« "less hope, more fear" | Main | Questioning The Timing »

Washington Post confirms J. Christian Adams' claims about the DOJ race policies

J. Christian Adams was the first to bring this story to the forefront after he resigned his position at the Department of Justice over the Black Panther voter intimidation case. The mainstream media has since ignored it until the Washington Post decided to finally investigate what happened. Through interviews with other DOJ officials, the Post corroborated what J. Christian Adams has been saying for months:

"There are career people who feel strongly that it is not the voting section's job to protect white voters," the lawyer said. "The environment is that you better toe the line of traditional civil rights ideas or you better keep quiet about it, because you will not advance, you will not receive awards and you will be ostracized."

When I told my husband that the WaPo confirmed what J. Christian Adams and Christopher Coates had been saying all along, he just shook his head in disbelief. While he knew of the controversy, he just didn't want to believe that the Department of Justice actually employed a race litmus test when it came to protecting people's voting rights.

Since the WaPo has published this story, will it be picked up by the leftist paper of record, The New York Times, as well as other leftist propaganda rags? I think we all know the answer to that, particularly since we've got a very important mid-term election coming up in only a matter of days.

But Darrell Issa can add this to his growing list of things to investigate.

Breitbart is all over this and has a lot more in his report at Big Journalism.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40404.

Comments (38)

Is there anything about Bar... (Below threshold)
914:

Is there anything about Barrys administration thus far that is upright and good for America?


no

Is there anything ... (Below threshold)
Stan:
Is there anything about Barrys administration thus far that is upright and good for America?

The left says that the Nixon Administration was corrupt. Geez Nixon's people were honest compared to this bunch. Dollar to a donut, none of these people will ever see the inside of jail cell, while they send thousands of innocent people to jail for years on a very minor infraction


Darrell Issa is going to be... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Darrell Issa is going to be a very busy man, and Eric Holder will probably be thrown under the bus before 2012.

Both sides just want things... (Below threshold)
BlueNight:

Both sides just want things to be fair. It is their descriptions of fair that are different.

Bluenight,I used t... (Below threshold)
Polaris:

Bluenight,

I used to be a Dem party activist when I was much younger. To the 'progressive' set, "fair" is when all possible people that can vote "correctly" (or be trusted to vote "correctly") are permitted to vote.

That's right. Ultimately the Dems want universal sufferage aka Illegal Immigrants, the Dead, Family Pets, Children under 18, etc as long as they get enough votes to win. It's purely a means to an end for these guys....and as long as the "good" ideas win, it's fair.

-Polaris

I've been following this st... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

I've been following this story since its inception and it is truly a travesty that the "paper of record" and other major media outlets have either totally ignored it or merely made mention of it once.

This, in particular, lays waste to Holder's claim that we are cowards when it comes to the discussion of race. The civil rights division of the Justice Department is an embarrassment and Holder is the head coward and partisan/racial hack.

I hope Holder and "the bus" become good friends, but I'm not counting on it.

Did any of you fine folks a... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Did any of you fine folks actually read the linked WaPo article?

The quote Ms Priestap has highlighted is referring to the Brown case from 2005, when Gonzales was AG, I believe.

Ditto the allegations of "deep divisions," which apparently the NBBP case has only deepened, not begun.

The article is NOT "confirmation" of Adams's claims. It is an expository piece giving background on the dispute, explaining the story from all perspectives.

You know, what journalists are supposed to do.

Because, despite the lame, woe-is-me-conservatives-are-victims mindset typical of Republicans nowadays, the WaPo can (generally) be relied upon to practice journalism the way it's meant to be practiced.

Mr. Henry is at least parti... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

Mr. Henry is at least partially correct. Racial bias at the DOJ, as exhibited in the NBPP case, has been around for awhile. Much like the State Department during the cold war, the DOJ has entrenched employees who have political agendas at odds with the majority of Americans. The only difference with the NBPP case is that higher-up political appointees apparently have been directly involved in deep-sixing the case.
I draw the line at agreeing that "...the WaPo can (generally) be relied upon to practice journalism the way it's meant to be practiced."

Agenda politics...agenda ju... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Agenda politics...agenda justice...agenda budgets...agenda agenda agenda

EVERYTHING with Obama and the Dems is about furthering their various agendas. and ALL their agendas seek the same goal: "Fundamental Transformation" of the American people in order to subjugate.

Eric Holder is ensuring that DOJ plays its part!

Walter, you did a better jo... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Walter, you did a better job of saying that than I could have. This is a long standing problem. Political intervention is the story here.

Bruce Henry you were going in the right general direction, until you decided to slap a fresh coat of white-wash on the WaPo. "Generally" is just too strong a term, "periodically" is perhaps a better choice.

Bruce, I'll respectfully di... (Below threshold)
epador:

Bruce, I'll respectfully disagree with you on several points.

1) WaPo isn't lacking in, to coin a word, disingenuity.
2) This does confirm/support Adam's claims.

Certainly, however, the article does discuss the divisions within the DOJ that predate the Obama Administration. Similar problems in the CIA and other important government bureaucracies predate Obama. And Bush. And Clinton, and Reagan and even Carter. Though JC contributed greatly to the problem.

It is true the quote highlighted by Kim is from the Civil Rights Commission investigation of the Brown decision. Months and months and months ago this statement had been made. So Kim left out the extra months and months, but the impact of her statement is not lessened by this chronology. It reflects a long-standing defect in the enforcement pattern of the DOJ, now brought to light by a hideous image of a paramilitary thug in front of a polling place in America.

The article in the WaPo also brings up many points, quite objectively, allowing the reader to make their own decisions on the situation: as opposed to Brown, the situation was monitored right up the chain to Holder. The decision to drop the case was highly unusual, and occurred AFTER Holder's involvement. And so on.

The background of the NBP thugs, descriptions of a few voters' feelings towards them, the contradictory statements of the Democratic poll watcher, and the response engendered by conservative response to the presence of the NBP thugs is well described.

The article is more than what you imply - it is a blueprint of the inappropriate prejudice that drives the ultimate product the DOJ produces, and one recent example of this.

Now I don't know what your experience in management is, but mine is that the CEO and the CEO's staff operate in manners that often leave the CEO's fingerprints off of decisions the CEO makes. I doubt the DOJ behaves any differently. And the e-mail and statements offered in the WaPo article support this mode of operation. This problem stinks to the top.

The WaPo had the balls to print a careful account and background. Months after the incident was in the spotlight. When folks are more interested in the election. But newspapers are floundering and now finally attempting to pander not just to a narrow political view. These pieces of the puzzle fit together in a manner that isn't that gratifying.

So I am not so impressed as Kim, and not so coy as Bruce.

Perhaps you can offer some ... (Below threshold)
epador:

Perhaps you can offer some equally insightful evaluation of this related article, Bruce:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/election-fraud-uncovered-by-patriotic-citizens-who-promptly-get-sued/

And while we're at it, let'... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

And while we're at it, let's not forget giving false testimony to Congress. Lying to Congress is usually a pretty big deal.

Upset - In connection with ... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

Upset - In connection with the DOJ story, I think the false testimony given by DOJ employees was before the US Civil Rights Commission, not the Congress - but I could be wrong. Still "...a pretty big deal" as I believe it was under oath.

Bruce doesn't get it, as us... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Bruce doesn't get it, as usual. Conservatives do not think we are victims, this article just affirms what we know. Conservatives have to operate against a stacked deck but through hard work, succeed. The victims as always are on the left. The ones that do not work, always have their hands out and never accept personal responsibility. The left/lazies are ruining this country.

When the next president comes into office in 2012, if he or she is white, I am sure Bruce will be fine with an order to the Justice Department to only prosecute black on white crimes. Right Brucy? ww

Re # 11:My only re... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Re # 11:

My only real point in my comment was that Ms Priestap's headline was inaccurate, and that those who have commented here acting as if it wasn't have been misled, either purposely or not.

While it may be something of an overstatement that the WaPo can "generally" be relied upon for accuracy, it's also quite tiresome to hear, as we all have for 40 years or more, whining about the "liberal media" when newa isn't reported exactly as conservatives wish it was.

When are conservatives going to give up on the "liberal media" myth? Maybe after this election, when the Tea Party has been portrayed in mostly positive, or at least neutral, terms everywhere but the most liberal blogs and on "The Daily Show?"

The "liberal media" only existed for a few years during the Vietnam War and Watergate. Ever since the election of Ronald Reagan (which the all-powerful Liberal Media was powerless to prevent, apparently), the press has bent over backwards to avoid the appearance of liberal bias. So much so that, nowadays, all stories boil down to "Liberal X says this, but Conservative Y says the opposite." It's silly as hell, but Republicans and conservatives have so intimidated the so-called "liberal media" that it seldom reports facts anymore, just spin.

It was the so-called "liberal media" that put a halo on Reagan's head and let him get away with trading arms for hostages (in violation of US law) in the Iran-Contra scandal. It was the "liberal media" who harped incessantly about Gore's "serial exaggerations" and "claims" to have invented the Internet. It was the "liberal media," led by the WaPo and the NYT, that repeatedly failed to uncover the falsity of the Bush administration's claims that Saddam had WMDs. It was the "liberal media" who picked up on and amplified FOX's and Drudge's spurious Swiftboaters in 2004.

Get over it, conservatives. You have FOX and Talk Radio. There's no problem getting your message heard. You guys are going to win this election. Conservatives have been pretty much in charge of this country for the last 30 years (and look where that's got us!) So quit whining, already.

Yes, Mr. Henry. The MSM di... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

Yes, Mr. Henry. The MSM did a wonderful job of vetting Obama. All those headlines about how he voted for infanticide while an Illinois state senator. Those stories about how he was a committed Marxist while at Occidental. Who can forget the WaPo's expose on Frank Marshall Davis, Alice Palmer, Rev. Wright, and Bill Ayers. They connected the dots and asked the really tough questions about why and how he progressed from a committed Marxist about 30 years ago, to becoming a member of and attending a racist, marxist, black liberation theology church for 20 year, to being a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and garnering its endorsement 14 years ago, to become [in what, about 6 months?] the post-partisan, post-racial US president we all know and love. Yeah, the MSM media did a heckuva job.

And WHERE have Mitchie the ... (Below threshold)
oldpuppymax:

And WHERE have Mitchie the Kid McConnell and John Boehner been on this ludicrous, breathtaking assault on the rights of whites??!!! Why under their DESKS, of course!!! Must NOT upset the politically correct, DC culture of race "relations" after all!!

Actually, oldpuppy, Boehner... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

Actually, oldpuppy, Boehner was ahead of the curve. Here's a portion of a letter written almost two years ago from Boehner to former Attorney General Michael Mukasey which says, in part: "I am particularly dismayed to learn that several DOJ officials with important responsibilities for overseeing enforcement of the nation's voting rights laws - from access to the polls to protecting against voter fraud - are significant financial contributors to the Obama presidential campaign. According to published reports, approximately $250,000 has already been contributed by DOJ employees to the Obama campaign, including personal contributions from several senior officials in the Voting Rights Section of the DOJ. This news does nothing to inspire confidence by the American people in the DOJ's ability to assure fair elections and the equal application of the nation's voting laws."
Kind of prophetic, no?

Well, Mr Cronanty, you have... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Well, Mr Cronanty, you have your (what I consider kooky) theories on what the "MSM" should have done in regard to Obama. I'm telling you what the "MSM" actually DID do in regard to Reagan, which was to minimize the jaw-dropping illegality of a US president ignoring a law that HE HIMSELF had signed, selling weapons to America's enemy, Iran, and using the proceeds to fund a secret army that he was FORBIDDEN BY LAW to fund. Not only did they let him get away with it, they made a hero out of traitor and criminal Ollie North - you know, the dude who has his own show on FOX now.

Think about it, Mr Cronanty. If the game is so rigged by the "Liberal Media," how did both Reagan and Bush the Lesser each get elected and reelected? Why did we hear nothing about Al Gore in 2000 except that he heaved a big sigh during one debate and the spurious assertion that he "claimed he invented the internet?" Why does every sensational charge on the Drudge report (like the Swiftboaters) get picked up by FOX and ends up being talked about on GMA and NPR 3 days later?

In other words, if the "Liberal Media" is so powerful, why is it so powerless? Why does the conservative noise machine define the debate?

The difference is, liberals don't get all paranoid about a media conspiracy to the extent that conservatives have these past 4 decades. We understand that the real problem with the news media, especially TV, is that it's a product nowadays, not a public service as it used to be. And so it must get ratings. And so it reports on sensational things, feel-good stories, heroes and villains, and especially, sex.

The assertion that most reporters are liberals is probably true; most people who have been educated in the humanities, science, and liberal arts are. The assertion that there is a Grand Conspiracy to undermine America by pushing a liberal version of the news is, umm, bullshit.

Your mask of civility is st... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Your mask of civility is starting to slip, Bruce. Why, it's almost like you think your turf is threatened or something...

I'm trying, Mr Lawson. I've... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I'm trying, Mr Lawson. I've been scolded so many times for my sarcasm and "insults" that I'm trying to avoid them and still say what I want to say. It ain't easy. I'm not easy to get along with. Kind of a curmudgeon.

Right, Mr. Henry. Just lik... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

Right, Mr. Henry. Just like Dan Rather's report on W's service with the Texas Air National Guard was "false, but accurate."
The "game" isn't as "rigged" by the MSM as it used to be because the MSM can't rig the game as it used to, despite how it tries. The MSM simply doesn't have the power it used to - and contrary to the gist of your comment, I never said it did. Too much of this intertube stuff, plus conservative talk radio has made AM profitable again.
But, most importantly, the people are catching on to media bias. As reported on Sept. 29 of this year, the general populace, in a record percentage, has little or no trust in the media to report a story accurately:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/143267/Distrust-Media-Edges-Record-High.aspx
As reported: "Nearly half of Americans (48%) say the media are too liberal, tying the high end of the narrow 44% to 48% range recorded over the past decade. One-third say the media are just about right while 15% say they are too conservative. Overall, perceptions of bias have remained quite steady over this tumultuous period of change for the media, marked by the growth of cable and Internet news sources. Americans' views now are in fact identical to those in 2004, despite the many changes in the industry since then."
Yeah, the MSM just ignored the Iran/Contra controversy. Sam Donaldson was acting as Reagan's lapdog when he joked on the Letterman show in 1987 about a press conference dealing with Iran-Contra: "So I think [Reagan] is going to have to pass two or three tests. The first is, will he get there, stand in front of the podium, and not drool?" When has any MSM reporter said anything like that about Obama?
Tell me again, Mr. Henry - what MSM outlet and/or reporter told us the full story about Obama before the election? Hell, name a MSM reporter who actually asked him a tough question, with follow-up, concerning his, shall we say, "interesting" background. They didn't. Even the Clintons recognized that fact.
In short, Mr. Henry, none of the MSM can "...be relied upon to practice journalism the way it's meant to be practiced," which is where this conversation began, I believe.
Oh, and if you think Walter Cronkite was performing a "public service" over four decades ago when he interpreted the Tet Offensive as a victory for the communists, back when, you know, the MSM was oh so objective, we should really have a discussion.

Oh, and to get back to the ... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

Oh, and to get back to the subject at hand, Obama's Justice Department's blatant refusal to enforce the Voting Rights Act in a racially neutral fashion, together with its refusal to enforce those provisions mandating that states purge voting records of those who have died, moved or become felons, is of much more current interest. When you have someone of Christopher Coates background testifying that he can no longer ask recruits if they will enforce the VRA without regard to color, you've got problems, very serious problems, with our system of elections, and our democratic republican form of government. I wish the MSM would take it seriously.

The MSM asked Obama a few q... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

The MSM asked Obama a few questions that were a little more difficult than "What books and magazines do you read?"

I seem to recall a debate moderated by wild-eyed liberals Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos that was dominated by questions to Obama about Wright, Ayers, etc. Miss that one, Mr Cronanty?

Matter of fact, I heard plenty on the MSM during the campaign about "bitter clingers," Wright, Ayers, Rezko, madrassas, unwed teen moms, and all the other crap that you mention here. Perhaps if you weren't so loudly proclaiming that "You'll never hear about THIS on the lamestream media!" you would have heard it too, as I did.

The fact of the matter is that, after 8 years of Bush and 12 years of GOP control of Congress, a Democrat was GOING to be elected President. Perhaps if Republicans hadn't hated and feared Hillary so much, and spent years scaring people about her, she'd be President today instead of Obama.

And, since you took the Iran-Contra bait, do you condone Reagan's deliberate lawbreaking, selling weapons to Iran and giving the proceeds to the Contras, as he was prohibited by law from doing? How about that breathless coverage by the MSM when Weinberger was pardoned by Bush the Smarter? Remember how they harped on it for weeks and weeks? No?

Me neither.

Actually, I had forgotten t... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

Actually, I had forgotten the Stephanopoulis flap. Do you remember the heat he took from the MSM for his questions? WaPo's Tom Shales called the performance "despicable." MSNBC went ballistic. Kind of interesting that, for a president who has not had many personal dealings with the press, he's had 3 exclusive interviews with Stephanopoulis since his election.
In any event, I went back and read the transcript [there's 20 minutes of my life I'll never get back]. His answers were laughable about Ayers [a guy who lives in the neighborhood who bombed people when Obama was 8], and as to Wright, he merely continued to say that he didn't attend church when Wright made any of his inflammatory statements. I don't believe that, and I doubt that you do. He went to church there for 20 years, was married there and his children were baptised there. There were no questions concerning the anti-Israel statements that were often printed in the church bulletin.
What I found completely wanting in especially print media were any investigations into his background. Was he a committed Marxist at Occidental, as reported in right-wing blogs? Was he a member of the New Party, which was affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America and which claimed he was a member, in 1996, only 8 years removed from his speech in 2004 which propelled his political career, and only 11-12 years before he ran for president, all the while attending Wright's church? Throw in his ties to Ayers and Frank Marshall Davis, about whom he has never answered questions, and you have a candidate for president who is, at the very least, outside the mainstream of American politics. Have his views changed? If so, why and how? Why wasn't this explored?
The MSM did little, if any, "fact checking" on his answers at the debate. In fact, the NYT wrote a story concerning Todd Palin's affiliation with the Independence Party, but to my knowledge wrote nothing about Barack Obama's affiliation with the DSA. Why would the spouse of a Vice-Presidential candidate deserve more scrutiny than the candidate for president?

But, to get back to the issue of the post, do you think the DOJ should enforce the Voting Rights Act in a racially neutral manner, or are you of the belief that the law really doesn't mean what it says? Should the DOJ ignore those portions of the law dealing with purging poll books, or should dead folks still be allowed to vote?
As to Iran/Contra, I admit to being conflicted. To the extent of his participation in the exchange, he was wrong - but the results were, generally, good.

Bruce conveniently forgets ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Bruce conveniently forgets the comment by Brian Williams upon Barry's election:

"We don't know much about him, do we?"

Odd comment coming from a "reporter". Wasn't it his job to find out?

Since this post is dead, I ... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

Since this post is dead, I feel okay about beating a dead horse. Here's a fairly good review by Katherine Kersten of the Minneapolis Star Tribune of Stanley Kurtz' new book "Radical in Chief." http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/105550623.html?page=3&c=y
Some of what she writes:
"In the heady days of 2008, Americans warmed quickly to the prospect of Barack Obama as our 44th president. Obama promised to be just what our fractured nation needed -- a non-ideological, post-partisan consensus builder, guided by mainstream pragmatic thinking.

When the story broke about Obama's relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- his pastor for 20 years, a "black-power" radical and a fan of Fidel Castro -- we raised our eyebrows. We did the same when we heard of Obama's longtime connection to Bill Ayers, an unrepentant former Weather Underground terrorist. But Obama blew these relationships off as exaggerated or unimportant, and we trusted his assurances.

Now a new book by Stanley Kurtz -- a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a Harvard PhD -- reveals why we should have probed the disconnect when we had a chance. Americans increasingly sense we were sold a bill of goods, and Kurtz explains why in "Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism." Our president isn't what he claims to be, says Kurtz. Obama's plummeting approval ratings, and the electoral tsunami about to hit Democrats, reflect voters' sense of betrayal.
...Obama's immersion in socialist organizing, and his mastery of the tactics of infiltration and disguise, explain both his agenda and modus operandi as president. He has relentlessly advanced the incremental strategy of his mentors -- vastly expanding state control in the health care, energy, environmental and financial sectors. Cronies from his community organizing days have advised his campaign, crafted his grassroots strategy and lobbied for his programs, according to Kurtz. We see Alinsky's ghost in Obama's tactical ruthlessness, and his ferocious, unprecedented demonization of opponents."

Yes, Mr Cronanty, I think v... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Yes, Mr Cronanty, I think voting rights laws ought to be enforced in a race-neutral manner. I also see that perhaps the NBPP case was handled the way it was because the government felt that was the best it was going to get, despite disagreement by Adams and Coates.

Lawyers inside the Justice Department will often disagree on whether or not and how to proceed in this or that case, will they not? As a spokesman said in the article, "This is a case of career people disagreeing with career people."

And then there's this, Mr Cronanty: What possible upside would there be in going to the mattresses for this obscure group of racist nutjobs, the NBPP? Don't you think the Obama administration, to use conservatives' favorite aphorism around here, would have tossed the NBPP "under the bus" by now if there was enough evidence to revisit the matter and get a favorable ruling?

As far as Kurtz's characterizations of Obama's "tactical ruthlessness," don't make me laugh. How tactically ruthless was he in the healthcare debate, for example, with his preemptive nonadvocacy of single-payer and his early abandonment of the public option? How can calling the GOP the "same folks who got us into this mess in the first place" be characterized as "demonization?" Considering the housing market started crashing in 2005-6, and the shit hit the fan in 2008, that's more like "stating a factual case" than "demonization."

Mr. Henry, I have no idea w... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

Mr. Henry, I have no idea why Obama/Holder's DOJ would go "...to the mattresses for this obscure group of racist nutjobs..." Perhaps it's because of institutional racism within the DOJ when it comes to the VRA. As Stephen Hayward told Powerline - which, by the way, reiterates your first comment on this post: "I quote the infamous remarks in my Reagan book of Mary Frances Berry and Blandina Ramirez, two Carter holdovers on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, who wrote in 1985 that "civil rights laws were not passed to give civil rights protections to all Americans, as a majority of this Commission seems to believe. Instead, they were passed out of a recognition that some Americans already had protection because they belonged to a favored group; and others, including blacks, Hispanics, and women of all races, did not because they belonged to disfavored groups."

This wasn't an offhand comment; it was in a considered statement they put out: "Statements of Commissioners Blandina Cardinas Ramirez and Mary Frances Berry," Toward an Understanding of Stotts (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Clearinghouse Publications 85, January 1985), p. 63.

Berry and Ramirez were considered on the radical fringe back then. But as we see, their view has gone "mainstream" in DoJ. Notwithstanding that whenever color-blind policy makes it to the ballot (i.e., California's Prop 209), it rolls up big majorities."

But "go to the mattresses" they have. Why would the DOJ order its employees to ignore subpoenas? Why would Joseph H. Hunt, director of the Justice Department's Federal Programs Branch, order Adams' and Coates' silence in a letter to the attorney for Adams, the lead attorney for the department in the New Black Panther case? Why would the DOJ dismiss a case in which they had already received a default judgment? I think your question deserves a congressional inquiry, don't you?

I think you and Issa should... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I think you and Issa should knock yourselves out, Mr Cronanty.

As far as the Berry/Ramirez statement you quote, I hadn't seen that before. But it's hardly radical fringe stuff, in my opinion - if you can't see how much one benefits from the accident of being born a white male in America, I can't help you. I personally doubt their interpretation will ever become "mainstream" despite conservative conspiracy theory, but it's an arguable theory, as I see it.

BTW, it's not surprising th... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

BTW, it's not surprising that when "color-blind policy" (read "protecting white privilege") initiatives make it to the ballot, they roll up majorities, since, for now, whites still make up voting majorities.

So, if whites make up a min... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

So, if whites make up a minority, and today's minorities vote against "color blind policy", will it then be alright to discriminate against them, is that what you're saying? Or is it merely "arguable" that it would be a-okay? And what about males? We're not a majority, you know.
By the way, can you name a majority [white males in America] who have so willingly fought for and given rights to so many minorities? I think we have handled our "benefits" quite generously. If you think we're bad guys, "I can't help you."

Never said white males were... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Never said white males were per se bad guys, Mr Cronanty.

I said that one benefits tremendously from the accident of being born a white male in this country. One always has, and one probably will for some time.

That's probably why Berry and Ramirez made the statement you quoted. And I didn't say that was my view, just that I could see their logic. You can't?

By the way, being able to see the logic in another's statement doesn't necessarily mean that one agrees with that statement.

You did say that the statem... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

You did say that the statement that "civil rights laws were not passed to give civil rights protections to all Americans, as a majority of this Commission seems to believe" is not "radical fringe stuff." I happen to believe it is. It's contrary to our Constitution.
I can see the reasoning behind the statement - but it's as illogical as it is unpleasant. Thus, I give it no credence. But, I guess the Obama/Holder DOJ finds it persuasive.

Without reading the full st... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Without reading the full statement, Mr Cronanty, I'm assuming that Berry and Ramirez meant that NEW civil rights laws, like the VRA, weren't enacted to protect whites, as it was virtually a given, in 1965, that their rights would not be denied as minority rights had been, historically speaking.

Of course, as I said, I haven't read the whole thing.

But hey, I enjoyed our discussion. Thanks for keeping it civil. I hope you found me at least "not un-civil."

Thank you. I've always enj... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

Thank you. I've always enjoyed your posts - disagree with most, buy you actually make me think sometimes, well, most times. Much different than replying to vitriol, although some zingers on here are amusing as hell.

I'M PROUD OF YOU LABOR!. Ke... (Below threshold)
jacksmith:

I'M PROUD OF YOU LABOR!. Keep standing up. The lives and health of all the American people and the World are in serious jeopardy.

Further, unemployment healthcare benefits are critically needed. But they should be provided through the Medicare program at cost, less the 65% government premium subsidy provided now to private for profit health insurance.

Congress should stop wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money on private for profit health insurance subsidies. Subsidies that cost the taxpayer 10x as much or more than Medicare does. Private for profit health insurance plans cost more. But provide dangerous and poorer quality patient care.

It's over. Tell congress to get the healthcare Merchants of death and injury out of the American peoples lives for good. 2010 is about THE PUBLIC OPTION!

And that CORRUPT! UNDEMOCRATIC! filibuster must GO! NOW!

Alan Grayson Honors The Dead http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV9TRoYMtjs&feature=player_embedded

Alan Grayson on Healthcare http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPpQ2MNaSDo&feature=player_embedded

Ron Sparks HealthCareReform http://youtu.be/kqlBFRJh4Cw

John Garamendi - The Public Option http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyBTEke68aQ&feature=player_embedded

I want to commend all of you for working so hard and being so strong at helping the whitehouse and congress begin to address our U.S. and Global healthcare crisis. You have been AWESOME! my fellow Americans and peoples of the World. America and the World is better and safer for it. My greatest pride is the knowledge that I am one of you. And that you really get it. You really understand the importance of it all.

There are some potentially very good things in the healthcare legislation. Especially with the reconciliation fix's. The Democrats, Bernie Sanders and the Whitehouse did a GREAT! job of fighting to produce the best healthcare legislation that they could. They have earned all our strong support. And we should give it to them.

But it was your relentless pressure and hard work that made the difference. Whatever good comes from this healthcare legislation, America and the peoples of the World will have each of you to thank. You were smart, creative, courageous and relentless. You fought together for the best legislation possible. And when you had to, you fought alone. No matter who stumbled and fell you continued to push and forge ahead. Fighting for the lives and health of the American people and the World. YOU SHOULD BE PROUD OF YOUR-SELVES :-)

It may come to pass that future generations will look back on us and say that we were ALL Americas Greatest Generations. And that healthcare reform was our finest hour. You should be proud of our leaders President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and the many other Democratic and independent fighters for the people in congress. They proved them-self worthy of the leadership of a GREAT! PEOPLE.

But we are not done yet. This was just the beginning of healthcare reform, not the end. WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, ARE NOT! divided on healthcare legislation. The vast majority of you have been consistently crystal clear that this legislation does not go far enough. You want a strong Government-run Public Option CHOICE!! available to everyone on day one. And you want it NOW!

YOU MUST NOT ALLOW AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE TO STAND WITHOUT A STRONG GOVERNMENT-RUN PUBLIC OPTION CHOICE! AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE.

WE THE PEOPLE have been crystal clear that we want an end to dependence on for-profit healthcare and the for-profit proxies called private for non-profit healthcare. The American people want the CHOICE! of a strong Government-run Public Option to replace their need or dependence on healthcare providers whose primary motivation is profit. Rather than providing the highest quality, easiest accessible and most affordable medically necessary healthcare possible. This is what the rest of the developed World has. And the American people want it too. They want healthcare ASSURANCE! Not, for-profit health insurance. And they want it NOW!

Now is the time to continue the push for a strong Government-run Public Option CHOICE! available to everyone that wants it on day one. Rationally it's clear what we have to do to get this done. SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATS that supported you with a Public Option choice, and REMOVE as many republicans as you can. Not one republican in congress was willing to step across the isle to support a strong Government-run Public Option CHOICE!! available to everyone on day one. NOT ONE! Let no candidate prevail this November that does not support a Strong Government-run Public Option.

47,000 AMERICANS die each year from lack of healthcare. 120,000 die from treatable illness that don't die in other developed countries. Hundreds of thousands of you are dieing from medical accidents in a rush to profit. And Millions of you are injured. Millions more are driven into bankruptcy. All for the privilege of paying two to three times as much as any other people in the developed world for healthcare. HOGWASH!

Additionally, tens of thousands of you and your children were killed and millions sickened and injured from a terror attack with H1N1 (swine flu). Released on the American people and the World by the for-profit healthcare industry. All in an attempt to panic and frighten you into accepting the oxymoronic criminal enterprise of private for-profit healthcare (The most costly, deadly, dangerous, and disgraceful product sold in America). H1N1 is still sickening people and killing them. Especially children, the young and the middle aged. And there will be a third wave. These are the terrorist you need to worry about the most. Even the so-called international terrorist would not do something so INSANE! But greed driven medical profiteers would and did.

Apparently as far as republicans in GOVERNMENT are concerned, YOU! my fellow Americans - CAN JUST DROP DEAD! Including their own family members. Fools!... Hundreds of thousands of you, and possibly millions of you will die from the long-term effects of your infection and poisoning with H1N1.

So my fellow Human Beings. Rest-up, Take good care of the basics (Balanced nutrition, hydration, exercise, rest and POSITIVE emotional supports). Then wade back into the FIGHT! for a strong Government-run Public Option CHOICE! available to everyone on day one. Drug re-importation, Abolishment or strong restrictions on patents for biologic and prescription drugs. And government controlled and negotiated drug and medical cost. You must take back control of your healthcare system from the Medical Industrial Complex. You MUST do it NOW! This is a matter of National and Global security. There can be NO MORE EXCUSES.

God Bless You My Fellow Human Beings. I'm glad to know of you. And proud to be one of you.

See you on the battle field.

Sincerely

jacksmith - WorkingClass :-)




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy