posted July 07, 2010 05:05 PM         

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

Published July 06, 2010 | FoxNews.com

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.

In a statement Tuesday, a Justice spokesman said the civil rights division determined "the facts and the law did not support pursuing claims" against the two other defendants and denied Adams' allegations.

"The department makes enforcement decisions based on the merits, not the race, gender or ethnicity of any party involved. We are committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of both the civil and criminal provisions of the federal laws that prohibit voter intimidation," the spokesman said.

The Civil Rights Commission, which subpoenaed Adams, has been probing the incident since last year. Adams said he ignored department directives not to testify and eventually quit after he heard Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez testify that there were concerns the Black Panther case was not supported by the facts.

Adams has described the case as open-and-shut and said Tuesday that it was a "very low moment" to hear Perez make that claim.

But he described the department's hostility toward that and other cases involving black defendants as "pervasive." Adams cited hostility in the department toward a 2007 voting rights case against a black official in Mississippi who was accused of trying to intimidate voters. Adams said that when the Black Panther case came up, he heard officials in the department say it was "no big deal" and "media-generated" and point to "Fox News" as the source.

But as the investigation unfolded, he said he discovered "indications" that the Black Panther Party was doing the "same thing" to supporters of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary season in early 2008. He urged the commission to pursue testimony from other Justice officials to corroborate his story.

It's unclear how far the commission will get. The commissioners want to hear from Christopher Coates, the former chief of the Justice Department's voting section, but the commission claims the Justice Department is blocking Coates from testifying about why the case was dropped.

In a written statement last week, the department questioned the motives of Adams, now an attorney in Virginia and a blogger for Pajamas Media.

"It is not uncommon for attorneys with the department to have good faith disagreements about the appropriate course of action in a particular case, although it is regrettable when a former department attorney distorts the facts and makes baseless allegations to promote his or her agenda," the statement said.

posted July 12, 2010 04:35 PM         

I'm sure the Dept. of Justice has its ranks full of people that break their oaths repeatedly, but the enabling of this kind of behavior by the Obama administration is most grave. The egregious character of this New Black Panther Party has, in basic terms, been quietly endorsed by this administration. It simply proves what has been revealed ever since Obama decided to run for President: his adherence to the teachings of Saul Alinsky's playbook, Rules for Radicals.

I'm sure that this is nothing you've not heard before but did you know who the playbook is dedicated to? My Pastor had a copy of it to show our congregation and, even though I had heard of it before, I was surprised that the book was dedicated to Lucifer!

"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer"

posted September 01, 2010 12:47 PM         

O'Bomber...and Hillary Clinton too are devotees of Saul Alinsky.

Hillary Rodham senior thesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1969, Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College entitled "There Is Only the Fight…": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. The subject was famed radical community organizer Saul Alinsky. Rodham, an honors student at Wellesley, received an A grade on the thesis. The work then went...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_senior_thesis

Of course, O'Bomber put the communist Alinsky's model to work as a community organizer in Chicago.

posted September 01, 2010 01:00 PM         

in other words even those who went and read the thesis with a mind to discrediting hillary couldn't find any sympathy for alinsky's methods in the whole 92 pages. she in fact thought his methods were weak and "divisive"...

you asked on another thread why i would comment on an article i hadn't read, jwhop. you POST articles you don't seem to have read, why should i read them?

posted September 01, 2010 01:13 PM         

Hillary put Alinsky's Rules for Radicals into practice.

Pick the target
Freeze it
Personalize it
Polarize it

Ever hear about the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"?

Leftists are just angry...including O'Bomber...that Sarah Palin is using Alinsky's tactics against them and because Palin is more intelligent, she's much more effective.

posted September 01, 2010 01:17 PM         

hillary's thesis concluded alinsky's tactics were weak, divisive, INEFFECTIVE. why then would she use them? and how is her thesis corroboration for her using them?

but you are right, the right has been acting in JUST THIS FASHION for some time now.

posted September 01, 2010 10:44 PM         

Palin is doing the very same thing I'm doing here; using leftist inflammatory rhetorical tactics against leftists.

Interesting that leftists can't take their own medicine.

Sarah Palin 50
Barack O'Bomber 0

posted September 01, 2010 11:42 PM         

anyway i'm sure alinsky would be flattered that y'all consider him such a genius!

as to anyone being unable to take their own medicine, i don't know, but it's nice of you to admit that the other side is smarter...emulation being the highest form of flattery as i'm sure you've heard.

but once you've stolen the opposition's tactics you've started to become them, haven't you? so then who has won and who has lost? and how do you claim to be telling the truth with a straight face? after awhile people get onto you...like palin's tactic of telling the president what he SHOULD say. then if he says anything like it she can claim credit, and if he doesn't - well, hey'll, she can claim credit then too!!