FOX NEWS

[MotoXcowboy]

Seems most of their shows have turned into ACCESS HOLLYWOOD.

They spent more time covering stories about Lebron James, Lindsay Lohan, and now George Steinbrenner. I've seen at least a half dozen pieces on him in the last hour and half!

Only decent story out of Fox lately has been the Black Panther voter intimidation.

Everything else of FOX seems like "FLUFF"

[spence]

Originally Posted by MotoXcowboy

Only decent story out of Fox lately has been the Black Panther voter intimidation.

You mean the story they fabricated?

-spence

[buckman]

I hate made up sh$t like this...

Michelle Obama Visits NAACP on Eve of Tea Party Condemnation - ABC News

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

I hate made up sh$t like this...

Michelle Obama Visits NAACP on Eve of Tea Party Condemnation - ABC News

So she didn't visit the NAACP?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

So she didn't visit the NAACP?

My point being....You can't make up sh$t like this.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

My point being....You can't make up sh$t like this.

I agree. She really needs to get over being black already...

-spence

[MotoXcowboy]

holding batons in front of voting stations?

What if the Klan participated in the same activities?

how did they fabricate this one spence?

I got a kick out of the same guy in a previous video screaming I HATE CRACKAS WE NEED TO KILL THE CRACKAS! KILL THEY CRACKA BABIES!!!

LMAO

What if this was also the same a Klan member? just insert the "N" word

I bet the "today show" MSNBC CBS ect.... would be all over that one

[spence]

Originally Posted by MotoXcowboy

how did they fabricate this one spence?

They're taking a non-story and trying to race bait their audience into believing it's a big scandal.

Court records show the decision that the actions didn't violate Federal law was made before Obama was inaugurated. The guy holding the club was also punished under Civil statutes.

There's no evidence to support their accusations that the Obama Administration is seeking to favor blacks over whites. It's all made up in a hysterical attempt to exploit racial fears and give their white audience something to be terrified of.

THANK GOD WE HAVE FOX NEWS TO SAVE US!!!!

This amount of time FOX has dedicated to this story is astounding. It's just more ammo that outside of the pretty good Sunday show it's primarily just a giant right wing propaganda machine.

-spence

[MotoXcowboy]

It looked like voter intimidation to me. just a civil penalty?

I agree with you, Fox did beat that story to death.

They seem to be going off track like a crazy train. Either that, or it was always like this and I'm just starting to see "the light"

I am by no means a conservative Fox only viewer. I try to watch em all and make my own opinion

[spence]

Originally Posted by MotoXcowboy

It looked like voter intimidation to me. just a civil penalty?

I believe for it to be a Federal Crime you not only have to threaten but there has to be a motive, for instance you're trying to intimidate someone to vote for your party or cause.

These guys were just spouting a bunch of whack sheeznit at a mostly black polling place anyway. Everybody agrees what they did was wrong, but the Feds didn't think it was a Federal violation. They did however agree that it was a civil offense to bring a weapon to a polling place. I think only one person had a little club.

I agree with you, Fox did beat that story to death.

Ya think?

But worse is that the continued to make assertions they knew were not backed by facts...that's propaganda.

They seem to be going off track like a crazy train. Either that, or it was always like this and I'm just starting to see "the light"

I think it's gotten a lot worse in the last five years. I used to watch Bill-O every freaking night along with other shows. The addition of Beck has made Hannity go even more crazy as he vies for attention.

I actually liked the Hannity radio show, very different from his TV program. Now Beck is setting the tone (i.e. n#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g futz) and everybody else is marching in line because the crack heads are lapping it up.

I am by no means a conservative Fox only viewer. I try to watch em all and make my own opinion

Very difficult to do watching TV. I also look to diverse sources to extract a sensible opinion. It's not easy...

The bottom line...it's easier to say what you're against than actually stand up what you're for.
-spence

[MotoXcowboy]

still looks like intimidation to me. What are some good news sources online?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe for it to be a Federal Crime you not only have to threaten but there has to be a motive, for instance you're trying to intimidate someone to vote for your party or cause. you must have missed the video then

These guys were just spouting a bunch of whack sheeznit at a mostly black polling place anyway. you missed the quotes apparently Everybody agrees what they did was wrong,not everyone but the Feds didn't think it was a Federal violation. the prosecutor assigned to the case did, I think he said it was the most blatant case of voter intimidation he'd seen They did however agree that it was a civil offense to bring a weapon to a polling place.wow, really? that is some display of brilliance I think only one person had a little club.


Ya think?

But worse is that the continued to make assertions they knew were not backed by facts...that's propaganda. you need to check your facts, propoganda is what we've come to expect from you, most experts agree


I think it's gotten a lot worse in the last five years. I used to watch Bill-O every freaking night along with other shows. The addition of Beck has made Hannity go even more crazy as he vies for attention.

I actually liked the Hannity radio show, very different from his TV program. Now Beck is setting the tone (i.e. n#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g futz) and everybody else is marching in line because the crack heads are lapping it up.


Very difficult to do watching TV. I also look to diverse sources to extract a sensible opinion. It's not easy...maybe you are incapable

The bottom line...it's easier to say what you're against than actually stand up what you're for. both are required
-spence

you got some bad talking points, I've heard a plethera of defenders of these clowns and the decision in question and NOONE has claimed that Fox fabricated the story....it is you Spence, who will knee jerk defend, spin and invent on almost a daily basis, excuses for every action of thIs corrupt, inept and NOW DANGEROUS administration....you are so far from objective it is worrisome and it's far easier for you to mindlessly attack easy targets who simply point out the truth about your messiah than to admit to yourself your ideaology is a trainwreck

the Beck's, Hannity's etc...that you abhor, if you listen are standing up for AMERICA, it's Constitution, founding principles, rule of law, states rights etc.....these things aren't even in vocabulary of the people that you constantly defend with the exception of some occasional twisted leftist interpretations....SO WHAT THE HELL DO YOU STAND FOR??? clearly, dragging this country down the destructive path of Obama's socialistic dreams....certainly not an America based on it's founding principles, Constitution and rule of law....no, you unwaveringly support what is likely the most radical leftist President and administration in our history which has no regard for these ..but at least it clear now...

BTW...heard a NAACP Chapt. President explain the other day that Tea Party members who mentioned limited government, states rights and lower taxes were actually using code words for racism against minorities....this is the degree to which the people that you defend here have perverted and sullied the national dialogue...those pointing the fingers are the actual racists, thugs and subversives...in full attack mode against ....well....real Americans

[scottw]

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

‘Downgrading’ Voter Intimidation [Hans A. von Spakovsky]

The latest excuse (and tired old refrain) that has been conjured up over the past two days: It was the fault of the Bush administration. (I kid you not.)

Yes, the latest claim, according to Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal Constitution and others, is that the “charges against the New Black Panthers were downgraded by the Bush Department of Justice [inasmuch as] the decision not to file a criminal case occurred before Obama was even in office.” This “downgrade” talking point is apparently supposed to excuse the Obama administration’s decision to dismiss virtually the entire civil voter intimidation case and to neuter the injunction sought against the one remaining defendant so substantially that what was left was little more than a minor annoyance.

These claims by a nonlawyer betray a fundamental ignorance of the difference between civil and criminal prosecutions and a total misunderstanding of how things work at the Justice Department and the Civil Rights Division. First of all, although the Civil Rights Division has a Criminal Section, the vast majority of its voting-rights prosecutions are civil cases conducted by the division’s Voting Section. Whenever someone violates the Voting Rights Act and does so in a way that is potentially both a civil and a criminal violation, the division must decide whether to proceed first with a civil or a criminal case. With most voting cases, the decision is usually to go with a civil case, particularly if there are elections coming up in the near future. That is because civil cases have a lower burden of proof and give the government the opportunity to obtain almost immediately a temporary injunction to stop the defendants from engaging in the same wrongful behavior as the case winds its way through the federal courts.

Criminal cases can take longer to develop, particularly since the government usually has to convene a federal grand jury to return an indictment. Also, criminal cases focus like a laser beam on individual defendants, whereas civil cases can include an organizational defendant (like the NBPP).

The focus for the Civil Rights Division is always on the best way to get the remedy that is needed to stop and prevent the recurrence of the voter intimidation or other wrongful behavior as soon as possible. In this particular case, when the decision was being made in January of 2009, the division knew there was going to be another election in May in Philadelphia. The fastest to way to make sure there would be no thugs in paramilitary uniforms and jackboots smacking batons into their fists at polling places in the upcoming election was to file a civil complaint and obtain a restraining order against the individual defendants and the New Black Panther Party. In fact, one of the defendants dismissed from the case was once again credentialed as a Democratic poll watcher in the May election.

Once the division obtained a judgment and an injunction in the civil case, they could have decided to further pursue a criminal prosecution against the individual New Black Panthers, but the number one priority had to be getting a civil injunction as expeditiously as possible before the next election.

On the other hand, Adams also testified that some radical career lawyers shared the apparent view of the Obama political appointees that no civil-rights cases of any kind should be brought against blacks. If that factored into any decision the career lawyers made not to initiate a criminal investigation of the NBPP actions (it looks criminal to me — just watch the video and judge for yourself), that supports Adams’s most significant testimony. It would be damning regardless of which administration it occurred under. So, this left-wing excuse (that criminal charges weren’t also brought) may strongly support what the Civil Rights Commission is now trying to focus on — and what the DOJ is desperately trying to cover up.

Indeed, the person who would have been responsible for making a recommendation on whether to file a subsequent criminal charge against the individual New Black Panther defendants was Mark Kappelhoff, the “career” chief of the Criminal Section and a former ACLU lawyer. Besides being a big contributor to Democratic candidates like Barack Obama and John Kerry, as well as the DNC, Kappelhoff was considered such a liberal loyalist that he was moved into the political position of chief of staff to the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights by the Obama transition team almost as soon as they came in the door.

Sources tell me that Kappelhoff never recommended a criminal case against the baton-yielding thugs, so the claim that the Bush administration is somehow responsible for “downgrading” this case is complete nonsense. This is no surprise, given Kappelhoff’s very liberal ideology, and given his associations: In this photo, taken at a dinner of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights in May of 2009, he can be seen to the right of Julie Fernandes, the deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights who is now at the center of controversy. Christian Adams testified under oath last week that Fernandes said that no voting-rights cases of any kind would be brought against minorities during this administration by the Civil Rights Division and that Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, which requires states to delete ineligible voters who have died or moved away from their voter registration list, will not be enforced. Given the action of the career criminal section in CRD, it is unreasonable to expect the Bush political appointees to initiate a criminal investigation of their own in the waning days of the administration when the civil suit was being filed.

Yet Kappelhoff and the Obama administration could make the decision today to indict the members of the New Black Panther Party, since they are still well within the applicable criminal statute of limitation. But you can rest assured that they will not do so. It is more important to them to block the investigation of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and to creatively excuse what they have done in this case, which was throw away the opportunity to obtain an exhaustive and wide-ranging permanent injunction against the NBPP in the civil case, which would have ensured that what happened in Philadelphia in November of 2008 never happened again at any polling place anywhere in the country.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, at its last hearing, Civil Rights Commissioner Todd Gaziano expressed particular interest in securing testimony from the individual who would know the most about the Arizona case the liberals keep mentioning: Chris Coates, the former Voting Section chief, whom the Commission has subpoenaed. The department has ordered Mr. Coates not to comply with the lawful subpoena because he would tell too many inconvenient truths the Holder DOJ would prefer to keep bottled up. Here’s hoping that Congress may finally be able to help and apply more pressure on DOJ to stop stonewalling the commission’s investigation.

— Hans A. von Spakovsky is a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and a former counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Justice Department

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

you got some bad talking points, I've heard a plethera of defenders of these clowns and the decision in question and NOONE has claimed that Fox fabricated the story....it is you Spence, who will knee jerk defend, spin and invent on almost a daily basis, excuses for every action of thIs corrupt, inept and NOW DANGEROUS administration....you are so far from objective it is worrisome and it's far easier for you to mindlessly attack easy targets who simply point out the truth about your messiah than to admit to yourself your ideaology is a trainwreck

Their "story" is propaganda and their guilty of fabricating outrage plain and simple. The "news story" is pretty straightforward and hardly to be found underneath all their mud.

the Beck's, Hannity's etc...that you abhor, if you listen are standing up for AMERICA, it's Constitution, founding principles, rule of law, states rights etc.....these things aren't even in vocabulary of the people that you constantly defend with the exception of some occasional twisted leftist interpretations....SO WHAT THE HELL DO YOU STAND FOR??? clearly, dragging this country down the destructive path of Obama's socialistic dreams....certainly not an America based on it's founding principles, Constitution and rule of law....no, you unwaveringly support what is likely the most radical leftist President and administration in our history which has no regard for these ..but at least it clear now...

Silly, silly Scott.

The likes of Hannity, Rush and Beck stand up for their sponsors and their own contracts above all else (I'd note that Rush and Beck are far worse in this respect).

BTW...heard a NAACP Chapt. President explain the other day that Tea Party members who mentioned limited government, states rights and lower taxes were actually using code words for racism against minorities....this is the degree to which the people that you defend here have perverted and sullied the national dialogue...those pointing the fingers are the actual racists, thugs and subversives...in full attack mode against ....well....real Americans

I don't believe I've ever defended the NAACP on these boards.

Now you're fabricating stories as well

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Their "story" is propaganda and their guilty of fabricating outrage plain and simple. The "news story" is pretty straightforward and hardly to be found underneath all their mud.


Silly, silly Scott.

The likes of Hannity, Rush and Beck stand up for their sponsors and their own contracts above all else (I'd note that Rush and Beck are far worse in this respect).



I don't believe I've ever defended the NAACP on these boards.

Now you're fabricating stories as well

-spence

you make less sense with every post...what has happened to you?...just weak, wandering nonsense...I didn't accuse you of defending the NAACP ..simply pointed out the fact that NAACP reps in some cases have now deemed traditional American founding principles as racist...just as the left and all of the little groups under it's current umbrella attack have and still attack those that hold same...

"this the degree to which the people that you defend here have perverted and sullied the national dialogue."

"this is the degree to which people" that you defend here (Justice Department) and refers to those that you generally defend here

remember that it was Holder who insulted America(at least the part that he doesn't like) saying something offensive about cowardice and racism...

the NAACP individuals statements together with their resolution was just another example which should outrage most and reflected the "degree" to which those that you defend here have sullied the ...not that complicated..

NAACP represents a large block of Obama support, NAACP lobbied hard to have the case dropped by the Justice Department...you have defended the Justice Department....I provided evidence that the justice department harbors some very curious priorities...

Holder, Obama, Michelle, a boatload of elected Dems and their constituency groups and on and on have sullied the American dialogue and will continue to ...it's what they do...they are radicals...and they thrive on it...