Thursday, July 22, 2010

Hey Cracker!

Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? (via DailyKos)

Behold. The New Southern Strategy.

UPDATE: Looks a lot like the Old Southern Strategy.

Labels: , , ,


Blogger Mohawk on the Dartmouth said...

Most retarded video I've seen in a while. This kind of shit is about as productive as talking about the historical ties between the KKK and Democratic Party.

Notice when she talks about the New Black Panther Party, she glosses over the fact that their conviction was in the bag. Do you not see the weapon in the guy's hand? Does she not realize two attorneys for the DOJ have resigned because Holder ordered them not to do their job. Does she evn know what voter intimidation is?

If a white man stands in front of the polling place with a billy club in the next election, will his case be dismissed as well? We're entitled to equal protection under the law regardless of color, sex, or creed. I get the feeling that Eric Holder isn't running the DOJ the way it should be run: Without prejudice. Dr. King would be spinning in his grave, this was not his dream.

Fox did run this story a lot. It's pretty easy to do when everyone else is doing their best to pretend it didn't happen.

4:38 PM  
Blogger knobboy said...

Facts is facts; Fox is Fox.

There just ain't no there, there.

The boys at Power Line understand what happened, and I don't think anyone would call them flaming liberals, eh?

7:35 AM  
Blogger Mohawk on the Dartmouth said...

Facts is facts? How about the fact that Fox News is a Cable Television Network, and Newsweek is a newspaper. Did CNN run this story? How about MSNBC?

As far as Power Line, they failed to mention the defendant had defaulted by not showing up to court, and the case was in the bag for the DOJ. Instead they say it was justified to drop the case because their voter intimidation cases always failed. That doesn't make any sense if the defendant defaulted, does it?

4:38 PM  
Blogger knobboy said...

PowerLine failed to mention the defendant(s) had defaulted? Don't think so:

"(A)t the time DOJ dropped the case against all defendants except Samir Shabazz, the defendants had failed to respond to the complaint, thus entitling DOJ to a default judgment.

Even when the government stands to win a default judgment, it still has an obligation to ensure that its case is consistent with the law and supported by the evidence. In my view, the government should never pursue a case where it has concluded that the best view of the facts and law point in favor of the party it is litigating against. The government should not merely abstain from taking frivolous positions, it should abstain from taking any position it has come to consider incorrect.

In other words, the government isn't in the business of winning cases; it is in the business of upholding justice, defined as the conclusion stemming from the best view of the facts and the law.

Few government lawyers with whom I've dealt share this view when push comes to shove, and it's far from clear that Thomas Perez and the Civil Rights Division are among them. However, if they concluded (as I have) that the case against the defendants other than Samir Shabazz was weak, then I believe they did the right thing, and certainly nothing scandalous, by pursuing the case only against Samir Shabazz."

5:03 PM  

Post a Comment