Black panther intimidating voters Direct sex talks chats females
That message is that the filing of voting cases like the Ike Brown and the NBPP cases would not continue in the Obama administration."Coates also said that before his resignation in 2009, a senior political official ordered him to stop asking job candidates if they'd be willing to prosecute equal-protection cases against whites as well as blacks.Tom Perez, the current attorney general for civil rights, has denied Coates's claims.And it is only from the OPR report that one can get a clear sense as to the bona fide dispute among those at DOJ over how to handle the case.(4) The decision of how to handle the controversy does provide a window into the shift between the Bush and Obama administrations over how to handle claims of voting rights violations against non-minority voters. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The Beltway, The Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook Was I wrong before, or does Pennsylvania election law allow electioneering within 10 feet of the door?"Of course, if you search, you can find examples of reverse discrimination, but the overwhelming brunt of discrimination still falls on minorities." But in his testimony Friday, Coates argued that elements of the Justice Department have become predisposed to overlook any alleged incidents of whites being disenfranchised by minorities. The Bush administration's decision to force civil rights attorneys to investigate Ike Brown – the black, Democratic official in Mississippi – caused anger.That anger, said Coates, "was the result of their deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act against racial minorities and for the protection of whites who have been discriminated against." Under the Obama administration, that sentiment deepened, leading to the dismissal of the New Black Panther Party case in 2009, Coates alleged Friday.More deeply, though, the controversy suggests that two fundamentally different views of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are coming into conflict.
Committed partisans way off on the left, or right tend to view those closer to the center, irrespective of which side of the center they may reside, as agents of the other side. If you ignore the real center of the spectrum, you are viewing reality through a intentionally distorted prism. What’s funny about this is that lily-white liberal flakes from the suburbs couldn’t be able even to grasp the irony of black-on-white voter intimidation in Philly, PA, which not coincidentally happens to be a cesspool of left-wing failure and despair.
The incident was investigated by the Department of Justice and, before Barack Obama became President, the decision was made not to pursue criminal charges in the matter. The controversy mostly died out when the Summer of 2010 ended and people began focusing on the election, but Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog notes that there was a final report issued by the DOJ back in March and it turns out that the whole story really was much ado about nothing: (1) the original NBPP controversy really was small potatoes, as Abby Thernstrom and Jonathan Adler concluded.
This was a tiny incident in a single polling place about which there was not proof of a single intimidated voter.
(5) Some on the right hoped to use the controversy over NBPP to paint the Obama DOJ as politicized and to make a scandal out of a legitimate difference in opinion over DOJ prosecutorial priorities and prosecutorial discretion. However, what those two NBP members were doing is clearly proscribed.
I was amazed to learn that FOX News had 95 segments on the NBPP issue in little over a two week period. Christian Adams, Big Government, Hans von Spakovsky, and Pajamas Media-along with the Republican-leaning commissioners on the Civil Rights Commission (aside from Thernstrom)—sought to make as much political hay out of the incident as they could. But it is good that you reveal that you are willing to accept the subjugation of law to politics, or rather to the right political party.