For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Adam Serwer Says Move Along There’s Nothing to See Here
Written By : Morgan Freeberg

Here’s a fascinating paradox of liberalism, one that affects not only them but anybody who lives where they have influence. Who you are determines truth. Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd drop dead, and if Fox News says that’s what happened then it hasn’t really happened yet. Vice President Joe Biden says the Recovery & Reinvestment Act has saved-or-created a bunch of jobs, and it must be so because Joe Biden has done something to advance the progressive agenda. Thurgood Marshall was a deity, don’t say a word against his judicial philosophy or you’ll be the opposite. Identity determines everything.

And yet, as Adam Serwer apparently understands, if all the opportunities line up just so and you say just the right thing, there’s no ladder of promotion to be ascended. You can leap up near the top in one fell swoop. Jot down a sentence at just the perfect moment that inflicts sufficient damage on conservatism, or offers a sufficient boost to liberalism, and you can join Mount Olympus and anything that comes out of your pie-hole from then on also becomes true.

So Serwer declares the Black Panther scandal to be unofficially over. Maybe it’ll work. All for the team, eh Adam?

So, a number of things have happened in the past few hours that should really discredit the entire conservative conspiracy theory behind the New Black Panther Party case.

Earlier today, I reported that J. Christian Adams, in his testimony to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, said that there was no indication of pressure from outside the Civil Rights Division to dismiss the civil complaint against the other two plaintiffs named in the original complaint–meaning that even Adams admits there’s no evidence Barack Obama or Eric Holder had anything to do with deciding to narrow the case.

Ben Smith reported this evening that Abigail Thernstrom, a conservative voting rights expert and one of George W. Bush’s appointees to the commission, says that the conservative bloc explicitly discussed a “wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president.” This was clear from the beginning, but it’s the first time anyone on the commission has said with first hand knowledge that the conservatives on the commission had deliberately decided to do this to damage the administration.

Finally, Adams has been claiming that the Justice Department, by refusing to reject a Section 5 preclearance request from Ike Brown, the defendant in the last Section 11(b) case filed by the Voting Section, was proving his claim that the Voting Section has no interest in protecting white voters. Brown filed a submission to the Justice Department seeking to create a closed Democratic primary in Noxbuee County, Mississippi. In fact, as Jeremy Holden reports, the Justice Department didn’t reject Brown’s request because he is not the “proper submitting official under Section 5″ and he is still prohibited under the terms of a 2007 injunction from making any changes to the election rules that make them not “equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens.” The DoJ then filed a motion requesting that the court move to “prohibit Brown from moving forward with plans to create a closed primary, to prohibit Brown from making any future official filings seeking to change the electoral process, and to extend the 2007 order an additional 2 years,” in part because of his prior efforts to “reduce white voter participation.”
:
This story should now be over. It won’t be, but it should.

Okay, so let’s review this thing from the opposite logical direction. In order for a scandal to develop and endure, which will bring harm to the progressive cause, we know from Mr. Serwer’s comments that a whole bunch of conditions must exist for if they do not exist, Serwer will come along and declare the scandal dead.

It’s gotta go all the way to the top or it doesn’t count. The buck doesn’t really stop there and maybe it doesn’t make it that far in the first place.

Nobody can be politically motivated against enemies, anywhere. If anybody’s out to get anybody, then nothing happened. (Such behavior is not to be encouraged, this is Washington DC after all.)

All claims of wrongdoing, even legitimate ones, must be filed according to proper protocol. If they aren’t filed by the “proper submitting official under Section 5″ then they didn’t happen.

I find these “Serwer Rules” to be, to say the very least, convenient and I’m choosing the most charitable adjective there I can.

I cannot help but wonder how many conservatives, or for that matter non-conservative people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time in conservative administrations, would be interested in knowing about these rules. Maybe someone who was distantly connected to the Abu Ghraib scandal a few years back? Wonder what they’d think of all this.

I like your rules Mr. Serwer. Can you imagine what would happen if all liberals who were hyper-agendized against conservatives, were suddenly deprived of a voice? Michael Moore would be in the poorhouse, and the civility of our nation’s discourse — a constant subject of complaint among any, for a solid decade or more by now — would improve mightily. Your rules should apply equally in both directions. They won’t, but they should.

Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes and at Cassy’s place.

0
  • Christopher_Taylor

    I think what most people who know about this case are wondering is why the blatant voter intimidation case was simply dismissed, and more informed people wonder why the prosecutor who pushed to have the case moved forward on was demoted to a different position.

    • huckupchuck

      I'm curious, C_T, whether you know if any voter in the affected precinct/district has filed a complaint charging that he or she was intimidated? Wouldn't that be relevant to any legal basis upon which to continue investigating/prosecuting a case?

      • the_hawk

        As a matter of fact, one “Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-wing Village Voice” did. He called it “the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen”, and filed an affidavit in support of the lawsuit. There is also plenty of video evidence to support the charge as well.

        It seems your argument is that if anyone besides a voter filed a complaint, then there is no merit to the case. Obviously, somebody brought it to the attention of the Justice Department. Does it really matter who did?

        • Christopher_Taylor

          Thanks, Hawk. This was blatant Huck. Inescapably obvious intimidation that the Black Panthers admitted to. But you know, nothing to see here, move along.

          • the_hawk

            No problem. I would think a good analogy would be in regards to domestic violence charges. A lot of the time, the aggrieved party will decide not to file charges. However, the state can still file charges on their own without the participation of the victim.

          • huckupchuck

            I never said there was nothing to see here. I basically asked a couple of questions about what the proper legal response to charges of voter intimidation without anyone actually claiming to be victimized by anything. From what I understand the DOJ issued an injunction against the dude and stripped him of his right to be at polling stations in the future; but without anyone coming forward and actually filing a formal complaint of voter intimidation, what is the proper legal response beyond what the DOJ actually did?

            the_hawk – as for your analogy of domestic violence, it's not the same. If there is physical evidence of abuse beyond just a verbal spat, you have a factual basis for determining the possibility of an “aggrieved” party. Otherwise, what is there to go on legally? We actually have a good current case study to put your analogy to the test: Mel Gibson. Most of us have heard his vicious recorded rant against his ex-girlfriend. Should he be prosecuted by the local DA under whose jurisdiction he falls for domestic violence charges exclusively because of what he said on the phone? Or does the DA simply issue a restraining order preventing him from going near his ex-girlfriend? And does his ex-girlfriend actually need to petition for a restraining order before the DA can do even that? Mel Gibson is a disgusting cad, but I have yet to hear anyone argue that his phone rant is enough evidence to warrant the DA prosecuting him on charges of domestic violence, especially in the absence of a domestic violence complaint being lodged against him by his ex-girlfriend.

          • the_hawk

            They barred him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a polling station, but that law already exists. Another red flag was that one of the defendants was a known Democratic Committee member who was a poll-watcher for the party in a previous election. In his affidavit, Bartle Bull said the following:

            “I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters.”

            He also said they tried to “interfere with the work of other poll observers … whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically,” noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said “you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”

            And there is most certainly enough evidence to charge Mel Gibson without a complaint against him by his ex. They could charge him with making terrorist threats, for example. Not to mention pictures that have cropped up recently showing his ex with her caps knocked off her teeth and other injuries. But I stand by my assertion that a complaint can be filed by the DA even against the wishes of the aggrieved party.

          • Christopher_Taylor

            Huck, the US government does not need a complaint from a citizen to act against civil rights violations. Let's say its Alabama, and a couple of guys in Klan costumes stand by a predominantly black polling area with a truncheon.

            You figure telling the guy “you can't go near polling places next time” is sufficient for that guy? Of course not.

  • Cylarz

    I think what I found amusing was that we heard all about the NAA(liberal)CP accusing the Tea Party of “racism,” without a single substantiation for that charge…as it was based entirely on a single episode which was actually DISproven by a video camera. The Left goes wild.

    Meanwhile, a known association of thugs is captured on video hanging around around a polling place flashing a weapon at white voters…and the Left-controlled DoJ isn't interested in pursuing an open-and-shut case. In fact, some remarks are made about improving MINORITY access to the polls.

    Interesting. As usual, it nicely illustrates the observation that liberals are bunch of mendacious hypocrites.

Advertisement
Featured Video

Ed Klein on ‘The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House’

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

40 Of The Most Bad-Ass, Masculine, Manly, Alpha Male Quotes Of All Time
50 Things Every 18-Year-Old Should Know
Politically Correct Fairy Tales
Why Men Are Becoming Wimpy, Video Game Playing Slackers Who Don’t Want To Get Married
Horror You Will Never Get Out Of Your Brain Again: Bronies
The 10 Best Obama Ate A Dog Images From Around The Web
Advertisement
User Info