Jon Stewart is an Armey of One!

Jon Stewart vs Dick Armey Round 3: Which is how long it took him to finally NAIL this fatuous Gas Bag by pointing out that all the Tea Party wants is to elect more Republicans, who will then go on to blow-up the deficit and increasing spending because that's what they ALWAYS DO! - after they've gotten into power by claiming the exact opposite.

Black Man with Stick Drives Fox News Batty!

Here we see Fox's News Model Megyn Kelly Interview Ambush Verbal Assault of Malik Shabbazz, current head of the New Panther Party over the actions of one of his members at a polling place on Election Day 2008, where he wasn't arrested and wasn't prosecuted for NOT intimidating voters.



Right now, this is a BIG DEAL Story over in Fox Land. It apparently goes like this, on election day 2008 members of the New Black Panther party (at the direction of Shabazz himself as he admits in the video) were dispatched to various polling places around the country to act as a deterrent to police intimidation of black voters during the Presidential Election.

The event in question occurred in Philadelphia, a city which has had a long and troubled history between it's black citizens and police going all the way back to the Move Bombing in the early 80's.

Black Panther member Samir Shabazz with one other appeared at the polling place. Samir had the temerity to bring - A Stick. This is when the hijinks ensue as shown here...



Hey is that a Billy Club in your hand or are you just glad to see me?

As documented by this "Student" and Poll Watcher who decided to question and confront the two Panthers in front of the polling station with "What's going on?" and "Why do you have a stick in your hand... don't you think that's a bit intimidating?"

The response he received was "Who are you to say?" He wasn't threatened, he wasn't shooed away, you can see in the video that other people behind them are entering the polling place unfettered and unrestricted. In fact, they simply answered his questions with "We're Security" then began to ignore him.

Wow - Scary.

Despite this several other Poll Watchers complained that Samir (aka Stick-man) said some things to the effect of "Now you're going to see what's it's like to be ruled by a Black Man, Cracker!".

(Just as a side note: I have to say that that's one of the most pathetic racial epithets on earth. Cracker? What are you calling him a "Saltine" - a "Waffer"? Where's the insulting part of that IMO? Not that I'm condoning it, I'm just saying - after 360 years of slavery and oppression - "Cracker" is the best you got? Frankly that's just embarassing! I'm waiting for the guy who'se gonna be traumatized, break down and cry cause somebody called them "Cracker!" Please.)

Other videos provided by Kelly show Samir making far more racially charged remarks about "Killing Crackers" and such. Let me say this, clearly Samir is a bit of a DICKHEAD and a bigot - but that doesn't mean he broke the law.

In her reports - which she hyped for nearly an hour prior to interviewing Shabazz - Kelly admits that No Voters Complained about being intimidated at the polls, only so-called "Poll Watchers". I've worked my local polls as a Poll-Worker (not Watcher, Worker - I did things to help people vote) that Poll-Watcher's aren't just innocent bystanders, they're Partisans. They are sent by one campaign or the other to document what is going on or read the posted voter roster to see who hasn't voted yet in order to target their GOTV efforts. Let me also point out You Can't Film inside a polling place without permission of the people you are filming, and it's only because this occurred Outside that the photographer wasn't in violation.

Also I will note that no Poll Workers issued a complaint, but a couple Poll-Watchers did and called the police. Reportedly the Police arrived and Made No Arrests!.

Just this week Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has signed a law allowing people to carry guns in church. Other states have decided to allow people to carry guns in bars. Apparently none of that is in any way intimidating, But a man can't carry A STICK on public property?

"Hey do you have a license and a permit for that Stick!? What's the serial number for Your Stick!, Dude?"

Interesting that all the hard core 2nd Amendment guys seem to forget that a STICK is also a form of "arms" and is also protected by the Constitution. So is being a verbal jerk by the 1st Amendment.

I bring this up because I don't see Fox News or Megyn Kelly up in arms about THIS GUY... who brought an AR-15 to a Presidential Town Hall for questionable religious reasons.



Some of the things Samir has said are pretty hateful, yet it seems what a Right-Winger says something horrible about - well, anyone - they don't seem to care so much.

During the same election when Pastor Hagee was lambasted for Racist, Anti-Semetic, Anti-Catholic comments then Candidate John McCain DEFENDED the Pastor and said he was taken Out of Context.

More recently when the Military Dis-invited a Christian Evangelist Franklin Graham to an event because of his comments that Islam is a "Wicked and Evil" Religion, Fox news got upset.



@SarahPalinUSA even tweeted "The Army's Loss in Dis-inviting a Good Man..."

As media matters notes, but FOX NEWS HASN'T MENTIONED the case against Samir Shabazz was dropped by the Bush Administration Department of Justice in 2008. They also chose not to pursue similar cases against members of the Minutemen.

There was a subsequent lawsuit on which Samir Defaulted - which means HE DIDN'T EVEN SHOW UP - and was slapped with an injunction baring him from ever going near any polling place in the country with a Stick. This judgment was later downgraded to just polling places in Philadelphia until 2012.

Now Fox has been highlighting a Whistle-Blower who claims that political appointees at the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Dept deliberately dropped the case and have put forth an edict that voting rights cases against Black People will not be pursued.

But this Whistle-Blower, Christian Adams, as again FOX HAS FAILED TO REPORT is hardly a non-partisan actor in this drama... h/t MediaMatters

# Adams is a long-time right-wing activist, who is known for filing an ethics complaint against Hugh Rodham that was subsequently dismissed, served as a Bush poll watcher in Florida 2004, and reportedly volunteered for a Republican group that trains lawyers to fight "racially tinged battles over voting rights";

# Adams was hired to the Justice Department in 2005 by Bradley Schlozman, who was found by the Department of Justice Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility to have improperly considered political affiliation when hiring career attorneys -- the former head of the DOJ voting rights section reportedly said that Adams was "exhibit A of the type of people hired by Schlozman";

# Adams has admitted that he does not have first-hand knowledge of the events, conversations, and decisions that he is citing to advance his accusations;

Adams is an Acolyte of Schlozman, and I think Media Matters actually downplayed the importance of that. Schlozman almost single-handed purged the Appellate Section of the Civil Rights Division of Black, Minority and Female attorneys bringing their level of participation in that Department down to a level that was less than it was 30 years ago.

Also remember during that time you had situations like that of David Iglesias, who was summarily FIRED by the Bush Administration for refusing to pursue Bogus Voting Fraud Charges Against ACORN.



You want to know who Megyn Kelly talked to about her interview with Malik Shabazz immediately after it was over? Karl Rove.

I don't know exactly what the political appointee that Adam's is talking about said - (and he probably doesn't either since he wasn't in the room at the time) - but if it was something like "We're not going to pursue anymore of these Bogus ACORN cases..." I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Let also recall one more thing - just how much has Fox Reported about Voter Caging by the RNC? Anybody remember Monica Goodling testifying to Congress that former Rove Assistant Tim Griffin was involved in Voter Caging?



What's that? This...

Voting rights attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called for prison time for the new US Attorney for Arkansas, Timothy Griffin and investigation of Griffin’s former boss, Karl Rove, chief political advisor to President Bush.

“Timothy Griffin,” said Kennedy,”who is the new US attorney in Arkansas, was actually the mastermind behind the voter fraud efforts by the Bush Administration to disenfranchise over a million voters through ‘caging’ techniques - which are illegal.”

Caging is a direct mail trick, where a registered letter is sent to the address of an absentee voter and if they don't respond to that letter within a specific period of time they are placed on a "Challenge List" so that when their absentee ballot comes in - IT WON'T BE COUNTED. Griffin did this specifically to African American Servicemen who were stationed in Iraq during the 2004 Election, afterward he was rewarded with a Patriot Act approved appointment as a U.S. Attorney without being Confirmed by the Senate.

When Griffin did this Caging for the RNC, there was already a Court Ordered Consent Decree blocking them from doing so - so he not only violated the Law, he violated a Court Order.

And is Fox All Up In ARMS because thousands upon thousands of (Black) Voters may have been disenfranchized by the RNC?

Uh, not such much.

They rather froth at the mouth about what one guy with a STICK didn't do two years ago - which wasn't illegal.



Vyan

Let us all now join the Bigot Parade!

Apparently Dan Finelli (R-FL) who is running for the seat currently held by Alan Grayson thinks all you need to do to find a terrorist is look for their beady eyes, see the Turbin and the Olive Skin...



But Mr. FINELLI isn't that what they used to say about finding members of - y'know - THE MAFIA, except for the Turbin...

Welcome to the Bigot Parade, wherein Really Dumb People think they can see into the depths of your soul, by looking at your skin tone...

It might seem to some simplistically logical to look for terrorists coming from countries that threaten us, except that it really doesn't work.

One of the larger problems facing the security industry in the era of mass terrorism is the task of creating a profile of a likely terrorist. Identifying those at risk of first time offenses is a challenge in any context, but the stakes are higher when that offense may also be the last, and involve the deaths of dozens of people. We've discussed the challenges of generating profiles of potential terrorists in the past, but a study that will be released by the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science does a mathematical analysis how we're deploying the profiles we do have, and suggests we may not be using them wisely.

The study was performed by William Press, who does bioinformatics research at the University of Texas, Austin, with a joint appointment at Los Alamos National Labs. His background in statistics is apparent in his ability to handle various mathematical formulae with aplomb, but he's apparently used to explaining his work to biologists, since the descriptions that surround those formulae make the general outlines of the paper fairly accessible.

Press starts by examining what could be viewed as an idealized situation, at least from the screening perspective: a single perpetrator living under an authoritarian government that has perfect records on its citizens. Applying a profile to those records should allow the government to rank those citizens in order of risk, and it can screen them one-by-one until it identifies the actual perpetrator. Those circumstances lead to a pretty rapid screening process, and they can be generalized out to a situation where there are multiple likely perpetrators.

Things go rapidly sour for this system, however, as soon as you have an imperfect profile. In that case, which is more likely to reflect reality, there's a finite chance that the screening process misses a likely security risk. Since it works its way through the list of individuals iteratively, it never goes back to rescreen someone that's made it through the first pass. The impact of this flaw grows rapidly as the ability to accurately match the profile to the data available on an individual gets worse. Since we've already said that making a profile is challenging, and we know that even authoritarian governments don't have perfect information on their citizens, this system is probably worse than random screening in the real world.

Let's also remember that the 9-11 hijackers didn't come from enemy states, they came from Saudi Arabia who we consider an ally and from the United Arab Emirates who we nearly sold all of our ports to, years after 9-11.

More via Thinkprogress...

Indeed, terrorists come in all shapes, sizes, and colors, and do not simply belong to one religion, ethnicity, or nationality. The “shoe bomber,” Richard Reid, was Jamaican and British. Al Qaeda recruit Adam Pearlman was a white American. Germaine Lindsay, one of London’s 7/7 bombers, was Afro-Caribbean. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a black African.

Jose Padilla was an American Citizen of Latino descent as was Bryan Neal Vinas, a Long Island resident, former Catholic and Boy Scout who converted to Islam moved to Pakistan where he was caught fighting U.S. Forces with the Taliban.

And lastly let's recall Faisal Shahzad - who looks more like a trendy club hopper than a Terrorist - is also a Naturalized American Citizen with an MBA, who originally came from a country - Pakistan - that had never committed an act of international terrorism before.

The fact is that Racial Profiling doesn't work. The ACLU has sponsored a variety of studies of the techniques use by Law Enforcement via Racial Profiling.

While Hispanics comprise less than eight percent of the Illinois population, and take fewer than three percent of the personal vehicle trips in Illinois, they comprise approximately 30 percent of the motorists stopped by ISP drug interdiction officers for discretionary offenses such as failure to signal a lane change or driving one to four miles over the speed limit. For example, in ISP District 13, which covers seven counties southeast of St. Louis, Hispanics comprise less than one percent of the local driving-age population, yet they represent 29 percent of all people stopped by these officers for speeding less than five miles above the speed limit.

While African Americans comprise less than 15 percent of the Illinois population and take approximately 10 percent of the personal vehicle trips in Illinois, they comprise 23 percent of the searches conducted by Valkyrie officers. In District 4, where African-Americans comprise 24 percent of the local driving-age population, but are the targets of 63 percent of the searches.

The main problem as has been shown in many studies is that even though there was no evidence that Black or Latino drivers "drive worse" and therefore are legitimately creating the cause of the stop on their own, they are nonetheless searched 2 or 3 Times as Often regardless of the reason for the stop and the "Hit Rate" - the percentage of finding drugs or other contraband - among Whites, Latinos and Blacks are pretty much equal and sometimes Greater for Whites.

While troopers ask a higher percentage of Hispanic motorists than white motorists for consent to search their vehicles, they find contraband in a lower percentage of the vehicles of Hispanic motorists. This demonstrates that searches are based on race, not results.

So if they aren't finding MORE drugs, More often by targeting people racially - why are they stopping and searching these particular people? And why aren't we all clamoring for them to STOP WASTING TIME AND TAX PAYER FUNDS HARASSING INNOCENT PEOPLE WITH UNNECESSARY STOPS AND SEARCHES? Also it seems to me that if I needed a drug courier, they would be safer and less likely to be be searched and caught - if they were White.

The same issues would apply to using these failed techniques to fight terrorism (al Qeada and the Taliban know this hence they don't recruit people from the most "obvious" places - instead using Abdulmuttalab from Senegal or Vinas from Long Island).

These issue also apply to capturing illegal aliens, it's not just about what you look like, it should be about what your doing (aka Probable Cause).

Yet people like Finelli apparently think that when al Qeada needs a new suicide bomber, they make a call to Central Casting. Finelli's ad - and what he must have done to find people to play the "terrorists" kinda reminds me of how Hollywood Based stereotypes have seeped into our consciousness for decades and not by accident as shown by Robert Townsend's "Hollywood Shuffle" over 23 years ago - I think of it as Terrorist Acting School.



Not counting Finelli, certainly we've come long way Brotha from those dark days as this more recent scene from Showtime's Sleeper Cell (showing a Black Muslim FBI agent as the main character attempting to infiltrate an al Qeada Cell in East L.A. which includes both Latino's & Whites and is led by the Daily Show's Aasiv Manvi - Yes, Aasiv Manvi played a Terrorist - Black people may have gotten out of the Stereotypical Hollywood Box, but Asians and Arabs haven't yet!)



Somehow I think these guys would have completely defeated Finelli's brilliant strategery to foil their plot simply by not LOOKING like who he thinks they should.

Vyan

Cambridge 9-11 Call Reveals Multiple Lies by Sgt Crowley

Version with Subtitles.

The first issue is that the 9-11 caller does not ever say "Two Black Men", in fact only in response to the dispatchers question does she say "One looked kinda Hispanic". She also admits that she sees a set of suitcases outside and that she doesn't know whether they actually live there or not.

More from the Cambridge Chronicle

As you listen to the 9-11 Caller talking to Sgt Crowley, you can't hear Prof Gates "Yelling" in the Background.

You do hear Sgt Crowley say "There's an older gentleman who says he lives here - he's being uncooperative, send more units".

The first mention of "Two Black Men" actually comes from Crowley's Police Report.

When I arrived at 17 Ware street I radioed ECC and asked that they have the caller meet me at the front door to this residence. SNIP . As I reached the door, a female voice called out to me. I turned and looked in the direction of the voice and observed a white female, later identified as Lucia Whalen. Whalen, who was standing on the sidewalk in front of the residence, held a wireless telephone in her hand and told me that it was she who called. She went on to tell me that the observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of 17 Ware street.

This is disputed by Whalen's Attorney.

Attorney Wendy Murphy, who represents Whalen, also categorically rejected part of the police report that said Whalen talked with Sgt. James Crowley, the arresting officer, at the scene.

"Let me be clear: She never had a conversation with Sgt. Crowley at the scene," Murphy told CNN by phone. "And she never said to any police officer or to anybody 'two black men.' She never used the word 'black.' Period."

She added, "I'm not sure what the police explanation will be. Frankly, I don't care. Her only goal is to make it clear she never described them as black. She never saw their race. ... All she reported was behavior, not skin color."

So that's one "Lie/Mistake" made by Sgt Crowley. Whalen never spoke to him, never said anything about "Backpacks" (actually it was Suitcases which she mentioned to the dispatcher) and never said anything about "Black Men". She was also technically wrong about the "Hispanic", because Gates driver actually *is* black.

Another is the "Yelling" issue. According to Gates, he was just returning from China where he contracted Bronchitis, and as a result - He Couldn't Yell".

The police report says I was engaged in loud and tumultuous behavior. That’s a joke. Because I have a severe bronchial infection which I contracted in China and for which I was treated and have a doctor’s report from the Peninsula hotel in Beijing. So I couldn’t have yelled. I can’t yell even today, I’m not fully cured.

From Gates view "Uncooperative" means he first refused to come out of the house - which he had every right to do.

I’m saying ‘You need to send someone to fix my lock.’ All of a sudden, there was a policeman on my porch. And I thought, ‘This is strange.’ So I went over to the front porch still holding the phone, and I said ‘Officer, can I help you?’ And he said, ‘Would you step outside onto the porch.’ And the way he said it, I knew he wasn’t canvassing for the police benevolent association. All the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I realized that I was in danger. And I said to him no, out of instinct. I said, ‘No, I will not.’

My lawyers later told me that that was a good move and had I walked out onto the porch he could have arrested me for breaking and entering.

in his Police Report Crowley states:

As I stood in plain view of this man, later identified as Gates, I asked if he would come out onto the porch and speak with me? He replied "No, I Wil Not." He demanded to know who I was, I responded "Sgt Crowley of the Cambridge Police" and that I was investigating a report of a "Break-in in progress". He responded with "Why, because I'm a Black Man in America?"

On this they agree, then comes the "Yelling"...

I asked Mr. Gates if there was anyone else in the residence. While Yelling, he told me it was none of my business and accused me of being a racist police officer. While i was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence I was quite surprised and confused by the behavior he exhibited toward me.

I think Gates was quite surprised to have Cop questioning him in his own house.

Eventually Gates provides his ID, after requesting Crowley's ID and not receiving it. Identify established Crowley begins to leave.

As I began to walk through the Foyer of the front door, I could hear Gates demanding my name. I again told Gates that I would speak with him outside. My reason for wanting to leave the residence was that Gates was Yelling very Loud and the acoustics of the kitchens and foyer were making it difficult for me to transmit pertinent information to ECC or other responding units.

Ok, as we can hear when Crowley is speaking on the radio - this would appear to be Lie Number two - and his including this "detail" in the report seems more like an after-the-fact justification for luring Gates outide where a ton of officers (requested by Crowley) were waiting outside.

The thing that really betrays Crowley's Attitude is his statement as his commences the arrest.

I warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly. Gates ignored my warning and continued to yell, which drew the attention of the officers and the citizens, who appeared surprised and alarmed at Gates outburst. For the second time I warned Gates to calm down while I withdrew my department issued handcuffs from their case. Gates again ignored my warning and continued to yell at me, it was at this time that I informed Gates that he was under arrest. Gates initially resisted my attempts to handcuff him, yelling that he was "disabled" and would fall without his cane. After the cuffs were properly applied Gates complained that they were too tight

"Disabled"? What at sensitive guy.

Gates version of this sequence is this:

It looked like an ocean of police had gathered on my front porch. There were probably half a dozen police officers at this point. The mistake I made was I stepped onto the front porch and asked one of his colleagues for his name and badge number. And when I did, the same officer said, ‘Thank you for accommodating our request. You are under arrest.’ And he handcuffed me right there. It was outrageous. My hands were behind my back I said, ‘I’m handicapped. I walk with a cane. I can’t walk to the squad car like this.’ There was a huddle among the officers; there was a black man among them. They removed the cuffs from the back and put them around the front.

According to Gate there were No Warnings, Crowley did not depart the residence walk down the steps and then only walk back up the steps after Gates refused multiple requests to "Calm Down" because he was now "disturbing the peace" (and coincidentally embarrassing Crowley in front of his fellow officers and the public).

That's Lie Number Three.

Also Gates does use a Cane to walk, this is visible in the film footage and was confirmed by Mellisa Harris-Lacewell in her article about Gates in The Nation. Yes, he really is "Disabled" - you officious prick. This portion of the report is clearly intended to paint Gates as a chronic "complainer" and "exaggerator".

The last point is that in the Police Report both Sgt Crowley and Officer Figueroa - who attempts to "corroborate" Crowley's claims - the one truly offensives statement made by Gates was "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO BLACK MEN IN AMERICA" which Figueroa repeats twice in his portion of the report within a single paragraph.

‘What is your name, and what is your badge number?’ and he refused to respond. I asked him three times, and he refused to respond. And then I said, ‘You’re not responding because I’m a black man, and you’re a white officer.’ That’s what I said. He didn’t say anything.

...(Gates is then Arrested)

A crowd had gathered, and as they were handcuffing me and walking me out to the car, I said, ‘Is this how you treat a black man in America?’

From Gates perspective it wasn't an accusation prior to his arrest, it was a question after the fact. The way that both Crowley and Figueroa attempt to distort this statement into a justification for the arrest itself is more than a little distasteful.

It may be that actual racism wasn't involved in this incident, but it's also clear that the catalyst for this was Crowley's Attitude and Tone of Voice which is initially what set Gates on edge by his own admission. Gates may have over-reacted, but he apparently wasn't as "Tumultuous" as Crowley claims he was, merely annoying. Yes, Crowley he did initially give Gates his name (or maybe e didn't since we only have his word on that), but he repeatedly refused to provide his ID and actually Prove he was a Genuine COP to Gates while invading his home. He then places multiple lies on his police report, so it seems to me Gates probably read his tone of voice and the subtext of his intent correctly.

If the Officers Union really wanted a "Trial of Fact" considering both Gates and Crowley agree that the crucial portion of the exchange occurred before both the police and the public, including Lucia Whalen, I think they would seriously regret if any of this had actually came before a judge.

Vyan

White NYPD Cop Shoots Black NYPD Cop - Again!

Many people are arguing on both sides that this is simply a Blue-on-Blue tragedy, while others say that this is part of a pattern of White Officers shooting Black cops and Black or Latino citizens.

ep. Charlie Rangel even stated when asked what Obama should do when he comes to New york - "Make certain he doesn’t run around in East Harlem without identification."

According to the NYTimes report they didn't realize that Omar Edwards was a member of the police until they attempted to perform CPR and found his Police Academy T-Shirt underneath.

The entire situation sounds really sad and tragic, the police supporter in this report argues that the black cop - while chasing a perpetrator who broken into his car while off-duty - was spotted chasing a man with his gun drawn by other plain-clothes officers and was told "Stop, Police!." Supposedly he didn't drop his weapon and tried to turn, that's when shots were fired.

Here's the thing that jumps out at me - HE WAS SHOT IN THE BACK!

If he legitimately tried to turn and didn't follow protocol, which would have been to drop his weapon - why didn't he get hit in the side?

Just like the shooting of Amadou Diallo a decade ago, who was hit 41 times by shots fired by plain-clothes Officers when he allegedly reached for what they *thought* was a weapon. It turned out to be a his wallet.

But that's not all...

In November 1992, a black undercover police officer, Derwin Pannell, was trying to arrest a fare beater when he was mistaken for a mugger and shot by white fellow officers outside a subway station in Canarsie, Brooklyn. Police officials initially said the episode, involving an inadvertent encounter between two teams of plainclothes police officers, was not about race.

...

In August 1994, a black plainclothes transit police officer, Desmond Robinson, was shot and wounded by a white officer, Peter Del-Debbio, on a crowded East Side subway platform. The case generated outrage because of evidence showing that the black officer was shot several times in the back while he was falling or already lying face down.

,,,

In January 2006, a rookie police officer, Eric Hernandez, was assaulted at a White Castle restaurant in the Bronx, and then shot three times by a fellow officer, Alfredo Toro, who was responding to a 911 call. He died 11 days later.

People like Al Sharpton and Charlie Rangel are not trumpeting to this HILLS that this is a case of Racism and Racial Profiling - that isn't clear yet. They're simply asking the question - is this part of a pattern?

Even if it isn't racial, why does this keep happening - shouldn't that question be answered?

That's quite a difference from people accusing our latest Supreme Court Justice of Racism because of ( a gross mis-reading of) one sentence. In one case a person dared to say "White" and "Latino" in the same sentence, in another case - someone is DEAD, and those asking "Why" are supposedly being "Irresponsible?"

I think not.

Vyan