03 | July | 2010 | Quipster

EDITORIAL: Media blackout for Black Panthers. Washington Times.

Where is the New York Times? Where is The Washington Post? Where are CBS and NBC? A whistleblower makes explosive allegations about the Department of Justice; his story is backed by at least two other witnesses; and the allegations involve the two hot-button issues of race and of blatant politicization of the justice system. A potential constitutional confrontation stemming from the scandal brews between the Justice Department and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. A congressman highly respected for thoughtfulness and bipartisanship has all but accused the department of serious impropriety. By every standard of objective journalism, this adds up to real news.

Why. An unjust, and frankly illegal manner of carrying on government business.

the Obama Justice Department of adopting an unlawful, immoral policy identified in previous Washington Times editorials – namely, enforcing civil rights laws against white perpetrators who victimized minorities but never against black perpetrators who victimize whites or Asians. If this is indeed the policy, it makes a scandalous mockery of the cherished American principle of “equal justice under the law.”

Be sure to check the Voting Rights Act of 1965 if there is any doubt about the letter of the law. Fifth grade comprehension of the law will clearly demonstrate the current Justice Department is NOT applying nor enforcing the rule of law equally to all races.

Let us review.

EXCLUSIVE: Career lawyers overruled on voting case. Washington Times. May 29, 2009.

Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as “the most blatant form of voter intimidation” that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.

EDITORIAL: Black Panthers but no white rights. Washington Times. May 14, 2010.

It was one year ago tomorrow that department officials overrode the advice of career attorneys, and of the department’s own appellate division, by dropping three of four charges in the Black Panther case and seeking an extremely limited injunction in the fourth. The case involved voluminous testimony that two Black Panthers – dressed in paramilitary garb while one brandished a nightstick – stood within arm’s length of a Philadelphia polling place while repeatedly using racial epithets and threats.

At an April 23 hearing held by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, witnesses agreed that both Black Panthers acted in concert, shoulder to shoulder, that they used verbal threats against black Republicans and against whites they called “white devils” and “crackers.” Two witnesses specifically said they saw would-be voters turn around and leave the area without voting after seeing these forms of intimidation. Former Acting Associate Attorney General Gregory G. Katsas testified that, “on its face, the complaint appears to involve a straightforward and overwhelmingly strong case of voter intimidation which [ordinarily] would have raised neither policy sensitivities nor the possibility of conflicting positions within [the department].” His conclusion: “The alleged conduct appears egregious and intentional.”

And of course. Racist. Since there is enforcement of the “law” preferentially based upon race.

Christopher Coates, the multiple award-winning career attorney who oversaw the case before the Obama-Holder team exiled him to the hinterlands, made clear in a going-away speech just what he thought the Obama administration’s political considerations are. As reported (in close paraphrase) by the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky at National Review Online, Mr. Coates suggested the agenda is “to enforce the provisions of the Voting Rights Act only for the protection of certain racial or ethnic minorities” and “to turn a blind eye whenever incidents arise that indicate that minority persons have acted improperly in voting matters.”

Political motivation certainly, since pursuing the case suddenly went cold once President Barack Obama was sworn into office. Ouch! Looks pretty bad.

A You Tube video that got extensive play captured the “Security patrols stationed at polling places in Philly.” Two men were seen standing in front of the entrance to a polling place, wearing military style uniforms. One was brandishing a night stick, pointing it at people, and and slapping it in his hand, in view of all approaching or leaving. Anyone would gather the posture, stance, appearance, dress, and intonations, do not connote a friendly disposition or intent. Likewise.

You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.

Real friendly sort, eh? Two bouncers standing out in front of a bar would have been a more appropriate place for this activity. But not a voting poll location. If the Justice Department cannot make a simple interpretation of the flagrant illegal actions of the Black Panthers and prosecute equally with regards to race, then they, and all the superiors above who give active and tacit approval, are just as complicit in acting on the wrong side of the law.

And even more so, mainstream media’s silence on the case is complicity as well.

See: