Voter Intimidation OK If You Are A Black Panther Supporting Democrats

The leader of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, Malik Shabazz, says that Attorney General Eric Holder was right when he dropped the issue of voter intimidation that was engaged in by two New Black Panthers last November. Shabazz said that the two had been suspended and that the whole uproar over the case being dropped is nothing more than a Republican witch hunt.

Oh really?

Let me lay this out for the mouth breathing moron. Voter intimidation is a crime and it matters not that the two involved were suspended. If a star NFL quarterback is caught on tape raping a girl the case does not get dropped because the team suspended him. That is because, like voter intimidation, rape is a crime.

Holder dropped the case because it was a political favor and he was helping out a black organization that supports Democrats.

The Democrats cried foul and claimed voter intimidation because a police car was parked outside a polling place in Florida during the 2000 election. The presence of a police car is not intimidation but two fatigue clad men wielding night sticks is. A police car should have been parked outside that polling place in Philadelphia.

Imagine if the KKK showed up at a polling place and they had night sticks and threatened people. Suppose they said that they were there to ensure that the people did not vote for a black man.

Eric Holder would not drop those charges and Shabazz would be screaming racism and voter intimidation and I doubt he would buy any argument that the KKK had suspended the offending Klansmen. Voter intimidation is a crime no matter whether you are wearing a hood or from the hood.

Democrats don’t seem to see it that way. In 2004 Michael Moore said he was going to have video cameras around to film voter intimidation and there was a phone number for people to call and report it. These two knuckledraggers were caught on film intimidating voters and Moore has remained silent. No one on the left has called these guys out.

Shabazz is an idiot and his organization is not very different than the KKK. The only real difference is the color of the people they hate.

I am glad I live in a place where morons like the Black Panthers (or the KKK) would never think of showing up at a polling place and intimidating voters. They know they would get their guts stomped out.

So I have an open invitation for them to show up at our voting place to try their carp.

Even Eric Holder will not be able to save them then.

Source:
Breitbart

Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

15 Responses to “Voter Intimidation OK If You Are A Black Panther Supporting Democrats”

  1. Adam says:

    The point of Shabazz mentioning the suspension was not to make it appear like that was punishment enough for intimidation but rather to distance the organization itself from the actions of the men involved.

    In the case of the quarterback what you’d be calling for would be to essentially take the NFL team organization to court for the actions of the quarterback. You wouldn’t call for that would you? That’s Shabazz’s main point.

    If men in robes showed up to a polling place would you argue for filing a lawsuit against the organization calling itself the KKK or would you seek charges against the men themselves?

    The charges against the party and two individuals not carrying weapons were dropped. The charges against the man who did have a weapon were not dropped.

    • Big Dog says:

      If there has been a charge filed then it was due to pressure because the original charges, that were filed against the three men, were dropped.

      As far as the organization goes, it is responsible for its members. An investigation should take place to find out if their actions were sanctioned. The NFL/rape scenario does not lend itself to that kind of scrutiny but if it were betting on teams then I imagine the team should be looked at to see if the actions were known about and sanctioned.

      Congress brought MLB in to discuss the use of performance enhancing drugs by some of its players. If MLB had suspended them do you think Congress would not have called MLB leaders in?

      Justice should look into it to see if the group had anything to do with it or tacitly sanctioned it. The New Black Panthers are not exactly a peaceful group and have a history of violence.

      If the KKK were involved I am sure the entire organization would be looked at, and rightly so.

      • Adam says:

        My point was simply that Shabazz’s statements were not condoning voter intimidation as you seem to want it to be but rather just seeking to applaud the dropping of the case against he organization and to distance the group from the actions of the individuals and in some sense the entire PHI chapter of the organization.

        You may feel like an investigation into the organization is warranted but I still disagree. There are certainly cases where individual actions should lead to investigations of an organization or a group but we’re talking about one case of a couple of guys causing trouble, only one who had a weapon. No one was hurt and the cops broke this up pretty quickly because it was so outrageous and stupid.

        I could see a scenario where this would justify charging or investigating the NBPP but this is far from one of those cases. This isn’t even on scale with ACORN where there was multiple instances of questionable behavior. You speak of a history of violence by NBPP and maybe you can go into that into detail because I’m not really finding anything too specific or notable other than the events in question.

        What I’d like is simply more transparency given to the decisions surrounding this case because I do think equal application of the laws related to voter intimidation is important.

        • Blake says:

          Anyone named Shabazz cannot be taken seriously- Is he a candy mint? Or is he a breath mint?
          Skittles would be just as good a name for this moron.
          Voter intimidation is voter intinidation.. I wish they had tried this in my precinct- they’d have had a bad beatdown- they are just a suit and a mouth- poseurs all.
          Even in as pitiful shape as I am, I could take them.

        • Adam says:

          Of course don’t get me wrong and say I’m defending the beliefs of these people. The NBPP is a racist hate group probably 3 times as organized and bigger than most groups pretending to be the KKK. Their leadership is as equally outspoken as hateful as any ignorant white supremacists.

          I’m just saying that I’m not finding any specific cases of violence that would make me say that this one instance in Philly is enough to investigate the entire national group considering it was mainly 2 men, one with a stick, and no battery occurred.

  2. In on it not says:

    In 2004: Unocal Company reaches a settlement to end a lawsuit stemming from abuses by Myanmarese military during the construction of a pipeline the company was helping to build.
    Not your aweful intimidation at a voting pole, but some intimidation all the same.

    Seems a French pipeline construction company hired Unocal to do some engineering work for them.

    The French were contracted to the Myanmar goverment. The Myanmar government sent military in to “clear the right-of-way,” and secure the corridor…

    People got hurt and people got killed. Some people burned in a camp-fire or some such fiasco. Google it.

    Then along came activists human rights lawyers to sue someone and discovered that the Myanmar military couldn’t be sued. No jurisdiction.
    Same for the Myanmar government; it is a socialst Junta/some-thing-nasty, with no recourse for activist liberal lawyers to claim against.
    Can’t sue the French, no mutual extradition treaties with France and Myanmar.

    And that left Unocal as the only company that COULD be sued, and that is just who the liberal lawyers sued.

    Why? Because that was where the money was. The John Doe plantif(s) saw less than 1% of the settlement money.

    Now, Adam, do please go on; You were saying something about the morality of seeking charges against the guilty men themselves?

    What planet are you from? The Ape Planet?

  3. TruePatriotHrt says:

    Adam is totally and completely biased.
    Does he ever admit that the Democrats do any wrong?
    Even I can admit that Bush was not the best president.
    Sheesh, Adam.
    You really need to stop while you’re far behind.
    A blind man could see your undying love for the Democrats!

  4. Big Dog says:

    Adam, go here and read the controversy section. There are instances of violence (or threats of violence) listed.

    These guys claim to be the offspring of the original BPP and that was even more violent.

    • Adam says:

      You can find instances of crowds getting rowdy and some people getting hurt, but for the most part this is an organization that spouts hateful rhetoric and talks a big talk but there are no real cases of physical violence or crimes being committed worth what you’re calling for.

      Linking the NBPP to the BPP is like saying a local chapter of the KKK needs investigated because it’s tied to the lynching, murdering root organization. It just doesn’t work that way and when it does it needs to be corrected.

      • TruePatriotHrt says:

        Adam in case you did not know:
        In the weeks leading up to 2008 elections in November, the NBP’s website stated “Don’t let the white man, take away the black vote”.
        I would say that is inflammatory and calls for violence, don’t you?

  5. TruePatriotHrt says:

    Adam not long after the fiasco on election day, I got curious and went to their website and it stated what I said to you earlier.
    Of course it would not be there now as the election is over.
    And here is another link showing just what kind of people the NBPP are.
    Just curious, what to you constitutes a crime?
    Are you always so forgiving to people?
    If you got mugged on a city street, would you claim that the person who mugged you was a victim?
    You’re the typical bleeding heart liberal that does not believe in self responsibility for one’s wrongdoings.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2009/jul/30/disturbing-content-new-black-panthers-myspace-page/

    • Adam says:

      I don’t doubt what you saw so much but I just wanted to see it for myself. I’ve already said the NBPP is a racist hate group. I’m just not sure how any of that amounts to calls for violence. What to me constitutes a crime? What is the point of that question? Are there NBPP crimes that I’m not admitting to?

      You started this by saying “Adam is totally and completely biased.” and now you’re on about “You’re the typical bleeding heart liberal that does not believe in self responsibility for one’s wrongdoings.”

      A little less personal attack and a little more evidence to support your case would be nice.

      • TruePatriotHrt says:

        I’ve read your comments enough to know where you stand.
        And why take it personal when I am only telling the truth?
        I have seen people try to prove things to you with evidence and links, and you twist around what people are trying to say or you twist it to suit what you are trying to say.
        Your comments tell me enough, thank you.

        • Adam says:

          Something about starting a sentence “You’re the typical bleeding heart liberal…” that makes it pretty clear you’re not debating but rather just attacking. Think whatever you want, we don’t have to discuss it.