Civil Rights Commission May Target DOJ Over New Black Panthers

Friday, August 28, 2009 at 6:00 am
New Black Panther member is interviewed by Fox News on Election Day 2008.

New Black Panther member is interviewed by Fox News on Election Day 2008.

Stephen Robert Morse’s election day reporting was not going as planned. The University of Pennsylvania graduate had flown back from Los Angeles to take a short-term gig recording video of polling place chicanery. He asked both parties if they were interested in his services; the Republicans hired him first. But the first few hours produced nothing in the way of compelling video. There was no sign that he was about to stumble onto an incident that would galvanize Republicans and conservatives nearly a year later.

Image by: Matt Mahurin

Image by: Matt Mahurin

At 11 a.m., Morse hit the jackpot. The local McCain-Palin campaign office got a call from a man who’d had trouble voting at the 14th ward, 4th division polling place, inside a senior citizens’ apartment complex in a heavily African-American neighborhood. The man was scared away by Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson, two members of the New Black Panther Party, a fringe radical group unrelated to the 1960s political organization. Shabazz and Jackson stood outside the polling place dressed in black leather, gripping nightsticks. Morse sped over to the polling place and shot video of the two men, who sniped at him for filming. He filmed the police who ushered the men away. Finally he filmed Shabazz angrily leaving the scene with a final insult: “That’s right, you’re gonna be ruled by a black man!”

Morse’s footage, uploaded immediately to YouTube, was played again and again on local and cable news, as Pennsylvania was expected to be a jump ball, a state that Sen. John McCain could take from the Democrats. But the state was called for Barack Obama the second the polls closed. Morse moved on.

“It’s crazy that this is still an issue,” Morse told TWI this week. “It’s not something I thought we’d be talking about ten months later.”

Ever since May, when the Department of Justice won an injunction against Jackson and announced it would not go further in prosecuting the other members of the NBP, conservative critics have demanded more action against the group and more answers from the agency. The most troublesome criticism for the Obama administration has come from the United States Commission on Civil Rights, created by the 1957 Civil Rights Act to “lay plans for dealing with broad civil rights problems” and “investigate and make recommendations with respect to special civil rights problems.” It has sent two letters to the Department of Justice demanding answers on the case. But the administration has also been hounded by two influential Republican members of Congress and a rising chorus of conservative media, from The Washington Times to Glenn Beck to Michelle Malkin. (Morse supports further action against the group and opposed the Justice Department’s decision not to push the case.)

“Thanks to [Attorney General] Eric Holder,” wrote Malkin last month, “these supremacist bullies are free to show up at your polling place in full regalia and nightsticks, hurling racist, anti-American epithets and blocking entrances as you attempt to exercise your right to vote.”

In an editorial, The Washington Times compared the Panthers’ disruption to a police blockade that kept black voters from the polls in Florida during the 2000 election. “Unlike the Florida incident,” wrote the editors, “this case involving the New Black Panthers screams out for tough justice.”

The Department of Justice has been firm on the matter; it opened a case in January and closed it in May. “The Department obtained an injunction prohibiting the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again,” spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler told TWI. “We will fully enforce the terms of that injunction.” And this came after “the top career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division determined that the facts and the law did not support pursuing the claims against three of the defendants.”

But that explanation has not satisfied most of the members of the Commission on Civil Rights. For eight years, President George W. Bush had the right to make appointments; the commission now consists of four Republican appointees, two conservative-leaning independent appointees, and two Democrats. The three African-American members of the panel, including Chairman Gerald A. Reynolds, are Republican appointees with ties to the conservative legal movement. Ashley Taylor, a Virginia lawyer, was a counsel to the McCain campaign in that state in 2008. Peter Kirsanow, who lives in Ohio, has helped lead the Center for New Black Leadership, a leading black conservative group. Chairman Reynolds served in the Department of Education and the Department of Justice under Bush. The fourth Republican appointee, Abigail Thernstrom, is a scholar who has produced some of the definitive arguments against affirmative action and racial preferences, most recently in “Voting Rights–and Wrongs: The Elusive Quest for Racially Fair Elections.” Independent commission member Gail Heroit is a conservative law professor at the University of San Diego who has argued against affirmative action and hate crimes legislation; the other independent member, Todd Gaziano, is a scholar at the Heritage Foundation.

This is the context in which the commission has sent two public letters to the Department of Justice, asking questions about the Panther investigation and drawing considerable media attention on a story that might have otherwise faded in January. “[I]t is with great confusion,” four of the conservative members wrote in a June letter, “that we learn of the Civil Rights Division’s recent decision to dismiss a lawsuit against defendants who were caught engaging in attempted voter suppression the likes of which we haven’t witnessed in decades.”

The Commission’s attention to the case, like the testimony of a Republican poll watcher with impeccable civil rights credentials, has lent credibility to Obama administration critics who argue that the Department of Justice went easy on a black supremacist group for political reasons. That poll watcher was Bartle Bull, an ally of the late Robert F. Kennedy who testified that the Panther stunt “would qualify as the most blatant form of voter intimidation I have encountered in my political campaigns in many states, even going back to the work I did in Mississippi in the 1960′s.” After the Justice Department decided to stop pursuing charges, Bull appeared on “The O’Reilly Factor” to go even further.

As effective as he’s been in pushing the case, Bull’s gone further than some of his allies would have liked. Before the Philadelphia incident, Bull had endorsed McCain and denounced Obama, saying his “notion of economic fairness is pure Karl Marx, plus a pocketful of Chicago-style ‘community organization.’”

“He loves the limelight more than I do,” said Morse.

Kirsanow, who has cited Bull in his public comments on the New Black Panthers, also put a little bit of distance between his charges and the commission’s concerns. “With all due respect to Bull … he saw what happened in the civil rights movement,” Kirsanow said. “But given the history of voting rights suppression in South, some of which resulted in a lot of violence, I don’t know that we can compare that to what happened in Philadelphia. It’s similar in kind, if not in degree.”

One problem with comparing the Philadelphia incident to the infamous crimes of the 1960s is that it didn’t effectively target potential McCain voters. Rather than targeting white voters, or going to a predominantly Republican district, the NBP went to a largely African-American precinct close to downtown Philadelphia. Obama carried the precinct by a landslide, with 596 votes to only 13 votes for McCain. The Republican candidate fared worse than George W. Bush in 2004, when he won 24 votes there, but better than Bush in 2000, when he won only eight votes. In a race that Obama won by 620,478 votes statewide, the New Black Panther incident was a blip.

“That’s not relevant here,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a lawyer was Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights during the Bush administration. “When I worked at the [Justice Department], we would never look at election results as a way of determining whether we needed to be involved.”

Nonetheless, Kirsanow told TWI that a majority of commission members were looking at making the Panther incident the focus of their next statutory report, the potentially powerful and news-making study that the commission is empowered to conduct every year. That has frustrated Mary Frances Berry, a civil rights scholar who chaired the Civil Rights Commission from 1993 to 2004. “Some of these people were on the same committee when we did an investigation of the vote in Florida,” she told TWI, “and they chose not to participate.”

Berry suggested that the commission would be better off using its power to investigate the tenure of John Tanner, the former head of the Voting Rights Division of the Justice Department, and who was revealed in early 2009 to have joked that he liked his coffee “Mary Frances Berry style — black and bitter.”

“Under Tanner there were all kinds of cases where blacks were prosecuted for allegedly intimidating voters,” said Berry. “That’s worth a review.”

But no civil rights issue is getting as much media traction as the Panther story. Even though there is no evidence of the New Black Panther Party repeating this stunt at other polling locations, it has kept the attention of conservative media and of Republicans such as Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), who has kept up demands for more information even after a meeting with the Justice Department lawyers who made the case. The story has gotten even more extreme in the re-tellings; On an August 24 episode of Glenn Beck’s Fox News show, erstwhile Democratic pollster Pat Caddell accused the attorney general of “decid[ing] that Black Panthers … who carry guns into precincts should not be prosecuted.”

“I suppose you’ve got to give them credit,” said Berry. “If they had wanted to do something that would get them traction, they did it with this. Because they totally lack credibility in the civil rights community.”

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Follow David Weigel on Twitter



Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 2:58 pm

I live in Phila. The polling place was located at Twelfth and Fairmount, where the Richard Allen Homes housing project used to be located. It seems to me that there wouldn't be any white or Republican or McCain supporters even living in that area, let alone registered to vote there. So who are those Panthers supposed to have even intimidated? Fox News supposedly had a video showing white McCain supporters at that location. The only reason a white person would go into that area would be to buy drugs.

Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 3:17 pm

NonCompassionateLiberal who is have a problem thinking logically.

You don't get it do you ? Think, think about what you are saying? Would it be OK with you if the Klu Klux Clan was at the front of polling place that was 100% white? How long would the whites put up with that? As long as it took the police to show up. Blacks should be outraged that Panthers showed up at “their” polling place.

Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 3:19 pm

Uhhh, lemme get ths straight, one Black Panther carries one gun to a public activity once, and the conservative movement demands justice. The right-wingbats repeatedly carry firearms near the President and that is just 2nd amendment rights. Hypocrisy, anyone? anyone? Bueller?

Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 3:25 pm

Being “OK” or “not OK” with it is one thing. “Putting up with” is quite another.

The law says: if you're far enough from the polling place to meet regulations, even a mass murderer and sadist like Dick Cheney is allowed to stand there dressed in ass-less chaps, a leather hood, and ball gag while brandishing a cat-o-nine-tails.

So “putting up with” is not an option. It's guaranteed by the Constitution.

Funny how some consider taking a loaded assault rifle to a political rally is codified in the Second Amendment, but yet African Americans can't exercise the First simply because they disagree with their message.

Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 3:29 pm

The point of the New Black Panthers being there wasn't for intimidation it was for protection or more accurately the apperance of protection.

Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 3:34 pm

The New Black Panthers are Irrelevant …

The only one given them any credence are the Conservatives and Republicans.

I found out about their existence through FOX News. for Pete's sake.

Voter intimidation requires that someone was actually intimidated.

But these Folks do conjure up something else for the (R)s to scare (white) people to death over.

Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 3:36 pm

The New Black Panthers never LYNCHED anyone.

Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:33 pm

Pointing at someone is a crime, carrying it is not.

Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:37 pm

Murder is OK, as long as you don't lynch.

Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

A couple of you have missed it in defending the right of the NBP to carry a gun: There was no gun at the scene. There was only Pat Caddell dishonestly implying that there was a gun.

All the same, no one can reasonably deny the NBP's intended to imtimidate, nor rationally defend their actions. Whatever their motivations, they have now become a focal point for wacko conservatives who love nothing more than to focus on irrelevant but alarming events.

Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 8:59 pm

Carrying a gun, as the militia-linked wingnuts in Arizona did, in order to intimidate and discourage others from engaging in their 1st Amendment-protected rights, or to intimidate voters, is using the 2nd Amendment to deny other people their Constitutional rights and should not be allowed.

Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 9:03 pm

Are you retarded or something?

Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 10:57 pm

There was a murder?

Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 10:58 pm

Fear…that's how you control.

Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 1:15 am

So you heard about it on FOX news. Gee I wonder why NBC, CBS,and ABC didn't cover it? What could possibly be the answer? How do you know no one was intimidated?

Concerning news coverage:
Hear about the other side here in Denver breaking out 10 plate glass windows at Democratic Headquarters? Now honestly, I don't know , was that on ABC,CBS, or NBC? Serious, I don't know .

Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 1:18 am

So who were they protecting the voter from, a bunch of gun carrying white Republicans?

Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 1:24 am

The panthers I saw in film were stand at the entrance of the polling place, not outside the distance required by regulations.

How do you know that the assault rifle carried to a political rally by a black guy was loaded?

Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 3:54 am

My god…this is still newsworthy?

It was amusing enough when it happened…because watching Faux News and GOP talking heads announce that an army of radical black militants were keeping whites away from the polls was incredibly hilarious. (OH MY STARS, MARTHA! A NEGRO GOT AHOLD OF A STICK!!! RUUUUUN FOOOOR YOUUUR LIIIIVES!!!)

One elderly bigot in the big city craps his Depends in stark terror because uninvited thugs guarded a polling place against the kind of hi-jinks and scare tactics that have been used against urban residents all over the country? That's the 'army' that threatened the sacred right to vote?

Frankly, its just sickening to see the number of GOP drones that have no backbone. We get a terrorist attack on our soil…they soil their pants and burn the Constitution and Bill of Rights before the sun sets. They see a black man with a stick…they can't just walk in and vote. Bush spends until we're in hock for a century and we get dead silence…Obama is in office for less than half a year and thousands protest paying the taxes that were set and agreed to under the Bush administration.

I'm not surprised that Republicans are showing up at rallies with guns…its the only way they feel safe being that stupid in public. What surprises me is that they left their compounds without air support, mobile infantry, and a Search & Rescue squad to extract them if anyone armed with a stick confronts them and tells them to shut the hell up and go home if they can't be civil.

Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 6:58 am

kennyp, you asked, “Would it be OK with you if the Klu Klux Clan was at the front of polling place that was 100% white? How long would the whites put up with that?” I'd say that depends on the white people and their geography. This was Philadelphia PA, not Philadelphia Mississippi. Maybe the white people in some places would LIKE the KKK to be there. Maybe Fox news would laud the KKK as uniformed “poll watchers.” Maybe you're annoyed because of the election results? You wrote, “Blacks should be outraged that Panthers showed up at 'their' polling place.” I think if you were a minority whose ancestor's were forced to make the trip here, then after you got your freedom you still couldn't live and work peacefully, a group like the Panthers might not stir up quite the indignation that should result in decent white people (who because of de facto “white privilege” are the controlling majority) when they view the Klan.
And ” skypete” makes a good point with his “The New Black Panthers never LYNCHED anyone.”

Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 7:04 am

Why was this non-event on Fox News only? Fox News is an arm of the Republican Party — they just went out looking for trouble. Now if Matt Drudge had mentioned it, maybe THEN NBC, CBS,and ABC would fall in line.

Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 7:09 am

Loaded or not, the message is the same.

True AMerican
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 4:10 pm

A Panther in the Ground is better than one standing. They are domestic terrorists and as a sworn oath to protect my country against them I will take the measures necessary to do just that, come on by my area!

True AMerican
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 4:12 pm

If the 13th and 21st Amendments were removed the US would be a much better place.

Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 5:55 pm

I'd love to see right-wing terrorists versus inner-city revolutionaries… The Panthers would mop the floor with all those fat-ass, ignorant couch-potatoes and armchair generals in the long-awaited 'race war.'

Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 7:29 pm

What an idiot you are. What acts has the BP party performed that qualifies them as domestic terroist? Save you extreme ignorance for a right-wing blog, dont bring it here please.

Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 11:21 pm

If you tried to violate either, I'd resort to my 2nd Amendment rights with you, you racist sack of shit.

Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 3:01 am

But you said it was loaded and I just wondered how you knew.

Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 3:05 am

So let me get this correct, you believe that if it is on Matt Drudge then it will be on ABC, NBC, and ABC? They cue off of him? Amazing! You may be the only person in the world thta knows that. Good for you.

Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 3:07 am

And of course there was no message by the Panther carrying the club. That is using you logic.

Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 3:13 am

You simply doin't get it and never will. They were breaking the law. Don't know anything about the New panthers and don't really care to. But if they turn out to be anything like the previous ones…… didn't lynch anyone, just killed policemen.
Anyway I have waisted enough time with this, so long to all of you.

—–Original M

Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 4:24 am

After watching the video I must say I'm disappointed. The black gentleman indicated that they were there to protect the polling booth. Maybe their methods and tenor were misguided and open to other interpretations, but nothing I saw was inconsistent with a PROTECTIVE we-are-not-going-to-be-bullied-by-some-outside-forces attitude. To be honest, if I was going to speculate about perceptions here, I might conjecture here that those watching the tape are intimidated by big black men. Not being there I cannot judge the events that sent the original man attempting to vote away, but if I were the investigator the I would like the details of the interaction to verify that the man wasn't simply responding to the presence of large black men. My concern about the possibility of that response is reinforced by the great conservative (they say in this story?) outcry to this tape.

If the black gentlemen were more directly threatening to the frightened would-be voter, I say throw the book at them–interfering in someone's exercise of their vote is a serious matter. But to the extent the case is based on this tape I see more of an object study in perception and race. I think this street runs both ways. There are times that black individuals are intimidated by over-protective large white gentlemen. When there are anxieties its natural for our minds to fill in the blanks. I do understand that the black gentlemen's behavior is open to different interpretations and the police officers came, presumably communicated that to them, and asked them to move on. They have since become the object of a national crusade against them.

A last important note here. The idea of protecting a polling place in a battleground state has not occurred in a vacuum. There were reports of widespread abuses in Ohio in 2004, (among other places), a state that gave Bush the Presidency. At its base would be a community-spirited notion to protect the votes in your neighborhood. If the goal was to intimidate prospective McCain voters rather than protect the votes in their neighborhood, why would they take up base in a neighborhood that would be expected to vote overwhelmingly for Obama?

Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 6:28 am

Yeah, they broke the law, but the Philly police are busy with more serious crimes, i.e.: murder, assault, rape.

Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 6:36 am


Here they come…

In the stampede of books attempting to make their mark this season comes THE WAY TO WIN, by longtime political reporters Halperin and Harris.

The political director of ABCNEWS and the national politics editor of the WASHINGTON POST make it official in their new insider tome on DC politics and how it's played: The four words in every newsroom and campaign headquarters are: Have you seen DRUDGE?


In an extended 15-page homage to the glories of this site, they report: “Matt Drudge is the gatekeeper… he is the Walter Cronkite of his era.”

“In the fragmented, remote-control, click-on-this, did you hear? political media world in which we live, revered Uncle Walter has been replaced by odd nephew Matt.”

Mark Halperin and John Harris write “Matt Drudge rules our world.” They say, “With the exception of the ASSOCIATED PRESS, there is no outlet other than the DRUDGE REPORT whose dispatches instantly can command the attention and energies of the most established newspapers and television newscasts.”

That was on the conservative “NewsBusters”

Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 6:40 am

I didn't say it was loaded. That was another poster. But whether it was or wasn't, perceptions sometimes trump reality.
Talk to you (or not) later.

Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 4:34 am


You talk like you were military. Were you? If so, you learned NOTHING. What you gonna do? kill them all? that's a lot of bullets. Hope you'll have enough money after you get dropped by your insurance company when the broken bones are classified as a pre-existing condition, after they finally beat the heck out of you.

I WAS military, an Iraq war vet, to be precise, and your statements just don't scan with what I know about TRUE military men. I'm also a minority. Impersonal comment sites like these are perfect for people like you who can't walk the walk. Coward.

Paul Frank
Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 10:28 am

I applaud your act of solidarity with at least what these gentleman were accused of doing. Quick! Someone call the Civil Rights Commission and Fox News. We have an intimidator proclaiming he is “protecting” the citizenry's right to vote. Perpetrator!

And meanwhile at Fox News. “Oh no! He might be white! That will never work…….Wait we have another category for that….DEFENDER OF THE BESIEGED WHITE CITIZENRY……”

Dear Vigilante SuperHero, If their goal was to intimidate for votes, why weren't they in your neighborhood to start with where there were actually some votes to change?

Paul Frank
Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 10:51 am

Dear kennyp,
If there was a history of harassment of the white community I would understand it. I'd send the cops, tell them they were actually intimidating people their intentions notwithstanding, and send them home. (Scratch that. If the Klan showed up anywhere I'd call the FBI and hide somewhere, but I don't think that's relevant to your point.) I applaud the actual cops for doing this, and the actual enforcement mechanism for not taking Fox News' bait.

Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 3:27 pm

Someone needs to tell the Obama DOJ that it is ALREADY illegal to brandish weapons at a polling place- asking for an injunction to keep them from doing it in the future is nonsensical.

If this had been 2 KKK guys in robes with baseball bats outside a polling place, you can bet your ass that the Obama administration would have pursued them to the fullest extent of the law… and they'd be right to do so. What's with the double standard? Does the Obama DOJ think it is okay to be a racist thug if you happen to be black?

Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 3:49 pm


The NBP never killed or hurt anyone as far as I know (if you have verifiable info to the contrary, I'd be glad to recant), but the KKK has. I think this is the distinction. It's all about keeping the peace. Not working too well, but then again, racism in this country, as in others, will never be resolved as long as we hold onto the fallacy that if someone LOOKS different, they are somehow inferior. This goes for both sides.

There Goes the Meritocracy - The Opinionator Blog -
Pingback posted August 31, 2009 @ 5:14 pm

[...] the Press.” “We’re too busy focusing on issues.” Like Black Panthers who steal elections … from black people. Or why William F. Buckley had “half a point” when he claimed [...]

Paul Frank
Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 9:13 pm

Dear Rick,
I am honestly not getting this. Can you or somebody help me. Please watch/listen to the video and tell me the line, word, movement, point, whatever where it went bad. I get that someone might be intimidated by these guys. (Obama's grandmother comes to mind.) But I have a hard time pinning down a point or place where what they were doing was more than being protective. This is reinforced by their description that they were on security and that they were concerned citizens.

I support the idea that their project was not fully thought through. I think it is good that the cops came and asked them to leave. The nightsticks (unlike baseball bats) are standard security officer fare. I get that they added a layer of intimidation, but they are also consistent with acting on security. The idea in much of policing is to have a show of force so that no one will even be tempted to do something stupid. There are several other people milling around, white and black, and I was unable to detect even the slightest indication of apprehension or intimidation. And the 2 KKK guys in robes comparison would be more appropriate if they were wearing recognizable gang colors from a group known for a lot of murders and intimidation.

I invite you to at least try on the idea that they actually saw themselves as security. Tell me where this breaks down for you. I gather you are aware of law about weapons at polling stations. Do I have that right? Are you clear about what the status of billy clubs is in that law? If this is indeed a violation of the law, for myself to the extent I had discretion as a police officer, as long I felt they actually saw themselves as providing security, I'd give them a stern lecture and a tour of the precinct station house and send them on their way. I could understand a different judgment here, but that this would be national news 10 months later is mind boggling to me. I would also like to understand what the actions are that lead you to believe that Obama would pursue this so aggressively.

You seem honest and sincere about this and I would really like to understand. At this point for me this all seems like a study in perception and race.

Pingback posted September 1, 2009 @ 11:07 am

[...] nominee to head the division, Thomas Perez, up to a confirmation vote. The reason is a ginned-up allegation of voter suppression against the New Black Panther Party that Holder has, reasonably, been [...]

Comment posted September 3, 2009 @ 2:55 pm

nike af1 shoes
nike dunk sb shoes
Polo Clothes

Comment posted September 7, 2009 @ 10:13 pm

Eric Holder being in charge of a nation of laws is ignoring the nation of laws. Why is it because he see the Black Panther as Obama backers. How can black ask that police taken in those that would threaten blacks but when it is the other way around Eric Holder ignores his responsibilities.
Those that were affected should file a lawsuit against the Attorney General and the President of the United States for dereliction of duty to uphold the law of the land.
The voting place should be a safe place. Those carrying potential weapons to one should be in prison and incarcerated.

WorldNetDaily, I'm on your mailing list and I support you and the Glenn Beck's of this world for questioning the working members of our government. All American should be proud of the service you are doing. Those that believe in FREEDOM, will not waver in the face of adversity.

Comment posted September 8, 2009 @ 11:02 am

Honestly I never heard of these guys and I watch news all day…..including “black” news. Its funny how only Fox News is giving these guys some credibility.

Comment posted September 8, 2009 @ 4:02 pm

Faux news is the only venue willing to give the nuts like Beck the airtime to spout their nonsense. Credibility resides only at Faux, which should tell you something about it's message. The folk they backed lost the last election, and they, like petulant children, aren't satisfied that someone else should have their turn.

They have no cred. It's why they ramped up the scare tactics. They spout how this is no longer America, but their solution is a disaster, unless they do something about the very organizations they are “protecting” now. It's all crap. Protect the status quo- at any cost. !LOL!

Comment posted September 10, 2009 @ 2:19 am

WorldNetDaily??? Glenn Beck??? I heard the Dry Cleaner called, Mr. s — Your sheets are ready!

SIEU (Communists) swarms private Residence, terrorizing child... - Page 9 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Pingback posted May 23, 2010 @ 10:21 am

[...] supporters threatening people at the voting stations last November standing with baseball bats: Civil Rights Commission May Target DOJ Over New Black Panthers The Washington Independent __________________ Ignored trash: Shogun, Sunni [...]

What’s All This Talk About “The New Black Panther Party” and Voter Fraud? « The Fifth Column
Pingback posted July 9, 2010 @ 6:52 pm

[...] Department “announced it would not go further in prosecuting the other members of the [NBPP], conservative critics have demanded more action against the group and more answers from the [...]

New Black Panther Party Leader - ... you want freedom ... kill some crackers - Page 45 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Pingback posted July 14, 2010 @ 11:18 am

[...] makes his statement suspect (for example, only one of the men carried a night stick). I think this statement sums it up: But no civil rights issue is getting as much media traction as the Panther story. Even though there [...] » Blog Archive » Newsweek’s Graham: Conservative Ire Over New Black Panther Voter Intimidation Simply ‘Political Theater’
Pingback posted July 15, 2010 @ 3:03 am

[...] to vote surpression or voter intimidation: Although that story didn’t go mainstream, it did cause the Commission on Civil Rights, an independent body, to take up the case. As Dave Weigel reported, there was more to that decision than met the eye: after eight years of [...]

Louis Vttion handbags
Comment posted December 10, 2010 @ 6:20 am

The Epi Leather, shiny palladium hardware, rolled leather handles with ring attachments, and Louis Vuitton Canvas engraved padlock on the side of the bag make this handbag truly standout. Instantly, I fell in love with the balenciaga bags Speedy in black! It was gorgeous, sophisticated and I thought it would lovely in my collection. I absolutely loved the Speedy Cube, but due to the ultra high price I turned to the Epi collection for a more affordable take on a black louis vuitton belts handbag. At the moment, I have four different louis vuitton clutches in my collection going on a 5th in two weeks and I thought it was quite senseless to even think to getting lousi vuitton Speedy 30. So I change to search for a black Jimmy Choo clutches I came across the Louis Vuitton Leather Lockit and it was love at first sight! I have been eager to own a Louis Vuitton store Outlet in black for some time now. If the Catier bags doesnt interest you in black, it also is available in Cassis, Ivoire, and Red. My personal favorite is the black, and I just may add the Louis Vuitton discounts Epi Leather Lockit to my current wish collection. By the way, if you think the price is high, you can visit our online store to choose some Louis Vuitton multicolor for you. I change to search for MiuMiu tote I came across the Louis Vuitton Speedy handbag. Epi Leather Lockit and it was love at first sight! The Louis Vuitton Epi MiuMiu online have always been a favorite to me, and when I saw that the lockit came in Epi Leather also I was took. For some odd reason,cheap lv handbags sale, I have never taken notice of this particular lockit handbag before and I must say it is stunning.The features of this handbag are absolutely beautiful. Written by Louis Vuitton Trunk On Sale.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.