Obama Justice Is Willfully Blind

Hey boys and girls, Eric Holder and Obama’s Justice Department say it’s okay to dress up in paramilitary attire and stand ten feet in front of the entrance to a polling place, on election day, wielding a police baton. So, next November, get geared up and get out there and intimidate some Democrat voters! Turnabout is fair play, good for the gander and all.

Official: Black Panther case lacks proof

Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez told the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on Friday there was “insufficient evidence” to bring a civil complaint against members of the New Black Panther Party who disrupted a Philadelphia polling place in the 2008 general elections.

Mr. Perez, the only Justice Department official to testify publicly before the commission about the case, said that without sufficient proof that party members or the organization’s leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz, directed or controlled unlawful activities at the poll or made speeches to incite or produce lawless action, the complaint “would have likely failed” in court.

Lacks proof my ass! Insufficient evidence? WTF is this? Does the Justice Department need it transcribed into Braille?

See also:
Perez Testifies At New Black Panther Party Hearing
Civil Rights Commission Grills Perez on Black Panthers Case
Civil Rights commissioner: DoJ was “racist”
EDITORIAL: Black Panthers but no white rights
Cracking the New Black Panther case
It’s Not A Crime, It’s Effective Community Organizing!

How anyone in their right mind can watch that video and then claim, with a straight face, than there’s insufficient evidence of what is obviously blatant, textbook voter intimidation is beyond me.

/it’s beyond farcical, just like the rest of the Obama administration

It’s Not A Crime, It’s Effective Community Organizing!

There’s nothing to see here, move along!



Can we all now wear paramilitary uniforms and stand in front of polling places on election day, brandishing deadly weapons and harassing voters who look likely to vote for the opposing candidate?

Charges Against ‘New Black Panthers’ Dropped by Obama Justice Dept.

Charges brought against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the Bush administration have been dropped by the Obama Justice Department, FOX News has learned.

The charges stemmed from an incident at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008 when three members of the party were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force — one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.

The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he “supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews.”

The Obama administration won the case last month, but moved to dismiss the charges on May 15.

The complaint says the men hurled racial slurs at both blacks and whites.

A poll watcher who provided an affidavit to prosecutors in the case noted that Bartle Bull, who worked as a civil rights lawyer in the south in the 1960’s and is a former campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen.

In his affidavit, obtained by FOX News, Bull wrote “I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters.”

He also said they tried to “interfere with the work of other poll observers … whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically,” noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said “you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”

A spokesman for the Department of Justice told FOX News, “The Justice Department was successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again. Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law. The department is committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote.”

Dept. Of Justice Drops New Black Panthers Case

Sources told The Bulletin that there is internal dissension in the Department of Justice (DOJ) about a voter intimidation case from last year’s presidential election. Obama appointees did not want to proceed with the case, while the career prosecutors did. The incident occurred in Philadelphia and involved the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPPSD).

The DOJ filed a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act against the NBPPSD and three of its members alleging the defendants intimidated Philadelphia voters during the Nov. 4, 2008 general election. The action was filed in January before President George W. Bush left office.

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court in Philadelphia, alleged that on Election Day, Nov. 4, 2008 in Philadelphia, NBPPSD members Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were stationed at the entrance to a polling location at 1221 Fairmount Avenue, wearing the uniform of the organization. It also states Mr. Shabazz repeatedly brandished a “police-style baton weapon.”

The complaint said NBPPSD Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Messrs. Shabazz and Jackson was part of a nationwide effort to deploy NBPPSD members at polling locations on Election Day. The Justice Department sought an injunction to prevent any similar future actions by NBPPSD members at polling locations.

“Intimidation outside of a polling place is contrary to the democratic process,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Grace Chung Becker at the time. “The Department takes allegations of voter intimidation seriously.”

None of the defendants responded to the lawsuit. Instead of immediately filing for a default judgment as is the normal procedure, sources told The Bulletin the DOJ asked for and received an order from the court providing an extension of time to file. Specifically, they asked the court to give them until May 15.

But on May 15, DOJ changed its mind again. Rather than a default judgment, the DOJ filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit for two of the defendants. This included Mr. Jackson, who identified himself to police as a member of the Democratic Committee in the 14th Ward. He also produced credentials to that effect.

DOJ only asked for a default judgment against one defendant, Samir Shabazz, which was granted on May 18. But sources say the proposed order for the default judgment asks for none of the usual conditions the Justice Department would want, such as keeping Mr. Shabazz away from any polling locations for a set number of years into the future.

Hans von Spakovsky is a former career Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. He thinks the inaction by the Justice Department is unprecedented. He told The Bulletin that the dismissal by Justice, with no notice on the Justice Department press site, particularly against an organization listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, is a horrible miscarriage of justice. He said DOJ has failed in its duty to enforce voting laws. He is outraged by the action.

“It is absolutely unprecedented for the Justice Department to dismiss a lawsuit after the defendants failed to answer the suit and are thus in default,” he said.

Mr. von Spakovsky said that the NBPPSD’s lack of response was the legal equivalent of an admission of all the allegations made about the defendants’ organized effort to threaten and intimidate voters.

“And dismissing an individual who was a local Democratic party official who defaulted by not answering the complaint smacks of the worst sort of political partisanship,” he said. “It is completely contrary to all of the promises that Eric Holder made when he was confirmed to be Attorney General.”

So, the career prosecutors wanted to proceed with the voter intimidation case but the Obama DOJ political appointees derailed it. Why doesn’t this even surprise me after watching Obama’s Chicago style machine operate for over two years now? It”s like, hey New Black Panthers, thanks for doing your part to help Obama get elected, just don’t do it again, okay? Hell, a wrist slap would have hurt more than a toothless injunction.

/I guess in ObamaWorld, it was just an excellent example of effective community organizing

Keep Counting Until You Win, It’s The Democrat Way

franken-794120bmp

Court declares Franken winner; Coleman to appeal

After a trial spanning nearly three months, Norm Coleman’s attempt to reverse Al Franken’s lead in the recount of the U.S. Senate election was soundly rejected today by a three-judge panel that dismissed the Republican’s lawsuit.

The judges swept away Coleman’s argument that the election and its aftermath were fraught with systemic errors that made the results invalid.

“The overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that the Nov. 4, 2008, election was conducted fairly, impartially and accurately,” the panel said in its unanimous decision.

In rejecting Coleman’s arguments, the panel said the Republican essentially asked it to ignore Minnesota election requirements and adopt a more lenient standard allowing illegal absentee ballots to be counted.

The panel also rejected Coleman’s comparison of Senate election problems to those in the 2000 presidential race in Florida.

Unlike Florida, Minnesota has statewide standards for absentee voting that are “uniform and explicit and apply in every county and city,” the panel wrote.

See also:
Court: Franken won most votes; Coleman to appeal
Minn. court declares Franken leading vote-getter
Court: Franken defeats Coleman
Democrat wins round in Minnesota U.S. Senate race
MN-Sen: Franken declared the winner
Media Ignore Fact that Minn. Recount Boss Mark Ritchie an ACORN Ally
2006 Endorsements
Court Finds For Franken
Norm Coleman for US Senate

How do you find more than 1000 votes to go from losing by more than 700 votes on election day, six months ago, to winning by more than 300 votes today, after a canvass, recount, and court challenge? Well, you start by “finding” hundreds of ballots, in places like car trunks, days after the election is over. Then, during the canvass, you count hundreds of duplicate ballots in several Franken districts. Next, during the recount, you rely on Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a huge ACORN Democrat to shepherd your campaign over the finish line for the big win. Finally, you depend on the Democrat dominated Minnesota judiciary to put the stamp of approval on your stunning 900 vote, reversal of fortune, come from behind victory, and then add another 100 votes to the margin, just for good measure.

I watched the recount and, living in Minnesota, have been paying close attention to this saga since election day. The scope of the irregularities is mind boggling.

Unlike Florida, Minnesota has statewide standards for absentee voting that are “uniform and explicit and apply in every county and city,” the panel wrote.

Are they joking? Many counties refused to even participate in the absentee recount. There’s no way absentee recount election standards were consistently applied statewide or , for that matter, during the recount of election day ballots. There’s gigantic due process and equal protection issues here that deserve further appeal. This Senate election process and the resulting aftermath is so fundamentally and fatally flawed, the only equitable dispensation of justice is to order a special election.

Anyway, Norm’s next stop is the Minnesota Supreme Court, which will undoubtedly uphold the Panel’s ruling, and then it’s on to the U.S. Supreme Court on federal Constitutional grounds.

Republicans, as well as right minded people everywhere, should financially support Norm’s legal appeals as long as it takes and as far as they go, out of principle and, yes, for tactical partisan purposes. Franken’s victory comes by hook and crook, why should we give up before we at least run out the string of legal options?

/just remember, every day without Al Franken in the U.S. Senate is a markedly better day than the alternative