|
 |
 |
|
Black Panthers, Part II
-
07/07/10 12:56 PM ET
Rarely do I respond to my own posts, but I confess I have found some of the
commentary in need of rebuttal.
First, the facts speak for themselves in this case:
(1) Two members of the New Black Panthers stood before a polling station in Philadelphia on Election Day of 2008. One of the men was clearly seen brandishing a nightstick — a weapon the Justice Department itself has characterized as a deadly weapon.
(2) After watching video reports of the incident, the Department of Justice filed suit on Jan. 7, 2009.
Here are two of the videos in question.
Now, many of my critics have asserted that I have made a partisan political argument or that this is somehow the work of Karl Rove. Interesting to note that the lawyers who filed suit on behalf of the United States against the New Black Panthers were civil service, rather than political appointees of the Bush administration. In fact, Tom Perez, the assistant attorney general of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice had this to say about the handling of the New Black Panther Party case in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 3, 2009:
"The [NBPP] case was reviewed by two attorneys ... who have a combined total of 60 years of experience, and they made [the] determination that — based on the law of the 3rd Circuit — that the case against the person who wielded the stick, that we should indeed seek the maximum penalty, and that the maximum penalty was sought and obtained."
Important to point out here that Perez is the individual President Obama nominated to his position as assistant attorney general and that he was confirmed by the Senate in October 2009. He is a Democrat. A Democrat who previously served as secretary of Labor, Licensing and Regulation under current Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, also a Democrat.
So President Obama's political appointee, the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Justice Department, felt comfortable in pressing for the maximum charges for violations of the Voting Rights Act for voter intimidation in 2009 ... before they were dropped by the Obama administration without comment to the Congress, the Commission on Civil Rights and the American people?
It amazes me that if two members of the KKK had stood before the same polling place in their robes brandishing a nightstick, the outcry in the media would have been entirely different.
So somehow a Democrat assistant attorney general defending the work of his civil service, non-political employees is turned into the work of George W. Bush and the Republicans? This needs to stop: Americans need to honestly evaluate the facts before them fairly rather than seeking to score political points.
My criticism of the president and his attorney general lies in the fact that there are credible allegations of a culture within the Department of Justice that members of one race are treated differently under the color of law. That is wrong, regardless of the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
First, the facts speak for themselves in this case:
(1) Two members of the New Black Panthers stood before a polling station in Philadelphia on Election Day of 2008. One of the men was clearly seen brandishing a nightstick — a weapon the Justice Department itself has characterized as a deadly weapon.
(2) After watching video reports of the incident, the Department of Justice filed suit on Jan. 7, 2009.
Here are two of the videos in question.
Now, many of my critics have asserted that I have made a partisan political argument or that this is somehow the work of Karl Rove. Interesting to note that the lawyers who filed suit on behalf of the United States against the New Black Panthers were civil service, rather than political appointees of the Bush administration. In fact, Tom Perez, the assistant attorney general of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice had this to say about the handling of the New Black Panther Party case in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 3, 2009:
"The [NBPP] case was reviewed by two attorneys ... who have a combined total of 60 years of experience, and they made [the] determination that — based on the law of the 3rd Circuit — that the case against the person who wielded the stick, that we should indeed seek the maximum penalty, and that the maximum penalty was sought and obtained."
Important to point out here that Perez is the individual President Obama nominated to his position as assistant attorney general and that he was confirmed by the Senate in October 2009. He is a Democrat. A Democrat who previously served as secretary of Labor, Licensing and Regulation under current Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, also a Democrat.
So President Obama's political appointee, the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Justice Department, felt comfortable in pressing for the maximum charges for violations of the Voting Rights Act for voter intimidation in 2009 ... before they were dropped by the Obama administration without comment to the Congress, the Commission on Civil Rights and the American people?
It amazes me that if two members of the KKK had stood before the same polling place in their robes brandishing a nightstick, the outcry in the media would have been entirely different.
So somehow a Democrat assistant attorney general defending the work of his civil service, non-political employees is turned into the work of George W. Bush and the Republicans? This needs to stop: Americans need to honestly evaluate the facts before them fairly rather than seeking to score political points.
My criticism of the president and his attorney general lies in the fact that there are credible allegations of a culture within the Department of Justice that members of one race are treated differently under the color of law. That is wrong, regardless of the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
