|

The New Black
Panther Party
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Items are archived in order of
discovery. |
| Black Panthers Endorse Obama |
| Obama also has the
endorsement of the New Black Panther Party.
"Barack Obama represents 'Positive Change' for
all of America. Obama will stir the 'Melting Pot' into a better "Molten
America.'"
Read The New Black Panther Party
10 Point
Platform from the anti-white and virulently anti-Semitic black supremacist party
that has endorsed Obama on the presidential candidate's
own website.

Following criticism earlier this month of an online endorsement from the
New Black Panther Party (NBPP), Obama's campaign removed the
controversial organization from the presidential candidate's official
website. The NBPP had been a registered team member and blogger on
Obama's "MyObama" campaign site.
But the NBPP endorsement was reposted on Obama's official website today.
"Obama is capable of stirring the 'melting pot' into a better 'molten
America,'" states the NBPP endorsement posted on Obama's site.
The NBPP is a controversial black extremist party whose leaders are
notorious for their racist statements and for leading anti-white
activism.
Malik Zulu Shabazz, NBPP national chairman, who has given scores of
speeches condemning "white men" and Jews, confirmed his organization's
endorsement of Obama in a recent interview with WND.
"I think the way Obama responded to the attack on him and the attempt to
sabotage his campaign shows true leadership and character. He had
a chance to denounce his pastor and he didn't fall for the bait.
He stood up and addressed real issues of racial discord," stated Shabazz.
Shabazz boasted he met Obama last March when the politician attended the
42nd anniversary of the voting rights marches in Selma, Ala.
"I have nothing but respect for Obama and for his pastor," said Shabazz,
referring to Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor of nearly 20 years.
It is Wright's racially charged and anti-Israel remarks that were widely
circulated this month, landing the presidential candidate in hot water
and prompting Obama to deliver a major race speech in which he condemned
Wright's comments but not the pastor himself.
Speaking to WND, Shabazz referred to Obama as a man with a "Muslim
background, a man of color."
Shabazz's NBPP's official platform states "white man has kept us deaf,
dumb and blind," refers to the "white racist government of America,"
demands black people be exempt from military service and uses the word
"Jew" repeatedly in quotation marks.
Shabazz has led racially divisive protests and conferences, such as the
1998 Million Youth March in which a few thousand Harlem youths
reportedly were called upon to scuffle with police officers and speakers
demanded the extermination of whites in South Africa.
The NBPP chairman was quoted at a May 2007 protest against the 400-year
celebration of the settlement of Jamestown, Va., stating, "When the
white man came here, you should have left him to die."
He claimed Jews engaged in an "African holocaust," and he has promoted
the anti-Semitic urban legend that 4,000 Israelis fled the World Trade
Center just prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
When Shabazz was denied entry to Canada last May while trying to speak
at a black action event, he blamed Jewish groups and claimed Canada "is
run from Israel."
Canadian officials justified the action stating he has an "anti-Semitic"
and "anti-police" record, but some reports blamed what was termed a
minor criminal history for the decision to deny him entry.
He similarly blamed Jews for then-New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani's initial
decision, later rescinded, against granting a permit for the Million
Youth March.
The NBPP's deceased chairman, Khallid Abdul Muhammad, a former Nation of
Islam leader who was once considered Louis Farrakhan's most trusted
adviser, gave speeches referring to the "white man" as the "devil" and
claiming that "there is a little bit of Hitler in all white people."
In a 1993 speech condemned by the U.S. Congress and Senate, Muhammad,
lionized on the NBPP site, referred to Jews as "bloodsuckers," labeled
the pope a "no-good cracker" and advocated the murder of white South
Africans who would not leave the nation subsequent to a 24-hour warning.
All NBPP members must memorize the group's rules, such as that no party
member "can have a weapon in his possession while drunk or loaded off
narcotics or weed," and no member "will commit any crimes against other
party members or black people at all."
The NBPP endorses Obama on its own page of the presidential candidate's
official site that allows registered users to post their own blogs.
The group labels itself on Obama's site as representing "Freedom,
Justice, and Peace for all of Mankind." It links to the official
NBPP website, which contains what can be arguably regarded as hate
material.
The NBPP previously endorsed Obama on the presidential candidate's site,
but following publicity of that endorsement, the Obama campaign removed
the NBPP posting.
"It's our policy [to remove] any content generated by a group that
advocates violence," explained Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor to
FoxNews.com.
Before the campaign removed the party's page, Obama spokeswoman Tiffany
Edwards told FoxNews.com the NBPP endorsement on Obama's website "has
nothing to do with us."
"People can form their own groups," she said. "It's not something that
the campaign -- it's not something that we've done."
While it appears anyone can initially sign up as a registered supporter
on Obama's site, it isn't clear whether the campaign monitors the site
or approves users. There is a link on each blog page for users to
report any abusers, such as those who post controversial entries, to the
administrator.
Shabbazz chalked up the Obama campaign's initial removal of his NBPP
endorsement from the website to "the game of politics."
"The Obama camp's move to remove our blog doesn't mean much because I
understand politics. We still completely support Obama as the best
candidate."
Obama 'less biased' on Israel
Shabazz said that aside from promoting black rights, he also supports
Obama because he may take what he called a "less biased" policy on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"I have hopes he will change the U.S. government's position toward the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict because our position has been unwarranted
bias. Time and time again the U.S. vetoed resolutions in the U.N.
Security Council condemning [Israeli] human rights violations. ... I
hope he shifts policy," Shabazz said.
But he added he doesn't believe Obama could change America's policy
regarding Israel very much since, he said, "other, powerful lobbies"
control U.S. foreign policy. |
|
Let The Brothers Go |
Obama's Justice Department
is dropping charges against the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense
and two of its members who were involved in voter intimidation on
Election Day at a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania polling station.
A
Justice spokesman said the department decided to take this action after
winning an injunction earlier this month against a third member, Samir
Shabazz, that prevents him from ever brandishing a weapon outside a
polling place again as he was charged with doing last November.
BLACK PANTHERS at Polling Places in Philly
Shabazz was one of the three persons
from the New Black Panther
Party for Self-Defense, charged with voter intimidation last January in
a lawsuit filed under the Voting Rights Act. Shabazz will not face any
jail time or a fine.
"Claims were dismissed against the other
defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law," DOJ
spokesman Alejandro Miyar said in a statement. "The Department is
committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten
or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote."
giggle!
On
Election Day, two men in uniforms stood outside the polling station with
one of them holding a police-style baton weapon and saying he was
providing security there. Justice has alleged that person was Shabazz.
In January, Justice said in a criminal complaint that the chairman
of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense confirmed its members
were stationed at that location as part of a nationwide effort to deploy
people at polling stations.
Combat boots, leather jackets, military-style berets and a billy club--
and notice how he's brandishing it -- no intimidation there. I can
just see little old white ladies deciding that Obama was going to win
anyway, so why bother.

Shabazz
That's one scary-looking guy. He
would have given me a moments pause, swinging his police baton at the
entrance to the polling station. I'd have gotten the message.
Obviously, Obama's Justice Department was just displaying some
of the Obamamessiah's vaunted empathy -- "based on a careful assessment
of the facts and the law" -- what a hoot! -- obviously, the biggest fact
was the guy is a brother -- but Justice warned him not to do it again --
that's the ticket.
Obama and Holder would prefer to prosecute
George Bush and Dick Cheney for war crimes.
Obama has
replaced Justice's blindfold with shades. |
| An Official Watcher |
When confronted by Philadelphia Police, Black
Panther Jerry Jackson stated that he was "an official watcher" --
meaning that he had been appointed by a party or candidate to observe
the election at the polling location. Only voters, election board
workers, and watchers may enter a polling location. The New Black
Panther Party isn’t an officially recognized political party in
Philadelphia, so they couldn’t appoint him. So who gave this guy a
credential?
We already reported here that Jackson is an elected
member of the Philadelphia Democratic Committee. And a document
obtained from the Philadelphia Board of Elections confirms he was
"representing the Democratic Party" at the polls in November.
Here is a copy of the watcher certificate he was issued and below is
some of his "official" activity.
Definitely looks like a case of
Respondeat
Superior by the Democratic Party. |
| You Are About To
Be Ruled By A Black Man, Cracker |
Excerpted from the
affidavit of Bartle Bull, a civil rights attorney who served in the
mid-60s as a lawyer with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under
Law in Mississippi. He worked closely with Charles Evers:
I served
as an attorney poll observer at the polling place, 1221 Fairmount St,
Philadelphia. There I observed two men wearing Black Panther party
insignia, black boots and berets. They were positioned in front of
the entrance to the polling place.
The shorter of the two men
possessed a weapon in the form of a billy-club. I watched the man
with the weapon point it at individuals and slap it in his hand.
I watched the two men confront and intimidate voters. They were
positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close
proximity to them. The weapon was brandished in plain sight of
voters.
I watched the two men interfere with the work of other
poll observers whom the uniformed men believed did not share their
preferences politically.
In my opinion, the men created an
intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll. In all of my
experience in politics, in civil rights litigation...I have never
encountered or heard of another instance where armed and uniformed men
blocked the entrance to a polling location. Their clear purpose
was to intimidate voters.
I heard the shorter man (Shabazz) make
a statement towards white poll observers that "you are about to
be ruled by a black man, cracker." |
| Political Appointees Overruled Career Lawyers |
Justice Department political
appointees overruled career lawyers and
ended a civil complaint
accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense
of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia
polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.
Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an
affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the
confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter
intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in
Mississippi a half-century ago.
The lawyers also had ascertained
that one of the three men had gained access to the polling place by
securing a credential as a Democratic poll watcher, according to
interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Times.
The
career Justice lawyers were on the verge of securing sanctions against
the men earlier this month when their superiors ordered them to reverse
course, according to interviews and documents. The court had
already entered a default judgment against the men on April 20. |
|
Black Panther Answers Overdue
|
Philadelphia's, The Bulletin, is
reporting that the Chairman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission,
Gerald A. Reynolds, has sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric
Holder seeking answers to their questions about a
voter intimidation case in Philadelphia involving the New Black
Panther Party (NBPP). It considers the responses "overdue."
The letter, dated September 30, 2009, is seemingly an unprecedented
action. It asks for Mr. Holder to "instruct Department officials
to fully cooperate" with the Commission's investigation, as required by
federal law.
The correspondence noted that the Commission still
has not received any of the documents they requested in their initial
June inquiries. It has questions surrounding the "unusual
decision" by the DOJ to dismiss the case against two of the three
defendants and the equally unusual injunction obtained against the third
defendant.
It needs this information because the Commission is
responsible to investigate voting rights deprivations and evaluate
federal enforcement of federal voting rights laws. They want to
form an independent opinion about the DOJ's enforcement actions and the
potential impact on future voter intimidation enforcement. It may
also try "to determine whether any decisions in the case were induced or
affected by improper influences."
The communication reminded Mr.
Holder that Congress mandates that, "all Federal agencies shall fully
cooperate with the Commission to the end that it may effectively carry
out its functions and duties." It wants Mr. Holder to identify the
person responsible for complying with the requests.
The
Commission voted in September to make its review of the implications of
the NBPP matter the subject of its annual enforcement report. The
report focuses on a selected area of civil rights enforcement.
The letter concludes by cautioning Mr. Holder that if he does not
respond by October 14, they will contact the DOJ personnel involved
directly.
The DOJ filed a lawsuit in January under the Voting
Rights Act against the NBP and three of its members alleging the
defendants intimidated voters last election day. The complaint,
filed in federal court in Philadelphia, alleged that NBP members Samir
Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were standing at a polling location wearing a
military-style NBP uniform while Mr. Shabazz repeatedly brandished a
"police-style baton weapon."
The complaint said NBPP Chairman
Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Mr. Shabazz and Mr.
Jackson was part of a nationwide effort to deploy members at polling
locations. The Justice Department initially sought an injunction
to prevent any similar future actions.
None of the defendants
responded to the lawsuit. However, instead of immediately filing
for a routine default judgment, the DOJ voluntarily dismissed the
lawsuit for two of the defendants -- including Mr. Jackson, who was a
Democratic Party poll watcher.
The DOJ only obtained an
injunction against Samir Shabazz, which was granted on May 18.
However, this has been criticized because it contained none of the usual
conditions for such a case. |
| Is The Justice Department Against Civil
Rights? |
The
dispute between the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Justice
Department is starting to look like the legal equivalent of World War
II's Anzio campaign, which represented a major escalation late in the
war. The battleground is the controversy about the department's
decision to drop voter-intimidation cases against members of the New
Black Panther Party. The commission is mounting a massive legal
assault; Justice is refusing to be budged; and the casualties could be
high.
The shame of it is that the department itself would be
well-served if it would merely cooperate. That's what it would do
if it were confident its decision was correct.
For six months,
various members of Congress and the commission have been asking for
cooperation from the Justice Department. The basic questions are
simple enough: On what legal basis did Justice drop these cases, which
it effectively already had won? Who were all the officials at
Justice (and possibly the White House) who were involved in the
decision? And does the decision represent a shift in enforcement
policy concerning voting rights?
The Justice Department
stonewalled at almost every turn or provided false information.
For instance, department official Portia Robinson wrongly claimed that
New Black Panther defendant Jerry Jackson "was a resident of the
apartment building where the polling place was located" (and thus
presumably had more of a right to loiter there). If the department
can't even figure out that Mr. Jackson, a visibly fit age 53, doesn't
live in a senior assisted-living facility, its overall reliability
surely is questionable.
Frustrated by the lack of cooperation,
the commission finally resorted to subpoenas to force information from
the Justice Department. The commission has specific statutory
power to issue subpoenas, and executive departments are required
statutorily to comply. The Justice Department, however, claimed
otherwise and ordered its lawyers to ignore the subpoenas.
That's when the commission went "Anzio" on Justice, with a letter
Tuesday documenting the commission's legal authority and a
legal-discovery request of breathtaking scope. The commission's
letter notes that the department fully cooperated with a commission
subpoena in 2004; the unuttered follow-up question is: So why not this
time?
The commission bolstered its claims by citing court
precedents and Congressional Research Service reports. It also
said that by consulting on the matter with an outside group -- the NAACP
Legal Defense Fund -- the department effectively waived its various
claims of privilege.
The discovery request, meanwhile, is 26
pages long, with 49 interrogatories and 51 separate document demands.
Among its key nuggets: The commission challenges the department to
justify, at great length, any claim of legal privilege against
disclosures; it hints that it suspects White House involvement in the
decision; it asks for documentation that might show Attorney General
Eric H. Holder Jr.'s involvement; it confidently asserts that the
second-ranking member of the Justice Department, Deputy Attorney General
David W. Ogden, took part in the decision; it challenges the
department's tacit contention that the New Black Panthers (one of whom
carried a nightstick) were merely exercising First Amendment speech
rights; and its subtext suggests that the commission suspects all sorts
of other shenanigans. (Mr. Ogden suddenly announced on Dec. 3 that
he would soon leave his position)
All of this means the
commission has substantially raised the stakes of this battle.
Others can best adjudge the legal arguments, and important larger issues
of constitutional separation of powers could be involved. Yet a
far simpler observation is appropriate and increasingly obvious: The
Justice Department would not force the Civil Rights Commission to
instigate such a huge legal battle if it had nothing to hide. |
| Wolf Presses For New Black Panther Probe |
The Washington Times is reporting that a senior House Republican on
Thursday introduced a "resolution of inquiry" that would require the
House Judiciary Committee to seek answers on why the Justice Department
dismissed a civil complaint against members of the New Black Panther
Party who disrupted a
Philadelphia polling place in last year's elections.
Rep. Frank
R. Wolf of Virginia also said he had language inserted in the Justice
Department's annual spending bill requiring that its Office of
Professional Responsibility (OPR) provide to the House Appropriations
Committee the results of OPR's investigation surrounding the dismissal
of the case.
Mr. Wolf, a senior member of the Appropriations
Committee's commerce, justice and science subcommittee, and Rep. Lamar
Smith of Texas, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee,
requested an investigation into the case earlier this year.
Under House rules, committees must take action on resolutions of inquiry
within 14 legislative days. Mr. Wolfs resolution directs Attorney
General Eric H. Holder Jr. to provide Congress with "all information"
relating to the decision to dismiss the case. The committee must
hold a straight yea-or-nay vote on the resolution.
Mr. Wolf said
he has written the attorney general six times seeking answers concerning
the handling of the New Black Panther case and has yet to receive an
answer.
"I regret that Congress must resort to oversight
resolutions as a means to receive information about the dismissal of
this case, but the Congress and the American people have a right to know
why this case was not prosecuted," he said.
Continue reading
here . . . |
| DOJ Issues Gag Order In Black Panther Probe |
The Justice Department has ordered government lawyers who filed a
complaint against the New Black Panther Party for intimidating voters in
last year’s presidential election not to cooperate with a nonpartisan
civil rights commission investigating how the Obama Administration
handled the case.
Federal prosecutors filed a civil complaint in
Philadelphia against members of the radical black revolutionary group
for bullying voters with racial
insults, profanity and weapons. Clad in military attire, the Black
Panther thugs were captured on video in front of precincts during the
2008 presidential election.
But the case was 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. The order came from Loretta King, who at the time
was 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.
Now
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, a fact-finding nonpartisan agency
with subpoena power to investigate discrimination complaints --
including allegations that citizens are deprived of their right to vote
-- is digging into the matter.
Continue reading
here . . . |
| Hearing Set For New Black Panther Case |
Michael P. Tremoglie is
reporting that the United States Commission on Civil Rights (CRC)
announced that it will hold a public hearing on February 12, 2010,
regarding the New Black Panther Party
voter intimidation case.
Its purpose is to collect information within the jurisdiction of the
Commission related particularly to the Department of Justice's actions
in the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) and enforcement of Section 11(b)
of the Voting Rights Act.
The CRC wants to know the reason the
Department of Justice (DOJ)
dismissed
voter intimidation charges in May against members of the New Black
Panther Party after they had already won a default judgment in the civil
suit filed in January.
One of the witnesses will be Chris Hill, a
Republican poll watcher. He told The Bulletin that one of the
Republican poll watchers felt intimidated. "He was inside the
building and he refused to stand outside with the two New Black
Panthers," he said.
There will be other witnesses who can testify
to the facts of the case. Also a video of the incident will be
shown.
One person’s testimony which has been sought is that of J.
Christian Adams the career Civil Rights Division prosecutor who compiled
the voter intimidation case against the NBPP will testify. It is
not known if Mr. Adams will testify. Allegations have been made
that there were political motivations in dismissing the case. It
is felt Mr. Adams could verify or disprove this.
The DOJ has
taken the unusual step of instructing its people not comply with
subpoenas issued by the Commission. A memo by DOJ to CRC General
Counsel David Blackwood said it objects to the questions asked.
The DOJ has repeatedly refused to provide information requested about
this case not only by the CRC, but by Congressman Frank Wolf ( R-Va.),
as well as, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Tx.). Mr. Wolf sent a
letter January 26 to Glenn Fine the DOJ Inspector General.
He
said, "I have been disappointed by your reluctance to investigate the
unfounded dismissal of an important voter intimidation case, U.S. v. New
Black Panther Party. As you may recall, this case was inexplicably
dismissed last year -- over the ardent objections of the career
attorneys overseeing the case as well as the division’s own appeal
office. Despite repeated requests for information by members of
Congress, the press, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the DOJ
continues to stonewall all efforts to obtain information regarding the
case’s abrupt dismissal. This obstruction should be of great
concern to you and merit an immediate investigation."
Mr. Wolf
will appear at the hearing, which will be held at 624 9th St., N.W. Room
540, Washington, DC 20425. It is open to the public and the media. |
| Obama's Black Panther Pander |
Ashley Taylor says, at last, an explanation for
the decision to drop the Black Panthers
voter intimidation case.
At the U.S. Civil Rights Commission's upcoming hearing on May 14,
Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez will attempt to explain why the
Obama administration dropped federal voter intimidation charges against
two New Black Panthers. Clad in paramilitary uniforms and armed
with a nightstick, the Panthers had spent several hours on Election Day
2008 stalking the entrance of a voting place in Philadelphia -- hurling
racial epithets at whites and blacks alike, taunting poll watchers, and
intimidating voters who sought to cast their votes for president as well
as other candidates on the ballot. These voting rights violations
were captured, partially, on video and uploaded to YouTube.
Attempting to defend the Justice Department's decision to change course
in this case, the Obama administration's apologists have tied themselves
in knots and turned the Voting Rights Act on its head.
Their
principal argument is that the Panthers were not scary enough.
They contend that two men who dress up like soldiers and stand in the
doorway of a voting place brandishing a billy club cannot be prosecuted
for voter intimidation in the absence of testimony from a voter who was
intimidated, or proof of someone who was turned away from voting.
Without such evidence, they argue, it is impossible to prove what the
Panthers intended by their actions.
This argument ignores
several indisputable facts. First, the videos themselves are clear
evidence of the intimidating nature of the Panthers' actions that day,
which included one man thumping the nightstick against his open palm,
and one shouting that voters should prepare themselves to be "ruled by
the black man." Second, multiple witnesses have testified to
seeing additional egregious behavior that was not captured on video,
including one black Republican poll worker who the Panthers called a
"race traitor" and promised there would be "hell to pay" when he emerged
from the voting place. Another person has testified that the
Panthers called him a "white devil" and a "cracker." Witnesses
also have testified that they saw voters approach the entrance, stop
upon sight of the uniformed, weapon-wielding Panthers in the doorway,
and turn and leave without voting. All of this evidence and
testimony was known and available to Justice when it dropped charges
against three of the four Panther defendants.
Continue reading
here . . . |
| Obama's Justice Department Sued Over Black
Panther Documents |
Jennifer Rubin
says Obama's Justice Department has been stonewalling individual
members of Congress and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in their
efforts to get to the bottom of the Obama-Holder Justice Department’s
decision to abandon a default judgment against the New Black Panther
Party and multiple individual defendants in a case of blatant
voter intimidation.
Now the conservative legal watchdog Judicial Watch is going to court to
pry the documents loose:
Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA
request on May 29, 2009. The Justice Department acknowledged
receiving the request on June 18, 2009, but then referred the request to
the Office of Information Policy (OIP) and the Civil Rights Division.
On January 15, 2010, the OIP notified Judicial Watch that it would be
responding to the request on behalf of the Offices of the Attorney
General, the Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, Public
Affairs, Legislative Affairs, Legal Policy, and Intergovernmental and
Public Liaison.
On January 15, the OIP also indicated that the
Office of the Associate Attorney General found 135 pages of records
responsive to Judicial Watch’s request, but that all records would be
withheld in full. On January 26, the OIP advised Judicial Watch
that the Office of Public Affairs and Office of Legal Policy completed
their searches and found no responsive documents. On February 10, the
Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division indicated that after an
extensive search it had located "numerous responsive records" but
determined that "access to the majority of the records" should be
denied. On March 26, the OIP indicated that the Office of
Legislative Affairs and the Office of Intergovernmental and Public
Liaison completed searches and found no documents.
It’s about
time the courts rule on the panoply of made-up defenses and fake
privileges that Holder has cooked up to avoid turning over these
documents. Let the courts decide if the Obama administration can
have it both ways -- declining to invoke executive privilege but relying
on the privilege under other names ("deliberative privilege").
A
knowledgeable lawyer e-mails me: "Notice DOJ revealed nothing about the
number of panther documents in the AG and deputy AG office. Even
for the associate attorney general they revealed there were 135 but they
weren’t going to turn them over. Failing to even name a number is
extremely suspicious because those units can be searched quicker and
easier for compliant documents. It leads one to conclude any
number would be an embarrassment, and a high number would be a
catastrophe. So, don’t reveal a number. Typical of this
non-transparent operation."
And now we’re going to see the
administration’s true colors played out in open court. As a
Judicial Watch spokesman said: "If there is nothing to hide, then
Eric
Holder should release this information as the law requires. And this is
just one more example of how Obama’s promises of transparency are a big
lie."
But the Obama team may have a different problem: if either
or both houses of Congress flip to Republican control, new chairmen will
populate key committees and subpoenas will begin to fly. Congress is in
an even better position to get access to the documents, as
attorney-client privilege doesn’t work against a co-equal branch of
government. In sum, Holder is running out of room to hide, finally. |
| Pro-Black Panther Prejudice |
The Washington Times
says Obama's Justice Department is implementing a racial double
standard.
The foundation is crumbling from the Justice
Department's stonewall on the New Black Panther voter-intimidation case.
What's becoming visible is a serious corrosion in the whole edifice of
the Civil Rights Division in the Obama-Holder Justice Department.
The edifice shook on Friday when a key lawyer in the case notified
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that he is now available to testify.
The lawyer, J. Christian Adams, had been ordered by his Justice
Department superiors, quite improperly, to ignore a subpoena by the
commission. Mr. Adams instead resigned from the department
effective two weeks ago, largely in honorable protest over its handling
of the Black Panther case. His attorney e-mailed the commission on
Friday, "Mr. Adams wants to relieve any obligation he has under the
subpoena." Mr. Adams' testimony surely will shed light on how the
unreasonable decision was made.
Readers will remember that the
case involved two New Black Panther Party members -- one a local
Democratic Party official and poll watcher -- who used racial epithets
and threats while standing at the entrance to a Philadelphia polling
place on Election Day, 2008. One Panther brandished a nightstick
like a weapon. After the case effectively had been won, political
appointees of Obama's dismissed or reduced all charges or sanctions
against the defendants, and then they stonewalled multiple inquiries
about the case from Congress, the media and the Civil Rights Commission.
The stonewall's mortar further disintegrated when the June 21 issue
of the Weekly Standard, published on Sunday, featured a lengthy,
explosive expose on the Black Panther case by Commentary magazine
contributing editor Jennifer Rubin. Confirming and expanding on
months of reporting by The Washington Times, Ms. Rubin provides at least
five nuggets of information that are damaging to the official story line
peddled by Attorney General Eric
H. Holder Jr. and the Obama White House.
First, Ms. Rubin
reports that Steven H. Rosenbaum, the acting deputy assistant attorney
general for civil rights, who spearheaded the decision to drop the case,
was repeatedly unfamiliar with case details even as he ordered it to be
dismissed. Second, Mr. Rosenbaum repeatedly based his arguments
for dropping the case on the idea that First Amendment speech
protections somehow excused the Black Panthers' threats. Yet
during May 14 testimony to the Civil Rights Commission, Assistant
Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas E. Perez repeatedly,
exasperatingly, dodged questions about whether First Amendment concerns
prompted the cases' dismissals, effectively suggesting that the position
could not be defended.
Third, Ms. Rubin reports that Mr. Holder
was briefed personally on the decision to drop the case, a fact that
seemingly contradicts earlier Justice Department statements.
Fourth, the Justice Department's own internal investigation into the
strange handling of the case has itself been a sham. Even though
the Office of Professional Responsibility was assigned to the case in
July, it did not bother to interview the original trial team until a few
days before Mr. Adams left the department.
Finally, Ms. Rubin's
reporting confirms that much of Justice's Civil Rights Division rejects
"the notion that any discrimination case should be filed against black
defendants" for any reason. In short, a double standard exists in
which only whites and Asians can be guilty of illegal discrimination but
never be its victims, while blacks can only be victims but never charged
as perpetrators.
This is a dangerous and un-American
notion. If Americans of different races cannot receive equal
justice from the Justice Department, there is no real justice. |
| The Black Panther Case -- Anger, Ignorance
And Lies |
J. Christian Adams says on the day Obama was
elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New
Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in
Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and
poll watchers (video).
After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation
case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I
and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an
entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before
a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us
to dismiss the case.
The New Black Panther case was the simplest
and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department
career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements
falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders
for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas
investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a
Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.
The federal
voter-intimidation statutes we used against the New Black Panthers were
enacted because America never realized genuine racial equality in
elections. Threats of violence characterized elections from the
end of the Civil War until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.
Before the Voting Rights Act, blacks seeking the right to vote, and
those aiding them, were victims of violence and intimidation. But
unlike the Southern legal system, Southern violence did not
discriminate. Black voters were slain, as were the white champions
of their cause. Some of the bodies were tossed into bogs and in
one case in Philadelphia, Miss., they were buried together in an earthen
dam.
Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal
of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward
equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department
share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and
abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers.
The dismissal raises serious questions about the department's
enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent
2012 presidential election.
Continue reading this important case
here . . . |
| Top Justice Dept. Official Lied Under Oath |
FoxNews.com is reporting that a former Justice
Department attorney who resigned last month in protest of the Obama
administration's handling of a voter intimidation case involving the New
Black Panther Party accused a top Justice official of lying under oath
about the circumstances surrounding the decision to drop the case.
J. Christian Adams, now an attorney in Virginia and a blogger for
Pajamas Media, told Fox News in an exclusive interview that aired
Wednesday that Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez provided false
testimony in May to the United States Commission on Civil Rights, which
is investigating the department's decision to drop charges against three
members of the radical group in a case that the government won.
Perez told the commission that the facts and the law didn't support the
case against the group.
"I know about the truth…and I know what
the truth is and I know to say the facts and law don't support the Black
Panther case is not true," Adams said, adding that Perez ignored his
warnings not to provide false testimony.
"We made it very clear
that continuing to say that the facts and the law don't support this
case would not be consistent with the truth," he said.
Continue
reading
here (with video) . . .
Scott Johnson
adds,
Adams is a protagonist in this story with first-hand knowledge of the
Department of Justice's machinations in the case. His accounts of
what transpired are credible and devastating. Did Eric Holder
approve of the dismissal of the case against the NBPP? Adams
provides ground for concluding that he did.
The department has
responded by characterizing Adams as a conservative and a disgruntled
employee. As Adams states in
the interview with Kelly and as Roger Simon reports, Adams was
disgruntled only about the department's disgusting treatment of the NBPP
case. He was otherwise fully gruntled.
And Adams's senior
Department of Justice colleague on the case (Christopher Coates) has
been exiled to South Carolina. What was his offense?
A
Google News search on "Washington Post Christian Adams" and "New York
Times Christian Adams" turns up only my own posts noting the lack of
interest in the case on the part of the Post and the Times. Yet
the case has all the ingredients of a major scandal if a single standard
were applied to these matters.
Rush Limbaugh turned his attention
to the case yesterday. So word has gotten out. Even the
Associated Press covered the story yesterday. AP reporter Jesse
Washington quotes Jennifer Rubin on the case and he does a creditable
job with the story.
If the mainstream media did not have an
intolerably high threshold for embarrassment, professional pride among
the AP's colleagues would dictate that they take an interest in it too. |
| Media Blackout For Black Panthers |
The Washington Times
says that explosive racial allegations are being ignored by the
poodles in the press.
Where is the New York Times? Where is
The Washington Post? Where are CBS and NBC? A whistleblower
makes explosive allegations about the Department of Justice; his story
is backed by at least two other witnesses; and the allegations involve
the two hot-button issues of race and of blatant politicization of the
justice system. A potential constitutional confrontation stemming
from the scandal brews between the Justice Department and the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights. A congressman highly respected for
thoughtfulness and bipartisanship has all but accused the department of
serious impropriety. By every standard of objective journalism,
this adds up to real news.
Or it would be real news if a
Republican Justice Department stood accused. It would be real news
if the liberal media weren't mostly in the tank for our celebrated but
failing first black president.
Tomorrow, the Civil Rights
Commission will hear long-awaited testimony from J. Christian Adams, who
resigned from the Voting Section of the Justice Department after the
department improperly ordered him to refuse compliance with the
commission's lawful subpoena. Mr. Adams first told his story in
public in these pages on June 28 and later did two major interviews with
Fox News' Megyn Kelly. In those appearances, he flatly accused the
Obama Justice Department of adopting an unlawful, immoral policy
identified in previous Washington Times editorials -- namely, enforcing
civil rights laws against white perpetrators who victimized minorities
but never against black perpetrators who victimize whites or Asians.
If this is indeed the policy, it makes a scandalous mockery of the
cherished American principle of "equal justice under the law."
All these allegations stem from what should have been a slam-dunk
voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party
videotaped in menacing behavior outside a Philadelphia polling place in
2008. The Obama Justice Department dropped or seriously reduced
all the charges or penalties in the case after it already effectively
had been won. Mr. Adams' former colleague, longtime award-winning
civil rights lawyer Christopher Coates, has been reported on multiple
occasions to have backed Mr. Adams' version of events and of the Obama
team's openly discriminatory policy.
If the department's motives
are not racial or racist, Justice officials surely appear political.
One of the Black Panthers against whom the department declined to press
charges was an official poll watcher for the Democratic Party and an
elected local party official. The department dropped charges just
four days before another election, allowing him again to serve as a poll
watcher.
Mr. Adams says the official most directly involved in
dropping the case, Steven H. Rosenbaum -- whose ethics have been subject
to judicial sanction -- refused to read his own team's legal briefs
before deciding to dismiss the case. Mr. Adams accuses Thomas E.
Perez, head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, of
providing false answers in testimony to the Civil Rights Commission.
On a parallel track, The Washington Times has reported strong
circumstantial evidence suggesting that department officials may have
consulted the White House before dismissing the case. That
possibility, too, cries out for investigation.
These broad policy
questions and suggestions of political chicanery are important. Do
we have a nation of laws equally applied to all, or is justice being
reduced to raw politics? Investigating such questions is the
essence of the news business. Failure to look into such a scandal
is evidence of the institutional corruption of the much-ballyhooed
"fourth branch of government," a supposedly independent media. |
| Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department Of
Racial Bias |
Fox News is reporting In emotional and personal
testimony, an ex-Justice official who quit over the handling of a voter
intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party accused his former
employer of instructing attorneys in the civil rights division to ignore
cases that involve black defendants and white victims.
J.
Christian Adams, testifying Tuesday before the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, said that "over and over and over again," the department showed
"hostility" toward those cases. He described the Black Panther case as
one example of that -- he defended the legitimacy of the suit and said
his "blood boiled" when he heard a Justice official claim the case
wasn't solid.
"It is false," Adams said of the claim.
"We abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens," he later
testified.
The department abandoned the New Black Panther case
last year. It stemmed from an incident on Election Day in 2008 in
Philadelphia, where members of the party were videotaped in front of a
polling place, dressed in military-style uniforms and allegedly hurling
racial slurs while one brandished a night stick.
Continue
reading
here . . . |
| NAACP Helped Shut Down Black Panther Case |
Robert Moon says its support for anti-white
race quotas were already enough to demonstrate the NAACP's blatantly
racist views (since they decided to bring up racism), we now learn that
they were directly involved in protecting fanatical racist militants
from prosecution.
According to the Washington Times,
Congressional testimony has revealed that the NAACP spoke regularly
about the Black Panther voter intimidation case to the Justice
Department and lobbied for the case to be dismissed. Or, as Obama
would put it, they "acted stupidly."
It's a stunning revelation
considering the pot-kettle "racism" smears they've spent the last few
days hurling at the Tea Party movement from their shiny glass house.
Has the Tea Party movement intervened in any cases against armed
Klansmen caught on tape intimidating voters at the polls? Does the
Tea Party movement routinely fight for racist preferential treatment for
white people?
No. That kind of flagrant racial bigotry
comes from the NAACP -- the group accusing anyone who dares to disagree
with Obama of hating black people.
As noted, contrary to
everything we are told, the Tea Party movement is
mainstream, more
educated and best
reflects the racial make-up of the country. As also
noted, the only actual bigots here are our "post-racial"
Marxist-in-chief and his black power allies at the New Black Panther
Party and the NAACP.
Related: The Islamists at
CAIR back the NAACP Resolution on Tea
Party Racism.
Surprised? |
| |

©
Copyright Beckwith 2009
All right reserved
|