“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”
Abraham Lincoln
American 16th US President (1861-65), emancipator of U.S. slaves
1809-1865
"Badges?... We don't need no... stinkin' badges!"
Dialog, "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre", 1948
Alfonso Bedoya, as the character Gold Hat to Humphrey Bogart, as character Fred C. Dobbs
Abraham Lincoln
American 16th US President (1861-65), emancipator of U.S. slaves
1809-1865
"Badges?... We don't need no... stinkin' badges!"
Dialog, "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre", 1948
Alfonso Bedoya, as the character Gold Hat to Humphrey Bogart, as character Fred C. Dobbs
I need to thank my friend Mitch for calling to my attention a story he featured on his blog, Shot in the Dark, that I found shocking. Shocking, for what the story appears to be on the surface; more shocking for what the facts actually showed as I dug deeper; more shocking still, because my friend Mitch chose to ignore the contradictory facts when they were provided to him. The story on the right is a ludicrous fuss that makes factually inaccurate claims about voter intimidation and Black Panthers, and uses those misstatements of fact to leverage even more bogus accusations against the Obama administration's Department of Justice.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/25/inside-the-black-panther-case-anger-ignorance-and-/
On the historic election day November 4, 2008, it was alleged by a reporter for Fox News and picked up by other conservative sites on-line, like Michelle Malkin's blog and Ed Morrisey at Hot Air (an additional site affiliated with Malkin), that voter intimidation had been occurring at a polling place in Philadelphia. The only sources promoting this story seem to have a right wing axe to grind.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/04/billy-club-wielding-security-guards-at-philly-polls/
The voting location was a nursing home on Fairmont in north Philly. There are multiple youtube videos of the voters going in and exiting this polling location --- and no one seems to have been impeded either entering or leaving, and no doors were blocked. The only objection appears to be a perfectly proper objection to intrusion by cameramen and interviewers within 10 feet of the doorways, which are to be kept unobstructed. Nor are cameras allowed inside polling locations. Some people objected to being videotaped while entering polling locations. (I will leave it to my colleague ToE to address this legal issue, if he chooses.)
But even Fox News admits that the individuals involved at the Philadelphia location, who are repeatedly identified as 'New Black Panthers' are in fact NOT Black Panthers, new or otherwise, a fact further confirmed by the Philadelphia District Attorney's office AND the Black Panthers themselves. But the right adamantly, repeatedly, doesn't want the facts to get in the way of their story.
If you follow this youtube interview to the end, you will see the Fox News interviewer ADMIT that the individuals in this video are NOT Black Panthers - the Black Panthers were clear that these men were not their members AND that they had no members doing this anywhere in Philly. The individuals made it clear they were not Black Panthers to police, and further, the District Attorney's office for this jurisdiction made a public statement that these individuals were NOT Black Panthers, in statements to the press, And yet............this is identified as Black Panther intimidation over and over and over, including in the post published by Mitch on SitD and these other sites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_LyOrpDtm4&feature=related
The real story is,
THERE WAS NO INTIMIDATION: per not one but two separate police patrol investigations; there were no complaints; there was no misconduct at the polling place, according to witnesses who were voting - and according to poll officials, and according to an inquiry by the DA;
THERE WERE NO BLACK PANTHERS: per the Black Panthers, per the police, per the DA and per these individuals themselves. The sole claim these were black panthers rests on their having patches on their clothing.
This IS A NON-STORY, despite what the right is trying to gin-up. This is a NON-STORY, despite the claims of former Asst. U. S. Attorney J. Christian Adams. This has no 'legs', this cannot and should not 'run' anywhere, with any credence or respect. This is an embarrassment to anyone who promotes it.
The right like Morrisey, like Malkin, like Fox news, made a big fuss about how these men were dressed. People can dress however they like so long as their legally-required-to-be-covered bits are clothed.
Personally, this doesn't look to me like anything paramilitary - there are no rank insignias for example. There are some patches, yes, with an image similar to the one I posted here - people wear patches on clothing all the time; it is not proof of membership in anything - for example, people wear patches for sporting organizations, but it doesn't make them members of that sports team or organization. People wear boots in November in Pennsylvania; it is not inherently threatening, or exclusively military or paramilitary. Don't even get me started on berets (the one worn by Monica Lewinsky comes to mind.)
It looks like the de facto 'uniform' of dark clothing that lots of people wear as an affectation, especially people in that age range. I have always been amused by the button and t-shirt affected primarily by teens and twenty-somethings, stating, "I'm only wearing black until I can find something darker".
It is not illegal or immoral or improper to wear this clothing; it is not inherently threatening any more than punk rocker clothing or goth clothing is inherently threatening, unless you are easily scared by people dressing differently from yourself. It is self-expression, it is identity; it is a fashion statement. But even if it were some other kind of statement, so what? I am always amused at those who claim to be big supporters of the Constitution, who claim to support 1st Amendment freedoms of speech - but who turn around and get their knickers in a big ol' knot when someone is different from themselves in clothing or dress. What utter hypocrisy!
It doesn't matter if these men DID wear paramilitary clothing; it doesn't matter if they wore a prom dress with mismatched argyle socks, a tutu, or a ten-gallon hat, hoop earings, a speedo, and clown shoes. They were legally allowed to be there, at least one of them was stationed there as an official, properly credentialed poll watcher.
Then we have the uproar over the nightstick. Apparently, this was not an illegal weapon. The hysteria on the right over this nightstick has me in laughter. These are largely the same group of people who insist there is no legitimate basis for people to be concerned if half the customers in a Starbucks are wearing fire arms openly, and who insist that we should implicitly trust perfect strangers armed with deadly weapons that are lethal at a far greater distance than a night stick and which are capable of far greater force. Would these conservatives 2nd Amendment proponents be as comfortable if those Starbuck's customers were black, or hispanic men, I wonder? Or would they assume they were gang-bangers if they wore patches or had tattoos?
So, voices of the right - which is it? Are you comfortable with people peacefully having legal weapons, or are you not? And before you insist that night stick was 'brandished' at anyone, all verifiable evidence is to the contrary, as verified by witnesses, polling place officials, the police (twice), and the DA's office, and no formal complaint of that was made although the opportunity was available. If anyone had a complaint, a legitimate complaint, they did NOT make it to authorities; and suggestions of a possible problem were promptly investigated, and subsequently found without merit. I find that omission to make or sustain a complaint effectively to invalidate claims to the contrary.
The Adams piece, in the decidedly right-wing Washington Times reads "ADAMS: Inside the Black Panther case Anger, ignorance and lies" True, too true; however, the anger, the arrogance and the lies appear to be entirely the fault on the right.
What I found initially using various search engines for "voter intimidation, 2008 election", were instances of GOP linked voter intimidation, primarily directed at blacks and Hispanic voters, in both primary and general elections, and in voter registration.
I found specific links to GOP lawyers, and to the Bush DoJ, which was the source of scandals under Alberto Gonzalez for the Bush administration's attempts to politicize the DoJ, turning it not into an agency of Justice, but an agency of political intimidation. J. Christian Adams appears to have been one of those lawyers who was in that department precisely for political and religious conformity, and for his willingness to act for political motive instead of on legal merit. The real questions that should be asked, is not why was this dismissed, but why was it ever brought in the first place. The claims of lack of merit, by the Obama DoJ, seem to be well established; the merits of the Bush DoJ case, claiming intimidation by non-existent Black Panthers, are unsupported by the facts. Claiming political privilege is a smoke screen, a red herring that doen't pass the sniff test, especially from this lawyer.
I will deal with the instances of substantiated voter intimidation by the right, in a separate post.
When I see claims like this, of reverse-racism, making statements Black Panthers are being cut deals by the Obama DoJ, or blacks and liberals are educating hate into generations of black kids (a claim made by Rush Limbaugh), I recognize it not only as factually untrue, but disparaging of blacks as a group, instead of recognizing the qualities of individuals, and I see it as a racist attempt to justify distrust and hatred for that group. When conservatives do not object to the lack of factual content, or to the ginning up of hatred and distrust, it is racism. Racism is not only open animosity, or the overt use of insulting words like "nigger" or "spic", it is the underlying assumption, often more subtle, that assumes the worst about people as members of a group, despite lack of adequate information to justify that conclusion. It is forcing, twisting and contorting the information they take in from the world around them to conform to a certain world view, while ignoring what doesn't fit that world view as described here :
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/23/republicans-to-the-unemployed-youre-lazy/?sms_ss=email
If ever there was an example of that, this claim by J.C. Adams, Esq. is one. I find it a more compelling explanation than to believe my conservative friends are intentional liars.
It is also nothing less than an attempt to invalidate the legitimacy of the election, and of the current sitting President, on racist grounds. These accusations have no more merit than those of the birthers, and should be given no more credence and no more respect than the comic birthers' claims.
Then we have the uproar over the nightstick. Apparently, this was not an illegal weapon. The hysteria on the right over this nightstick has me in laughter. These are largely the same group of people who insist there is no legitimate basis for people to be concerned if half the customers in a Starbucks are wearing fire arms openly, and who insist that we should implicitly trust perfect strangers armed with deadly weapons that are lethal at a far greater distance than a night stick and which are capable of far greater force. Would these conservatives 2nd Amendment proponents be as comfortable if those Starbuck's customers were black, or hispanic men, I wonder? Or would they assume they were gang-bangers if they wore patches or had tattoos?
So, voices of the right - which is it? Are you comfortable with people peacefully having legal weapons, or are you not? And before you insist that night stick was 'brandished' at anyone, all verifiable evidence is to the contrary, as verified by witnesses, polling place officials, the police (twice), and the DA's office, and no formal complaint of that was made although the opportunity was available. If anyone had a complaint, a legitimate complaint, they did NOT make it to authorities; and suggestions of a possible problem were promptly investigated, and subsequently found without merit. I find that omission to make or sustain a complaint effectively to invalidate claims to the contrary.
The Adams piece, in the decidedly right-wing Washington Times reads "ADAMS: Inside the Black Panther case Anger, ignorance and lies" True, too true; however, the anger, the arrogance and the lies appear to be entirely the fault on the right.
What I found initially using various search engines for "voter intimidation, 2008 election", were instances of GOP linked voter intimidation, primarily directed at blacks and Hispanic voters, in both primary and general elections, and in voter registration.
I found specific links to GOP lawyers, and to the Bush DoJ, which was the source of scandals under Alberto Gonzalez for the Bush administration's attempts to politicize the DoJ, turning it not into an agency of Justice, but an agency of political intimidation. J. Christian Adams appears to have been one of those lawyers who was in that department precisely for political and religious conformity, and for his willingness to act for political motive instead of on legal merit. The real questions that should be asked, is not why was this dismissed, but why was it ever brought in the first place. The claims of lack of merit, by the Obama DoJ, seem to be well established; the merits of the Bush DoJ case, claiming intimidation by non-existent Black Panthers, are unsupported by the facts. Claiming political privilege is a smoke screen, a red herring that doen't pass the sniff test, especially from this lawyer.
I will deal with the instances of substantiated voter intimidation by the right, in a separate post.
When I see claims like this, of reverse-racism, making statements Black Panthers are being cut deals by the Obama DoJ, or blacks and liberals are educating hate into generations of black kids (a claim made by Rush Limbaugh), I recognize it not only as factually untrue, but disparaging of blacks as a group, instead of recognizing the qualities of individuals, and I see it as a racist attempt to justify distrust and hatred for that group. When conservatives do not object to the lack of factual content, or to the ginning up of hatred and distrust, it is racism. Racism is not only open animosity, or the overt use of insulting words like "nigger" or "spic", it is the underlying assumption, often more subtle, that assumes the worst about people as members of a group, despite lack of adequate information to justify that conclusion. It is forcing, twisting and contorting the information they take in from the world around them to conform to a certain world view, while ignoring what doesn't fit that world view as described here :
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/23/republicans-to-the-unemployed-youre-lazy/?sms_ss=email
If ever there was an example of that, this claim by J.C. Adams, Esq. is one. I find it a more compelling explanation than to believe my conservative friends are intentional liars.
It is also nothing less than an attempt to invalidate the legitimacy of the election, and of the current sitting President, on racist grounds. These accusations have no more merit than those of the birthers, and should be given no more credence and no more respect than the comic birthers' claims.
Racism is not only what we say, what we write, what we promote or what we do. Racism is not unique to the right or to conservatives. Racism is most fundamentally in each one of us what we assume especially negatively, without verification, about groups and individuals.
Here is my whole problem with this. It does not matter if they are actually members of the Black Panthers. Two men in paramilitary clothes with black panther patches on the sleeves carrying billy clubs would be intimidating to older white people whether they intended it or not. In the 60's the black panthers were a racist violent organization. Just ask yourself this. If there had been 2 white men in white robes with KKK symbols on them carrying billy clubs, would older blacks who remember the KKK feel intimidated? Would they have been allowed to stand there the whole day? From the articles you posted those men were probably not members of the black panthers and may not have intended to intimidate anyone but there is still no reason for them to be there.
ReplyDeleteTuck, thanks for your comment.
ReplyDeleteI would disagree however that 'there is no reason for them to be there'; one of the men, the only one to be there for most of the day, was a credentialed polling official. He had every reason to be there; it was his job to be there. Another man, the one with the billy club, lives on that street, and is a friend of the polling official; he voted there. He was there for a relatively shorter time, as was the third man.
As to their reason for themselves being fearful - as in the billy club - there were numerous instances of threats to other black and hispanic voters - from the GoP.
I don't like the black panthers - old school or new version. I object to their positon on everything, and find them deeply offensive - in case anyone was wondering.
Patches on the chest area (not sleeves) of a jacket are la little different from the example you pose of KKK robes, and multiple billy clubs. The KKK is a hate group in continuous existence; there is no confusion as to who they are,but the more important argument is their robes obscure their identity helping to allow imenent action without consequences.
But I will tell you this, if someone was credentialed, and happened to be wearing a jacket or sweatshirt with a KKK logo on it, or a confederate flag for example, a symbol of the south, and the era of slavery - it would be offensive, yes, but has to be allowed under 1st Amendment rights.
And this is NOT an instance of these men MAYBE not being black panthers (old or new); they ARE NOT black panthers and there were no incidents, no complaints, no special deals.
The real outrage in all of this is not only the misstatements of facts, but how it is used to discredit the Obama presidency, and the Obama DoJ, and to support racism on the right.
You seem to have skipped over those parts Tuck.
Tuck,
ReplyDeleteWhile it is undoubtedly true that people CAN be intimidated by what someone wears, from a clown suit to Kurtis Slewa's "Guardian Angels" uniforms, it simply ISN'T anything like actual, purposeful intimidation.
KKK uniforms were designed to both strike fear into blacks (and others) and hide the identity of the person wearing it. Even so, if someone wanted to stand around a polling place in a KKK outfit, I suspect the impact would be the EXACT OPPOSITE of curtailing black votes - more likely it would compel whites to vote against segregationist/racist policies.
Ultimately, though, even IF someone did, it is still within their right to do so, there is nothing criminal, ZERO, nada, nothing. The DoJ has no right to prosecute for standing around a polling place, they absolutely have no right to do so if the person is a polling official, furthermore, since the guy in question wasn't a member of any organization dedicated to anything - he simply appears to have been ONE guy dressing up a little threateningly, maybe he did so because he felt intimidated, maybe he wanted to be intimidating toward anyone who might try to interfere with voting, you'd probably have to ask him to be sure, but either way, no crime was committed. So, DoJ didn't 'cut a deal' or anything else. Frankly, considering the rather numerous historical cases of people interfering with blacks voting, I guess I can understand why someone might take their role of polling official a little 'too seriously' and think he/she needs to appear to be ready to defend voters and their rights. Consequently, in this case, the person was reasonably assumed to be defending voters, not intimidating them (since he was in a predominantly black neighborhood). Regardless, even if he were in a KKK outfit, what he did wasn't against the law, and wasn't on behalf of the Black Panthers.
Those two claims are the issue - not whether he should or should not wear black clothing. The claims have been made, and made again, despite being wrong. They evoke emotions of anti-black sentiments. They weren't checked to be true, and when confronted with the truth, they haven't ceased. They are irresponsible, and because they are trying to whip up anti-black fears, without any question to me at least, they are basely racist. They are playing upon a public which may not have heard the full story - this guy felt afraid or felt a bit of bravado, and the right-wing media claims both that he was TRYING TO INTIMIDATE WHITES a basely false accusation, other than wearing black clothing - something you have to WANT to be intimidated by - he took no action to do so- certainly did nothting illegal and preventing or otherwise impeding voting IS illegal. They claimed he was part of a national movement by the Black Panthers, also basely false, and they claimed the Black Panthers got a 'deal' from the DoJ - also basely false. If you'll address these falsehoods, I'll be happy to continue to argue whether dressing black is something we should prevent.
It does not matter if they were members of the black panthers or not. They were dressed as the black panthers dressed in the 60s and had patches that were black panther patches. The black panthers were a racist violent organization just as the KKK was. So do you think a white man in robes with a KKK symbol and a billy club would be intimidating to black voters? Even if he was not really a member of the klan, which no one would have any way of knowing by looking at him. No one looking at them has any way of knowing they are not black panthers (especially since at least one seems to be trying to look like he is a member), no one except the other poll workers has any way of knowing one of them is a poll worker, so there was something there to investigate. And Pen maybe ToE can comment but I believe it is against the law to attempt to intimidate people at a polling place, you don't have to intimidate, just attempt it. Growing up in the deep south if I was an officer I would not hesitate to evict or arrest someone in KKK robes hanging around a polling place as to me that would be a clear attempt to intimidate black voters. Same would go for the guy with the billy club, his whole outfit could be interpretted as intimidating and he would be asked to leave or at the least put away the billy club.
ReplyDeleteTucker, video shows people coming and going, demonstrating NO problems whatsoever, no one was blocked, no one appeared to be intimidated. White people (who are presumably the people you are concerened might be intimidateed? AND black people, not only appear to be comfortable with the situation, they are hanging around leaning against the uilding in the vicinity, leisurely making cell phone calls, drinking coffee, etc.
ReplyDeleteMay I remind you that not one, but two police patrol cars, containing not one but two officers, checked this out and found nothing wrong?
It would seem that your concerns rest on an assumption anyone here knew or cared who the Black Panthers were - then OR now.
The thing is -- No one seems to have known; No one seems to have cared. It was a non-issue, and btw - when I started looking into this, I expected people to know who they were.
I was surprised that it seems to have been long enough ago that the original group has been forgotten. The new group appears to be too small, too little known, and not active in Philadelphia, explaining WHY no one knew or cared.
It may come as a shock, but tragically, I don't know that anyone here would really 'get it' if someone did wear a KKK outfit --- PA is far enough north, they may never have had a group there.
Which doesn't say much about our educational system in American History, does it?
That was my reason for the analogy that it didn't matter what they wore - I think a prom dress and argyle sox, or a tutu and combat boots, or a cowboy hat, earings, speedo and clown shoes might actually have been more scary to voters than the Black Panthers.
I suggested to Pen during a phone call about this, if clothing were a concern -- and from this it doesn't appear to me that it is - then maybe ALL of the polling places, here in Phllly and around the state, ought to have t-shirts or polo shirts or windbreakers or something like that as a sort of casual, comfortable 'uniform' that is an identification for all poll officials.
I would point out tho, that I agree with Pen - free speech is not synonymous with safe, pleasant speech.
ReplyDeleteWe could force a black panther to change his proverbial 'spots', but do we also have to then make someone wearing a fudrucker's t-shirt with a big picture of a hamburger on it change that to suit a vegitarian voter? If not......where do we draw the line?
I think Pen is right - we make the determination on actions, not clothing.
I do not particularly LIKE it, but it seems to be the best decision consistent with the Constitution.
I'm still working my way through the HAVA - the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which applies.
But pending that, so long as the local and state authorities found no wrong doing, we can't make it up a year and a half after the fact, or go after black panthers who were not involved in anything scaring people.
Adams claims that the Obama DoJ did something wrong, that they cut a deal for these people. The reasoning is that the Black Panthers were pro-Obama, so Obama must be pro-New Black Panthers... which does not in fact follow.
Obama was NOT in fact pro-Panther, ever,anywhere, that I could find.
Adams asserts this was some kind of pay off for services, and favors.
But the Bush DoJ, which was -- notoriously politicized -- see U.S. atty Iglesias for examples -- appears to be the ones who were wrong in bringing this in the first place.
I wrote this to challenge assumptions, to challenge statements, to look at proof not guesses, not assumptions, and most of all not at lies.
If the claims Adams makes were legitimate, this would have been proven as a charge. It was not.
Pssst! Tuck!
ReplyDeleteI'm going to assume you - like me - are simply KNOWLEDGABLE about 20th century US history and not that you REMEMBER the ol' Black Panthers, LOL! (wink)
Or.........would they have to join the Gray Panthers now? (anyone remember who THEY are?)
My thing is really more with the billy club. I don't know what the laws are like in Philly but here in Dallas you can keep a gun, club, knife or whatever in your car or in your home. You can carry a concealed weapon with a permit. Walk downtown openly playing with a billy club and the best you could hope for would be a warning to put it in your car while you walked. No one but a uniformed officer would be allowed to stand in front of a polling place with a billy club or anything else that looked like a weapon. Personally I agree with you, if no one complained and no one was intimidated, then why waste the money on it. My question though would be why the Philly police did not at least tell him to put away the club but I am basing that on what would happen here and Texas law can be strange about what it considers a weapon and where you can openly carry it.
ReplyDeleteTuck, the man with the stick was a resident of the neighborhood, and a friend of the other not-a-blank-panther official poll personnel.
ReplyDeleteApparently, he was there for a few hours just to help keep him company. From the different videos, no one going in to vote seemed to have thought twice about it; it was just something in his hand.
The media accounts of 'brandishing' were investigated by the police; they came along on one of their two visits (I forget now if it was the first patrol car or the second) but they stopped and talked with them, and after that, he went home. Voluntarily, not because he was escorted away by police order - per the police.
My other thought is to wonder if they had any kinds of problems with vandalism or petty theft where it might actually reassure people coming to vote, to have someone outside watching over things - armed or not.
Once I got to the point where it became overwhelmingly clear that no one voting was being intimidated, and that there were no black panthers getting cut any deals by the Obama DoJ, and that the DA and cops vouched for them... it didn't really seem worth that much more digging.
This was such a non-story, a blatant attempt to scare people by invoking the Black Panther boogey-man.