Video of the Day: Black Panther Tells Kids, “We Need to Take the Fight to the Enemy”
Video of the Day: Black Panther Rallies for 18 Men Accused of Gang-Raping 11-Yr-Old
Quanell X Stages Rally in Cleveland: MyFoxHOUSTON.com
Eric Holder’s Department of Black Liberation
Susan Stamper Brown, FloydReports.com
“A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race — and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin.”- Ayn Rand
The 2008 presidential election was supposed to usher in a utopian post-racial America where race no longer has a seat at the table of national affairs; A place where once for all, Americans would have equal justice under the law. But, I guess we’ll have to wait.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissal of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) 2008 voter intimidation case flies in the face of the idea of racial equality because had the roles been reversed, the entire country would be consumed in a debate about racial injustice. Instead, it’s simply accepted as an error in judgment. In reality, the dismissal was one of the most blatant examples of racial discrimination in recent history.
Last week during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on the dismissal, Attorney General (AG) Eric Holder downplayed the 2008 incident when comparing it to a relative’s suffering during the civil rights movement – making the DOJ look more like the “Department of Injustice.” While he is correct in saying there really is no comparison between the 2008 incident and past atrocities, Holder’s position demands that he rise above personal bias.
During the same hearing, Holder used the words “my people” in an utterly discriminatory fashion. If Eric Holder were….
Eric Holder’s Admission? DoJ “Does Not Enforce the Law on the Basis of Race”
Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com
Attorney General Eric Holder had something of a meltdown on Capitol Hill today when a Republican Congressman pressed him on his preferential treatment of the New Black Panther Party. Rep. John Culberson, R-TX, read a statement from a Democrat calling the Black Panthers’ actions the worst case of voter intimidation he had ever seen. In response, Holder huffed that, while the Panther’s nightstick-wielding threats were “inappropriate,” the assessment was demeaning to “my people.”
Perhaps more important than his admission that he does not see the American people as “his people” is a line he uttered shortly afterwards.
After Culberson cited “overwhelming evidence that your Department of Justice refuses to protect the rights of anybody other than African-Americans to vote,” Holder stated, “This Department of Justice does not enforce the law on the basis of race.”
Holder intended this as a denial, but it seems more like a Freudian admission.
After all, it is precisely what Holder’s Justice Department stands accused of, not enforcing the law on the basis of race.
Not only conservatives but Democrats such as Bartle Bull and apolitical observers….
Black Panther Investigation Broadens, Could Ensnare Obama
Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports
The federal investigation into the Justice Department’s handling of the Black Panther voter intimidation case has widened its scope in ways that increase the chances the president will be impeached in the new year.
In a letter delivered today to Attorney General Eric Holder, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights indicated its investigation has shifted from a narrow focus on dropping the Philadelphia case to the broader question of whether the DoJ – and the Obama administration – is systematically discriminating against white victims.
Explosive Testimony Against “Travesty of Justice” Department
Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports
A second career civil rights lawyer ripped a hole in the Obama administration’s lies about the Black Panther voter intimidation case this morning. Christopher Coates, who headed the Voting Rights division of the Justice Department, said the administration’s decision to throw out the case was “a travesty of justice” that reflected the “anger” of the president’s appointees and their “deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the” law “for the protection of white voters.” This second witness contradicts the testimony of administration officials and calls into question whether the president has ordered the Department of Justice to deny equal justice to a whole segment of American citizens, an impeachable offense.
Coates’ testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights this morning contradicted the administration’s version of events in at least three regards. (Read Coates’ full testimony here.) On election day 2008, three members of the New Black Panther Party were accused of intimidating white voters in Philadelphia. Justice Department officials have sworn, under oath, that the case was dismissed based on the facts, that political leadership was not involved, and that the department is committed to colorblind enforcement of the law. Thomas Perez, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, testified on May 14 that the decision was simply “a case of career people disagreeing with career people,” and no “political leadership involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case.” Coates put the lie to them.
He revealed the case’s dismissal “was not required by the facts” but “was intended to send a direct message” that race-neutral justice “would not continue in the Obama administration.”
New ObamaCrimes in Black Panther Case?
Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports
A series of major new developments threaten to expose the full extent of the Obama administration’s role in dismissing charges against the New Black Panther Party, an investigation that could reveal obstruction of justice and perjury.
Most significantly, Christopher Coates, who was head of the Justice Department’s Voting Rights section at the time and suggested the case proceed, will testify before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Coates has been named as one career DoJ official who could verify J. Christian Adams’ claims that the Obama administration pressured lawyers to dismiss this case and all charges brought against minority groups.
Coates stated he will act “to comply with the outstanding subpoena served on me as part of [the Commission's] statutory investigation.”
The Commission called Coates to testify, but his superiors at the Department of Justice instructed Coates not to comply. Joseph H. Hunt specifically ordered him to ignore the subpoena. The DoJ also busted Coates down from his position as Voting Rights chief to a satellite office in South Carolina, on an 18-month assignment that conveniently prevented him from testifying.
In an understatement, the Commission said there has been a “dearth of cooperation” by the administration. Ironically, the Justice Department is suing Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio for not cooperating with a suit it brought against him.
The Black Panther case is quickly spinning out of control, threatening to expose the Obama administration’s role in perjury, obstruction of justice, and aiding voter intimidation that may lead directly to the office of the president.
Prying Open the Door on the Black Panther Case
Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today announced that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (CV 10-0160)) against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain records related to meetings between Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli and White House officials regarding DOJ’s decision to dismiss its voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense (NBPP). Judicial Watch seeks the following documents through its FOIA request sent on January 19, 2010:
Any and all records of Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli concerning meetings with the White House on the Justice Department’s voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. The time frame for this request is from January 20, 2009 to June 15, 2009.
On March 26, 2010, the DOJ informed Judicial Watch that it had conducted a search for documents, but found “no records responsive to your request.” Judicial Watch appealed the decision on March 31, 2010, based on “various media accounts in which it was reported that Associate Attorney General Perrelli visited the White House on nine occasions between March 25, 2009, and May 27, 2009, to discuss Defendant’s voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.”
The DOJ was required to make a determination on Judicial Watch’s appeal within 20 working days, or by May 3, 2010. To date, no such determination has been made.
Impeachable Offense? Possible Perjury in Black Panther Case
Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports
Just days after Impeach Obama Campaign‘s Floyd Brown made an impassioned plea for the new Congress to impeach Barack Obama, it appears he may have fresh reasons to proceed. A former Obama Justice Department official has stated officials in his department “lied” about the decision to dismiss the DoJ’s voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party, occasionally “under oath.”
J. Christian Adams, who quit the Obama administration in disgust, writes on Pajamas Media that new documents blow the Black Panther case wide open.
Thomas Perez, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, testified under oath before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on May 14 that the decision was simply “a case of career people disagreeing with career people.” He testified there had been no “political leadership involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case.”
New documents obtained by Judicial Watch make that testimony seem false and potentially illegal.
Justice Dept. Will Investigate Black Panthers
Jerry Seper, Washington Times
The Justice Department‘s Civil Rights Division — in the wake of the New Black Panther Party case — is being investigated by the department’s office of inspector general to determine whether voting section employees have been harassed for participating in specific investigations or prosecutions.
In an end run around policy barring IG investigations of Justice Department litigators, Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said his office will review what types of cases are being investigated, whether there have been changes in enforcement policies and procedures, and whether the civil rights laws are being enforced in a non-discriminatory manner.
Christopher Coates, the veteran Justice Department voting section chief who recommended going forward on the civil complaint against the New Black Panther Party, was removed from his post and transferred to the U.S. attorney’s office in South Carolina. New Black Panther Party members had disrupted a Philadelphia polling place in the November 2008 elections, one of whom intimidated would-be voters with a nightstick.
J. Christian Adams, the lead attorney in the case, resigned, citing what he called concerns about the Justice Department’s refusal to prosecute the New Black Panther Party case after a federal judge in Philadelphia had ruled in favor of the government’s case.
Mr. Adams accused Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. of dropping the charges for racially motivated reasons, saying that he and other Justice Department lawyers working on the case were ordered to dismiss it.
In a letter Monday to Republican Reps. Lamar Smith of Texas and Frank R. Wolf of Virginia, Mr. Fine said he has stated publicly “on many occasions that I believe the provision of the Inspector General’s Act that removes the OIG’s jurisdiction investigation of department attorneys’ handling of litigation should be changed.” The Washington Times obtained a copy of the letter.
“But unless and until the law is changed, I have an obligation to follow it,” he said. “However, we believe we do have the authority to conduct the broader program review … regarding the Civil Rights Division’s enforcement of voting rights law, and we intend to conduct such a review.”
Mr. Fine noted that while the review will include information about such cases as the New Black Panther Party matter and others, it will be focused “more broadly on the overall enforcement of civil rights laws by the Voting Section rather than on a single case.”
Mr. Smith and Mr. Wolf had raised concerns in July and August regarding the dismissal by the Justice Department of a civil complaint against the New Black Panther Party, in addition to broader allegations regarding the civil rights division’s enforcement of federal voting rights laws.
The two lawmakers focused on “potential improprieties” in the department’s dismissal of the complaint brought against the New Black Panther Party after its members disrupted the Philadelphia polling place.
