5/29/2009

"Protecting Black Panthers: The Obama administration ignores voter intimidation"

I wrote this editorial here:

Imagine if Ku Klux Klan members had stood menacingly in military uniforms, with nightsticks, in front of a polling place. Add to it that they had hurled racial threats and insults at voters who tried to enter.

Now suppose that the government, backed by a nationally televised video of the event, had won a court case against the Klansmen except for the perfunctory filing of a single, simple document - but that an incoming Republican administration had moved to voluntarily dismiss the already-won case.

Surely that would have been front-page news, with a number of firings at the Justice Department.

The flip side of this scenario is occurring right now. The culprits weren't Klansmen; they belonged to the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. One of the defendants, Jerry Jackson, is an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and was a credentialed poll watcher for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party when the violations occurred. Rather conveniently, the Obama administration has asked that the cases against Mr. Jackson, two other defendants and the party be dropped.

The Voting Rights Act is very clear. It prohibits any "attempt to intimidate, threaten or coerce" any voter or those aiding voters. . . .

Labels: , ,

3 Comments:

Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

Here's a link to some videos. Few videos, they are, but they tell the truth in ways that I cannot.

BHO and his ilk should be prosecuted for dropping this case.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=black+panthers+block+polling+place&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#

5/29/2009 4:25 PM  
Blogger Chas said...

Voter intimidation with weapons has now been tacitly endorsed by the Obama administration.

5/31/2009 9:05 AM  
Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

Dear Chas.

Voter intimidation by means of violence, came about in the aftermath of the Colfax Massacre.

That support of said violence was confirmed by the SCOTUS in it's United States v Cruikshank decision (1875). The aforementioned case was then used as a basis to support Presser v Illinois, which of course our current SCOTUS nominee has used in the past to deny rights as well.

Either BHO, and Ms. Sotomayor are ignorant of the Law, and or history, or both, or they are not.

If the latter be the true, we are surely doomed if we fail to be heard and take action to protect ourselves.

5/31/2009 4:53 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home