Northwest Indiana Discussion

Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case

Published July 06, 2010

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.

The Bush Justice Department brought the first case against three members of the group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voter Rights Act. The Obama administration initially pursued the case, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court. But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a "deadly weapon" near a polling place until 2012.

left this out:



translation:
right wing bullshit from Fake News

Ohhhhhhh......well if the Justice Department denies it, then it MUST be "right wing bullshit". God damn, you are a dim-witted jerk, aren't you? Did you expect something other than a denial from the Justice Department?
You're a complete idiot.

Investigation of 'antiwhite bias' grows
Justice official accused of saying: No more cases against blacks
Posted: July 06, 2010

By Brian Fitzpatrick

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights today suggested it is expanding its review of claims that the Department of Justice has implemented a ban on prosecuting defendants who are black.

The comments came at a hearing in Washington at which commission members asked witness J. Christian Adams to provide the names of other Department of Justice attorneys who might shed further light on his allegation that the DOJ is afflicted by a "culture of hostility" toward prosecuting black perpetrators of voting-rights violations against white victims.

Commissioner Gail Heriot asked Adams to provide a "list of attorneys in the department who could corroborate" his testimony, indicating that the commission plans to expand its investigation of racial bias in the Department of Justice.

Also, Adams revealed that some DOJ staffers were disciplined for harassing other departmental attorneys because they held "evangelical religious views" and worked on a case brought against a black political activist in Mississippi.

Adams, until recently a top trial attorney in the voting section of the DOJ, testified that staffers throughout the department have subscribed for years to the notion that the DOJ's primary responsibility is to protect the voting rights of minority voters, not whites.

He added that recent Obama administration DOJ appointees have reinforced this notion by making such racial discrimination a formal departmental policy.

According to the former DOJ attorney, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandez, an Obama appointee at the top of the department, announced at a policy meeting that "the voting section will not bring any other cases against blacks and other minorities."

Instead, the department will focus on "traditional" civil-rights cases, was the suggestion.

Adams testified that Fernandez also said the department "has no interest in enforcing" the section of the Motor Voter law that requires local jurisdictions to purge the voting rolls of ineligible voters, even deceased voters, because "it has nothing to do with increasing turnout."

Commissioner Peter Kirsanow asked Adams "to what extent" the department believes equal treatment before the law applies to all voters.

"That's the problem," replied Adams. "They assume Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act doesn't apply to white voters."

Adams pointed out that over the past 45 years, the department has brought hundreds of cases against whites violating the rights of ethnic-minority voters, but only two cases against blacks violating the rights of whites.

Commissioner Ashley Taylor observed, "The division's policy can be found in the cases it brings."

Adams said the DOJ's attitude toward racial neutrality will be demonstrated in mid-July when the department has to choose a course of action in the next phase of a case against black political leader Ike Brown of Knox City, Miss. "If they don't object to the submission, they will be [saying] that section 5 does not apply to white victims."

Adams resigned from the department after he was ordered by his superiors to drop a case prosecutors already had won – the notorious New Black Panther Party intimidation of voters in a majority-black precinct in urban Philadelphia on Election Day in 2008.

Amateur videographers had caught New Black Panther Party activists on video wielding a baton, intimidating the elderly black man serving as the Republican poll watcher and calling for the murder of white babies in their cribs.

One of the four New Black Panther Party members charged in the case is also an elected Democrat holding a local office.

When they were ordered to drop the case, Adams and the team of DOJ lawyers had already won the case by default because the New Black Panthers declined to defend themselves in court. At that point in the proceedings, the DOJ team was simply waiting for the judge to assign penalties against the New Black Panthers.

Adams claimed that the decision to drop the case was made by Obama political appointees, and that the decision to drop a case that was already won was "unprecedented."

'Want freedom? Kill some crackers!'
New Black Panther Obama DOJ refused to prosecute: 'I hate white people – all of them!'
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=175817
Posted: July 07, 2010

By Chelsea Schilling

Minister King Samir Shabazz, aka Maurice Heath



"You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers! You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!"

Those were the words of Minister King Samir Shabazz, also known as Maurice Heath, the New Black Panther Party's Philadelphia leader.

Shabazz is the same man the Obama administration Department of Justice refused to prosecute after he was filmed on Election Day 2008 with Jerry Jackson wearing paramilitary uniforms, carrying a nightstick and blocking a doorway to a polling location to intimidate voters.

The following YouTube video posted by Naked Emperor News shows his statements during a National Geographic special on the New Black Panthers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN67KJdd ... r_embedded

"I hate white people – all of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate 'em," Shabazz shouts into a megaphone on a crowded sidewalk. "Through South Street with white, dirty, cracker whore [expletive] on our arms. And we call ourselves black men with African garb on."

Then Shabazz spotted a black man embracing a white woman.

"What the hell is wrong with you, black man?" he shouted into his megaphone. "You [inaudible] with a white girl on your damn arm!

"You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers! You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!"

If a caucasian dare speaketh these words of hate, the cities would burn.

You betcha, because caucasians never, ever, dare speaketh words of hate.

In typical creep540 fashion our resident troll uses words of hate to excuse words of hate.

a post and 2 edits required for the CREEP to tell us what we already know....when a minority misbehaves, self-loathing, guilty white liberal pussies look the other way.

This is an example of what edge and others of his mindset engage in constantly, a phenomenom which has been referred to as 'the soft bigotry of low expectations'.
By their reckoning, whites should be publicly and roundly condemned for such speech.
Also by their reckoning, the same type of speech by blacks is not allowed to even be remarked upon, because ... well, those folks are black, after all, and we really shouldn't expect them to know any better, should we?






Keep an eye on the incident below over the next few news cycles to see whether the mainstream media opinion journalists will tut-tut and viciously condemn this behavior, or whether they will let it slide by without passing judgment.


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66763A20100709
California transit cop verdict sparks looting

By Steve Gorman and Peter Henderson
LOS ANGELES/OAKLAND | Fri Jul 9, 2010 4:52am EDT

California (Reuters) - A white former transit police officer was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in a videotaped shooting death of an unarmed black man last year in Oakland, California, sparking a wave of looting and destruction in the city on Thursday.
The verdict prompted a peaceful protest by up to 1,000 people in downtown Oakland, which gave way after nightfall to some people looting stores, smashing car windows, throwing powerful fireworks at police and lighting fires in trash cans.
The police, numbering in the hundreds, made more than 50 arrests, but Oakland police expected that figure could double.





And, of course, right on cue, the Obama justice department steps in and reflexively assumes that the white police officer 'acted stupidly'.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sectio ... id=7545102
US Justice Department to review BART shooting
Friday, July 09, 2010

The topic is voter intimidation by Black Panthers in the 2008 election, in case you haven't noticed.
The acts of the Ku Klux Klan 50 years ago have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.
But, since you brought up the subject of interracial crime, why don't you chew on these data?

http://www.examiner.com/x-17078-Lafayet ... n-formulas
Federal Statistics of black on white violence, with links and mathematical extrapolation formulas.

August 1, 5:22 PM Lafayette Political Buzz Examiner Ken LaRive

The “New Century Foundation” studies Federal crime reports, and found significant differences in crime ratio between races, verified by the FBI’s NCVS, National Crime Victimization Survey, and The Department of Justice’s UCR, Uniform Crime Reports, FBI Communication’s Division, 304-625-4995.
They state emphatically that the Judicial System is not biased against minorities.
Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.
Blacks are three times more likely to use a hand gun, and twice more likely to use a knife.
Hispanics commit three times more violent crimes than whites, but the statistics are nebulous because sometimes they are classified as white, so it could be far higher.
The best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percent of the population that is black and Hispanic.
Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites then vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit a robbery.
Forty-five percent of black crime is against whites, 43 against other blacks, and 10 percent against Hispanic.
Blacks are seven times more likely to go to prison, Hispanics three times, and the reason is clear, because from 1980 to 2003 the US incarceration rate has tripled, and so proves that Justice is not only hard won, but well served.

The post by the self-described "Obese Fool" was simply a cue for CREEP540 to break out the CREEP family lynching photos. For these two complete f***in idiots and millions of other weak, spineless, self-loathing, guilty white libs, minority hi jinx are accepted, encouraged, and overlooked because said minorities happened to be mistreated by whitey in the past. That makes it all OK in their twisted view. Truly a case of 2 or more wrongs all adding up to right.