DOJ: Racialist Educational Policy OK

[PoliticalChic]

1…. hiring practices of the Civil Rights Division at the Obama Justice Department. Today’s installment relates to the Education Section: this Section has enormous power over issues such as race-based preferences in college scholarships, decades-old desegregation orders, and the federal response to racially motivated violence that plagues American schools. Recently, the Obama administration concluded that school discipline is often racially discriminatory merely because black students are disciplined at rates higher than their overall percentage in the population. The division has launched a campaign that undermines basic American traditions of right and wrong by attacking school discipline. When you read the radical backgrounds of lawyers in the Education Section below, you’ll see why.


2. …every single one of the career attorneys hired since Obama took office has a fringe leftist ideological bent and nearly all have overtly partisan pasts. Every single one. The left still doesn’t get it: they brazenly think this is perfectly acceptable….Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King rewrote hiring guidelines in 2009, resulting in hiring committee members being forced to toss any resume that did not describe a radical background.


3. Anurima Bhargava was hired as the new chief of the Section after working for the previous six years at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund….During her tenure at the NAACP LDF she litigated cases across the country seeking to defend and expand the use of racial preferences and racial quotas in public secondary schools and universities. One of the highlights of her work was her coordination of the filing of amicus briefs and other advocacy efforts in support of two Supreme Court cases in which liberal coalitions insisted that local schools be permitted to assign public students to different schools on the basis of race. Fortunately, the Supreme Court rejected this argument as unconstitutional.


a. In remarks to the United Nations Forum on Minority Issues just before joining the Justice Department, Ms. Bhargava described how imperative it was for schools to promote “integration and social cohesion” by considering race, language, immigration status, and religion in placement decisions….This woman is running the Education Section.


b. When it comes to the rights of non-traditional minorities, like whites, Ms. Bhargava’s ideology of inclusion begins to crumble. Indeed, after the Bush Civil Rights Division negotiated a consent decree with Southern Illinois University to end racially discriminatory paid fellowships for which white graduates were told they were not eligible based on their skin color, Ms. Bhargava publicly blasted the decision as “hinder[ing] the legitimate efforts of colleges and universities to create equal educational opportunity.” [She has been] honored for her aggressive battles to prevent state referendums (i.e., real democracy at work) opposing racial preferences.

Pajamas Media » Every Single One: The Politicized Hiring of Eric Holder


Is this the face of 'Liberalism'?

 

[Full-Auto]

1…. hiring practices of the Civil Rights Division at the Obama Justice Department. Today’s installment relates to the Education Section: this Section has enormous power over issues such as race-based preferences in college scholarships, decades-old desegregation orders, and the federal response to racially motivated violence that plagues American schools. Recently, the Obama administration concluded that school discipline is often racially discriminatory merely because black students are disciplined at rates higher than their overall percentage in the population. The division has launched a campaign that undermines basic American traditions of right and wrong by attacking school discipline. When you read the radical backgrounds of lawyers in the Education Section below, you’ll see why.


2. …every single one of the career attorneys hired since Obama took office has a fringe leftist ideological bent and nearly all have overtly partisan pasts. Every single one. The left still doesn’t get it: they brazenly think this is perfectly acceptable….Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King rewrote hiring guidelines in 2009, resulting in hiring committee members being forced to toss any resume that did not describe a radical background.


3. Anurima Bhargava was hired as the new chief of the Section after working for the previous six years at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund….During her tenure at the NAACP LDF she litigated cases across the country seeking to defend and expand the use of racial preferences and racial quotas in public secondary schools and universities. One of the highlights of her work was her coordination of the filing of amicus briefs and other advocacy efforts in support of two Supreme Court cases in which liberal coalitions insisted that local schools be permitted to assign public students to different schools on the basis of race. Fortunately, the Supreme Court rejected this argument as unconstitutional.


a. In remarks to the United Nations Forum on Minority Issues just before joining the Justice Department, Ms. Bhargava described how imperative it was for schools to promote “integration and social cohesion” by considering race, language, immigration status, and religion in placement decisions….This woman is running the Education Section.


b. When it comes to the rights of non-traditional minorities, like whites, Ms. Bhargava’s ideology of inclusion begins to crumble. Indeed, after the Bush Civil Rights Division negotiated a consent decree with Southern Illinois University to end racially discriminatory paid fellowships for which white graduates were told they were not eligible based on their skin color, Ms. Bhargava publicly blasted the decision as “hinder[ing] the legitimate efforts of colleges and universities to create equal educational opportunity.” [She has been] honored for her aggressive battles to prevent state referendums (i.e., real democracy at work) opposing racial preferences.

Pajamas Media » Every Single One: The Politicized Hiring of Eric Holder


Is this the face of 'Liberalism'?

The color blind society......................

IF YOURE NOT OF COLOR YOU ARE ROBBED BLIND.

 

[Katzndogz]

This whole bunch has to go.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This whole bunch has to go.

November 2012 can't come soon enough.

 

[freedombecki]

1…. hiring practices of the Civil Rights Division at the Obama Justice Department. Today’s installment relates to the Education Section: this Section has enormous power over issues such as race-based preferences in college scholarships, decades-old desegregation orders, and the federal response to racially motivated violence that plagues American schools. Recently, the Obama administration concluded that school discipline is often racially discriminatory merely because black students are disciplined at rates higher than their overall percentage in the population. The division has launched a campaign that undermines basic American traditions of right and wrong by attacking school discipline. When you read the radical backgrounds of lawyers in the Education Section below, you’ll see why.

2. …every single one of the career attorneys hired since Obama took office has a fringe leftist ideological bent and nearly all have overtly partisan pasts. Every single one. The left still doesn’t get it: they brazenly think this is perfectly acceptable….Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King rewrote hiring guidelines in 2009, resulting in hiring committee members being forced to toss any resume that did not describe a radical background.

3. Anurima Bhargava was hired as the new chief of the Section after working for the previous six years at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund….During her tenure at the NAACP LDF she litigated cases across the country seeking to defend and expand the use of racial preferences and racial quotas in public secondary schools and universities. One of the highlights of her work was her coordination of the filing of amicus briefs and other advocacy efforts in support of two Supreme Court cases in which liberal coalitions insisted that local schools be permitted to assign public students to different schools on the basis of race. Fortunately, the Supreme Court rejected this argument as unconstitutional.

a. In remarks to the United Nations Forum on Minority Issues just before joining the Justice Department, Ms. Bhargava described how imperative it was for schools to promote “integration and social cohesion” by considering race, language, immigration status, and religion in placement decisions….This woman is running the Education Section.

b. When it comes to the rights of non-traditional minorities, like whites, Ms. Bhargava’s ideology of inclusion begins to crumble. Indeed, after the Bush Civil Rights Division negotiated a consent decree with Southern Illinois University to end racially discriminatory paid fellowships for which white graduates were told they were not eligible based on their skin color, Ms. Bhargava publicly blasted the decision as “hinder[ing] the legitimate efforts of colleges and universities to create equal educational opportunity.” [She has been] honored for her aggressive battles to prevent state referendums (i.e., real democracy at work) opposing racial preferences.

Pajamas Media » Every Single One: The Politicized Hiring of Eric Holder

Is this the face of 'Liberalism'?

This is an awful issue because it forces yokes on a free people they don't deserve.

I don't think this is "liberalism" as it was once defined. Where the left went wrong was adopting Saul Alinsky as a panacea for the ills of some, but not all of the people.

The left has discarded majority vote as the rule of thumb in society and embraced petty minority desires over the wishes of the people.

To freedom, the unthinkable behaviors being applied to the voting process that favors liberalism and disfavors conservatism are antithetical, and we are seeing many lawsuits following voting days to attempt to rein in the fruits of erroneous leftist thinking which goes over the line with America's former adherence to the rule of law.

The lawsuits directed at leftist precinct chairmen for cheating and ballot stuffing are causing many of us to lose faith in the vote, as we feel we are being inured into political slavery in the name of "doing what we select and more intelligent liberals think is best for everybody else."

 

[PoliticalChic]

1…. hiring practices of the Civil Rights Division at the Obama Justice Department. Today’s installment relates to the Education Section: this Section has enormous power over issues such as race-based preferences in college scholarships, decades-old desegregation orders, and the federal response to racially motivated violence that plagues American schools. Recently, the Obama administration concluded that school discipline is often racially discriminatory merely because black students are disciplined at rates higher than their overall percentage in the population. The division has launched a campaign that undermines basic American traditions of right and wrong by attacking school discipline. When you read the radical backgrounds of lawyers in the Education Section below, you’ll see why.

2. …every single one of the career attorneys hired since Obama took office has a fringe leftist ideological bent and nearly all have overtly partisan pasts. Every single one. The left still doesn’t get it: they brazenly think this is perfectly acceptable….Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King rewrote hiring guidelines in 2009, resulting in hiring committee members being forced to toss any resume that did not describe a radical background.

3. Anurima Bhargava was hired as the new chief of the Section after working for the previous six years at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund….During her tenure at the NAACP LDF she litigated cases across the country seeking to defend and expand the use of racial preferences and racial quotas in public secondary schools and universities. One of the highlights of her work was her coordination of the filing of amicus briefs and other advocacy efforts in support of two Supreme Court cases in which liberal coalitions insisted that local schools be permitted to assign public students to different schools on the basis of race. Fortunately, the Supreme Court rejected this argument as unconstitutional.

a. In remarks to the United Nations Forum on Minority Issues just before joining the Justice Department, Ms. Bhargava described how imperative it was for schools to promote “integration and social cohesion” by considering race, language, immigration status, and religion in placement decisions….This woman is running the Education Section.

b. When it comes to the rights of non-traditional minorities, like whites, Ms. Bhargava’s ideology of inclusion begins to crumble. Indeed, after the Bush Civil Rights Division negotiated a consent decree with Southern Illinois University to end racially discriminatory paid fellowships for which white graduates were told they were not eligible based on their skin color, Ms. Bhargava publicly blasted the decision as “hinder[ing] the legitimate efforts of colleges and universities to create equal educational opportunity.” [She has been] honored for her aggressive battles to prevent state referendums (i.e., real democracy at work) opposing racial preferences.

Pajamas Media » Every Single One: The Politicized Hiring of Eric Holder

Is this the face of 'Liberalism'?

This is an awful issue because it forces yokes on a free people they don't deserve.

I don't think this is "liberalism" as it was once defined. Where the left went wrong was adopting Saul Alinsky as a panacea for the ills of some, but not all of the people.

The left has discarded majority vote as the rule of thumb in society and embraced petty minority desires over the wishes of the people.

To freedom, the unthinkable behaviors being applied to the voting process that favors liberalism and disfavors conservatism are antithetical, and we are seeing many lawsuits following voting days to attempt to rein in the fruits of erroneous leftist thinking which goes over the line with America's former adherence to the rule of law.

The lawsuits directed at leftist precinct chairmen for cheating and ballot stuffing are causing many of us to lose faith in the vote, as we feel we are being inured into political slavery in the name of "doing what we select and more intelligent liberals think is best for everybody else."

1. In his sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, whistleblower Christopher Coates — who then headed the Voting Rights division — testified to a “deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the” law “for the protection of white voters.” J. Christian Adams agreed that the department indicated it would not prosecute cases against a minority defendant on behalf of a white plaintiff. Coates remembered Julie Fernandes, Obama’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, telling DoJ employees “the Obama administration was only interested in bringing…cases that would provide political equality for racial and language minority voters.” Julie Fernandes | Impeach Obama Campaign

2. United States v. Ike Brown Brown was the head of the Democratic Party in Noxubee County, a majority black county. The party ran the Democratic primaries, which served as de facto general elections, and Brown made no secret about his desire to see every government office in the county held by a black officeholder. “You ain’t dealing with Mississippi law, this is Ike Brown’s law,” was his motto. Brown organized teams of notary publics to roam the county collecting absentee ballots, the notaries regularly cast the ballots themselves instead of the voters.

a. During one election, teams of federal observers counted hundreds of verified examples of illegal assistance. Brown lawlessly disqualified white candidates from running for office. Ike Brown institutionalized racial lawlessness, and brazenly victimized white voters during the 2003 and 2007 elections. And yet, many in the Voting Section never wanted the Department even to investigate the matter.

b. Hostility pervaded the Voting Section…Some said that unless whites were victims of historic discrimination, they shouldn’t be protected….Because whites were better off than blacks in Mississippi, no lawsuit should be allowed to protect whites, they argued.

c. Before the trial, article after article appeared in the New York Times and other newspapers critical of the decision to bring the Ike Brown case. ABC News presented it as a classic man-bites-dog story. Even National Public Radio traveled to Noxubee to do a story suspicious of the Bush administration’s decision to sue Ike Brown. The benefit of hindsight makes the national media effort to demean the case, and the hostility from the civil rights community, look laughable and petty. We won the case, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in two historic opinions.
Pajamas Media » PJM Exclusive: Unequal Law Enforcement Reigns at Obama’s DOJ (UPDATED: Adams Discusses this Article on Fox News) exclusive/4/

 

[freedombecki]

1…. hiring practices of the Civil Rights Division at the Obama Justice Department. Today’s installment relates to the Education Section: this Section has enormous power over issues such as race-based preferences in college scholarships, decades-old desegregation orders, and the federal response to racially motivated violence that plagues American schools. Recently, the Obama administration concluded that school discipline is often racially discriminatory merely because black students are disciplined at rates higher than their overall percentage in the population. The division has launched a campaign that undermines basic American traditions of right and wrong by attacking school discipline. When you read the radical backgrounds of lawyers in the Education Section below, you’ll see why.

2. …every single one of the career attorneys hired since Obama took office has a fringe leftist ideological bent and nearly all have overtly partisan pasts. Every single one. The left still doesn’t get it: they brazenly think this is perfectly acceptable….Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King rewrote hiring guidelines in 2009, resulting in hiring committee members being forced to toss any resume that did not describe a radical background.

3. Anurima Bhargava was hired as the new chief of the Section after working for the previous six years at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund….During her tenure at the NAACP LDF she litigated cases across the country seeking to defend and expand the use of racial preferences and racial quotas in public secondary schools and universities. One of the highlights of her work was her coordination of the filing of amicus briefs and other advocacy efforts in support of two Supreme Court cases in which liberal coalitions insisted that local schools be permitted to assign public students to different schools on the basis of race. Fortunately, the Supreme Court rejected this argument as unconstitutional.

a. In remarks to the United Nations Forum on Minority Issues just before joining the Justice Department, Ms. Bhargava described how imperative it was for schools to promote “integration and social cohesion” by considering race, language, immigration status, and religion in placement decisions….This woman is running the Education Section.

b. When it comes to the rights of non-traditional minorities, like whites, Ms. Bhargava’s ideology of inclusion begins to crumble. Indeed, after the Bush Civil Rights Division negotiated a consent decree with Southern Illinois University to end racially discriminatory paid fellowships for which white graduates were told they were not eligible based on their skin color, Ms. Bhargava publicly blasted the decision as “hinder[ing] the legitimate efforts of colleges and universities to create equal educational opportunity.” [She has been] honored for her aggressive battles to prevent state referendums (i.e., real democracy at work) opposing racial preferences.

Pajamas Media » Every Single One: The Politicized Hiring of Eric Holder

Is this the face of 'Liberalism'?

This is an awful issue because it forces yokes on a free people they don't deserve.

I don't think this is "liberalism" as it was once defined. Where the left went wrong was adopting Saul Alinsky as a panacea for the ills of some, but not all of the people.

The left has discarded majority vote as the rule of thumb in society and embraced petty minority desires over the wishes of the people.

To freedom, the unthinkable behaviors being applied to the voting process that favors liberalism and disfavors conservatism are antithetical, and we are seeing many lawsuits following voting days to attempt to rein in the fruits of erroneous leftist thinking which goes over the line with America's former adherence to the rule of law.

The lawsuits directed at leftist precinct chairmen for cheating and ballot stuffing are causing many of us to lose faith in the vote, as we feel we are being inured into political slavery in the name of "doing what we select and more intelligent liberals think is best for everybody else."

1. In his sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, whistleblower Christopher Coates — who then headed the Voting Rights division — testified to a “deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the” law “for the protection of white voters.” J. Christian Adams agreed that the department indicated it would not prosecute cases against a minority defendant on behalf of a white plaintiff. Coates remembered Julie Fernandes, Obama’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, telling DoJ employees “the Obama administration was only interested in bringing…cases that would provide political equality for racial and language minority voters.” Julie Fernandes | Impeach Obama Campaign

2. United States v. Ike Brown Brown was the head of the Democratic Party in Noxubee County, a majority black county. The party ran the Democratic primaries, which served as de facto general elections, and Brown made no secret about his desire to see every government office in the county held by a black officeholder. “You ain’t dealing with Mississippi law, this is Ike Brown’s law,” was his motto. Brown organized teams of notary publics to roam the county collecting absentee ballots, the notaries regularly cast the ballots themselves instead of the voters.

a. During one election, teams of federal observers counted hundreds of verified examples of illegal assistance. Brown lawlessly disqualified white candidates from running for office. Ike Brown institutionalized racial lawlessness, and brazenly victimized white voters during the 2003 and 2007 elections. And yet, many in the Voting Section never wanted the Department even to investigate the matter.

b. Hostility pervaded the Voting Section…Some said that unless whites were victims of historic discrimination, they shouldn’t be protected….Because whites were better off than blacks in Mississippi, no lawsuit should be allowed to protect whites, they argued.

c. Before the trial, article after article appeared in the New York Times and other newspapers critical of the decision to bring the Ike Brown case. ABC News presented it as a classic man-bites-dog story. Even National Public Radio traveled to Noxubee to do a story suspicious of the Bush administration’s decision to sue Ike Brown. The benefit of hindsight makes the national media effort to demean the case, and the hostility from the civil rights community, look laughable and petty. We won the case, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in two historic opinions.
Pajamas Media » PJM Exclusive: Unequal Law Enforcement Reigns at Obama’s DOJ (UPDATED: Adams Discusses this Article on Fox News) exclusive/4/

I found this link on the Ike Brown case, and I wonder how they let those who pervert the vote go right back to it again:

Brown ran the primary elections because he is the Democratic Party chairman. At the trial, a woman on Brown’s list testified that she was too afraid to vote because she thought she might be arrested.
The federal court found that the publication of the list of 174 names was an illegal form of intentional racial discrimination. The United States district court held:​

The question is whether Brown’s action with respect to this list of 174 voters was actuated by these party loyalty concerns or whether this was pretext for a true purpose to discourage white voters from coming to the polls, or some combination of the two. The court has carefully weighed the evidence and finds that while party concerns were a factor in Brown’s actions, race played a role as well. … In sum, the court is of the opinion that Brown had the names of these white voters published in part because of party loyalty concerns, but also as an attempt to discourage white voters from voting in the 2003 Democratic primary.
​

Brown’s overall behavior was so outrageous that the court stripped him of all authority to run elections until 2012, and gave the power to a former justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court as a special administrator. The remedy was unprecedented, but upheld on appeal because of the brazen lawlessness of Ike Brown.
Fast forward to 2010, to the Eric Holder Justice Department.
Every change in voting in Mississippi must be submitted for approval to the DOJ voting section — where I worked for five years — under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 gives the DOJ power to object to any change motivated by a discriminatory racial intent or with a discriminatory racial effect in nine states and portions of seven. Changes to the law in 2006 made it clear that any discrimination would suffice to trigger an objection under the act.
Right now, the Holder Justice Department has a submission from Ike Brown to allow him to do precisely the same thing he tried in 2003 — prevent people from voting based on their party loyalties.​

The Department must decide this week if white victims are worth protecting, by imposing an objection to the same behavior a federal court has already ruled was motivated by an illegal racial intent. If the races were reversed in this submission, there is zero doubt the DOJ would object to the proposal Link

 

[William Joyce]

This answers the question, "Is it racist to not vote for a black man... just because he's black?"

Answer: NO, actually, because a black man CAN BE EXPECTED to enforce policies that BENEFIT blacks and HURT whites.

That simple.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is an awful issue because it forces yokes on a free people they don't deserve.

I don't think this is "liberalism" as it was once defined. Where the left went wrong was adopting Saul Alinsky as a panacea for the ills of some, but not all of the people.

The left has discarded majority vote as the rule of thumb in society and embraced petty minority desires over the wishes of the people.

To freedom, the unthinkable behaviors being applied to the voting process that favors liberalism and disfavors conservatism are antithetical, and we are seeing many lawsuits following voting days to attempt to rein in the fruits of erroneous leftist thinking which goes over the line with America's former adherence to the rule of law.

The lawsuits directed at leftist precinct chairmen for cheating and ballot stuffing are causing many of us to lose faith in the vote, as we feel we are being inured into political slavery in the name of "doing what we select and more intelligent liberals think is best for everybody else."

1. In his sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, whistleblower Christopher Coates — who then headed the Voting Rights division — testified to a “deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the” law “for the protection of white voters.” J. Christian Adams agreed that the department indicated it would not prosecute cases against a minority defendant on behalf of a white plaintiff. Coates remembered Julie Fernandes, Obama’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, telling DoJ employees “the Obama administration was only interested in bringing…cases that would provide political equality for racial and language minority voters.” Julie Fernandes | Impeach Obama Campaign

2. United States v. Ike Brown Brown was the head of the Democratic Party in Noxubee County, a majority black county. The party ran the Democratic primaries, which served as de facto general elections, and Brown made no secret about his desire to see every government office in the county held by a black officeholder. “You ain’t dealing with Mississippi law, this is Ike Brown’s law,” was his motto. Brown organized teams of notary publics to roam the county collecting absentee ballots, the notaries regularly cast the ballots themselves instead of the voters.

a. During one election, teams of federal observers counted hundreds of verified examples of illegal assistance. Brown lawlessly disqualified white candidates from running for office. Ike Brown institutionalized racial lawlessness, and brazenly victimized white voters during the 2003 and 2007 elections. And yet, many in the Voting Section never wanted the Department even to investigate the matter.

b. Hostility pervaded the Voting Section…Some said that unless whites were victims of historic discrimination, they shouldn’t be protected….Because whites were better off than blacks in Mississippi, no lawsuit should be allowed to protect whites, they argued.

c. Before the trial, article after article appeared in the New York Times and other newspapers critical of the decision to bring the Ike Brown case. ABC News presented it as a classic man-bites-dog story. Even National Public Radio traveled to Noxubee to do a story suspicious of the Bush administration’s decision to sue Ike Brown. The benefit of hindsight makes the national media effort to demean the case, and the hostility from the civil rights community, look laughable and petty. We won the case, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in two historic opinions.
Pajamas Media » PJM Exclusive: Unequal Law Enforcement Reigns at Obama’s DOJ (UPDATED: Adams Discusses this Article on Fox News) exclusive/4/

I found this link on the Ike Brown case, and I wonder how they let those who pervert the vote go right back to it again:

Brown ran the primary elections because he is the Democratic Party chairman. At the trial, a woman on Brown’s list testified that she was too afraid to vote because she thought she might be arrested.
The federal court found that the publication of the list of 174 names was an illegal form of intentional racial discrimination. The United States district court held:​

The question is whether Brown’s action with respect to this list of 174 voters was actuated by these party loyalty concerns or whether this was pretext for a true purpose to discourage white voters from coming to the polls, or some combination of the two. The court has carefully weighed the evidence and finds that while party concerns were a factor in Brown’s actions, race played a role as well. … In sum, the court is of the opinion that Brown had the names of these white voters published in part because of party loyalty concerns, but also as an attempt to discourage white voters from voting in the 2003 Democratic primary.
​

Brown’s overall behavior was so outrageous that the court stripped him of all authority to run elections until 2012, and gave the power to a former justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court as a special administrator. The remedy was unprecedented, but upheld on appeal because of the brazen lawlessness of Ike Brown.
Fast forward to 2010, to the Eric Holder Justice Department.
Every change in voting in Mississippi must be submitted for approval to the DOJ voting section — where I worked for five years — under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 gives the DOJ power to object to any change motivated by a discriminatory racial intent or with a discriminatory racial effect in nine states and portions of seven. Changes to the law in 2006 made it clear that any discrimination would suffice to trigger an objection under the act.
Right now, the Holder Justice Department has a submission from Ike Brown to allow him to do precisely the same thing he tried in 2003 — prevent people from voting based on their party loyalties.​

The Department must decide this week if white victims are worth protecting, by imposing an objection to the same behavior a federal court has already ruled was motivated by an illegal racial intent. If the races were reversed in this submission, there is zero doubt the DOJ would object to the proposal Link

ChrisCoates testified to the Civil Rights Commission that many of the lawyers in the Voting Section were opposed to bringing any civil rights cased against blacks in Mississippi until such time as blacks in the state achieved socioeconomic parity with whites. This is an essential question that must be answered: is this a fair outlook in the United States today, or is it a corruption of the voting rights law? Pajamas Media » Bombshell: Defying DOJ Instructions, Christopher Coates Will Testify Friday on New Black Panther Case

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem for the OP - and the anti-Obama right in general - is that in this case there is no evidence that candidates with conservative credentials are being passed over and less qualified candidates selected, as was the case during the Bush administration.

Under the Bush DOJ, candidates with ‘liberal’ affiliations, such as the Sierra Club or the ACLU, were rejected by Bush DOJ staff for positions.

In addition, if one is going to hire lawyers dedicated to the mission of the Civil Rights Division, they will more than likely have a ‘liberal’ background:

During the Obama administration, the Justice Department has restored a critical tradition to its civil rights division: It has hired attorneys who are committed to the enforcement of the nation’s civil rights laws. According to an article in The New York Times, department officials have reversed the Bush administration practice of hiring lawyers with conservative backgrounds who were indifferent or openly hostile to civil rights laws — a practice which led to Congressional hearings about improper hiring practices there. The large majority of new hires for the storied division have worked for civil rights or other liberal organizations in the past. Less than 40 percent of the attorneys hired for the division during the Bush years listed such credentials. Interestingly, the Times reports, division hires during the Obama administration also tended to have graduated from higher-0ranked law schools than those hired under the Bush administration. The former graduated from law schools with an average ranking of 28, according to U.S. News and World Report; the latter, from law schools with an average ranking of 42.

In Shift, Justice Department is Hiring Lawyers With Civil Rights Backgrounds | The Defenders Online | A Civil Rights Blog

Since conservative lawyers are, for the most part, hostile to the concept of defending Civil Rights, and their backgrounds and experience are not in Civil Rights litigation accordingly, it is logical and expected for staff at Civil Rights to have ‘liberal’ credentials.

Certainly conservatives aren’t advocating the Obama DOJ hire less qualified lawyers to work in the Civil Rights Division, as it’s the responsibility of the AG to hire the best qualified candidates, regardless of partisan background.

 

[SAT]

Great post, C Clayton. Very informative and well thought out.

This answers the question, "Is it racist to not vote for a black man... just because he's black?"

Answer: NO, actually, because a black man CAN BE EXPECTED to enforce policies that BENEFIT blacks and HURT whites.

That simple.

So then you believe that white candidates can be expected to enforce policies that benefit white people and hurt black people.

Am I reading your message correctly?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem for the OP - and the anti-Obama right in general - is that in this case there is no evidence that candidates with conservative credentials are being passed over and less qualified candidates selected, as was the case during the Bush administration.

Under the Bush DOJ, candidates with ‘liberal’ affiliations, such as the Sierra Club or the ACLU, were rejected by Bush DOJ staff for positions.

In addition, if one is going to hire lawyers dedicated to the mission of the Civil Rights Division, they will more than likely have a ‘liberal’ background:

During the Obama administration, the Justice Department has restored a critical tradition to its civil rights division: It has hired attorneys who are committed to the enforcement of the nation’s civil rights laws. According to an article in The New York Times, department officials have reversed the Bush administration practice of hiring lawyers with conservative backgrounds who were indifferent or openly hostile to civil rights laws — a practice which led to Congressional hearings about improper hiring practices there. The large majority of new hires for the storied division have worked for civil rights or other liberal organizations in the past. Less than 40 percent of the attorneys hired for the division during the Bush years listed such credentials. Interestingly, the Times reports, division hires during the Obama administration also tended to have graduated from higher-0ranked law schools than those hired under the Bush administration. The former graduated from law schools with an average ranking of 28, according to U.S. News and World Report; the latter, from law schools with an average ranking of 42.

In Shift, Justice Department is Hiring Lawyers With Civil Rights Backgrounds | The Defenders Online | A Civil Rights Blog

Since conservative lawyers are, for the most part, hostile to the concept of defending Civil Rights, and their backgrounds and experience are not in Civil Rights litigation accordingly, it is logical and expected for staff at Civil Rights to have ‘liberal’ credentials.

Certainly conservatives aren’t advocating the Obama DOJ hire less qualified lawyers to work in the Civil Rights Division, as it’s the responsibility of the AG to hire the best qualified candidates, regardless of partisan background.

"...as it’s the responsibility of the AG to hire the best qualified candidates, regardless of partisan background."

1. “Under the Obama administration, Loretta King, acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, has returned to the Clinton-era policy of hiring in the Voting Section only those who have liberal ideological or partisan backgrounds. She has made prior employment with left-wing advocacy groups a uniquely qualifying factor in hiring decisions – even for volunteers. Only leftists need apply to enforce federal election laws. The Voting Section at DOJ has seen a hiring blitz of lawyers from SEIU, Advancement Project, MALDEF, and NAACP as well as lawyers who provided pro bono representation toGuantanamodetainees. A lawsuit filed by the Pajamas Media website against Holder’s Justice Department forced the department to hand over the resumes of 16 new hires to the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division. There is not a single lawyer with a non-ideological or conservative background.” The Left


2. "...In time, statistics and other information will present truth to this lie, as the Bush Civil Rights Division had a more robust civil rights agenda than the Obama Civil Rights Division. During the Bush years, the Civil Rights Division brought more cases in many areas of the law, particularly voting rights."


3. Race-neutral enforcement of civil rights law is a principle nearly all Americans agree with. Equality before the law has been cherished since the founding, and a bloody Civil War sacrificed generations of treasure and life to enshrine race equality into constitutional law. Two obvious examples of the Obama administration’s hostility toward race-neutral enforcement of the civil rights laws:

a. The Department recently filed a brief supporting the use of race-based preferences at the University of Texas. Holder’s DOJ wants Texas to be able to give extra admissions credit to the skin color of certain college applicants. Of course some races won’t get the benefit of these racial preferences, while the political allies of the administration will.

b. In New Haven, Connecticut, the Holder Justice Department took the side of those who wanted to racially discriminate against white and Hispanic firefighters seeking promotion. Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court rejected the position of the Civil Rights Division. (It is no accident, incidentally, that senior Department attorney Steven Rosenbaum was involved in the formation of the Department’s racially biased approach in New Haven, just as he was involved in the dismissal of the New Black Panther case when he was acting deputy assistant attorney general, a political position in the Civil Rights Division.)

4. The Bush Justice Department never filed briefs advocating racial discrimination. In fact, the Bush Justice Department was willing to protect all citizens under the civil rights laws, and brought a handful of cases protecting non-traditional racial minorities….

The above from "Injustice," by J. Christian Adams

5. Despite this conscious, principled adherence to “blind justice” and the constitutional role of the judiciary, some in the Bush Department of Justice found themselves accused of “politicization” when they tried to hire lawyers who would respect and carry out these principles. The radical Left simply could not tolerate a system in which the liberal ideologues who already predominated the career ranks in the CRD were not replicated in all hiring decisions. Politicizing the Law - Hans A. von Spakovsky - National Review Online

 

[midcan5]

"You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a by-product of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.” Lee Atwater, Republican strategist, 1981, describing the Southern Strategy


If we lived in a society in which there was no racism would we need to talk about it?
If we lived in a society in which there was no religion would we still talk about it?
If we lived in a society in which there was no class structure would we need to think about it?
If we lived in a society in which opportunity was level and fair would we think about it?
If we lived in a society in which your race, color, religion, class, didn't matter - we'd be in heaven if such a place exists.

I would propose unless we live in heaven we'll always think of these things because they are simply the way people are tuned. Consider that 300 years of racism is equivalent to one spoiled white boy not getting into the college of their choice one year and you realize humanity is a childish thinker.

On one side of our moral equivalency scale are slavery, broken families, lack of opportunity, discrimination, prison time for petty crime, on the other side is the white majority who have always been first, and still are, and somehow the scale is uneven, but it is not uneven in the way a moral universe would run, it is uneven because white power sees it as uneven. Opportunity is only white, connections are only white.

Is it any wonder many Black men want to be on the white side of this scale and so they join in the chorus that weighs the scale in that immoral way, because after all 300 and one are balanced on this particular scale of justice. Think Justice Thomas, Congressman West.


White affirmative action. [ame=http://www.amazon.com/When-Affirmative-Action-White-Twentieth-Century/dp/0393328511/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America (9780393328516): Ira Katznelson: Books[/ame]


"We are all racist – black, white, yellow and those of indeterminate colour – accept it. Accept it as a fact. An innate biological response to people who are different. And having accepted it. Then get on with assessing your reactions, reassessing them and adopting modified behaviour – it is not natural to “love thy neighbour” but it can become second nature – you just gotta work at it. However if we blithely maintain our perfections and pay lip service to equality then the games a bogey and there’ll be fighting in the play-ground forever more." From McPherson's Rant

Google this if you want to learn: tim wise on white privilege

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXPyOMIRh5A]GRITtv: Tim Wise: Race and the Social Safety Net - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

"You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a by-product of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.” Lee Atwater, Republican strategist, 1981, describing the Southern Strategy


If we lived in a society in which there was no racism would we need to talk about it?
If we lived in a society in which there was no religion would we still talk about it?
If we lived in a society in which there was no class structure would we need to think about it?
If we lived in a society in which opportunity was level and fair would we think about it?
If we lived in a society in which your race, color, religion, class, didn't matter - we'd be in heaven if such a place exists.

I would propose unless we live in heaven we'll always think of these things because they are simply the way people are tuned. Consider that 300 years of racism is equivalent to one spoiled white boy not getting into the college of their choice one year and you realize humanity is a childish thinker.

On one side of our moral equivalency scale are slavery, broken families, lack of opportunity, discrimination, prison time for petty crime, on the other side is the white majority who have always been first, and still are, and somehow the scale is uneven, but it is not uneven in the way a moral universe would run, it is uneven because white power sees it as uneven. Opportunity is only white, connections are only white.

Is it any wonder many Black men want to be on the white side of this scale and so they join in the chorus that weighs the scale in that immoral way, because after all 300 and one are balanced on this particular scale of justice. Think Justice Thomas, Congressman West.


White affirmative action. Amazon.com: When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America (9780393328516): Ira Katznelson: Books


"We are all racist – black, white, yellow and those of indeterminate colour – accept it. Accept it as a fact. An innate biological response to people who are different. And having accepted it. Then get on with assessing your reactions, reassessing them and adopting modified behaviour – it is not natural to “love thy neighbour” but it can become second nature – you just gotta work at it. However if we blithely maintain our perfections and pay lip service to equality then the games a bogey and there’ll be fighting in the play-ground forever more." From McPherson's Rant

Google this if you want to learn: tim wise on white privilege

GRITtv: Tim Wise: Race and the Social Safety Net - YouTube

Now, Middy...I know you like to write almost as much as I do, but there is a single, simple question at hand:

ChrisCoates testified to the Civil Rights Commission that many of the lawyers in the Voting Section were opposed to bringing any civil rights cased against blacks in Mississippi until such time as blacks in the state achieved socioeconomic parity with whites. This is an essential question that must be answered: is this a fair outlook in the United States today, or is it a corruption of the voting rights law? Pajamas Media » Bombshell: Defying DOJ Instructions, Christopher Coates Will Testify Friday on New Black Panther Case


"This is an essential question that must be answered: is this a fair outlook in the United States today, or is it a corruption of the voting rights law? "

Only against whites? Ignore infractions committed by blacks? Yes or no?

If you say "no," we're on the same page.

 

[SAT]

Great post, midcan!

 

[William Joyce]

Great post, C Clayton. Very informative and well thought out.

This answers the question, "Is it racist to not vote for a black man... just because he's black?"

Answer: NO, actually, because a black man CAN BE EXPECTED to enforce policies that BENEFIT blacks and HURT whites.

That simple.

So then you believe that white candidates can be expected to enforce policies that benefit white people and hurt black people.

Am I reading your message correctly?

Yes, I would say that as a matter of logical symmetry, that is correct. White politicians are expected to favor whites.

Sadly, in my view, most don't, because they're so well trained to be self-hating.

But everyone favors "their own kind." You just can't stop it. Solution: separate the races.

 

[jillian]

what is this "racialist" thing? is that a new way for racists to complain about being called what they are?

just wondering.

 

[SAT]

Yes, I would say that as a matter of logical symmetry, that is correct. White politicians are expected to favor whites.

Sadly, in my view, most don't, because they're so well trained to be self-hating.

But everyone favors "their own kind." You just can't stop it. Solution: separate the races.

A matter of logical symmetry? I'm not asking what is pleasing to your mind, I'm asking you about the reality of the situation.

 

[William Joyce]

white privilege

"White privilege", what a crock of shit. You work hard, save, plan for the future and provide for your children... that's not unearned privilege. That's just good values.

Blacks don't work, don't provide for their kids, and we're supposed to be the bad guys?

Sorry, try again.

 

[William Joyce]

Yes, I would say that as a matter of logical symmetry, that is correct. White politicians are expected to favor whites.

Sadly, in my view, most don't, because they're so well trained to be self-hating.

But everyone favors "their own kind." You just can't stop it. Solution: separate the races.

A matter of logical symmetry? I'm not asking what is pleasing to your mind, I'm asking you about the reality of the situation.

The reality of the situation is that many white politicians, in an attempt to kiss politically correct ass, do support things like affirmative action, which clearly hurts whites. Others support the usual conservative positions: tough on crime, low taxes, less spending, etc. These positions do favor whites, because they're the bearers of the tax burden and the disproportionately lower beneficiaries of government spending. It's blacks and Hispanics who go to jail, mostly -- not whites. So, for a black voter to say, "I'm not supporting that white conservative" makes sense to me. But it also makes sense for a white voter to say, "I'm not supporting that black liberal." Not just because he's liberal... but also because he's black. Granted, whites won't say this, while blacks mouth it happily.