• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Bristol Palin selling drugs

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Friday, May 29, 2009
Protecting Black Panthers

Imagine if Ku Klux Klan members had stood menacingly in military uniforms, with nightsticks, in front of a polling place. Add to it that they had hurled racial threats and insults at voters who tried to enter.

Now suppose that the government, backed by a nationally televised video of the event, had won a court case against the Klansmen except for the perfunctory filing of a single, simple document - but that an incoming Republican administration had moved to voluntarily dismiss the already-won case.

Surely that would have been front-page news, with a number of firings at the Justice Department.

The flip side of this scenario is occurring right now. The culprits weren't Klansmen; they belonged to the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. One of the defendants, Jerry Jackson, is an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and was a credentialed poll watcher for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party when the violations occurred. Rather conveniently, the Obama administration has asked that the cases against Mr. Jackson, two other defendants and the party be dropped.

The Voting Rights Act is very clear. It prohibits any "attempt to intimidate, threaten or coerce" any voter or those aiding voters.

The explanation for moving to dismiss the case is shocking. According to the Department of Justice: "These same Defendants have made no appearance and have filed no pleadings with the Court. Nor have they otherwise raised any other defenses to this action. Therefore, the United States has the right ... to dismiss voluntarily this action against the Defendants." In other words, because the defendants haven't tried to defend themselves, the Justice Department won't punish them.

By that logic, if a murderer doesn't respond to the charges, he should be let free. That's crazy.

The Obama Justice Department did take one action against one of the four defendants: It forbade him from again "displaying a weapon within 100 feet of any open polling location" in Philadelphia. Given that it already was illegal to display a weapon at a polling place and that he was not even enjoined from carrying a weapon at polling places outside of Philadelphia, it is hard to see what this order accomplished.

We asked the Justice Department if it was unable to provide any explanation for dropping the case. Justice press aide Alejandro Miyar merely said: "That is correct." Multiple times we asked both the department and the White House to comment on charges that the dismissals represented political bias. We received no substantive response.

Hans Von Spakovsky, a legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation and a former commissioner at the Federal Election Commission, tells us, "In my experience, I have never heard of the department refusing to take a default judgment... . If a Republican administration had done this, it would be front-page news and every civil rights group in the country would be screaming about it."

Consider that the behavior of the defendants was so bad that witness Bartle Bull, a former Robert F. Kennedy organizer who did extensive legal work on behalf of black voters in Mississippi, testified it was "the most blatant form of voter discrimination I have encountered in my life."

Eric Eversole, a former litigation attorney with the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, told us: "It is truly unprecedented for the Voting Section to voluntarily dismiss a case of such blatant intimidation. The video speaks for itself."

We couldn't agree more. After the 2000 Presidential election, Democrats complained about voter intimidation in Florida by pointing to a police car that had been two miles away from a polling place. The police didn't do anything to anyone, but their presence was deemed sufficient to vaguely intimidate people en route to the polls. In this case, the New Black Panther Party actually blocked access to a poll.

Unlike the Florida incident, this case involving the New Black Panthers screams out for tough justice. Instead, the Obama administration looks the other way. This all but invites racial violence at future elections.

--------------------------
Yes, the headline is misleading, but this is the only way I figured that the Obamicans would read the post. What do you think about the article, OT? Badaxe, Reader, Kolo, fff, MG?
 

Mike

Well-known member
How dare them compare the KKK to the Black Panthers. :lol:

You'll get nothing here. They cannot defend nor deny the wrong done.

Maybe these Black Panthers were taken out of context? :lol: :lol:
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Friday, May 29, 2009
Protecting Black Panthers

Imagine if Ku Klux Klan members had stood menacingly in military uniforms, with nightsticks, in front of a polling place. Add to it that they had hurled racial threats and insults at voters who tried to enter.

Now suppose that the government, backed by a nationally televised video of the event, had won a court case against the Klansmen except for the perfunctory filing of a single, simple document - but that an incoming Republican administration had moved to voluntarily dismiss the already-won case.

Surely that would have been front-page news, with a number of firings at the Justice Department.

The flip side of this scenario is occurring right now. The culprits weren't Klansmen; they belonged to the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. One of the defendants, Jerry Jackson, is an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and was a credentialed poll watcher for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party when the violations occurred. Rather conveniently, the Obama administration has asked that the cases against Mr. Jackson, two other defendants and the party be dropped.

The Voting Rights Act is very clear. It prohibits any "attempt to intimidate, threaten or coerce" any voter or those aiding voters.

The explanation for moving to dismiss the case is shocking. According to the Department of Justice: "These same Defendants have made no appearance and have filed no pleadings with the Court. Nor have they otherwise raised any other defenses to this action. Therefore, the United States has the right ... to dismiss voluntarily this action against the Defendants." In other words, because the defendants haven't tried to defend themselves, the Justice Department won't punish them.

By that logic, if a murderer doesn't respond to the charges, he should be let free. That's crazy.

The Obama Justice Department did take one action against one of the four defendants: It forbade him from again "displaying a weapon within 100 feet of any open polling location" in Philadelphia. Given that it already was illegal to display a weapon at a polling place and that he was not even enjoined from carrying a weapon at polling places outside of Philadelphia, it is hard to see what this order accomplished.

We asked the Justice Department if it was unable to provide any explanation for dropping the case. Justice press aide Alejandro Miyar merely said: "That is correct." Multiple times we asked both the department and the White House to comment on charges that the dismissals represented political bias. We received no substantive response.

Hans Von Spakovsky, a legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation and a former commissioner at the Federal Election Commission, tells us, "In my experience, I have never heard of the department refusing to take a default judgment... . If a Republican administration had done this, it would be front-page news and every civil rights group in the country would be screaming about it."

Consider that the behavior of the defendants was so bad that witness Bartle Bull, a former Robert F. Kennedy organizer who did extensive legal work on behalf of black voters in Mississippi, testified it was "the most blatant form of voter discrimination I have encountered in my life."

Eric Eversole, a former litigation attorney with the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, told us: "It is truly unprecedented for the Voting Section to voluntarily dismiss a case of such blatant intimidation. The video speaks for itself."

We couldn't agree more. After the 2000 Presidential election, Democrats complained about voter intimidation in Florida by pointing to a police car that had been two miles away from a polling place. The police didn't do anything to anyone, but their presence was deemed sufficient to vaguely intimidate people en route to the polls. In this case, the New Black Panther Party actually blocked access to a poll.

Unlike the Florida incident, this case involving the New Black Panthers screams out for tough justice. Instead, the Obama administration looks the other way. This all but invites racial violence at future elections.

--------------------------
Yes, the headline is misleading, but this is the only way I figured that the Obamicans would read the post. What do you think about the article, OT? Badaxe, Reader, Kolo, fff, MG?
You asked I'll tell you...I think your a turd that only reads what follows his hatred of Obama agenda.....I'm FAR from an Obamican :roll:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
You asked I'll tell you...I think your a turd that only reads what follows his hatred of Obama agenda.....I'm FAR from an Obamican

Now that you got that off your chest----would you care to comment on the article?
 

MsSage

Well-known member
They cant thats why they resort to personal attacks.

Mrs greg I hope you have a few extra bedrooms cuz I have a feeling you might have a few from here camping on your doorstep in the coming year.

I really HOPE I am wrong but even MSM is starting to say things are really bad.
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Larrry said:
You asked I'll tell you...I think your a turd that only reads what follows his hatred of Obama agenda.....I'm FAR from an Obamican

Now that you got that off your chest----would you care to comment on the article?
Ok....I think its pretty fair to compare the Black Panthers with the KKK,they follow the same hate lines. I personally have no use for either organization and think they should meet in a football field together and duke it out.But I'd warn Sandy,Mike and Sages Boyfriend to wear the old sheets cause the sparkly white ones might get blood on them :wink:

BTW...it was Sandy that brought me into this conversation...really for NO REASON....thats WHY hes a turd.....A guess I coulda called him a sasquatch or compare him to King Kong...ya that woulda been better :roll:
 

MsSage

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
Larrry said:
You asked I'll tell you...I think your a turd that only reads what follows his hatred of Obama agenda.....I'm FAR from an Obamican

Now that you got that off your chest----would you care to comment on the article?
Ok....I think its pretty fair to compare the Black Panthers with the KKK,they follow the same hate lines. I personally have no use for either organization and think they should meet in a football field together and duke it out.But I'd warn Sandy,Mike and Sages Boyfriend to wear the old sheets cause the sparkly white ones might get blood on them :wink:

BTW...it was Sandy that brought me into this conversation...really for NO REASON....thats WHY hes a turd.....A guess I coulda called him a sasquatch or compare him to King Kong...ya that woulda been better :roll:
nawww shoer will be the one in the stands in camo with a sniper rifle. No sense in getting his hand dirty. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

You really dont want shoer in this conversation....trust me. If what I said about him upsets you LOL he would have you in tears. PLease leave him out of your personal attacks. I am the one who made the comment not shoer.
OHHH THANKS on calling hima boyfriend LOL kinda makes me feel young :lol: :lol: :lol: hehehehe I gotta boyfriend :p
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
MsSage said:
Mrs.Greg said:
Larrry said:
Now that you got that off your chest----would you care to comment on the article?
Ok....I think its pretty fair to compare the Black Panthers with the KKK,they follow the same hate lines. I personally have no use for either organization and think they should meet in a football field together and duke it out.But I'd warn Sandy,Mike and Sages Boyfriend to wear the old sheets cause the sparkly white ones might get blood on them :wink:

BTW...it was Sandy that brought me into this conversation...really for NO REASON....thats WHY hes a turd.....A guess I coulda called him a sasquatch or compare him to King Kong...ya that woulda been better :roll:
nawww shoer will be the one in the stands in camo with a sniper rifle. No sense in getting his hand dirty. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

You really dont want shoer in this conversation....trust me. If what I said about him upsets you LOL he would have you in tears. PLease leave him out of your personal attacks. I am the one who made the comment not shoer.
OHHH THANKS on calling hima boyfriend LOL kinda makes me feel young :lol: :lol: :lol: hehehehe I gotta boyfriend :p
Well hes not your husband is he?What else was I supposed to call him? Just showing you what assumption does,just cause I don't follow you guys hate agenda I'm a Obamican. Bullcrap. You'd think by now you'd get I don't scare easily Sage.
 

MsSage

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
MsSage said:
Mrs.Greg said:
Ok....I think its pretty fair to compare the Black Panthers with the KKK,they follow the same hate lines. I personally have no use for either organization and think they should meet in a football field together and duke it out.But I'd warn Sandy,Mike and Sages Boyfriend to wear the old sheets cause the sparkly white ones might get blood on them :wink:

BTW...it was Sandy that brought me into this conversation...really for NO REASON....thats WHY hes a turd.....A guess I coulda called him a sasquatch or compare him to King Kong...ya that woulda been better :roll:
nawww shoer will be the one in the stands in camo with a sniper rifle. No sense in getting his hand dirty. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

You really dont want shoer in this conversation....trust me. If what I said about him upsets you LOL he would have you in tears. PLease leave him out of your personal attacks. I am the one who made the comment not shoer.
OHHH THANKS on calling hima boyfriend LOL kinda makes me feel young :lol: :lol: :lol: hehehehe I gotta boyfriend :p
Well hes not your husband is he?What else was I supposed to call him? Just showing you what assumption does,just cause I don't follow you guys hate agenda I'm a Obamican. Bullcrap. You'd think by now you'd get I don't scare easily Sage.
How about S/O? as in significant other? Or fiancee since we are getting married....
Please show me where I said you were an Obamican?

You need to have a little bit of fear when it comes to shoer...if you dont believe me ask gwen, she can tell you some of the ways he takes people down. NO I am not bragging, been working on him for 5 years.

Now back to the topic do you condon this act? Is it right to allow one hate group to intimidate voters from voting? Or should NO HATE groups be allowed to intimidate voters?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Husker...PIZZ OFF!!!!

Sage...you're to old for a 'boyfriend' , and last time he posted here he took a whuppin' from SaddleTramp as I remember, so he best stay under the porch.


And you need to quit bringing other people into your fights. Lilly has NOTHING to do with this thread...and NO we're no scared of your ' boyfriend'...... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


Jealousy is not your color my dear....not a'tall!!!
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Mrs.Greg said:
Larrry said:
Now that you got that off your chest----would you care to comment on the article?
Ok....I think its pretty fair to compare the Black Panthers with the KKK,they follow the same hate lines. I personally have no use for either organization and think they should meet in a football field together and duke it out.But I'd warn Sandy,Mike and Sages Boyfriend to wear the old sheets cause the sparkly white ones might get blood on them :wink:

BTW...it was Sandy that brought me into this conversation...really for NO REASON....thats WHY hes a turd.....A guess I coulda called him a sasquatch or compare him to King Kong...ya that woulda been better :roll:

Or a dried up old prune.


Uber Douche!! :lol: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
Larrry said:
You asked I'll tell you...I think your a turd that only reads what follows his hatred of Obama agenda.....I'm FAR from an Obamican

Now that you got that off your chest----would you care to comment on the article?
Ok....I think its pretty fair to compare the Black Panthers with the KKK,they follow the same hate lines. I personally have no use for either organization and think they should meet in a football field together and duke it out.But I'd warn Sandy,Mike and Sages Boyfriend to wear the old sheets cause the sparkly white ones might get blood on them :wink:

BTW...it was Sandy that brought me into this conversation...really for NO REASON....thats WHY hes a turd.....A guess I coulda called him a sasquatch or compare him to King Kong...ya that woulda been better :roll:

Actually, you're not really in the conversation yet. Maybe you didn't get the gist of the article, but it wasn't a comparison between the KKK and the black panthers, is was about Obama basically pardoning criminals who happen to be "on his side". What do you think about Obama's actions?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I just checked and there were 6 posts from Obamicans - and NONE of them having anything to do with the article. It was just basically another ignore the message but attack the messenger deal - a base play in the liberal's playbook.

Now, would any of our friends from the left care to comment on what those 3 individuals did and how Obama handled them?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
What do you think about the article, OT? Badaxe, Reader, Kolo, fff, MG?


You asked me what I thought about your thread.

I told you.

I have told and told you...if you're gonna cry at the answers....quit asking the questions!!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Sandhusker said:
What do you think about the article, OT? Badaxe, Reader, Kolo, fff, MG?


You asked me what I thought about your thread.

I told you.

I have told and told you...if you're gonna cry at the answers....quit asking the questions!!!

No, I didn't. Here's what I wrote; "What do you think about the article, OT? Badaxe, Reader, Kolo, fff, MG?"

So what do you think about the article? Do you think Obama is doing the right thing?
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
kolanuraven said:
Sandhusker said:
What do you think about the article, OT? Badaxe, Reader, Kolo, fff, MG?


You asked me what I thought about your thread.

I told you.

I have told and told you...if you're gonna cry at the answers....quit asking the questions!!!

No, I didn't. Here's what I wrote; "What do you think about the article, OT? Badaxe, Reader, Kolo, fff, MG?"


Gotta remember she only sees what she wants to read!!!! :wink: :wink:
So what do you think about the article? Do you think Obama is doing the right thing?
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I just checked and there were 6 posts from Obamicans - and NONE of them having anything to do with the article. It was just basically another ignore the message but attack the messenger deal - a base play in the liberal's playbook.

Now, would any of our friends from the left care to comment on what those 3 individuals did and how Obama handled them?
I DID answer.....YOU just DIDN"T like it. I have no use for hate groups at all including your KKK one...Do I think either group should get off....NO,NOWAY NADA,NOPE....the answer is NO,same as my first post,but then it seems to need to be spelled out for you... :wink: Obama needs to rethink that action....DANG was that too liberal of an answer for you Sandy?????



Hoppie...jealous your not part of the cat fight.... :wink:


Sage....I may brag about greg but I most certainly would never brag hes a mean person.....maybe you need to reconsider your engagement :???:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
Sandhusker said:
I just checked and there were 6 posts from Obamicans - and NONE of them having anything to do with the article. It was just basically another ignore the message but attack the messenger deal - a base play in the liberal's playbook.

Now, would any of our friends from the left care to comment on what those 3 individuals did and how Obama handled them?
I DID answer.....YOU just DIDN"T like it. I have no use for hate groups at all including your KKK one...Do I think either group should get off....NO,NOWAY NADA,NOPE....the answer is NO,same as my first post,but then it seems to need to be spelled out for you... :wink: Obama needs to rethink that action....DANG was that too liberal of an answer for you Sandy?????



Hoppie...jealous your not part of the cat fight.... :wink:


Sage....I may brag about greg but I most certainly would never brag hes a mean person.....maybe you need to reconsider your engagement :???:

I'm not in the KKK. I have no use for racist hate groups, either. And I'm glad that you finally mentioned Obama in your answer (after all, he was central to the article) I don't know what took so long, but thank you for finally addressing the jist. I think Obama is out of line, too. See, we agree on something!
 
Top