Sunday, March 28, 2010
CNN Covers (Up) Searchlight Tea Party Rally
I know we're not supposed to talk about how liberals do it too, but my Congresswoman, Jean Schmidt received threatening voicemail over her position (voted against Obamacare) on healthcare.This exchange was the inspiration for my liberals love violence post the other day.
How is it sanctimonious to be disgusted by people throwing bricks through windows? I don't like it when anybody does that. And I hate excuses for bad behavior on all sides.
Then why are you saying you don't want to hear about libruls-do-it-to? Here's a few examples of Republican offices being shot at, vandalized, etc. A black man, Kenneth Gladney, was beaten by SEIU union thugs and called nigger by them. And, the Black Panther voter intimidation case Obama's administration conveniently decided to not prosecute. The list goes on forever. No wonder you don't want to talk about it.
This is stuff I don't recall hearing about until today. Strange that I would have heard of the tomatoes and pies, but not of these incidents.Strange? Not really. Look at this picture of the Tea Party Rally in Searchlight, Nevada.
More pictures here and here.
How did CNN report on this group?
“Hundreds of people, at least dozens of people - we haven’t gotten a count of how many people turned out there."It's no longer possible to believe CNN is simply incompetent when they have hosts like Anderson "You're a teabagger" Cooper and they consistently misreport the news.
I suppose one could consider it strange that companies whose job it is to report the news don't. But, for left wing politics is more important than reporting the truth.
The "Obama wouldn't prosecute Black Panther" description made me remember an incident though, so I researched it a little bit.
Turns out that, unless I am confusing the case you are describing, that is misinformation (surprise!) you post about Obama's administration's role in it:
The ***Bush*** administration chose to file civil complaint, not criminal "charges," against Panthers
Before President ***Bush*** left office, the Department of Justice filed a civil complaint asking for an injunction against the New Black Panther Party and some of its members. In a January 19 editorial, The Washington Times reported: "Career lawyers at the Justice Department decided as early as Dec. 22, 2008, to seek a complaint against the two Black Panthers onsite as well as Black Panther National Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz and the New Black Panther Party as a whole. Mr. Shabazz and the party were charged with having 'managed, directed and endorsed the behavior, actions and statements' of the other two. The Justice Department formally filed the civil action on Jan. 7, 2009, with approval at the highest levels of the department."
DOJ "sought and obtained" "maximum penalty" against one of the individuals
In December 3 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, Department of Justice assistant attorney general Tom Perez testified that "[t]he case was not dismissed," and that the attorneys who reviewed the case "made the determination that, based on the law of the Third Circuit, that the case against the person who wielded the stick, that we should indeed seek the maximum penalty, and that maximum penalty was sought and obtained, and the case against the other defendant should be dismissed, and the case against the national party should also be dismissed."
The Justice Department did not "drop" the case; it won an injunction against one of the individuals. Indeed, the Times itself has reported that the Justice Department "obtained an injunction against the defendant who held a nightstick in front of a polling place during voting hours."
So perhaps you have some of your other facts Fox'ed?
President Obama's Justice Department continues to stonewall inquiries about why it dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.
When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years—action that's already illegal under existing law.
Then the Washington Times reported on July 30 that six career lawyers at Justice who had recommended continuing to pursue the case were overruled by Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli—a top administration political appointee.
A meaningless injunction is all the Obamaites sought. Gee, wonder what would have happened if this had been white guys in Alabama intimidating blacks.
Of course, you have not interest in pursuing the truth or anything else other than your presupposed, bigoted, biased opinions.
I rarely see news organizations get numbers right. But it ain't that hard to see the difference in 100's and 1000's.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]