DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Kramer on July 30, 2010, 09:05:29 PM
-
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/542171/201007301830/Will-Washingtons-Failures-Lead-To-Second-American-Revolution-.aspx (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/542171/201007301830/Will-Washingtons-Failures-Lead-To-Second-American-Revolution-.aspx)
Will Washington's Failures Lead To Second American Revolution?
By ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN AND GARY A ROBBINS
Posted 06:30 PM ET
The Internet is a large-scale version of the "Committees of Correspondence" that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington's failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.
People are asking, "Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?"
Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency.
Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There's no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do.
Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily.
Barack Obama, however, has pulled off the ultimate switcheroo: He's diminishing America from within — so far, successfully.
He may soon bankrupt us and replace our big merit-based capitalist economy with a small government-directed one of his own design.
He is undermining our constitutional traditions: The rule of law and our Anglo-Saxon concepts of private property hang in the balance. Obama may be the most "consequential" president ever.
The Wall Street Journal's steadfast Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote that Barack Obama is "an alien in the White House."
His bullying and offenses against the economy and job creation are so outrageous that CEOs in the Business Roundtable finally mustered the courage to call him "anti-business." Veteran Democrat Sen. Max Baucus blurted out that Obama is engineering the biggest government-forced "redistribution of income" in history.
Fear and uncertainty stalk the land. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke says America's financial future is "unusually uncertain."
A Wall Street "fear gauge" based on predicted market volatility is flashing long-term panic. New data on the federal budget confirm that record-setting deficits in the $1.4 trillion range are now endemic.
Obama is building an imperium of public debt and crushing taxes, contrary to George Washington's wise farewell admonition: "cherish public credit ... use it as sparingly as possible ... avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt ... bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not ... inconvenient and unpleasant ... ."
Opinion polls suggest that in the November mid-term elections, voters will replace the present Democratic majority in Congress with opposition Republicans — but that will not necessarily stop Obama.
A President Obama intent on achieving his transformative goals despite the disagreement of the American people has powerful weapons within reach. In one hand, he will have a veto pen to stop a new Republican Congress from repealing ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank takeover of banks.
In the other, he will have a fistful of executive orders, regulations and Obama-made fiats that have the force of law.
Under ObamaCare, he can issue new rules and regulations so insidiously powerful in their effect that higher-priced, lower-quality and rationed health care will quickly become ingrained, leaving a permanent stain.
Under Dodd-Frank, he and his agents will control all credit and financial transactions, rewarding friends and punishing opponents, discriminating on the basis of race, gender and political affiliation. Credit and liquidity may be choked by bureaucracy and politics — and the economy will suffer.
He and the EPA may try to impose by "regulatory" fiats many parts of the cap-and-trade and other climate legislation that failed in the Congress.
And by executive orders and the in terrorem effect of an industrywide "boot on the neck" policy, he can continue to diminish energy production in the United States.
By the trick of letting current-law tax rates "expire," he can impose a $3.5 trillion 10-year tax increase that damages job-creating capital investment in an economy struggling to recover. And by failing to enforce the law and leaving America's borders open, he can continue to repopulate America with unfortunate illegals whose skill and education levels are low and whose political attitudes are often not congenial to American-style democracy.
A wounded rampaging president can do much damage — and, like Caesar, the evil he does will live long after he leaves office, whenever that may be.
The overgrown, un-pruned power of the presidency to reward, punish and intimidate may now be so overwhelming that his re-election in 2012 is already assured — Chicago-style.
• Christian, an attorney, was a deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Ford administration.
• Robbins, an economist, served at the Treasury Department in the Reagan administration.
-
No, there will not be a Second American Revolution. Actually, I think Nixon claimed that his economic reforms in 1968 or 69 were a "Second American Revolution".
The government could be changed by an election, and barely conceivably by a rightwing coup, but an overthrow by NRA members with their puny firearms will never happen.
-
Will Washington's Failures Lead To Second American Revolution?
Uh yes....no doubt...eventually.
I predict a "Balkanization".
Hopefully it wont have to be overly violent.
And once it's done it will be funny to watch the non-producers watch the producers thrive bigtime after being freed from the leeches!
"Balkanization is a pejorative geopolitical term originally used to describe the process of fragmentation or division
of a region or state into smaller regions or states that are often hostile or non-cooperative with each other".
-
November is key
-
Are we all that frustrated with waiting our turn?
-
the last time we had our turn was with Reagan.
-
Obama was a big disappointment to a lot of people and the aspirations for real change which propelled him to a decisive election victory have all evaporated by now. Also evaporated by now is George W. Bush's dismal record of lies, wars, torture and financial collapse. Obama won't have the Bush record to run against any more and he won't have the support of those Americans who, like me, once believed in him.
The "failures" of the Obama administration are mostly in the eyes of the beholder. To those who think that half a loaf is better than none, his health-care reform was a victory. To those who believe in active governmental management of the economy, bail-outs, stimulus spending and getting a grip on General Motors were all victories. Failure or not, the administration was a huge disappointment to Obama's more left-of-centre supporters.
In the end, without the support of his most enthusiastic former supporters, Obama will lose in 2012. Hopefully some moderate Republican will emerge who is able to put the conservative wing of the GOP back in its cage, but moderate or Palinesque, the GOP gets back the White House next time around, no Second American Revolution necessary. The idea was ludicrous.
-
"Palinesque"...."Palinesque"....
Nicely coined word ,I like it!
-
Obama was a big disappointment to a lot of people and the aspirations for real change which propelled him to a decisive election victory have all evaporated by now. Also evaporated by now is George W. Bush's dismal record of lies, wars, torture and financial collapse. Obama won't have the Bush record to run against any more and he won't have the support of those Americans who, like me, once believed in him.
The "failures" of the Obama administration are mostly in the eyes of the beholder. To those who think that half a loaf is better than none, his health-care reform was a victory. To those who believe in active governmental management of the economy, bail-outs, stimulus spending and getting a grip on General Motors were all victories. Failure or not, the administration was a huge disappointment to Obama's more left-of-centre supporters.
In the end, without the support of his most enthusiastic former supporters, Obama will lose in 2012. Hopefully some moderate Republican will emerge who is able to put the conservative wing of the GOP back in its cage, but moderate or Palinesque, the GOP gets back the White House next time around, no Second American Revolution necessary. The idea was ludicrous.
But Barry likes the parties, free golf, flying around in the big jet, entertaining sports figures and putting his feet up on the desk in the Oval Office ---- so he won't leave without a fight.
Gee that description sounds like that of a 16 year old boy... Barry the boy hasn't grown up, hasn't grown into the president many of our past leaders were capable of doing. Yes indeed our man-child president is a real disappointment.
-
Not sooooooo fast Michael Teeeeeeeeee!
I still predict Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States.
-
Not sooooooo fast Michael Teeeeeeeeee!
I still predict Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States.
depends on november,
big repub wins could bode
well for hillary in 2012.
bur still I say nope the
country will be way too
tired of dems by then...
-
<<Not sooooooo fast Michael Teeeeeeeeee!
<<I still predict Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States.>>
For that to happen, she'd have to wrest the Democratic nomination from Obama's hands. Only American history buffs could tell when a sitting first-term President didn't get his party's nod to run for a second term when willing to run. LBJ doesn't count because he withdrew himself from the race. It might be tough for Hillary to win her own party's nomination unless Obama turns out to be not merely disappointing but a Bush-level disaster for the nation.
Assuming that Hillary could beat out Obama for the nomination (a big assumption) then she might have a decent shot at the White House, particularly against a twit like Palin. She'd have the advantage of her current high-profile experience and her obvious intelligence and competence would make her tough to beat, even against moderate GOP candidates. (Against Palin, I believe it would be a slaughter. Her best campaign ally would be Palin herself, every time she opened her mouth.)
Actually, the more I think about this, the better Hillary's chances look. Obama doesn't have the deep-rooted Party connections that the Clintons and their supporters do. His win over Hillary was primarily due to his "outsider" magnetism and the (now exploded) promise of hope and change. With that gone, Hillary has a good shot at replacing Obama as candidate and then a good shot at an election win as well. CU4 may well be right.
-
I do not see Hillary running until 2016. I am sure that we will not have two women running an major candidates in the same election. If the Democrats run Clinton, then the Republicans will want to get the woman-hater vote. There are a lot of women as well as many, many men who do not thing a woman can lead this country. After all, women are so namby-pamby on war, which has become a rite of passage.
We will nor see two non-white candidates, either. So Jindal will not be allowed to face Obama. It is barely conceivable that Clinton and Jindal could face off.
I find CU4's division of people into moochers and upright citizens laughable. There are different kinds of moochers: are the Haitians with foodstamps costing us more than the companies that are building a new carrier group that the Navy does not even want comparable? The contractors don't cut in lines and work in pairs, with one in line checking out and another bringing ever more stuff to the register while I wait patiently to check out. I always get behind the people with the fewest number of items. This time I was snookered. Next time I will have to check for pairs of Haitians.
The rabid hatred of the ratbag right is great, but not shared by most Americans. Obama has done more than the GOP wanted him to do, and they are furious, not about his failures, but his successes. He is still a superior choice over Madman McCain and Celebrity Palin.
-
I do not see Hillary running until 2016. I am sure that we will not have two women running an major candidates in the same election. If the Democrats run Clinton, then the Republicans will want to get the woman-hater vote. There are a lot of women as well as many, many men who do not thing a woman can lead this country. After all, women are so namby-pamby on war, which has become a rite of passage.
We will nor see two non-white candidates, either. So Jindal will not be allowed to face Obama. It is barely conceivable that Clinton and Jindal could face off.
I find CU4's division of people into moochers and upright citizens laughable. There are different kinds of moochers: are the Haitians with foodstamps costing us more than the companies that are building a new carrier group that the Navy does not even want comparable? The contractors don't cut in lines and work in pairs, with one in line checking out and another bringing ever more stuff to the register while I wait patiently to check out. I always get behind the people with the fewest number of items. This time I was snookered. Next time I will have to check for pairs of Haitians.
The rabid hatred of the ratbag right is great, but not shared by most Americans. Obama has done more than the GOP wanted him to do, and they are furious, not about his failures, but his successes. He is still a superior choice over Madman McCain and Celebrity Palin.
Most of that was a diatribe of utter nonsense. I must be further in the evolution process than you for I think there is no problem with Palin and Hillary against each other or Jindal and Obama. What is this woman-hater vote? For you to even think that up makes you suspect that you are part of that hate group. Honestly what kind of asshole even thinks shit like this up?
-
There are many people in this country who will not vote for a woman. Everyone knows this. I am not one of them, but not to recognize reality is a mistake. There will not be two women as Republican and Democrat facing none another in the near future. This rarely happens in other countries as well. Most women leaders are not elected as such by voters, but by a parliament in a parliamental system.
Enjoy living in your fictional world, don't get mad at me for pointing out that it is fictional.
-
Pennsylvania Democratic Governor Ed Rendell predicted on Tuesday
that if the president escalates America's military involvement in
Afghanistan he could very well face a primary challenger in 2012.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/27/rendell-obama-could-face_n_661172.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/27/rendell-obama-could-face_n_661172.html)
-
Pennsylvania Democratic Governor Ed Rendell predicted on Tuesday
that if the president escalates America's military involvement in
Afghanistan he could very well face a primary challenger in 2012.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/27/rendell-obama-could-face_n_661172.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/27/rendell-obama-could-face_n_661172.html)
Afghanistan is Obama's war.
-
some of my sources are saying Afghanistan is "lost"
Obama is the kind that gives up easy when things get tough
so I expect he will find a way to "cut & run"
pretending there are "nice" Taliban
but history will show that the wussie lost Afghanistan
he will pay dearly for this at election time
unless he attacks Iran
-
some of my sources are saying Afghanistan is "lost"
Obama is the kind that gives up easy when things get tough
so I expect he will find a way to "cut & run"
pretending there are "nice" Taliban
but history will show that the wussie lost Afghanistan
he will pay dearly for this at election time
unless he attacks Iran
of course.
Obama has damaged this nation almost beyond repair. Sure he gets credit for it but he's happy to take credit for ruining this nation. Hells bells what better way to send a couple hundred million crackers up shit creek than to ruin the USA. But in the bigger picture, look what will happen to Europe when the US goes down the tubes. His presidency is centered around racial division.
-
if Obama was to get re-elected and continues down the path of forcing socialism on the American people the nation could indeed disolve into some type of Balkanization civil war.....especially if the calculated non-sense of allowing our country to be over-run by non-english speaking poor uneducated people that do not share our traditional values. i dont predict the war will start that soon but it could.
http://www.floppingaces.net/wp-content/mexprotest2.JPG (http://www.floppingaces.net/wp-content/mexprotest2.JPG)
-
<<Obama has damaged this nation almost beyond repair. >>
Bullshit. He inherited a mess.
<<Sure he gets credit for it but he's happy to take credit for ruining this nation. >>
When did he take credit for ruining the nation? How'd he ruin it anyway?
<<Hells bells what better way to send a couple hundred million crackers up shit creek than to ruin the USA.>>
Craziest fucking thing you've said in this thread. There probably aren't even 200 million crackers in the whole fucking country. And no evidence that Obama wants to send them up shit's creek. This is nothing but a nutso fantasy in Kramer's mind.
<< But in the bigger picture, look what will happen to Europe when the US goes down the tubes. >>
Nothing will happen to Europe when the US goes down the tubes. They'll probably all breathe a great sigh of relief that the greatest threat to world peace since Nazi Germany has finally disappeared into a well-deserved obscurity.
<<His presidency is centered around racial division. >>
I'd say that it's the OPPOSITION to his presidency that is centred around racial division.
-
<<Obama has damaged this nation almost beyond repair. >>
Bullshit. He inherited a mess.
The proper analogy is he inheritied a laceration, and Obama tried curing it by spreading feces over an open wound. The resulting systemic infection is all his, and squat to do with inheritence. Cu4 is right, in that we are nearing the tipping point at which damage control largely becomes implausible
-
These are silly fantasies, unrelated to any reality deeper than Limbaugh's stupid talkshows.
-
These are silly fantasies, unrelated to any reality deeper than Limbaugh's stupid talkshows.
You come off like a 12 year old. Did you know that?
-
These are silly fantasies, unrelated to any reality deeper than Limbaugh's stupid talkshows.
As deep as that?
Wow
-
<<Obama has damaged this nation almost beyond repair. >>
Bullshit. He inherited a mess.
<<Sure he gets credit for it but he's happy to take credit for ruining this nation. >>
When did he take credit for ruining the nation? How'd he ruin it anyway?
<<Hells bells what better way to send a couple hundred million crackers up shit creek than to ruin the USA.>>
Craziest fucking thing you've said in this thread. There probably aren't even 200 million crackers in the whole fucking country. And no evidence that Obama wants to send them up shit's creek. This is nothing but a nutso fantasy in Kramer's mind.
<< But in the bigger picture, look what will happen to Europe when the US goes down the tubes. >>
Nothing will happen to Europe when the US goes down the tubes. They'll probably all breathe a great sigh of relief that the greatest threat to world peace since Nazi Germany has finally disappeared into a well-deserved obscurity.
<<His presidency is centered around racial division. >>
I'd say that it's the OPPOSITION to his presidency that is centred around racial division.
Well Obama let Malik Shabazz off the hook for voter intimidation against white voters so why wouldn't I think Obama doesn't agree with Shabaz based on this hate speech?
http://politisite.com/2010/07/07/video-new-black-panther-party-leader-i-hate-white-people-you-want-freedom-youre-going-to-have-to-kill-some-crackers/ (http://politisite.com/2010/07/07/video-new-black-panther-party-leader-i-hate-white-people-you-want-freedom-youre-going-to-have-to-kill-some-crackers/)
-
I followed your link but I can't make head or tail of it. Some fucking lunatic is calling for the killing of cracker babies, some guy (the same lunatic or someone else???) is charged with voter intimidation or maybe two guys are charged. I couldn't see the connection between the guy calling for the killing of cracker babies with the voter intimidation guys - - was he physically the same person as one of the two guys, and even if he was, it seemed to me that the "kill cracker babies" remark was not made near a polling booth so it's hard to see how this is voter intimidation. And in any event the second guy was NOT calling for the killing of cracker babies.
Sounds like the usual suspects (right-wing racist nut cases) trying to whip up hysteria through guilt by association in their usual muddled way. Probably there was no case for voter intimidation or the whole case fell apart and Holder backed off, while all the right-wing fruitcakes are busy trying to link the accused to the "kill cracker babies" guy or link a speech which had no possible connection to voter intimidation to the actual charges.
And then somehow prove that (through the innuendo of the non-existent "links") to prove that Obama was protecting the "kill cracker babies" guy.
-
Either voter intimidation is acceptable or it isn't.
Does it matter who does the intimidating and who is intimidated for it to be prosecutable under the voter's rights act?
-
These are silly fantasies, unrelated to any reality deeper than Limbaugh's stupid talkshows.
And that has what to do with anything??
-
I followed your link but I can't make head or tail of it. Some fucking lunatic is calling for the killing of cracker babies, some guy (the same lunatic or someone else???) is charged with voter intimidation or maybe two guys are charged. I couldn't see the connection between the guy calling for the killing of cracker babies with the voter intimidation guys - - was he physically the same person as one of the two guys, and even if he was, it seemed to me that the "kill cracker babies" remark was not made near a polling booth so it's hard to see how this is voter intimidation. And in any event the second guy was NOT calling for the killing of cracker babies.
Sounds like the usual suspects (right-wing racist nut cases) trying to whip up hysteria through guilt by association in their usual muddled way. Probably there was no case for voter intimidation or the whole case fell apart and Holder backed off, while all the right-wing fruitcakes are busy trying to link the accused to the "kill cracker babies" guy or link a speech which had no possible connection to voter intimidation to the actual charges.
And then somehow prove that (through the innuendo of the non-existent "links") to prove that Obama was protecting the "kill cracker babies" guy.
Yes that is the same guy who was waving a club at voters.
-
"Yes that is the same guy who was waving a club at voters."
And Obama dumped the prosecution procedures against him for voter intimidation. Now how does Obama not agree with this guy and his thugs?
-
Well, waving a club at voters certainly looks like voter intimidation, but I hope you realize that the "Kill cracker babies" is a separate incident not related to the alleged voter intimidation in any way. In other words, the prosecution of the voter intimidation charges would have to stand on its own two feet independent of what this guy might think about killing cracker babies.
I don't know why the prosecution gave up, I haven't heard Holder's side of it.
-
Obama was not elected because of two clowns with clubs in one out of tens of thousands of precincts. There is no evidence that even ONE vote was influenced.
This is just another ratbag rightwing talkshow harangue.
-
Obama was not elected because of two clowns with clubs in one out of tens of thousands of precincts. There is no evidence that even ONE vote was influenced.
I don't recall anyone saying the incident changed the outcome of the election.
If voter intimidation is decriminalized now, so be it.
-
I was referring to Kramer's spastic reaction, not yours.
It is stupid to assume that Obama approved oft, or was even aware of this until after the election.
For there to be intimidation of voters, doesn't at least one have to complain?
-
"Obama was not elected because of two clowns with clubs in one out of tens of thousands of precincts."
To come to that silly conclusion means it's likely as a child you rode the special bus to school wearing the cute helmet. Who in the hell implied that moronic notion in the first place? -- Oh it as you!!!!!!!
-
Well, waving a club at voters certainly looks like voter intimidation, but I hope you realize that the "Kill cracker babies" is a separate incident not related to the alleged voter intimidation in any way. In other words, the prosecution of the voter intimidation charges would have to stand on its own two feet independent of what this guy might think about killing cracker babies. I don't know why the prosecution gave up, I haven't heard Holder's side of it.
Holder's "side of it", included a judgement already made, by way of the defendents never providing any defense, in the premilinary. It was quite literally, a formality for Holder and company to complete what had already legally been judged
Once again, is the arguement here that if 3 KKK folks were standing in front of some voting precinct, with clubs, yelling racial slurs, this would NOT have been voter intimidation??
Is that the position Tee & Xo are staking?? Seriously. They'd be stating, "Well, we really don't know what John Ashcroft had or didn't have. We really don't know his side of it. I'm sure it was perfectly legitimate and reasonable, not to have prosecuted KKK members, in front of a polling place, reciting racial slurs, while holding clubs" ??? Really??
-
I'll say this (having said it before), one thing that can be accurately deduced, is that the lack of prosecuting such a clear case of voter intimidation by this administration gives a green light light for far more efforts to intimidate voters. Just so long as your a minority attempting to intimidate white voters. Then you largely will have a free pass.
And when the dust settles, and any "investigation" is performed, the election will have come and gone, and Dems will hope they still have some majority somewhere, with the help of efforts like those of the New Black Panthers
-
I'll say this (having said it before), one thing that can be accurately deduced, is that the lack of prosecuting such a clear case of voter intimidation by this administration gives a green light light for mar more efforts to intimidate voters. Just so long as your a minority attempting to intimidate white voters. Then you largely will have a free pass.
And when the dust settles, and any "investigation" is performed, the election will have come and gone, and Dems will hope they still have some majority somewhere, with the help of efforts like those of the New Black Panthers
Exactly --- it's not the 1 case, it's the 1 times 1000 cases of voter intimidation that will steal elections. Go ahead intimidate white voters it's OK with Obama and the Democrat Party. Then under the theory of division you have white people start doing it and what do you have? Race Wars and of course that is what Obama & Company want.
-
This video relates to this case & the disgraceful Obama Justice Department:
Eric Holder Favors Black Panthers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4TpDnmkMV0#)
-
Obama was not elected because of two clowns with clubs in one out of tens of thousands of precincts. There is no evidence that even ONE vote was influenced.
This is just another ratbag rightwing talkshow harangue.
What is the standard in Florida?
I recall in the 2000 elections there were allegations of voter intimidation that did not have nearly this much evidence that they were actual. Were these alligations unimportant?
-
In fact, there was nary any evidence of such in 2000, but the cries of voter intimidation and "disenfranchisement" from the left were deafening. Here's a clear cut case, as (pardon the pun) black & white as you can get, and both Tee & Xo are largely brushing it off, pleading ignorance.....we really don't know what Holder has or doesn't have. (which is truthful) BUT, to not even prosecute a case that had already been legally judged in the prilinary phase?? Is there ANY doubt such a prosecution would not have come forth, if the rolls were reversed, and it was 3 Klansman with clubs in front of a voting precinct?
-
Obama was not elected because of two clowns with clubs in one out of tens of thousands of precincts. There is no evidence that even ONE vote was influenced.
This is just another ratbag rightwing talkshow harangue.
What is the standard in Florida?
I recall in the 2000 elections there were allegations of voter intimidation that did not have nearly this much evidence that they were actual. Were these alligations unimportant?
Only the ones against Democrat voters count. No doubt if you really examine the New Black Panther voter intimidation case it involved white Republicans not Democrats.
-
I'm not a big fan of Obama any more and I'm totally pissed that he refuses to press torture charges against Bush admin officials including Cheney, under the absurd "reasoning" that to bring such charges would be "looking backward." Fuck him and fuck his administration.
However, the New Black Panther Party flap is at this point nothing more than a "he-says-she-says" slimefest, with one ex-DOJ lawyer, now a conservative blogger, claiming the case was virtually a slam-dunk and Holder's officials claiming the evidence was weak. There IS an injunction now standing against one of the accused, so it's wrong to say that the Obama administration has taken no action. However as far as the other accused are concerned, here is as much as I could figure out.
from Wikipedia article on Holder:
<<Holder's Department of Justice ended a civil suit originally brought by the Bush administration against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation due to an apparent lack of evidence. This has caused controversy in some quarters because some former members of the department, including J. Christian Adams, have accused Holder and the Justice Department of dropping the case due to racial prejudice.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder)
from Fox News:
<<"At a minimum, without sufficient proof that New Black Panther Party or Malik Zulu Shabazz directed or controlled unlawful activities at the polls, or made speeches directed to immediately inciting or producing lawless action on Election Day, any attempt to bring suit against those parties based merely upon their alleged 'approval' or 'endorsement' of Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jackson’s activities would have likely failed," he [Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez ] told the commission.>>
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/30/justice-dept-lawyer-accuses-holder-dropping-new-black-panther-case-political/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/30/justice-dept-lawyer-accuses-holder-dropping-new-black-panther-case-political/)
I do note that for all of Adams' accusations against the DOJ, all of them seemed to be based on broad, sweeping generalizations such as an "atmosphere" or a "hostility" to something, and although he claims the case would have been a slam-dunk, he makes no specific allegations of specific evidence available to the DOJ that would have cinched the case. Holder's people say there's no evidence of specific directions given or of direct incitement, and these statements remain unrefuted by Adams, who as one of the attorneys in charge of the case would certainly be in a position to contradict the official DOJ line with specifics.
I think it's BS. The usual right-wing bullshit smear with no back-up, as in the Sherrod case just last week. They never let up, but they're all fulla shit.
-
Seems like a case of he said <>she has photographic evidence.
-
If I'm not mistaken, the photographic evidence may show about as much as the photographic evidence of the armed man at the Tea Party with a loaded AK-47 - - that some guy showed up at a polling station with a club, which in the U.S. is pathetically under-armed, is like me showing up at a public function here in Canada with a Star Wars light sabre. Why the hell shouldn't the guy exercise his fundamental right to bear arms at a polling station, where is the photographic proof that he was intending to intimidate voters or influence their votes by threat?
-
If I'm not mistaken, the photographic evidence may show about as much as the photographic evidence of the armed man at the Tea Party with a loaded AK-47 - - that some guy showed up at a polling station with a club, which in the U.S. is pathetically under-armed, is like me showing up at a public function here in Canada with a Star Wars light sabre. Why the hell shouldn't the guy exercise his fundamental right to bear arms at a polling station, where is the photographic proof that he was intending to intimidate voters or influence their votes by threat?
Oh, it is a second admendment question now?
I suppose that the laws that forbid being armed at polling stations should be challenged on these grounds.
Would Mr Shabazz like to be the NRAs pointman on abolishing these unreasonable restrictions?
-
Seems like a case of he said <>she has photographic evidence.
I have posted it
-
the New Black Panther Party flap is at this point nothing more than a "he-says-she-says" slimefest, with one ex-DOJ lawyer, now a conservative blogger, claiming the case was virtually a slam-dunk and Holder's officials claiming the evidence was weak.... I think it's BS. The usual right-wing bullshit smear with no back-up, as in the Sherrod case just last week. They never let up, but they're all fulla shit.
So, there you have it. As far as Tee's position is, if 3 KKK folks were standing in front of some voting precinct, with clubs, yelling racial slurs, this would NOT have been voter intimidation, if the AG, such as Ashcroft, decided to drop the case. Just Left Wing AMBE
Well, at least we know now what to call all those far less evidentiary claims of voter intimidation back in 2000
-
<<Oh, it is a second admendment question now?>>
There's a right to pack a fully-loaded AK-47 in public, but not a club? Who are you kidding?
<<I suppose that the laws that forbid being armed at polling stations should be challenged on these grounds.>>
What laws are you talking about and do they forbid clubs as well as guns?
<<Would Mr Shabazz like to be the NRAs pointman on abolishing these unreasonable restrictions?>>
Why would you not support the NRA's position? Shouldn't everyone support the NRA's support of 2nd amendment rights?
-
Absolutely! There shouldn't be any illeagal wepons, nor should there be nearly so many places where wepons are not welcome.
But there ought indeed be several things that can be done with wepons that should remain forbidden.
One of these things that ought to be forbidden is threatening voters at the polls.
Or threat and assult in general.
Persons who threaten and assult ought to be restrained by the law , and this should be especially so at polling places.
-
Of course voters should not be threatened or assaulted, the real issue here is whether the "photographic evidence" is sufficient to convict certain individuals of threatening and/or assaulting voters.
On the one hand, you have Holder's spokespeople saying that they don't have the evidence to convict. OTOH, you have this one conservative blogger who says that they do. The problem is that while Holder's denial is necessarily general in scope, the conservative blogger is suspiciously lacking in specifics when he claims that there IS sufficient evidence to convict.
What specific evidence does the state have, if it has any? Adams isn't saying. Since the government already got an injunction against one of the guys, the claim that the Obama DOJ did nothing is clearly bullshit. As for evidence against the other guys, come on folks, where is it? What exactly does the photographic evidence prove, and against whom?
This case has "right-wing smear" written all over it, just like Sherrod. Seems like the conservative media can crank out this shit at the rate of one a week.
-
Of course voters should not be threatened or assaulted, the real issue here is whether the "photographic evidence" is sufficient to convict certain individuals of threatening and/or assaulting voters.
Why does Tee keep ignoring the FACT, that the case had already been legally judged in the priliminary phase? There is no "other hand". There is no "he said x, they said y". I realize facts to a die hard socialist/liberal/communist is like kryptonite to Superman. But gads, the ignorance here is staggoring
This "case" has LW Coverup, written all over it. And more importantly, it's a cattle call to all those other racists to engage in voter intimidation, come Nov.
-
Of course voters should not be threatened or assaulted, the real issue here is whether the "photographic evidence" is sufficient to convict certain individuals of threatening and/or assaulting voters.
Why does Tee keep ignoring the FACT, that the case had already been legally judged in the priminary phase? There is no "other hand". There is no "he said x, they said y". I realize facts to a die hard socialist/liberal/communist is like kryptonite to Superman. But gads, the ignorance here is staggoring
This "case" has LW Coverup, written all over it. And more importantly, it's a cattle call to all those other racists to engage in voter intimidation, come Nov.
it's a diversion tactic
-
<<it's a diversion tactic>>
Bullshit. If there was any evidence at all, photographic or otherwise, sufficient to obtain convictions (other than against the guy who's now under injunction) then why hasn't Adams come up with it?
This is clearly another RW smear of the Obama administration, with "Sherrod" written all over it.
-
Just another ratbag reactionary talkshow piece of crap.
-
<<it's a diversion tactic>>
Bullshit. If there was any evidence at all, photographic or otherwise, sufficient to obtain convictions (other than against the guy who's now under injunction) then why hasn't Adams come up with it?
This is clearly another RW smear of the Obama administration, with "Sherrod" written all over it.
you show me the proof of it in FLA during the 2000 election and I'll show you the video of the New Black Panther gang members walking around voting precincts with clubs trying to get Obama elected.
-
Of course voters should not be threatened or assaulted, the real issue here is whether the "photographic evidence" is sufficient to convict certain individuals of threatening and/or assaulting voters.
Why does Tee keep ignoring the FACT, that the case had already been legally judged in the priminary phase? There is no "other hand". There is no "he said x, they said y". I realize facts to a die hard socialist/liberal/communist is like kryptonite to Superman. But gads, the ignorance here is staggoring
This "case" has LW Coverup, written all over it. And more importantly, it's a cattle call to all those other racists to engage in voter intimidation, come Nov.
it's a diversion tactic
And then some. Notice how he couldn't apply a response when initially queried
-
<<it's a diversion tactic>>
Bullshit. If there was any evidence at all, photographic or otherwise, sufficient to obtain convictions (other than against the guy who's now under injunction) then why hasn't Adams come up with it?
This is clearly another RW smear of the Obama administration, with "Sherrod" written all over it.
you show me the proof of it in FLA during the 2000 election and I'll show you the video of the New Black Panther gang members walking around voting precincts with clubs trying to get Obama elected.
I knew Mikey & XO would duck on this one
-
<<I knew Mikey & XO would duck on this one>>
LOL. YOU are the one who is ducking. You raised the dropped charges cases and I challenged you to show the evidence which the U.S. Attorney-General's office has said does not exist. Neither you nor Adams (the only guy with direct knowledge of the case to claim that such evidence existed) has been able to point out any evidence to back up Adams' allegations. You say, "It's in the photos," but the photos only show one or two guys with clubs at polling stations - - where is the evidence that voters were threatened or told how to vote by these people? Where is the evidence of intent to threaten those who may have felt threatened? Where is the evidence of intent to change the votes of anyone? The photos are really of limited value, without supporting evidence. If Holder's lawyers say there isn't enough evidence, I tend to believe them, especially when Adams, one of the lawyers responsible for the case at one point, claims there was plenty of evidence but so far has pointed out none of it other than the photos themselves.
-
Nice to see that Tee's giving the green light to all racists, white and black, clubs or not, stand in front of whatever polling places they wish, and hurl racial taunts on election day
-
<<I knew Mikey & XO would duck on this one>>
LOL. YOU are the one who is ducking. You raised the dropped charges cases and I challenged you to show the evidence which the U.S. Attorney-General's office has said does not exist. Neither you nor Adams (the only guy with direct knowledge of the case to claim that such evidence existed) has been able to point out any evidence to back up Adams' allegations. You say, "It's in the photos," but the photos only show one or two guys with clubs at polling stations - - where is the evidence that voters were threatened or told how to vote by these people? Where is the evidence of intent to threaten those who may have felt threatened? Where is the evidence of intent to change the votes of anyone? The photos are really of limited value, without supporting evidence. If Holder's lawyers say there isn't enough evidence, I tend to believe them, especially when Adams, one of the lawyers responsible for the case at one point, claims there was plenty of evidence but so far has pointed out none of it other than the photos themselves.
this might help you understand
http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2010m7d9-Justice-Dept-whistleblower-ignored-by-news-media (http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2010m7d9-Justice-Dept-whistleblower-ignored-by-news-media)
-
Thanks, Kramer, but I already saw this article:
<<The Department of Justice whistleblower who resigned over the “corrupt nature of the dismissal” of the New Black Panther case testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights this week. Unfortunately, except for the Fox News Channel -- Megyn Kelly, Glenn Beck and others -- the nation's newsrooms are ignoring the story.
<<At the hearing in the commission’s Washington D.C. headquarters, J. Christian Adams accused the DOJ of racial bias for dropping charges against the New Black Panther Party. An attorney on the case, Adams testified that within the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division there is a pervasive and open hostility towards equal enforcement of the law. So insidious is this attitude that, according to Adams, even a minority DOJ employee was harassed by DOJ Voting Section staff for working on a case with white victims.>>
Note that Adams is the ONLY source of this and most of the allegations in the article. The "minority DOJ employee" never has come forward to complain about his "harrassment" or otherwise vindicate Adams. Most of Adams' allegations are broad generalities, "a pervasive and open hostility," an "insidious attitude," etc. Nothing concrete.
<<To support his allegations regarding the culture of the Civil Rights Division, Adams cited numerous second and firsthand accounts. Notably, he stated that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes told him personally that the division is “in the business of traditional civil rights work.>>
So what? What's wrong with traditional civil rights work?
<<"In other words, it will only pursue cases with minority victims," said officials at the Washington watchdog group Judicial Watch.>>
Right. The Deputy Assistant AG says "traditional civil rights work," but her words have to be interpreted by a conservative group founded by some guy who sued the Clintons about two dozen times in the 1990s. The Deputy Assistant didn't SAY that they only protect minority victims, those were words put in her mouth by the conservative group's unnamed "officials."
<<His testimony before the commission focused on the New Black Panther case in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008. Members of the New Black Panthers – clad in paramilitary outfits and brandishing a club – intimidated voters as well as poll watchers.>>
Or at least, so says Fox News - - and the DOJ says it hasn't enough evidence to convict anyone of crimes arising out of that.
<<The individuals involved are seen on videotape verbally threatening citizens, hurling profanities and racial epithets. >>
Was there provocation for the threats? Was there evidence the threats seen on tape were intended to interfere with the right to vote? Were there individuals charged who were not shown on the tape but were alleged to have instigated or masterminded the alleged intimidation? Where is the evidence?
<<Using the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the group. Despite receiving a default judgment after the defendants in the case ignored the charges, the Obama Justice Department dropped the case in May 2009.>>
Default judgments are very easily set aside, particularly in criminal matters, where the law is pretty clear that no man shall be convicted if he can convince the court that the failure to appear and defend in the first place was due to circumstances other than a deliberate contempt of court. The theory is that every man is entitled to have his day in court.
<<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.>>
Again, Adams testified . . . Adams mentioned that . . . Zero corroboration. Just Adams' say-so.
<<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.>>
Get my point? . . . Adams confirmed. Besides, where is it written that "political appointees" are not full-fledged lawyers in their own right, with just as much experience, knowledge and/or judgment as "career attorneys" and maybe more?
<<Despite the Obama Administration’s stonewalling, the hearing reinforces that the New Black Panther Party story is not going away. The lack of transparency in this case forced Judicial Watch to sue the Justice Department.>>
Sure, why not? The guy who founded Judicial Watch sued the Clintons about two dozen times in the 1990s, what's one more lawsuit against another Democrat?
<<In a racial double standard, the Obama Administration instructs government attorneys in the Justice Department’s civil rights division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white victims, according to Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.>>
Well, at least we now know the opinion of another conservative opinion-maker. At least it's a change from "Adams says . . . ," "Adams confirmed . . . ," etc.
<<The explosive revelation was made this week by a high-ranking Justice Department official who quit over the administration’s handling of a voter intimidation case against members of the radical black revolutionary group known as the New Black Panther Party. Career Justice Department attorneys were ordered to drop a complaint against the group for bullying voters in Philadelphia during the 2008 presidential election.>>
Uh, that "high-ranking Justice Department official" is Adams, who's already been quoted above. It's not some other source corroborating Adams, it's the man himself.
<<Clad in military attire, members were captured on video tape intimidating white voters as they attempted to enter a polling place. The Black Panther bullies used weapons, racial insults and profanity to deter voters and federal prosecutors filed a civil complaint in Philadelphia.>>
Well, the tape can't show if any of the white voters were intimidated or not, can it? It can't show the purpose was intimidation either, or that the intimidation was directed towards the exercise of the right to vote. The tape might well show that the Panthers used or at least carried weapons, uttered racial insults (not against the law, is it?) or uttered profanity (also not against the law) but would probably NOT show that the purpose of the weapons, insults or profanity was to deter voters. The Deputy Assistant AG says there was not sufficient evidence against the men and Adams doesn't refer to any specific parts of the videotape that might contain such evidence.
<< The case was mysteriously and abruptly killed by a top Justice Department official just as a federal judge was preparing to punish the Black Panthers for ignoring the charges and refusing to appear in court.>>
What's mysterious about not having sufficient evidence? Perhaps the film came from a tainted source, illegally obtained in an illegal search, if the Deputy Assistant AG says there isn't enough evidence, why is that so hard to believe - - especially when Adams, one of the attorneys originally responsible for the case, can't contradict her with any specifics? And if the judge was "preparing to punish" suspects against whom no evidence existed for conviction, surely the right thing to do would have been to kill the case then and there.
<<The order came from Loretta King, who at the time was President Obama’s acting assistant Attorney General for the civil rights division. No explanation was offered for the sudden dismissal and outrage ensued among federal prosecutors handling the case.>>
But we have the explanation - - insufficient evidence.
-
Why did holder go over this guys head? Just let the case go to trial and the chips fall where they fall, but no the AG gets in the middle and politicizes it. it's just wrong.
-
<<I knew Mikey & XO would duck on this one>>
LOL. YOU are the one who is ducking. You raised the dropped charges cases and I challenged you to show the evidence which the U.S. Attorney-General's office has said does not exist. Neither you nor Adams (the only guy with direct knowledge of the case to claim that such evidence existed) has been able to point out any evidence to back up Adams' allegations. You say, "It's in the photos," but the photos only show one or two guys with clubs at polling stations - - where is the evidence that voters were threatened or told how to vote by these people? Where is the evidence of intent to threaten those who may have felt threatened? Where is the evidence of intent to change the votes of anyone? The photos are really of limited value, without supporting evidence. If Holder's lawyers say there isn't enough evidence, I tend to believe them, especially when Adams, one of the lawyers responsible for the case at one point, claims there was plenty of evidence but so far has pointed out none of it other than the photos themselves.
In Canada goons are normally standing in the entrances of polling stations?
Strange as it may seem to you , our laws used to discourage stationing paramilitary goon squads in the doorways of polling stations.
I guess we will have to get used to it , if goons are the new normal.
President Obama promised us change ,didn't he?
Will I have to pick an affiliation with a paraqmilitary organisation to schedule an opportunity to vote?
I would want to vote at a station with the right flavor of goon so that I would not get a drubbing , I am allergic to beating .