the article.  After all, poropaganda is based on lies of one sort or another, and simple application of researched truth should be enough to expose it as the sham that it is.  If the Media Matters article were so easily dismissed, I suspect I would have gotten yards of scathing prose in response, telling me exactly how and where I was wrong and how and where my sources were lying.

     I see nothing like that.

     I see only an attempt for those Right leaning folks to avoid having to deal with the charges laid out in the Media Matters article about how the Bush Justice Department disposed of the original suit, for example, and of the nature of the complaining witness that Denise has brought up, and about his use of hearsay to substitute for details that he pretends to have first-hand knowledge of, and so forth.

     Their points are poretty much demolished in this article.

     No wonder they wish to dispose of it while pretending that the facts it offers can't be checked, or haven't been checked, and that it isn't their responsibility, if they wish to be believed, to offer a, honest rebuttal or acknowledge that they cannot.

     Or that the debate, which has seemed so important to them till this point, has become suddenly too boring to continue.

     My wife and I, by the way, will be out of town for about ten days beginning tomorrow evening.  I generally take a vacation from these discussions at those times, so I'm offering folks a chance to get in a few comments beforehand.  Or not.

     Personally, I'm more of a Captain Crunch kind of guy, and not so much a Fruitloops Fella.  Not that anyone asked.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

134 posted 2010-07-16 04:22 AM




1)     Which "left agenda" are you folks talking about?

2)     Who is the "professor" that the two of you seem to agree on disparaging?  There are a fair number of foolish  academics.  That doesn't mean that they are incompetent in their fields, though they may well be.

     How are the rest of us to know if we agree with you or not unless you're specific about who you're talking about?

3)     The make-up of the Tea Party Movement, from all that I can see, is pretty much the same as the rest of the population.  

     This may, however, mean a number of different things, and they have not been discriminated one from another at this time in any sort of orderly fashion.  One of the possible hypotheses that could be tested is that the number of racists is evenly divided across the population spectrum, and that the Tea Party has simply drawn a proportionate number of racists from across the spectrum.  It would be difficult to prove that all the racists are concentrated in The Tea Party Movement, since I've seen some racists who claim to not be Tea Party Nation members.  

     And there must be some Tea Party Nation members who are not racists, like our own extraordinary Denise.

     Nevertheless, having the same statistical make-up as the population doesn't mean that the Tea Party Nation is not racist unless one makes the Racist assumption that racism is the product of certain races and not of the human condition.  

     I tend to go with the current anthropology, which says that there really is no such thing as race. There's no space to talk about that here, though.  It'd be interesting to talk about the subject.

     It's unlikely that all the racists in the country are members of the Tea Party Nation, but probably no more illogical than assuming that The Tea Party Nation is not more racist (or less racist, for that matter) than the rest of us folks.

     It might be a fair bet, for example, that there are as many left handers in the Tea Party Nation, proportionally, as there are in the rest of the nation, but simply because the demographics of race are the same, that doesn't mean that the proportion of left handers in the Tea Party Nation needs to be the same.

     I am fairly suspicious of those left handers.  I have known some of them, and all the left handers I have known have been sinister.  (there is actually a bad pun there.  I have known some cheery left handers.  Cheery but sinister nontheless.)

     More than enough for this hour.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
135 posted 2010-07-16 08:25 AM


I agree, Bob. I know one left-hander who is very sinister!
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

136 posted 2010-07-16 09:22 AM


I don't believe that blacks are inherently disadvantaged in society by virtue of their race, Jen. I believe that everyone, if they apply themselves and have a burning desire to accomplish their dreams can do so in America. I don't believe that those who have achieved great success are just a fluke. To me, believing otherwise is the real racism.

I am beginning to suspect that conseratives and liberals have different definitions of racism. And I don't believe that the NAACP, liberal professors and University Race Studies Departments have the final word on the definition. Maybe that is the dialogue that should be happening in society today, rather than their playing the race card at every opportunity. All that does is shuts down the ability for an honest and open debate.

From what I gather of Ben Jealous's remarks about the signs at the Tea Party that indicated racism were the ones that depicted Obama as the Joker and with a Hitler mustache. Please, the same political comments through signs were directed at Bush. It isn't racism simply because Obama is now in the hot-seat and he happens to be black. Distasteful, perhaps, but not racist. And his call for the Tea Parties to denounce racism, in light of his unproven allegations about the N word being used against the Black Democratic Caucus members, well they already did that back when it was alleged to have happened. He is disingenous, to say the least.

I think the numbers can indicate issues other than 'racism', Ron. The Great Society policies may have been well intentioned but have done nothing to empower the black community. Generations of blacks have been made dependent on the government from cradle to grave as a result, practically destroying the family structure and contributing to the current day 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate, and the 50% school drop-out rate. I believe these facts play a significant role in the depressed representation among blacks in the upper echelons of business, moreso than 'racism', in my opinion.

I brought up the statistical representation of the Tea Parties as being representative of the population in general to refute the allegations that since the number of blacks was only 12% that somehow that proves the Tea Parties are racist. It doesn't prove that at all. In fact, considering that upwards of 95% of Black Americans still support Obama and his policies, 12% is quite significant.

You obviously didn't read the article that I presented, Bob, that clarified the way the Civil Rights Division typically handles cases, especially when another election is fast approaching: The Civil Case first, and then, if they believe it is warranted, the Criminal Case. It rebuts Media Matters view of things. Holder didn't even let the Civil default judgment stand, let alone consider a criminal prosecution.

I hope you and your wife enjoy your vacation, Bob!

Fruit Loops rule, Michael! Actually, I am quite non-discriminatory in my cereal preferences. I like them all!

[This message has been edited by Denise (07-16-2010 10:10 AM).]

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
137 posted 2010-07-16 10:28 AM


.


“And UC Berkeley has apologized to the Asian community for their past admissions practices and has proposed a change in admission policies under which 50 percent of their student body - not 40 percent - will be admitted on academic merit.”


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/Col  lege-Admission-Quotas-Against-Asian-Americans-Why-Is-the-Civil-Rights-Community-Silent


.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
138 posted 2010-07-16 02:34 PM


quote:
I brought up the statistical representation of the Tea Parties as being representative of the population in general.


I’d be interested to see that – where is it Denise.

.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

139 posted 2010-07-16 02:49 PM


It was in this link here about the Tea Party supporters make-up which mirrors the general population:
http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/tea-parties-look-america

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

140 posted 2010-07-16 03:20 PM




     Actually, Denise, I read it before I read the Media Matters article.

     Which you might try reading, especially about the same issues.  But also about the Bush Administration's president in the 2006 Minuteman case and the standard of proof issues.  If the case can't meet the civil standard, which the Bush administration decided in the 2008 case, then it will not meet the tougher criminal standard.  That the Holder DOJ got a judgement against Shabazz in 2009 was fortunate, but not a foregone conclusion by any means.  The Bush DOJ decided there was not enough evidence for civil action against the others.

     I wouldn't want to defend the Obama DOJ in every case about everything, including torture and Gitmo and The PATRIOT ACT, among other issues.  I believe they have some major flaws, and the two of us might even agree about the need to get the Posse Comitatus provisions reinstated and some other major issues.  About this one, we disagree.

     I know you don't like Media Matters on principle, but you really ought to read the article and judge it on the basis of fact, and do some fact-checking in neutral sources.

     Not left wing.  Not right wing.  Neutral.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
141 posted 2010-07-16 03:45 PM



Thanks Denise.
quote:
I brought up the statistical representation of the Tea Parties as being representative of the population in general


After looking at the Gallup poll that the article is based on I’d say that your statement is fundamentally flawed. The poll presents absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Tea Party members are ‘representative of the population in general’.

Free beer and ice-cream anyone?



Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
142 posted 2010-07-16 04:52 PM


.

Where's the site for that poll?

.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
143 posted 2010-07-16 05:18 PM


quote:
The Great Society policies may have been well intentioned but have done nothing to empower the black community. Generations of blacks have been made dependent on the government from cradle to grave as a result, practically destroying the family structure and contributing to the current day 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate, and the 50% school drop-out rate. I believe these facts play a significant role in the depressed representation among blacks in the upper echelons of business, moreso than 'racism', in my opinion.

Denise, while I certainly agree that entitlements hurt as much as they help, none of those entitlements have been reserved for blacks. They apply equally to ALL races and, in my opinion, with much the same results for all the races. Being applied equally, they CANNOT account for the clear statistical inequalities.

Why do you think women earn less than men, Denise? Do you deny the existence of sexism as well?

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
144 posted 2010-07-16 05:41 PM


.


As an immigrant to this country
I didn't have to go to Vietnam to find out
that a black American could be just
as bigoted as a white one so killing
all the WASPs wouldn't solve the problem.

I have recently heard the phrase
"under-represented minorities" used
to get around the problem with Asians
who even just relatively off the boat
without decades of affirmative action
seem to be doing pretty well.

As far as sexism, given the same career
path, I would be surprised.

Equality of opportunity does not by itself guarantee equality of result

.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

145 posted 2010-07-16 07:47 PM




     Sorry I won't be around for a few weeks to respond in depth, but I think your comments about the Johnson era programs, Denise, need to be backed up.  I'd like, especially, to see your sources that back the claims you make about Headstart, which is a very widely researched program.  If what you say is true, you should find loads and loads and loads of articles from educational journals to back you up, almost all of them in agreement.

    If what you say isn't true, then you're going to be doing a lot of picking and choosing from second-class and third-class publications and from political rags.

     I can't wait.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
146 posted 2010-07-16 07:57 PM


quote:
Equality of opportunity does not by itself guarantee equality of result

Actually, John, yes it does.

Not for the individual, perhaps, but certainly for large enough population segments. I don't care if you're talking about 10 percent of the population being left-handed, 50 percent being female, 12 percent being homosexual, 11 percent being black, or 7.8 percent being diabetic. In a perfect equal-opportunity world, those statistics will translate to ALL applicable endeavors within the population, with only relatively tiny margins of errors.

Ten percent of all top CEOs should be left-handed. And they probably are.

I can guarantee you, however, that 12 percent aren't homosexual, 11 percent aren't black, and 50 percent aren't women. Trying to blame that disparity on the victims of prejudice is the very definition of racism, sexism, and homophobia. The irony is that most people who are guilty of prejudice don't even know it. They look for justifications and rationalizations to explain away the inequities they clearly don't want to face and apparently don't want to change.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

147 posted 2010-07-17 08:03 AM


The NBP case did meet the standard for a civil case, Bob. The court date was set, the Panthers didn't show up, the DOJ won by default. THEN the DOJ, after winning the case while awaiting the sentencing by the judge, after having been lobbied by the NAACP,dismissed the civil case.

I never made any claims against Headstart, Bob.

How is it flawed Grinch? The claim is that 23% of Tea Party supporters are non-white Anglos. The percentage for the nation is 25% non-white Anglo. That seems pretty respresentative to me. I can't find the link for the Gallup poll provided in the article. Do you have it available?

Yes, Ron, of course there is racism and sexism, and there probably always will be to some extent.

I think the differences in our defintions of what constitutes racism, and the extent to which it still exists, explains our different viewpoints.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

148 posted 2010-07-17 08:42 AM


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When they were ordered to stop prosecution, Adams and the team of DOJ lawyers had already won the case by default because the New Black Panthers declined to defend themselves in court. At that point in the proceedings, the DOJ team was simply waiting for the judge to assign penalties against the New Black Panthers.

Adams claimed that the decision to drop the case was made by Obama political appointees. Dropping a case that was already won was "unprecedented," he said.

Adams alleged that many DOJ employees, both career civil servants and political appointees, have told him that the DOJ "doesn't have the resources" to enforce the voting-rights laws in a "race-neutral" manner by bringing cases against members of minority groups who violate the law. Others have refused to work on either of the two cases against black perpetrators, saying, "I didn’t join the voting-rights division to sue black people."

Adams said one DOJ staffer told his former superior, Christopher Coates, then the chief of the DOJ's Voting Section, "Can you believe we’re being sent down to Mississippi to defend white people?" He reported another staffer told Coates, "the Brown case has gotten us into so much trouble with civil-rights groups."

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

Two more previous DOJ attorneys have come forward to submit affidavits to corroborate Adams' testimony of the DOJ's non-race-neutral prosecutorial policies.

quote:
...the DOJ "doesn't have the resources" to enforce the voting-rights laws in a "race-neutral" manner by bringing cases against members of minority groups who violate the law


One might ask, are there that many?

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
149 posted 2010-07-17 09:36 AM


.


Ron,


How do you explain the universities finding
they had a problem with Asians taking so
many places in their classes they resorted
to qoutas to limit their numbers?  I think
nurture plays a role.

John

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

150 posted 2010-07-17 07:55 PM


Tea Party Patriots Petition to the NAACP:
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/petition/

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
151 posted 2010-07-17 08:15 PM



Why do the Tea Party movement object so vehemently to a resolution asking them to make it clear to everyone that there is no place for bigots or racists in the Tea Party?

It doesn’t seem to be an unreasonable request, or am I missing something?

.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

152 posted 2010-07-17 09:42 PM


It was an accusatory slander, Grinch, that accused them of allowing racists and racist behavior at their gatherings. It was undeserved, false and inflammatory.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
153 posted 2010-07-18 07:42 AM


quote:
t was an accusatory slander, Grinch, that accused them of allowing racists and racist behavior at their gatherings. It was undeserved, false and inflammatory


There hasn’t been one single solitary racist or act of racist behaviour at any Tea Party gathering Denise?

Are you sure?

If you’re right that’s an absolutely incredible achievement even Ron couldn’t claim that feat regarding visitors to this site and PIP doesn’t anywhere near the number of people that attend the Tea Party gatherings. If you’re wrong though would you agree that your accusation of slander is a tad undeserved, false and possibly inflammatory?

I don’t see what the big deal is, there are racists everywhere all the NAACP is asking is that the Tea Party make a statement that they aren't welcome.

Can you explain why the Tea Party organisers don’t simply issue a statement that racists aren’t welcome at Tea party gatherings? Not doing so sends out an implicit message that racists are more than welcome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=GRkmK_5LHrE&feature=related  

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
154 posted 2010-07-18 08:31 AM


That's right, Denise. If you do not state specifically that murderers and rapists are not welcome in your house, you are basically inviting them in. Don't invite me over for dinner, please!
Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
155 posted 2010-07-18 08:49 AM


I don’t want to come either if you don’t say they aren’t welcome when someone asks you.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

156 posted 2010-07-18 10:27 AM


If I put the signs up, Michael, will you come for dinner?      

They've denounced racism before, Grinch, during the unproven allegations of the N word being used on Capitol Hill last March. I think I even shared the statement here by the Tea Party Patriots at that time.

quote:
We believe these two missions are not inconsistent and that the NAACP should be embracing the individual freedom and responsibility promoted by the movement. It is nothing less than "hate speech" for the NAACP to be smearing us as “racists” and “bigots.” We believe, like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in a colorblind, post-racial society. And we believe that when an organization lies and resorts the desperate tactics of racial division and hatred, they should be publicly called on it.

And they've made their position on racism quite clear in the above wording from the petition to the NAACP.

Malik Shabazz (I don't know if he is related to King Samir Shabazz of Philly or not) of the NBP was on Geraldo last night and he was asked about their members calling people crackers and calling for their deaths in the cause of black freedom. He stated that blacks have every justification for everything and anything that they say due to the history of their mistreatment, and that it is impossible for a black person to be a racist. He also said that everything that the Tea Party stands for, 'taking back our country, smaller government, fiscal responsibility, is nothing more than code for suppressing blacks. (?) I guess some people just see racism everywhere, even where it doesn't exist.

In another interview he also theatened to 'meet' Glenn Beck at the Lincoln Memorial on Aug. 28th to answer for his disrespect of holding a 'Restoring Honor to America Rally' at the same site that MLK gave his famous speech. Dr. Alverda King, a niece of MLK will be joining arms with Glenn on those steps that day. She has no reason to believe that her uncle would have not done the same.

This is the group that the DOJ is protecting. I think they need to rethink their position on that, and I think the President needs to intervene and call for them to dial back on their hate rhetoric as well. The  last thing we need is race rioting again in this country after decades of progress in race relations.


Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
157 posted 2010-07-18 11:17 AM


Sorry Denise it was unclear from your answer, are you saying that there hasn’t been one single solitary racist or act of racist behaviour at any Tea Party gathering or are you saying that there have been some?

quote:
And they've made their position on racism quite clear in the above wording from the petition to the NAACP.


You have a strange definition of ‘clear’ Denise, all they had to say was “Sure, we denounce racism and if anyone intends turning up to a Tea Party meeting or rally promoting racism and bigotry we’d like to make it clear that they aren’t welcome”. Instead the Tea Partiers reacted by trying to start a ‘you’re more racist than us’ argument with the NAACP.

.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

158 posted 2010-07-18 11:57 AM


They've denounced racism before, Grinch. Was it too difficult for Ben Jealous to find evidence of that, or too politcally inexpedient? They're denouncing it again now, politiclly motivated though the slanderous charges, with no evidence, against them may be.

It's time for the NAACP to do the same.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

159 posted 2010-07-18 12:29 PM


And now a word from Dr. Alveda King:
http://networkedblogs.com/5W2qM

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

160 posted 2010-07-18 12:32 PM


And from Bishop E. W. Jackson Sr.:
http://www.examiner.com/x-54956-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m7d13-Black-minister-condemns-NAACP-resolution-against-TEA-Party-activists

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
161 posted 2010-07-18 01:27 PM



It’s still a little unclear Denise, are you saying that there hasn’t been one single solitary racist or act of racist behaviour at any Tea Party gathering or are you saying that there have been some?

quote:
They've denounced racism before, Grinch.


Good for them Denise, so why didn’t they simply do so again so that those (like me) who might have missed it the first time were in no doubt whatsoever? Why did they decide instead to start calling the NAACP racist?

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
162 posted 2010-07-18 02:50 PM


It’s still a little unclear Denise, are you saying that there hasn’t been one single solitary racist or act of racist behaviour at any Tea Party gathering or are you saying that there have been some?

Ah, there's the old bear trap, Denise. Just walk around it and keep going...but you know that.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
163 posted 2010-07-18 03:09 PM


quote:
Ah, there's the old bear trap, Denise. Just walk around it and keep going...but you know that.


Is that your advice Mike -  avoid the difficult questions and hope they’ll go away? I think Denise has more class than that.

.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

164 posted 2010-07-18 03:23 PM


It's not a difficult question Grinch. I did answer it. They condemned racism already, no matter where it comes from.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
165 posted 2010-07-18 03:43 PM


quote:
Are you saying that there hasn’t been one single solitary racist or act of racist behaviour at any Tea Party gathering or are you saying that there have been some?


quote:
They condemned racism already, no matter where it comes from.


So there has been racist behaviour at Tea Party gatherings and the Tea Party organisers have condemned it – great, thanks for the answer.

Given the above admission do you still stand by the following claim?

quote:
It was an accusatory slander, Grinch, that accused them of allowing racists and racist behavior at their gatherings. It was undeserved, false and inflammatory.


.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
166 posted 2010-07-18 03:53 PM


snap...snap....and the game goes on. Difficult questions? No. Have you stopped beating your wife questions? Yes.

Denise obviously has a great deal of class. She is showing it now.

Denise was asked why the Tea Partiers hadn't denounced racism. She showed where they had.
She was then asked why they didn't repeat it for those who had not heard it the first time..SNL  material.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
167 posted 2010-07-18 04:17 PM


   In March, members of the Congressional Black Caucus were accosted by Tea Party demonstrators and called racial epithets. Civil rights icon John Lewis was spit on, while Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was called the “N” word

Amazing, isn’t it.  You’d think that if the myth of the racial slurs hurled at black congressmen was the justification to condemn an entire political movement they’d at least get their story straight.

We want to help our friends at the NAACP out so they can repeat the bogus charges consistently in the future:

1.  Rep John Lewis never said he was spat upon

2.  For that matter, Rep. John Lewis never said he heard people calling him the “N-word”, it was Rep. Andre Carson who said he heard it.  (I know, you’ve been TOLD that Rep. John Lewis said he was called the “N-Word” that day, but go ahead, Google it.  You’ll see.  He is not on record personally making the charge.  Curious, isn’t it?)

3.  Rep. Emanuel Cleaver DID claim HE was spat on, but then after he and everyone else in the world reviewed the video and saw that errant spittle from a man screaming “Kill the Bill!” is what hit Rep Cleaver, he walked back the charge.

4.   As it is true Rep. Cleaver also said he heard the “N-word” the day he was walking with Rep. Lewis to the Capitol from the Cannon office building, this claim is completely and utterly false.  You see Rep. Cleaver wasn’t walking with Rep. Lewis that day.  We know this because we have video tape of Rep. Lewis and Rep. Carson walking to the capitol at the precise moment and at the precise place Rep. Carson claims to have heard the “N-word” fifteen times from fifteen people.  Rep. Cleaver is no where to be found.  And the “N-word” is nowhere to be heard.

I hope this helps.  And, in the future, when you’re going to slander an entire group of people with an outrageous and slanderous charge of racism, at least get your lies straight.

http://biggovernment.com/sright/2010/07/15/naacp-even-when-they-make-it-up-they-get-it-wrong/

Can one say a racial action has never been committed at a tea party event? No, not any more than one can say a racial action has never been committed at a church, school or any public gathering. Does that mean the tea party movement condones such actions? Not at all. Denise's comment stands.



Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

168 posted 2010-07-18 04:25 PM


Yes, I do stand behind my statement because it was slanderous in that the Tea Parties have not 'allowed' nor condoned racists or racist expressions, but have rather condemned them, no matter where they come from, which is definitely not the impression that the NAACP had put out there in their resolution calling on them to denounce something as if they hadn't already. If Ben Jealous had done his research he would have seen their condemnation of racism, but then I suppose he wouldn't have been able to take his cheap political shot. Or maybe he did see and decided to sling mud anyway for the publicity.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
169 posted 2010-07-18 04:28 PM


Maybe their time could be better spent condemning the Black Panthers, Denise...
Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
170 posted 2010-07-18 04:28 PM



Mike,

Denise claimed that the NAACP statement that there were racists and racist behaviour at Tea Party gatherings was slanderous, undeserved, false and inflammatory.

I pointed out that her statement was only valid if there hadn’t, in fact, been any racists or racist behaviour at any Tea Party gathering.  If that’s true, which I’m pretty sure it is, asking if there’s been any racist behaviour at any Tea Party gathering seems a pretty reasonable question.

.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

171 posted 2010-07-18 04:29 PM


Thanks for the information, Michael. I hadn' seen that particular article before.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
172 posted 2010-07-18 04:30 PM


Ever heard of Mark Williams Denise? He’s the head of the Tea Party Express who wrote the following ‘Letter to Lincoln’ as a response to the NAACP request for the Tea Party to denounce racism – is it me or does it strike anyone else as an odd response?

quote:

Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the ‘tea party movement’.

The tea party position to “end the bailouts” for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of “reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government.” What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

The racist tea parties also demand that the government “stop the out of control spending.” Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government “stop raising our taxes.” That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom’s Nephew NAACP Head Colored Person



Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

173 posted 2010-07-18 04:31 PM


You left out the word 'allowed' Grinch. The NAACP resolution was designed to make it appear that the Tea Parties allowed or condoned racism and they therefore needed to condemn it. Slander.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

174 posted 2010-07-18 04:41 PM


Mark Williams's letter has been condemned by the National Tea Party Federation and they have expelled him and the Tea Party Express from their association because of it:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6689730n&tag=contentMain%3BcontentBody%C2%A0

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
175 posted 2010-07-18 04:44 PM


I see Denise.

Racist actions took place but the Tea Party didn’t allow them.

Before the Tea Party threw Mark Williams under the bus was he one of the instigators of the racism or one of the people who didn’t allow it?

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
176 posted 2010-07-18 04:57 PM


...and the beat goes on. Hey, Denise, in answer to your question, I would love to come over for dinner! Will there be tea?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

177 posted 2010-07-18 05:13 PM


Tea, coffee, beer, wine, whatever you want!
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

178 posted 2010-07-18 05:15 PM


You'll have to investigate that yourself Grinch, unfortunately, as I have never kept tabs on the Tea Party Express or Mark Williams.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
179 posted 2010-07-18 05:15 PM


Deal!!
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

180 posted 2010-07-18 05:26 PM


That's too cute, Michael! Love it!


Herman says let's put it to bed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi-miawfDNU

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
181 posted 2010-07-18 05:57 PM


I researched him a while back Denise while looking into racists who’d become leading players in the Tea Party movement, I’m surprised you haven’t heard of him or the Tea Party Express, he was a frequent spokesman for the Tea Party movement on MSNBC, CNN and Fox.

He was a principle target of the NAACP request that the Tea Party denounce the racist elements within the Tea Party movement, as the video you linked to attests. The fact that the Tea Party has kicked him out of the movement because of his racist remarks is a little ironic given that he was the chief spokesperson for the Tea Party insisting that there weren’t any racists in the Tea Party!



Methinks they protested too much.
Oddly the Tea party didn’t have an issue with him on the previous occasions he’d resorted to racist remarks. For instance, they didn’t have a problem when he referred to the Cordoba House project as a facility for “"terrorists to worship their monkey god".

Of course there will now be the obligatory claims that he wasn’t a true Tea Partier as the Tea Party movement tries to put as much distance between itself and the racist bigot who was a leading figure in the movement up until today.

Are there racist elements in the Tea Party movement? Well there’s certainly one less than there was yesterday.



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
182 posted 2010-07-18 06:08 PM


Must not be a lot of room left under that bus!

Let's see, we have Reverend Wright, Obama's grandmother and Mark Williams, not to mention Van Jones. That's quite a group!

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
183 posted 2010-07-18 06:31 PM



Were the others racists and bigots too Mike?

.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

184 posted 2010-07-18 07:12 PM


I never said that I never heard of him or the Tea Party Express. I said I didn't keep tabs on them. I may have seen him once or twice on the news but I never kept tabs on him, on what he said or did.

I did receive an email from the Tea Party Patriots last year in that they wanted to make clear that they were not affiliated in any way with the Tea Party Express and do not necessarily support what they do. I think it was in relation to endorsing specific candidates, though, as Tea Party Patriots does not believe in supporting specific candidates but encourages people to check out on their own everyone who is running and go with the candidate that most closely aligns itself with limited government and fiscal responsibility values. I don't remember anything being said about racist statements being involved, so maybe that was prior to such statements being made.

Nevertheless I never followed his activities or comments.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
185 posted 2010-07-18 07:41 PM


quote:
I guess some people just see racism everywhere, even where it doesn't exist.

Sadly, Denise, you're right. Some do. I knew a woman in California who had a dog she rescued from an extremely abusive previous owner. Any time someone picked up something that even looked like a stick, the dog would cower and whimper, expecting to be hit again. A prolonged history of pain can do funny things to both people and dogs.

Still, when "some people" starts becoming "many people," maybe it's time to stop and take a closer look at the allegations?

quote:
Of course there will now be the obligatory claims that he wasn’t a true Tea Partier as the Tea Party movement tries to put as much distance between itself and the racist bigot who was a leading figure in the movement up until today.

Are there racist elements in the Tea Party movement? Well there’s certainly one less than there was yesterday.

And what do  you find unacceptable about that, Grinch? What more would you want?

I think everyone here should denounce left-handed men under six-foot tall who steal from church plates and throw beer cans from car windows. If you don't denounce, you obviously condone.



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
186 posted 2010-07-18 08:04 PM


Not only that, Ron, you need to condemn them daily, in case someone didn't hear you the first time.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
187 posted 2010-07-18 08:35 PM


quote:
And what do  you find unacceptable about that, Grinch? What more would you want?


I’d prefer that they accepted there was a problem sooner and that they had a responsibility to deal with it rather than deny it.

quote:
I think everyone here should denounce left-handed men under six-foot tall who steal from church plates and throw beer cans from car windows. If you don't denounce, you obviously condone.


Thanks for raising the subject Ron, I don’t have a problem denouncing them now that you’ve highlighted the issue. I wouldn’t mention it too loudly though – some folk may try to paint you as a diminutive left-handed beer can thrower and Church pilferer in a bid to deflect attention away from themselves.



Mike,

I’m not sure that mentioning it daily would work, after all Mark Williams didn’t get the message about racism and as a spokesperson for the Tea Party movement he was supposedly the one responsible for promoting it.



Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
188 posted 2010-07-18 08:49 PM


quote:
I’d prefer that they accepted there was a problem sooner and that they had a responsibility to deal with it rather than deny it.

They did deal with it, Grinch.

Sooner might have been better, at least in this case, but sooner might have been precipitous in many other cases. Who's to say?

quote:
Not only that, Ron, you need to condemn them daily, in case someone didn't hear you the first time.

Thanks, Mike. I hope, in the future, when someone berates Obama for not openly and vocally condemning this or that, we can all remember just how silly such demands usually are.



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
189 posted 2010-07-19 07:55 AM


WASHINGTON – The tea party  is not a racist group, says Vice President Joe Biden, though he believes that some of those involved in the movement have expressed racist views.
"Very conservative, very different views on government and a whole lot of things," Biden said during an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "But it is not a racist organization."
President Barack Obama doesn't think so, either, Biden said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_biden_tea_party

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
190 posted 2010-07-19 07:56 AM


Mark Williams, the tea party  leader who wrote a blog post this week calling the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) racist, has been "expelled" from the National Tea Party Federation.
Williams wrote the blog post on Thursday in response to the NAACP's Tuesday declaration accusing the tea party movement of tolerating racist elements in its midst (see The Upshot's rundown on the week of attacks and counterattacks here). It was written as an imaginary letter to President Abraham Lincoln and accused the NAACP of being racist for using the word "colored" in its name. When some reacted to it in outrage, Williams deleted it from his website, declaring it time to "move forward."
The National Tea Party Federation apparently decided to move forward without Williams. Spokesman David Webb said on Face the Nation this morning that Williams and his Tea Party Express had been pushed out because Williams' posting was "clearly offensive."

The tea party movement has been growing in influence in American politics since it began as a series of rallies in 2009. Candidates endorsed by local and national organizations that are a part of the coalition have won surprising victories over establishment Republican Party candidates in states like Kentucky and Nevada.
Part of their challenge, however -- especially in handling broader debates about what they "are" -- is that there isn't a single Tea Party that speaks for all tea party activists. Rather, there are dozens of national and local organizations that loosely coordinate and all emerged in opposition to Wall Street bailouts that occurred under Presidents Bush and Obama and what they perceive as the Obama Administration's efforts to expand the role of government. The question of whether or not it also has racial motivations has dogged it since the beginning. National Tea Party Federation's expulsion of Williams and the Tea Party Express could be the first of many internal disputes to define the national tea party identity.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100718/el_yblog_upshot/tea-party-group-expels-leader-for-clearly-offensive-blog-post

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
191 posted 2010-07-19 02:25 PM


.


“Last year, two Princeton sociologists, Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford, published a book-length study of admissions and affirmative action at eight highly selective colleges and universities. Unsurprisingly, they found that the admissions process seemed to favor black and Hispanic applicants, while whites and Asians needed higher grades and SAT scores to get in. But what was striking, as Russell K. Nieli pointed out last week on the conservative Web site Minding the Campus, was which whites were most disadvantaged by the process: the downscale, the rural and the working-class.  . . .

But cultural biases seem to be at work as well. Nieli highlights one of the study’s more remarkable findings: while most extracurricular activities increase your odds of admission to an elite school, holding a leadership role or winning awards in organizations like high school R.O.T.C., 4-H clubs and Future Farmers of America actually works against your chances. Consciously or unconsciously, the gatekeepers of elite education seem to incline against candidates who seem too stereotypically rural or right-wing or “Red America.”

This provides statistical confirmation for what alumni of highly selective universities already know. The most underrepresented groups on elite campuses often aren’t racial minorities; they’re working-class whites (and white Christians in particular) from conservative states and regions. Inevitably, the same underrepresentation persists in the elite professional ranks these campuses feed into: in law and philanthropy, finance and academia, the media and the arts.

This breeds paranoia, among elite and non-elites alike. Among the white working class, increasingly the most reliable Republican constituency, alienation from the American meritocracy fuels the kind of racially tinged conspiracy theories that Beck and others have exploited — that Barack Obama is a foreign-born Marxist hand-picked by a shadowy liberal cabal, that a Wall Street-Washington axis wants to flood the country with third world immigrants, and so forth.

Among the highly educated and liberal, meanwhile, the lack of contact with rural, working-class America generates all sorts of wild anxieties about what’s being plotted in the heartland. In the Bush years, liberals fretted about a looming evangelical theocracy. In the age of the Tea Parties, they see crypto-Klansmen and budding Timothy McVeighs everywhere they look.

This cultural divide has been widening for years, and bridging it is beyond any institution’s power. But it’s a problem admissions officers at top-tier colleges might want to keep in mind when they’re assembling their freshman classes

If such universities are trying to create an elite as diverse as the nation it inhabits, they should remember that there’s more to diversity than skin color — and that both their school and their country might be better off if they admitted a few more R.O.T.C. cadets, and a few more aspiring farmers.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/opinion/19douthat.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
192 posted 2010-07-19 02:40 PM


.


"there's the old bear trap"

No, it's the same guilt thing,
(with a redefinition of original sin).
Religions have thrived on it for thousands
of years so with such an example and in
societies thereby pre-disposed it's easy.

I'm lucky.  Not being born in the USA
and with one time time slaves for parents
I got and get a pass.

.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
193 posted 2010-07-19 05:49 PM



Huan,

Have you read Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford’s book - ‘No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal’?

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
194 posted 2010-07-19 11:41 PM


Someone mention racism....??


The "Brown Berets" at the Anaheim All-Star Game. Imagine if a non-Latino protester had gone into a pro-illegal rally crowd and said something half this bad. It would be on the national news for days. No such luck here. Take a good look. You will never see this on the alphabet nets. Brown Berets were modeled after the Black Panthers in the 1960s. Their goal? A "racially pure Aztlan" with all White Europeans and Jews forcibly removed. They are pro-Al Queda and have called Osama Bin Laden the "Muslim Pancho Villa".Hopefully Major League Baseball is watching this to see who it is exactly that wants the All-Star Game moved from Phoenix next year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt3of5KMvCI&feature=player_embedded#!

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
195 posted 2010-07-20 12:48 PM


So will the NAACP condemn Shirley Sherrod now?

Does Shirley Sherrod mean the entire Obama administration is racist?

Good for the goose....

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

196 posted 2010-07-20 08:52 AM


We'll see if they do, Michael. I thought they would have said something by now. Maybe I just missed it.

Alphabet nets....hehehehehe....I like that!

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
197 posted 2010-07-20 10:35 AM


Boy, that didn't take very long. I thought we were going to try to remember how silly such demands are?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
198 posted 2010-07-20 02:30 PM


The exact point I was trying to make, Ron.....
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
199 posted 2010-07-20 05:23 PM


.

“We conservatives did not merely believe, we knew that America had become the least racist country in the world. That is why, among many other indicators, more blacks have emigrated from Africa to America than came here as slaves (New York Times, February 21, 2005). . .

One year and eight months after the president’s election, one can say with certitude that the election of a black has done nothing to change the dominant story (because the Left dominates our stories) about American racism. It is as central to the liberal/left depiction of America now as it has been since the civil-rights era.

But there is one very big difference. The vast majority of non-blacks no longer cower before the charge of racism. You can see it in the anger and ferocity of various tea parties’ responses to the false accusation of the NAACP. Before the election of Barack Obama, an NAACP attack on one’s anti-racist credentials might have been debilitating. No more.

It seems quite possible that the NAACP has now lost whatever moral clout it had among Americans. It is now seen by more and more Americans as what in fact it became some time ago — an abuser of its civil-rights moral cachet.

The charge of racism leveled by liberal organizations, whether black or white, is now regarded as the politically motivated falsehood that it is. It is rightly seen, along with its six siblings — sexism, xenophobia, intolerance, bigotry, homophobia, and Islamophobia — as the Left’s way of avoiding argument by demeaning its opponents. . . .

But there remains a major downside. To the extent that black Americans still believe that America is racist, or even merely that conservatives are racist, they pay a terrible price. Nothing is more debilitating than to regard oneself as a victim when one is not.

For that reason, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People not only fails to advance colored people, it inhibits them. And one day most black Americans will know this.

We hoped that day would be Election Day 2008. Many Americans believed that the fact that a black man was elected president — and the fact that among 300 million people there was virtually no identifiable negative reaction to America’s having a black president — would finally prove that this country is essentially race-blind.

But that apparently did not happen.

Therefore, if the NAACP’s preoccupation with white racism reflects the thinking of most or even many blacks, it means that there is nothing white America can do to undo the ongoing perception of endemic racism in this country — a perception that is now considerably more destructive to blacks than to American society as a whole.

http://article.nationalreview.com/438359/naacp-co nfirms-election-of-a-black-president-made-no-difference/dennis-prager?page=1

.


Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
200 posted 2010-07-20 06:19 PM


quote:
You can see it in the anger and ferocity of various tea parties’ responses


You sure can.

The NAACP said that there were racists within the Tea Party movement and the Tea Party spokesman provided the following response that proved they were right.

quote:
Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the ‘tea party movement’.

The tea party position to “end the bailouts” for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of “reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government.” What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

The racist tea parties also demand that the government “stop the out of control spending.” Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government “stop raising our taxes.” That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom’s Nephew NAACP Head Colored Person


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
201 posted 2010-07-20 06:51 PM


John, Dennis Prager, the writer for the National Review you quoted, couldn't be more wrong. If he'd like to register at pipTalk, I'll be happy to explain to him how the math works and why his thinking is more than a little sloppy.

Racism, as I've already said, isn't an opinion. It's a mathematical fact.



Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

202 posted 2010-07-20 10:41 PM


Grinch, Williams is not the Tea Party spokesman. He was one of the organizers for one out of over 2000 groups nationwide.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
203 posted 2010-07-20 11:55 PM


Good clarification, Denise.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
204 posted 2010-07-21 01:18 PM


He wasn’t a spokesman!



Has anyone told Fox News?



Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
205 posted 2010-07-21 03:39 PM


.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38344940/ns/us_news-life/?GT1=43001


While the NAACP gets a pass?

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
206 posted 2010-07-21 05:24 PM


...and how about them Brown Berets that everyone ignored in #194?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
207 posted 2010-07-21 06:19 PM


Poor Shirley! Another piece of roadkill on the Liberal Superhighway. She was told to resign immediately because she was going to be on Glenn Beck. She was told to pull of the side of the road and resign immediately, which she did. That Glenn beck must really strike fear into this administration, wouldn't you say? Interestingly enough, she wasn't even mentioned on Glenn Beck, not for hours later on Bill O'Reilly. By midnight, the NAACP applauded her termination.

Today, her bosses are falling all over themselves trying to be nice to her, after having reviewed all the facts. Her boss said it was all his decision. For those who believe that, there's plenty of swampland left down here. Anyone see a recurring theme here.....?

"The Cambridge police acted stupidly.." (before reviewing the case)

"You can be harrassed having ice cream with your father..." (without reading the bill)

"Resign, Shirley. You're going to be on Glenn Beck!" (without checking the facts)

Proud of your leaders yet, libs? No wonder we can't get ahead in Afghanistan. Glenn Beck scares them!!

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

208 posted 2010-07-22 10:13 PM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55aujTwuJY8&feature=player_embedded
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

209 posted 2010-07-24 09:54 AM


quote:
The accusation about Tea Party racism is ridiculous.  But even if you don’t think it’s ridiculous, is this the discussion we need to be having when national unemployment hovers at ten percent, and when black unemployment is closer to 15%, double that of whites?

Now, of course, we should be talking about racism if this is what is driving black unemployment.  But is it?

I don’t think so.  Nor do most blacks.

In January of this year, well into our recession, and well into the emergence of the Tea Party movement, the Pew Research Center surveyed black attitudes.

In answer to the question, “When blacks don’t make progress, who or what is to blame?”, 52% of blacks responded that “blacks” themselves are “mostly responsible”, and 34% said “racism.”  This is the reverse of how blacks responded to this question just 15 years ago, when 56% said that racism was the impediment to black progress.

In the same survey, blacks responded almost identically as whites to the question of whether success in life is “determined by forces beyond one’s control” or whether “everyone has the power to succeed.”

Seventy seven percent of blacks and 82% of whites said that “everyone has the power to succeed” and 16% of blacks and 12% whites said success is “determined by forces beyond one’s control.”

And when blacks were asked in this same survey about the main problems facing black families, the response was overwhelmingly exactly the same as the general result of the Gallup poll of last week.  Jobs.

So, Americans of all colors today generally feel responsible for their own lives and the main concern of most is the sick state of our economy.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1459/year-after-obama-election-black-public-opinion



http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=182877

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

210 posted 2010-07-24 10:00 AM


Ron, please forgive me for not reading the all of this thread.

You did indeed intrigue me though, with the statement that racism is a mathematical fact.

Since no one else seems willing, I'll bite.

There is a formula for hatred? <--confused

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
211 posted 2010-07-24 03:55 PM


I can't speak for Ron or presume to know exactly what he meant but I took it to mean that there will always be percentages, about racism or anything else. A certain percentage of people will be racist and a certain percentage won't. The same goes for religious, non-religious, left-handed, right-handed, blonde, brunette, etc etc. it's all in the numbers.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

212 posted 2010-07-24 04:27 PM


http://rjmoeller.com/2010/07/the-problems-and-pitfalls-of-cradle-to-grave/
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
213 posted 2010-07-24 08:20 PM


Not quite, Mike, although my point certainly does entail percentages. And statistics.

If you take 1,000 people and determine what percentage of them are left-handed, you're going to come up with a number. Let's call that Group A. If you then take 1,000 very different people, Group B, and again determine how many of them are left-handed, you're going to come up with another number. Those numbers might not be exactly the same, but they should be darn close. That's because in any random sample of the population, the probability of an individual being left-handed isn't going to change. Increase your sample rate from 1,000 people to 10 million and the difference between Group A and Group B will quickly approach zero. That's the power and the near infallibility of statistics.

Group A and Group B are converging because they are both part of a larger group, the group comprising every human being in this country. Let's call it Group America. In any random group that is a subset of Group America, assuming sufficient size, the number of left-handed people is going to remain essentially unchanged.

The math is going to work the same for any human trait. You can measure left-handed people, blonde people, color-blind people, gender, homosexuality -- or race.

Let's say you wanted to measure a particular body type. After studying Group America, you determined that 32 percent of that population was a natural endomorph. If you examined a subset of Group America, let's say Group Teachers, you should find that 32 percent of that subset population was also natural endomorphs. Right?

What if the subset you examined was Group Fashion Models? What if you discovered a very different number of endomorphs, say something in the neighborhood of 2 percent?

Any large deviation from the parent group would tell you that something was skewing the results. In this instance, it would probably be safe to hypothesize that someone somewhere apparently believed that endomorphs didn't make very good fashion models?

Let's now examine Group America and determine how many members of the group are black? Let's call that percentage X.

If we look at any subset of sufficient size, be it doctors, CEOs of top companies, millionaires or homeless, we should discover a number very similar to X. Any time we see a large discrepancy we know something is skewing the results.

Do you believe that endomorphs make lousy fashion models? Some people, I'm sure, would disagree with you.

Do you believe that black people make bad CEOs? Some would disagree and many, I think, would call you a racist.

Huan Yi has suggested that nurture, or in other words Culture, plays a role. John is probably right, but that's really just a different way of saying the same thing I've been saying. Culture is just a reflection of the past and present. It's a weight that can either exhaust us or help motivate us.

There are only three reasons why X, the number of blacks in Group America, should be skewed when examining Group CEOs.

1. Black people really do make poor CEOs of top companies. If you believe this you can stop reading right now. Nothing else I say is ever going to matter.

2. Black people are currently discriminated against when pursuing high level positions. This is the point I think some of you are arguing against. Personally, I think you're wrong. But I also think you're right insofar as current discrimination is less a problem today than at any other time in history.

3. Black people have faced discrimination in the past and the past is still affecting their present. You can't put a fifty pound weight on a man's back and expect him to win many races. Just as importantly, you can't remove the fifty pounds ten minutes before the race and pretend the race is suddenly a fair one. Not if the man is exhausted from carrying the weight around all day.

Affirmative Action, in all its various guises, is designed to help counter Point Three.

To some of you, it may not seem fair to everyone else when we give some runners a half-lap head start in a foot race. What you're not seeing, however, is the fifty pound weight that runner was carrying just ten metaphorical minutes ago. The head start is an attempt, albeit feeble, to make the competition fair again.

How do we know he needs a head start? How do we know when he stops being so tired and needs less of a head start? How do we know when the past is no longer affecting the present and he can stand on the starting line like everyone else?

All we need to do is look at the statistics.

When X is the same percent in Group Good College as it is in Group America, we won't need to give anyone a head start. When X is the same in Group CEOs as it is in Group America, we'll know that job discrimination past and present is no longer an issue in this country. When X is the same in Group Millionaire as it is in Group America, we can finally ignore the weight we forced others to bear for so very long. The race will finally be fair again.

Affirmative Action isn't about atoning for the past or otherwise making up for something someone else did a long time ago. It's not about guilt. Affirmative Action, done correctly, is about making the race fair again.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
214 posted 2010-07-26 02:52 PM


.


“Affirmative Action, done correctly, is about making the race fair again.”

And when not done correctly?


“Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future. “

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379630952309408.html


.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
215 posted 2010-07-26 03:55 PM


quote:
After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers.

Not according to the math, John. The numbers prove, beyond any doubt, that those white workers still have an unjustified advantage, especially in the more desired venues.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
216 posted 2010-07-26 04:09 PM


.

And you assume it's because of racism
and nothing else.  

"In 1974, a National Opinion Research Center (NORC) study of white ethnic groups showed that white Baptists nationwide averaged only 10.7 years of education, a level almost identical to blacks' average of 10.6 years, and well below that of most other white groups. A recent NORC Social Survey of white adults born after World War II showed that in the years 1980-2000, only 18.4% of white Baptists and 21.8% of Irish Protestants—the principal ethnic group that settled the South—had obtained college degrees, compared to a national average of 30.1%, a Jewish average of 73.3%, and an average among those of Chinese and Indian descent of 61.9%.

Policy makers ignored such disparities within America's white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts. "
.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
217 posted 2010-07-26 07:52 PM


The poor tend to stay poor, John. That's not a revelation. It's also not greatly relevant.

The question, rather is what percentage of ALL Americans are poor and likely to stay poor. Statistically, it should be exactly the same as the percentage of black Americans.

It's not.

It is perfectly valid to compare the whole (Group America) to a subset of the whole. You cannot, however, take two subsets determined by entirely different criteria and compare them to each other. Comparing all blacks to only poor whites is not mathematically sound. It's a bit like comparing blacks to white prison convicts and then concluding that blacks don't break the law as much as whites.

That's not the way the math works.

More importantly, however, while it's true the poor tend to stay poor, the bigger issue is WHY someone is poor in the first place. If it's geography then it will apply to all races equally.

It doesn't.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

218 posted 2010-07-30 10:53 PM





quote:


"In 1974, a National Opinion Research Center (NORC) study of white ethnic groups showed that white Baptists nationwide averaged only 10.7 years of education, a level almost identical to blacks' average of 10.6 years, and well below that of most other white groups. A recent NORC Social Survey of white adults born after World War II showed that in the years 1980-2000, only 18.4% of white Baptists and 21.8% of Irish Protestants—the principal ethnic group that settled the South—had obtained college degrees, compared to a national average of 30.1%, a Jewish average of 73.3%, and an average among those of Chinese and Indian descent of 61.9%.

Policy makers ignored such disparities within America's white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts. "
.



     Thanks for the reference, above, John; but where might I find it in full?  I don't see any citation.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

219 posted 2010-08-05 04:40 AM


http://www.youtube.com/user/SamSeder#p/u/1/NLLo4gKeBBk
Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Real Race Politics

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary