Wednesday, July 14

Megyn Kelly Flips Out at Fellow Foxer

Via Thinkprogress



Here we see how a Foxer handles being told their full of shit! Not Well.

POWERS: The minute I challenge you, you tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about?

KELLY: Because you don’t.

POWERS: You just want people to come on and just agree with you –

KELLY: No, I want informed people.

POWERS: — that what you’ve been doing and the way you’ve been completely doing the “scary black man thing.”


I covered this story in detail a couple days ago when Kelly interviewed the head of the New Black Panther Party about the scandal.

The bottom line is that a guy (Samir Shabbaz) was caught on camera with a stick while standing outside a polling place. He had been sent there along with another Black Panther Member to help provide Security and prevent Voter Intimidation by local police.

He was not criminally charged, but he was civilly sued and an injunction was granted which originally prevented him from coming within 100 Feet of Any Polling Place with a Stick - ANYWHERE. The "Scandal" is that this injunction was downgraded to just prohibiting this one guy from coming withing 100 feet of a polling place - with a stick - in Philadelphia until 2012.

In Us. v. New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, the district court found that the United States had alleged that Minister King Samir Shabazz "stood in front of the polling location at 1221 Fairmont Street in Philadelphia, wearing a military-style uniform, wielding a nightstick, and making intimidating statements and gestures to various individuals, all in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(b)," Order, dated May 18,2009, at 1, and entered judgment "in favor of the United States of America and against Minister King Samir Shabazz, enjoining Minister King Samir Shabazz from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of any open polling location on any election day in the City of Philadelphia, or from otherwise violating 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(b)." Judgment, dated May 18,2009. We (the DOJ) believe this injunction is tailored appropriately to the scope of the violation and the requirements of the First Amendment. We intend to enforce fully the terms of this injunction. Section 11(b) does not authorize other kinds of relief, such as monetary damages or civil penalties.


The argument brought forth by this so-called "Whistle-blower" is that this downgrading is part of an Obama sponsored DOJ plot to Screw White-People by deliberately ignoring cases of Black voter intimidation and fraud (ala the Phony ACORN Scandal).

Keith took this apart in about two seconds.



My problem with this is that I don't think the guy even violated the statute. According to both Kelly and a letter written by the DOJ to a Congressman who inquired about the case No actual VOTERS were harassed or Intimidated.

I think it your being accused of voter intimidation - you should have actually intimidated voters, and no one has presented any evidence of that.

Also, the law requires the the person be within 100 Feet of the polling place and since I've been a poll worker for nearly the last decade - I have my doubts about that. Poll workers are required to post signs marking the 100 Foot Zone, but in the video where the stick is shown no such signs are visible as the videographer approaches the two men. There are signs visible behind them in the windows of the apartment building - which seems to indicate they were outside that zone (which is where they were instructed to be).

If that's the case, and someone would have to know the layout of the building and location of he polling place inside to confirm this, even with the injunction he could still stand in the exact same place, with the exact same STICK.

Unless Megyn Kelly finds out that is.

Kelly: You obviously don't know what you're talking about...


She's not the only one - since the DOJ letters says this.

these defendants failed to respond to the complaint, that does not mean the Department "had effectively won the case" against them. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit "does not favor entry of defaults or default judgments."


The only reason I can say "IF" on any of this is because Shabazz didn't show up to contest the case and the injunction was granted by default, not by merit.

Regardless of Shabazz's own personal issues of loudmouth bigotry, basically to me this is really a case of profiling, Shabazz was essentially convicted in absentia of being a Big Scary Black Man with a Sticktm, it's that kind of presumption of guilt until proven innocent that continues to get a lot of young black men killed even when their trying to do the right thing - case in point - Oscar Grant.

Vyan

1 comment:

Naitoro said...

What a vile creature that thing is!