…from President Obama’s Justice Department, as long as the intimidator intimidates those the President prefers not vote.
On November 4, 2008 two members, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson, of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPP) stationed themselves outside a polling place at 1221 Fairmount St, Philadelphia, PA. (See video) On January 7, 2009 (eleven days before the inauguration of President Obama), the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against these two men, NBPP, and Malik Zulu Shabazz (acting chairman of NBPP) for violating Section 11(b) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act by engaging in and attempting coercion, threats, and intimidation of voters and those aiding voters at the polling place.
The complaint alleges Samir Shabazz “brandished a deadly weapon…pointed the weapon at individuals, menacingly tapped it [on] his other hand, or menacingly tapped it elsewhere.” He and Jackson were also accused of hurling racial threats and racial insults at both black and white voters while the polls were open as well as making “menacing and intimidating gestures, statements, and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters.” Malik Zulu Shabazz and NBPP “managed, directed and endorsed the behavior, actions and statements” of their co-defendants, according to the complaint. In addition Malik Zulu Shabazz was accused of making statements “adopting and endorsing the deployment, behavior, and statements” of Samir Shabazz and Jackson following the election.
After the defendants failed to appear in court or present a defense, the court ordered the DOJ to prepare a motion for default judgment against them. On May 1, 2009, DOJ sought an extension to comply with the order. DOJ stated the extension was necessary to “craft an appropriate and equitable remedy” because it had not “had the benefit of discovery” in the case and did not anticipate “that the Defendants would make no showing whatsoever.” The court granted DOJ’s motion on May 4. The defendants unwillingness to appear or defend themselves had cost them the case. All that remained was for the DOJ to file the necessary motion and the court to grant it.
Instead, on May 15, DOJ filed a proposed default judgment order against Samir Shabazz and dropped its case against the other three defendants. The court then handed down its judgment against Shabazz that prohibits him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of any or to intimidate, threaten or coerce voters or those assisting voters.1 No fines, no admission of guilt, really not even a punitive act of any kind!
Some may be thinking there was no proof, no witnesses willing to testify to the acts described in the complaint. Even if that were so, DOJ had the case in hand after the defendants’ refusal to appear to defend themselves. But there was at least one witness. And a very credible (even to ultra left-wingers) witness at that. Bartle Bull, an attorney who cut his professional teeth on the civil rights movement of the 1960’s, was also working as a poll watcher on election day.
Michelle Malkin has posted Mr. Bull’s sworn affidavit on the case here. In it, Mr. Bull unequivocally states that he observed the two men intimidate and attempt to intimidate voters and poll workers. The following quotes are directly from his sworn statement.
“In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation, and in my efforts in the 1960’s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi through participation with civil rights leaders and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location. Their clear purpose was to intimidate voters with whom they did not agree.”
“…I heard the shorter man make a statement directed towards white poll observers that ‘You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.'”
“I considered their presence to be a racially motivated effort to intimidate poll watchers aiding voters, as well as voters with whom the men did not agree.”
If these were the statements of a Republican, liberals would certainly level charges of dishonesty. But this comes from one of their own–a civil rights attorney who worked on the campaigns of such left-wing icons as Robert F. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. Democrats can’t write this off as a product of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.
So, how did the Obama DOJ deal with such a damning condemnation by one of their own?
They buried it.
That’s correct. Mr. Bull’s affidavit was dated April 7, 2009–almost three months after the President’s inauguration. But the court never saw it. The affidavit was never filed!
According to this Washington Times exclusive, a DOJ spokesman in the supposedly “most transparent administration in history” refused to reveal the source of the pressure that forced career DOJ lawyers to drop the case they’d pursued since January. The Times’ sources for the article insisted on anonymity “because of fear of retribution.”
It appears Obama’s DOJ is not only protecting thugs who intimidate the President’s political enemies, but also creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation within the Department. The same career attorneys whose advice Eric Holder promised he would listen to in his confirmation hearings now fear reprisals if they publicly disagree with their boss.
Obama’s promised change has arrived. After this, we can count on a lot more left-wing security (that’s how Shabazz and Jackson described their role in Philadelphia–security) at polling places on election day. This outrage is an open invitation for the NBPP and any other radical left-wing group to place intimidators at the doors to harass voters and poll-watchers.
During the campaign Obama mentioned his desire for a civilian security force. Perhaps the NBPP will be his recruiting ground.
from the Fox Forum
Obama Declares War on America’s Gun Owners With Supreme Court Pick
By Ken Blackwell
Senior Fellow, American Civil Rights Union/Family Research Council
President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a declaration of war against America’s gun owners and the Second Amendment to our Constitution. If gun owners mobilize and unite, it’s possible (though unlikely) to stop this radical nominee.
According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.
Last year the Supreme Court handed down the landmark decision in D.C. v. Heller, holding that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individual citizens in their private lives. The ruling marked a turning point in gun rights in this country.
In the past year, the biggest question courts now face is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. That may sound crazy, but the reality is that the Bill of Rights only controls the federal government, it doesn’t apply directly to states or cities. Only the parts of the Bill of Rights that are “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the states.
Since the Heller decision, only two federal appeals courts have written on the Second Amendment. That’s six judges out of about 170. Of those six, three said the Second Amendment does apply to the states. And those judges were out of the liberal Ninth Circuit in California, and included a judge appointed by Bill Clinton and another appointed by Jimmy Carter. — Even leftist judges can get this.
But not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She is one of only three federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the Second Amendment does not apply to states. The case was Maloney v. Cuomo, and it came down this past January.
That means if Chicago, or even the state of Illinois or New York, wants to ban you from owning any guns at all, even in your own house, that’s okay with her. According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.
From TCOT Report by Randy Allamon
With a Vice President like Biden, who needs political enemies?
Recall that he flatly stated private industry couldn’t accept government cash and hold soirees in Vegas, but he never prohibited himself from taking such pleasures. Though he managed to quadruple the deficit in less than 100 days, leaving the taxpayer on the hook for $1.8 trillion more than the government will collect in taxes this year, the President’s most pressing pursuit yesterday was passing time at Caesar’s Palace in Vegas to prompt liberal idealogues to part with $2,000,000 to prop up Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) place in the Democratic party. This little party will cost the taxpayer a paltry $265,000.
Now all Presidents pass time protecting their parties by pandering for funds, but at the moment more pressing problems are plaguing the US.
You’ve likely read here that N. Korea tested a long range missile last month and here the same rogue nation tested a nuclear device and here the test was followed by more missile launches, all aggressive acts that defy Obama’s vain attempts to coddle the Communist state into compliance with international demands. Today, the inhospitable neighbor to our two most valuable allies in the region cranked the crisis up a notch (while Obama traverses the US to shore up the coffers of his political allies stateside) by making clear it is abandoning the 1953 armistice agreement that ended the Korean Conflict and threatened a return to a state of war.
South Korea reported an increase in patrols by North Korean fighter jets on the border between the two states and there were reports of naval exercises close to the sites of previous skirmishes with the South Korean Navy.
While I’m sure those responding to the solicitation of funds by Obama still swear by the President’s foreign policy, I hope the majority of Americans will finally awaken and realize how grossly naive such an approach really is.
The North Korean situation is by far the most pressing issue taking place while Obama parades himself around the country as primary panhandler for his party faithful, but other problems persist that could probably benefit from the President’s attention.
It was predicted here days ago, but the President who publicly professed that he doesn’t want to run the auto companies is about to be promoted to CEO of General Motors now that bondholders rejected the company’s offer of pennies on the dollar for the debt owed by the defunct former pillar of American industry. The bankruptcy deal penned by the Obama administration will propel the US government to the position of majority stakeholder in the company, owning approximately 70% of GM shares.
The President, who claims he’s not a Socialist, has plunged us headlong down the path to Socialism and can now proudly proclaim that we have arrived. In a short four months and one week, he has completely abandoned our free-market capitalism to pursue an economic model that seizes private assets and places them under control of government bureaucrats.
One might expect the President to cut short his pursuit to empty the pockets of party patrons, but he presses on. Tonight, he’s in Beverly Hills rubbing elbows with more high-browed Democratic admirers who refuse to face the fact that his policies have placed our country on a perilous path.
Sleep tight America, your President is partying in Beverly Hills.
You remember the President’s new approach to dealing with our enemies. Let’s listen to them, talk to them, embrace them, apologize to them.
He said countries will be more apt to cooperate with the United States on tough issues, even if only on the margins. Resistance based on anti-American conceptions of the past will fall away.
Evidently N. Korea sees things a little differently.
Last month they fired a long range missile in spite of Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s threat of “consequences.” Yesterday, the communist country defied Obama and the international community by detonating a nuclear device. The leader of the free world says this action poses “a grave threat” to the world community. And today the defiant Kim Jong-Il fired off more short-range missiles to dispel Obama’s naive vision of a world in which all nations smoke a peace pipe and sing songs of unity and cooperation.
But what would give the N. Korean tyrant pause? Why would he feel the least bit hesitant about challenging the most powerful nation in the world?
The threat of “consequences” for last month’s missile test proved hollow when they manifested themselves in the form of a Security Council resolution condemning the launch. A mere slap on the wrist. UN spokeswoman Michele Montas claimed the condemnation “sends a unified message of the international community on the recent launch,” but that message really amounts to nothing more than hot air–no more punishing than a mild rebuke.
One would expect far more punitive “consequences” to follow the North’s most recent escalation of the crisis, but that wasn’t to be. Today’s aggression by N. Korea drew a response almost identical to last month’s–another resolution condemning the action and demanding the rogue nation honor the previous Security Council resolutions which call on it to drop its pursuit of nuclear weapons and vehicles to launch them.
Didn’t someone once say stupidity is repeating the same process again and again, but expecting different results, or something along those lines? By that definition, stupidity is regularly exhibited in the “consequences” dealt by the Security Council.
The ineffectiveness of such “consequences” was evidenced again in today’s UN reaction to the latest escalation. The UN Security Council is no more than a dog who’s all bark and no bite. Of course a large vicious dog’s bark can be an effective means of intimidation, but the more this scenario–vacuous cries of outrage not followed with punitive consequences–is repeated, the more the Security Council begins to resemble a toy poodle or a pomeranian than a German shepherd or a doberman.
Yet Obama and his followers remain convinced that his is the path to follow. This would be understandable if there was evidence his “Kumbaya” approach was working in other parts of the world, but it’s not.
Today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was forced to admit the Taliban has the momentum in Afghanistan. Despite Obama’s “surge” of 21,000 additional US troops, the Taliban is gaining ground, controlling more and more territory once considered secure, inflicting heavy casualties on US troops. The administration refuses to consider the possibility that the President’s “mea culpa” foreign policy is making the enemy stronger, but this appears to in fact be the case.
The “Blame America” policies of the current administration embolden our enemies, motivating them to step up their attacks as they sense an impending collapse of our will to maintain our commitment to continue the fight. In Stanley Karnow’s 1990 interview with Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, commander of Communist forces in the Vietnam War, the general emphasized the importance of “political” strategies in winning the war. Though many dispute the internet claims that Giap’s memoirs claimed the North would have surrendered but for the anti-war movement in the US, a quote from Karnow’s article makes clear that it was a factor that provided motivation to continue the fight in the face of overwhelming losses.
“And we wanted to project the war into the homes of America’s families, because we knew that most of them had nothing against us. In short, we sought a decisive victory that would persuade America to renounce the war.”–Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap
From page 6 of “Giap Remembers” by Stanley Karnow.
Can you imagine how much more invigorated the North Vietnamese forces would have been had Johnson or Nixon been repeatedly on the air saying “It’s America’s fault!”? Obama’s habit of spewing apologies for everything America ever did, claiming blame for virtually all that is wrong in the world on his country’s behalf is providing the same motivation for our enemies today.
An old African proverb says, “Only a fool tests the depth of the water with both feet.” Obama has placed all our chips on the table, betting he can halt the hatred in our enemies’ hearts by blaming America for their dilemna. Thus far, the evidence is overwhelming that his approach yields miserable failure at every turn.
But still he persists.
Update 5/26/2009—North Korea Restarts Nuclear Plant
And so it continues.
by Dennis Prager on Townhall.com
In his latest address – on Guantanamo detainees – President Obama said something of extraordinary importance that seems to have been missed by the media:
“I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more…I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation.”
As this President chooses his words carefully, these claims need to be understood.
Note that Mr. Obama did not say what nearly all opponents of water-boarding say – that water-boarding is not an effective method of extracting reliable, life-saving, information. He took no issue with former Vice-President Dick Cheney’s claims that water-boarding or “enhanced interrogation” saved American and other lives. Indeed, he clearly leaves open the possibility, even the likelihood, that this claim is accurate. Rather, what he says is that “methods like water-boarding were not necessary to keep us safe” – not necessary, not ineffective. And why does he believe this? Because they are not “the most effective means of
In other words, the President’s view seems to be that water-boarding the three terrorists did elicit vital, life-saving, information. However, he contends that we could have obtained all that information using means of interrogation that were both non-brutal and more effective.