On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Jerry Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > Whatever. If you think people who subscribe to this list would honestly > think it is the "old" Black Panthers versus the "new" Black Panthers go > right ahead. Anyone who can type DOJ and Black Panthers in a search field > can find the facts quickly enough.
Republicans brutally squashed dissent after contested elections, beating people in the streets, imprisoning them with no recourse and even killing them in cold blood. Of course by Republican, I really mean the Republican Guard of Iran. But for the sake of this email we'll just call them Republicans. I'm sure that everyone will understand what we really mean. > "The complainant in the case is a Republican operative who is not a voter in > that district. " > > The dreaded "R" word so it all must untrue. Plus, contrary to contemporary > knowledge, the Republicans were the civil rights party so calling someone > filing a civil rights case Republican isn't exactly bad. You're right, the Republicans were the civil rights party...150 years ago. I guess the Southern Strategy and race baiting was all a little misunderstanding. Jerry, meet Jim Crow. Jim...Jerry. > The actual plaintiff was the United States of > America<http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/misc/philadelphia_bpp_comp.php>. > Since this is a civil rights and voting issue, the United States should > bring the case. It is not necessary for a voter in the district to file the > case and there actually good reason why they should not. One reason is > there is a group going around threatening to kill cracka's and threatening > blacks who date cracka's. Very good Jerry. I agree that the US should bring the case and did. It is still customary that civil rights cases have actual people whose civil rights have been violated as complainants. You may notice that in my messages, I used "complainants" not "plaintiffs". I actually understand the difference and use them correctly (most of the time). > "I'm quite sure that if there were any voters in the district who were at > the polling place and complained that they were intimidated that the DOJ > would pursue the case." > > Oh, Judah's quite sure so it must be true. That and a dollar will buy you a > double cheeseburger at Burger King. There are sworn testimonies by > witnesses in a case that was being pursued. No need to file their own case > and good reasons not to. According to the Washington Times report, there was one statement and that was by a poll worker, not a voter who was intimidated. It did say that that statement was not introduced into evidence. I am rather curious about that and would like to know more on that count. > "As I mentioned, the SPLC designates the New Black Panther party as a hate > group. Everyone would like to see these guys asses kicked to the curb with > perhaps the exception of a couple of black supremacists." > > And maybe the NAACP. They have condemned the tea parties as racist, but > somehow haven't gotten around to the NBP's yet. The condemnation will > happen though since some black tea party members have taken issue with the > statement. They'll need to back track and deflect the issues. Has anyone asked the NAACP about their opinion on the NBP? I have no idea if they've condemned them or not. The SPLC specifically deals with tracking hate groups, so I am glad to see them listing the NBP. The NAACP is a very different organization with different goals and structure. They rightfully condemned the racist elements of the tea party because there is a whole lot of ugly there. And comparing the NBP with the Tea Party? That's like comparing my late night cable access host with Rush Limbaugh. They may both be crazy but one of them has a much bigger impact than the other. > "Sounds like something worth inquiring about. Looks like Rep. Wolf from > Virginia has asked Holder further about the matter. The DOJ spokesperson has > responded. I suspect that we'll see a more personal response from Holder to > Wolf soon." > > Damn, that sounds familiar. Maybe it's similar to what I said in my first > post: > > "I don't know if Shabazz and Jackson are guilty. It certainly looks like > there is enough evidence to support a trial so that a jury or judge could > decide." The article you posted was a crock of shit. The Washington Times actually makes some decent points, odd as that is for me to say so. Let's see where you really stand though, Jerry. Let us suppose that Holder/Obama intervened in the case and dropped (portions) of it for reasons that don't have anything to do with legal merit. Then answer me these questions: 1. What does Obama have to gain from dropping the charges against two of the defendants? 2. If Obama wanted to side with the NBP, why would they not drop the charge against the defendant who they got a default judgement against? 3. Is this racially motivated? Inquiring minds want to ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:323153 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
