It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

To The RNC: Tampa, Florida: Black Panthers To Whites: 'Our Feet Will Be On Your Necks

page: 5
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by paxnatus
 


First Wikianswers is not a legitimate source. Second it depends entirely in which jurisdiction you live in, as to which law threatening someone would violate. It then comes down to how credible the threat actually is whether it is prosecuted or not. You cannot press charges on someone who lives in your town that says " I am going to kill a white person" because there is no credible way for you to prove that they in fact threatened you specifically. These are not "loopholes" in the law, it is working as intended and it applies just as equally and just as fairly for the NBPP as it does for the KKK.

The same with the alleged voter "intimidation" case. You have to have actual evidence that proves it happened. There isn't any, other than a video clip of some black men gathered outside a polling place. You have to actually prove that them being there changed your or anyone else's vote by being there. The burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused.




posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   


To The RNC: Tampa, Florida: Black Panthers To Whites: 'Our Feet Will Be On Your Necks


What can really one say here and be honest about it threats are always abound in the political world while some are thinly veiled, and others are whispered, to where some are used as pure manipulation.

Just really does show how those who claimed just how far we have come in 60 years it is clear as day this country is the same as it ever was.

Conflict is what they want, and what I have learned in many arguments is never give anyone what they want.

Take a step back and let idiots be idiots.


edit on 15-8-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


Kelli, why don't you spend the rest of your night attacking all the posters whom have used wiki as a legitimate source.

If you had read what I said, I was just beginning to look into threatening someone was an act of assault.

As far as your other comments about some black guys hanging around the voter booth allegedly intimidated voters,
says you are not at all familiar with the facts. It was a black man dressed in black sporting a NBPP emblem wielding a police baton.. The party was found guilty of those charges. Yet they were dismissed because someone in the DOJ interfered.



Federal Court finds Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution July 30, 2012 | 3:50 pm


Here is the case:


The New Black Panthers case stems from a Election Day 2008 incident where two members of the New Black Panther Party were filmed outside a polling place intimidating voters and poll watchers by brandishing a billy club. Justice Department lawyers investigated the case, filed charges, and when the Panthers failed to respond, a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the Panthers defendants. But after Obama was sworn in, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissed charges against three of the defendants, and let the fourth off with a narrowly tailored restraining order.


Was hingtonexaminer



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx

First Wikianswers is not a legitimate source. Second it depends entirely in which jurisdiction you live in, as to which law threatening someone would violate. It then comes down to how credible the threat actually is whether it is prosecuted or not. You cannot press charges on someone who lives in your town that says " I am going to kill a white person" because there is no credible way for you to prove that they in fact threatened you specifically. These are not "loopholes" in the law, it is working as intended and it applies just as equally and just as fairly for the NBPP as it does for the KKK.


Not entirely correct. General threats, such as this, are legally debatable and can be pursued - even if under other avenues, such as Domestic Terror or RICO.


Originally posted by KeliOnyx

The same with the alleged voter "intimidation" case. You have to have actual evidence that proves it happened. There isn't any, other than a video clip of some black men gathered outside a polling place. You have to actually prove that them being there changed your or anyone else's vote by being there. The burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused.


It happened - as sourced here, in the Washington Post. Nowhere in the article can I find any speculation as to the validity of the event - only to the context and handling of it.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

edit on 15-8-2012 by OlafMiacov because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
shazbaz cant do a damn thing right now and will not. The moron is barking loud right now because he literally cant do a damn thing, Obama would take the damage from this morons actions and he knows it because he let these idiots off on voter intimidation charges. If they started killing white babies it would lead right back to Obama and the DOJ who are already in hot water right now for fast and furious. It would end Obama's run for re-election so fast with just about every white democrat jumping ship as well as all of his campaign funding drying up like death valley. He couldn't distance him self from something like that. A: Obama has been spotted with the new black panther party B: Obama got them off voter intimidation charges.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by paxnatus
 


The whole matter was political shenanigans to begin with. They were never proven to be found guilty of anything, they were defaulted into a guilty verdict the two are not the same thing. And the only evidence presented is a video clip, which only establishes they were there. What it does not prove is that their presence at any point changed a single vote. The same requirement that exists for the KKK, WBC or any other hate group that may or may not decide to show up and demonstrate at any other polling place.

Like it or not the Holder DOJ made the right call not wasting money prosecuting a case that they never could have won with anything but a default judgement to begin with. As far as the rest of you nonsensical rant there is a bit of difference in Wikipedia which does provide recitable verifiable sources (using it is still lazy but it is convenient) and Wikianswers where every Saturday lawyer will answer your question free of charge.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Generally in those cases is that they will be put on the watch list, as they attempt to build a solid case. You and most sane people understand this. In all likelihood NBBP is under periodic if not sustained surveillance just like every other hate group. But you will have those few that walk around that think they are immune to this because Obama is black.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
The New Black Panther party states they didn't release that. Not saying that I believe the claim or the movement.

Here is their twitter
Twitter

Their tweets:


Contary to the rumors being spread, There will be no offical action taken against or for the Republican National Convention. No Members ...





No members have been instructed to attend or cause disruption of the proceedings.


Here is their radio blog, I didn't see that post:
Radio blog

And their website:
And their website


Again, not that I agree with the movement. I think they are just like KKK, but instead of coming across 1 piece of media on a website regardless if it is an article or a video we should do a little research before jumping to "we got to do something".

They are not the only organization, or person spreading hate....

edit on 8/15/2012 by Djayed because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/15/2012 by Djayed because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/15/2012 by Djayed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by paxnatus
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


Kelli, why don't you spend the rest of your night attacking all the posters whom have used wiki as a legitimate source.

If you had read what I said, I was just beginning to look into threatening someone was an act of assault.

As far as your other comments about some black guys hanging around the voter booth allegedly intimidated voters,
says you are not at all familiar with the facts. It was a black man dressed in black sporting a NBPP emblem wielding a police baton.. The party was found guilty of those charges. Yet they were dismissed because someone in the DOJ interfered.



Federal Court finds Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution July 30, 2012 | 3:50 pm


Here is the case:


The New Black Panthers case stems from a Election Day 2008 incident where two members of the New Black Panther Party were filmed outside a polling place intimidating voters and poll watchers by brandishing a billy club. Justice Department lawyers investigated the case, filed charges, and when the Panthers failed to respond, a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the Panthers defendants. But after Obama was sworn in, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissed charges against three of the defendants, and let the fourth off with a narrowly tailored restraining order.


Was hingtonexaminer







The DOJ was cleared of those charges:
Report DOJ



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


Wow Kelli, you sure hate to be wrong now don't ya! Must of hit a nerve!

I am gonna site wikipedia on this next part:

This group should all be locked up on the charges of domestic terrorism. Again where is Janet on this?


Bruce Hoffman, a well known scholar believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that by distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :

ineluctably political in aims and motives

violent – or, equally important, threatens violence

designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target

conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.

A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets(sometimes iconic symbols).

Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states.


Walter Laqueur, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence"


wikipedia.org



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Djayed
 


Your report is from March 2011. My report is from July 2012. So the latest data is what I am going by.
The report I posted states the following:




A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.


Was hingtonexaminer.com



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I see in a lot of these comments theres always a reference to ignorance. We often find ourselves quick to oppose the rising of a group of supremacist, but ask yourself what race is supreme? Is it the asians with their Buhdda? Their advanced math skills and advanced technology. Or could it be the whites with their Jesus? Their ability to maniupulate civilizations. The arabs with their allah? Their brotherhoods and brothels. Maybe the black man with his? Wait this is where the line gets drawn. What does a black man believe? A black man has lost hist ancients roots that he soo long held. His religion vanished into myth. His story lost in the annals of time. How does the world let this happen. Why won't the world acknowledge this. Don't we all come from africa? But Adam and Eve where white. When i see black supremacist i see a group of people longing to have what once was. Lashing out in hate because they have lost their way and trapped in the corner must raise the ranks. Why is history so screwy hmmm history his story well i guess the winners of wars do get thier story so the blacks lost theirs a long time ago. For everyone who read this and got angered I ask you please be calm. See where the Asian man Lee follows his lineage and the White man Smith follows his and all others alike...... The Black man has even lost his name in this new world and the world says get over it. I'm 19 Years old and I'll never find my roots to my homeland this feels me with sorrow on my name their is a stamp of the White famillly who bought my lineage. So supremist no the black man shall never be because to know where your going you have to know where your from i just hope people across the world unite to free ourselve because thier is only one race of our people......HUMAN.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by paxnatus
 


You are correct, the only thing new I can find besides what the examiner is reporting is that they are now questioning Eric Holder on it.



Judicial Watch today raised questions today about the testimony of Attorney General Eric Holder in the wake of a federal court ruling that cast doubt on the accuracy of sworn testimony provided by Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez regarding the Department of Justice (DOJ) decision to abandon its voter intimidation lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense (NBPP).

Judicial Watch uncovered information that top political appointees at the DOJ were intimately involved in the decision to dismiss the NBPP lawsuit. These documents, which include internal DOJ e-mail correspondence, directly contradict sworn testimony by Perez, who testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political leadership was involved in the decision. The documents were obtained by Judicial Watch pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (No.10-851)).

Despite the revelatory documents, the DOJ continued to insist that the documents did not make “any political interference whatsoever.” A federal court judge disagreed. In a July 23 ruling by Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in response to Judicial Watch’s effort to obtain attorneys’ fees from the DOJ for stonewalling the release of documents pertaining to the NBPP scandal, Judge Walton ruled:

The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decisionmaking. The court’s conclusions also call into question the veracity of Attorney General Eric Holder’s testimony on the controversy. On March 1, 2011, Holder testified to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (see page 66 – 2:49:00):

The decisions made in the New Black Panther Party case were made by career attorneys in the department. And beyond that, you know, if we’re going to look at the record, let’s look at it in its totality. The court received documents that included a series of e-mails between two political appointees: former Democratic election lawyer and current Deputy Associate Attorney General Sam Hirsch and Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli. Both DOJ officials were involved in detailed discussions regarding the NBPP decision.


Source

I am for the truth......no agenda here...



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Guess I'll never know what was in the video first hand as I am late to the party and YouTube has taken it down citing the fact that they viewed it as hate speech.
After reading through a good part of this thread I get the gist of it and will just say that I do not think the way they are going about things is positive....it's very COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Djayed
 


Thank you for that acknowledgement. I sincerely mean that.

Pax



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
A real black panther:Huey P Newton



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by paxnatus
reply to post by Djayed
 


Your report is from March 2011. My report is from July 2012. So the latest data is what I am going by.
The report I posted states the following:




A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.


Was hingtonexaminer.com




My source is even older.

Bush DOJ decided New Black Panthers no major case

So after Bush let it go, Obama picked it back up and then let it go?
What happened.

Several of you have clamored for me to say something about the alleged voter intimidation case in Philadelphia, which involves a thuggish group who call themselves the “New Black Panthers.” (While I was no fan of the original Black Panthers, they don’t deserve to have their reputation further befouled by this group. The two groups are in no way related.)
I was loathe to comment since I know that no rational discussion will follow. How could it? It was clear from the beginning that this was not a case of voter intimidation against anyone who might vote for John McCain. As many observers noted on that day, no matter how badly those two New Black Panters were behaving (and the police were called and responded), it’s a HEAVILY DEMOCRATIC PRECINCT. As blogger Ben Smith noted way back then, “You don’t typically intimidate your own voters.”

But solid reporting from Media Matters and Adam Serwer of The American Prospect ought to put this nonsense to rest (it won’t, but it should). The charges against the New Black Panthers were downgraded by the Bush Department of Justice:

The decision not to file a criminal case occurred before Obama was even in office.

This means that the case was downgraded to a civil case 11 days before Obama was inaugurated, 26 days before Eric Holder became attorney general, and about nine months before Thomas Perez was confirmed as head of the Civil Rights Division



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Divide and Conquer....

It never fails.




top topics



 
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join