US a nation of cowards [Archive] - Professional Soldiers ®

View Full Version : US a nation of cowards

Richard

02-19-2009, 08:51

Dear Mr Attorney General,

Obviously, you do not know me. KMA.

Sincerely yours,

Richard

Holder: US is nation of cowards on racial matters
Devlin Barrett, AP

WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder described the United States Wednesday as a nation of cowards on matters of race, saying most Americans avoid discussing unresolved racial issues.

In a speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder said the workplace is largely integrated but Americans still self-segregate on the weekends and in their private lives. :confused:

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," said Holder, nation's first black attorney general.

Race issues continue to be a topic of political discussion, Holder said, but "we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race."

He urged people of all races to use Black History Month as a chance for frank talk about racial matters.

"It is an issue we have never been at ease with and, given our nation's history, this is in some ways understandable," Holder said. "If we are to make progress in this area, we must feel comfortable enough with one another and tolerant enough of each other to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us."

He told Justice Department employees they have a special responsibility to advance racial understanding.

rubberneck

02-19-2009, 09:05

I am so damned sick and tired of liberals telling me that I should feel guilty or that I am indeed guilty in some way, shape or form for racism in this country. Chances are if you are under the age of forty that you are less likely to be hung up on the race issue than you are if you are from Holder's generation. At 39 years old I am from the post civil rights movement era. I don't view people in terms of color but the content of their character, and frankly I am sick and tired of idiots like Holder trying to cram white guilt down my throat at every turn. The only coward here is the guy using inflamitory speech to push an agenda.

Rogue

02-19-2009, 09:06

This is only the beginning...........

Here's some more from yesterday

New York Post Cartoon: Is this 'Racially Offensive'?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/02/cartoon-controv.html

The Reaper

02-19-2009, 09:50

So much for the new POTUS ushering in an end of racism complaints and special priviledges.:rolleyes:

Frankly, I see a lot more black racism, reverse-discrimination, and epithets used against whites than the other way 'round. I have not heard a white person use the N word in a long time, I hear blacks using it in public conversations and in entertainment all of the time.

Who has stood in Holder's way and prevented him and the POTUS from getting where they are?

TR

Hostile0311

02-19-2009, 11:13

'They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English. I can't even talk the way these people talk:
Why you ain't,
Where you is,
What he drive,
Where he stay,
Where he work,
Who you be...

And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk.

And then I heard the father talk.

Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth.

In fact you will never get any kind of job making a decent living.. People marched and were hit in the face with rocks to get an education, and now we've got these knuckleheads walking around.

The lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal.

These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids. $500 sneakers for what??

And they won't spend $200 for Hooked on Phonics.
I am talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit.

Where were you when he was 2??

Where were you when he was 12??

Where were you when he was 18 and how come you didn't know that he had a pistol??

And where is the father?? Or who is his father?

People putting their clothes on backward: Isn't that a sign of something gone wrong?

People with their hats on backward, pants down around the crack, isn't that a sign of something?

Isn't it a sign of something when she has her dress all the way up and got all type of needles [piercing] going through her body? What part of Africa did this come from??

We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans; they don't know a thing about Africa

With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap, and all of them are in jail.

Brown or black versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person's problem.

We have got to take the neighborhood back.

People used to be ashamed. Today a woman has eight children with eight different 'husbands' -- or men or whatever you call them now.

We have millionaire football players who cannot read.

We have million-dollar basketball players who can't write two paragraphs. We, as black folks have to do a better job. Someone working at Wal-Mart with seven kids, you are hurting us.

We have to start holding each other to a higher standard.

We cannot blame the white people any longer.'

Dr. William Henry 'Bill' Cosby, Jr., Ed.D.

Paslode

02-19-2009, 12:11

Not many people have sit at a table and got their ass chewed for calling a black person Sir, Mister, Miss, Mrs. or Ma'am. Not that racism doesn't exits, but there aren't too many white people these days that will go out of their way to cause extreme harm to person of color like some of my relatives did.

It is my opinion that most people these days have no clue have far things have progressed in regards to racism. It is also my opinion that folks like Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al and many others continue to stoke the embers to maintain their income and power over those they profess to represent.

And would agree with TR....the racism shoe has been on the other foot for quite some time.

My .02

spooker23

02-19-2009, 13:49

I completely agree with everyone here, and to take it one step further... who is the real racist when it comes to things like affirmative action? What are they saying about people of other ethnicities when they give them a leg up based on what race they are? To me it seems like an implied racism, almost like they are saying that those people aren't good enough on their own, that they need "extra help" to get jobs or to get in to college.:confused:

Just my thoughts...

Sigaba

02-19-2009, 15:16

The present administration seems intent on suffering as many self-inflicted wounds as possible. Attorney General Eric Holder's unfortunate choice of a single word ruins an otherwise subtle speech (available here (http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090218.html)). In his speech, AG Holder calls for renewed discussion of affirmative action.
There can, for instance, be very legitimate debate about the question of affirmative action. This debate can, and should, be nuanced, principled and spirited.
The attorney general also takes some great shots at the political left and African Americans as well.
Our history has demonstrated that the vast majority of Americans are uncomfortable with, and would like to not have to deal with, racial matters and that is why those, black or white, elected or self-appointed, who promise relief in easy, quick solutions, no matter how divisive, are embraced. We are then free to retreat to our race protected cocoons where much is comfortable and where progress is not really made.

Puertoland

02-19-2009, 15:36

I come from a Puerto Rican family, and can honestly say I've never met anyone whose called me a spic, or anything else racist for that matter unless we were breaking each others stones.

I will say I have seen far more Blacks and Hispanics go all out and say things about white people, with the white people themselves laughing it off. Its ok for people of color to make fun of white people in any manner they want on a comedy show, but not for white people to do the same...that would just be racist.

I think its ridiculous and aggravating. And I for one feel that a big problem that divides us is not ignoring a problem, its assuming one is there.

What really divides us?

Hispanic-American, Asian-American, African-American (somewhere the Jamaicans and Haitians have been screwed out of acknowledgment) and whatever else-American. What happened to just American?

We're all American. Thats it. And when we try to divide our country into our own communities, and we say we were wronged by this group or that group, we're doing worse damage to national identity.

Only three colors we should recognize ourselves as, Red, White, and Blue.

Kosta

02-19-2009, 15:46

Then, of course, we have the bullshit (http://www.tmz.com/2009/02/02/asian-group-not-mad-at-one-of-these-people/) regarding Miley Cyrus. For crying out loud, the girl is like fifteen or sixteen. I'm pretty sure it's a law that you have to do stupid things when you're that age. That doesn't mean the rest of the world should stop acting like reasonably mature adults.

Racism will persist so long as people keep on reminding us about it. If you want a colorblind society, then shut up. A man with a hammer sees a world of nails. Put down the race hammer and take a deep breath. The cartoon is making fun of both the chimp attacks and the stimulus bill. It has nothing to do with the ethnic slur that I didn't even know existed until I read the article. Tip from a young 'un: our generation gets its cues on how to treat the racial issue from the older ones. I asked my five fellow suitemates and none of them knew that "monkey" was a slur for black people - not even the black one. And so what if the cartoonist was calling Obama a monkey? Why should someone being a minority automatically exempt them from having stupid ideas? I'm half Jewish - does that mean that if I have a big nose or a knack with money, nobody is allowed to notice that?

It's a tragedy that the phrase "acting white" still exists. Being a decent, intelligent, responsible human being knows no skin color.

One last thought: When my class arrived at university for freshman orientation, a speaker of some kind exhorted us to dispense with the "melting pot" analogy and embrace the idea of a salad instead - all of us different and retaining that difference through thick and thin. I find this a dangerous idea. Until we not only disregard but forget our previous allegiances to race, we cannot come together as Americans the way we should. If we cling to the relics of the past, we should not be surprised when we find ourselves buried with them.

Richard

02-19-2009, 16:25

Perhaps the greatest strength of the United States is the diversity of its people and to truly understand this country one must have knowledge of its constituent parts.

One of this country's constituent parts and one of my roommates and best friends in SFTG was Cal W. We used to go down to Hay Street to fight with the 82nd at the Seven Dwarf's, and where I would buy a copy of The Clarion (the Klan's rag) because they wouldn't sell it to someone like Cal and he would buy The Panther (the Black Panther Society's rag) because they wouldn't sell it to someone like me. We'd sit in the barracks reading and discussing them, and laughing about how so much of the same BS was used by both groups to preach their divisiveness. One of the items I remember the most--mainly because it was so ludicrous and dangerous--was a full page notice on the back page of one of The Panther issues--a warning to not get immunized because this was really a secret government program to infect African-Americans with sickle cell disease. We were both shocked at that one and somewhat dismayed that there were people who were endangering their lives because they were gullible enough to believe it. Some interesting times. FWIW, Cal is retired and now a JROTC Instructor and minister. We laugh about that last one whenever we get in touch. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Saoirse

02-19-2009, 16:57

Two very good friends of mine (husband and wife) are black. Both very well educated, grown children (their son currently going thru selection) and they are both great folks. We have often discussed all this "white guilt" and the hiphop "keeping it real" attitudes. They raised their kids not to live in that "culture" because in their words "it's not culture, its demeaning and ignorant". They never tolerated the ebonics speak in their home nor the manner of dress that is prolific amongst our youth. And they are sick and tired of the blame on whitey and the white guilt. But as they have said, "unfortunately there aren't enough of us that feel that way or that speak out about it. And when we do, we are still called "Uncle Toms" and "selling out to the white man".
I worked with the husband (who is retired Army) and when a young black man showed total and utter disrespect toward me (I won't even go into the language that spewed from his piehole), he spoke to that young man and told him, "not only are you showing disrespect to her but to yourself as well and you only further the argument of discrimination and segregation. Think how you feel that a white man treated your sister or mother like you just treated her!?" I almost had to laugh because he had his best 1Sgt look on his face and I started to watch this guy's bravado and posturing start to melt and a lot of nodding was going on and many "yes sirs". He apologized to me. This young man....a young private in the Army and dressed like a thug.

Paslode

02-19-2009, 17:10

I was thinking about much that has been said, especially the comments on Affirmative Action. It is probably the worst thing that to happen in regards to the Black Community.

Why do I say that? Every (and I mean every) employer I every had, would not hire a black person, regardless of how much they wanted too, because of affirmative action and those that flaunt it..JJ Rev Al etc.

They were all small businesses.

Their reasoning was simple. It is worse than the Unions. If they aren't worth a pot to piss in I can't get rid of them, and we cannot afford that problem.

greenberetTFS

02-19-2009, 17:18

It was in the spring when I arrived at Ft. Bragg, I do remember falling out in the company street with the rest of the guys and a MSGT said all caucasian personnel fall out and we did. However,we did hang around to hear what was going on. The MSGT was black and he went on to warn the black guys that they were in the heart of the Klu Klax Klan and to be careful and not to fraternize with any of the white girls if the valued their lives. I was from up north(Chicago) and some of my best buddies were black,so that BS didn't sit right with me. Flourenoy from(Cleveland), a black guy and a buddy who went through basic with me and later on jump school,77th,and also ended up in the 11th ABN with me said we can't go into town together. I wasn't really ready for what I saw in town. "Colored only",water facets,bars,theaters,etc. I suppose the point I want to make here is we've come a long way since then and this guy can only bring back memories that we have past by and bringing up "old" times isn't helping the healing, only prolonging it............... :(

GB TFS :munchin

Gypsy

02-19-2009, 18:20

We have to start holding each other to a higher standard.

We cannot blame the white people any longer.'

Dr. William Henry 'Bill' Cosby, Jr., Ed.D.

He took a hell of a lot of heat for his comments. I thought, and still think, he was spot on.

Saoirse

02-19-2009, 18:48

He took a hell of a lot of heat for his comments. I thought, and still think, he was spot on.

Gyspy, you are right about that. I remember his speech well when it came out. However, I was really surprised because I remember hearing stories about him from a friend of mine in NY who worked on his show (his company did all the flooring for the Cosby show, every week they were there). From what I heard he was rather prejudice and had an issue with a flooring team there one day because there were no blacks on that team. He had them kicked off the set. It wasn't until my friend Bill went there and talked to him and explained that he had 4 other teams that have worked on the set and had many black men working for him...the issue was no longer an issue at the time. BUT it was Bill that also brought Cosby's speech to our attention and said he was proud of him for making those comments and hoped that people would actually pay heed to it.

ZooKeeper

02-19-2009, 19:01

I've never been great at putting my thoughts into words, but Gary Graham does in this post...

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2009/02/19/im-a-racist-coward/ (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2009/02/19/im-a-racist-coward/)

I’m a Racist Coward!
by Gary Graham

I am appalled. I just found out that I am a racist and a coward and I did not know it.

Eric Holder said yesterday, “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”

How could I have been so self-deluded?

Wow. I know, huh? The things you find out about yourself if you just listen to newly appointed/elected government officials.

I always thought that I treated everyone fairly in my daily life with no preference or deference to anyone based solely on skin color. I always loved the words of Dr. Martin Luther King who said so eloquently, that he dreamed of a day when people “would be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”. But now…I find out that that philosophy is racist and cowardly. And it is proclaimed by the top law enforcement officer in the land, our new Attorney General, Eric Holder.

Apparently, I’m a racist coward because I want to be color blind. This great national offense of racism doesn’t want to die - even though we just elected our first black president. Just when you thought it was okay to climb out of the past, to put racial injustice and animosity behind us…the Attorney General in the national media yesterday drags it back out.

At my favorite Baptist Church in North Hollywood, the congregation being 90% Black, I have often been asked to get up and read long passages of scripture for special events. Christmas, Thanksgiving, Good Friday, Easter Sunday. Guess they thought my acting background translated to passable delivery of the Lord’s word; I was always happy to oblige, and I hope I did not disappoint. But each year, when the month of February rolled around, I was always asked the same question: Would I like to participate in a special Black History Month pageant? My answer was always the same: No thank you, I don’t believe in it. And their response was always the same: A puzzled look washes over the inquirer’s face, he starts to respond, then not knowing how, drifts away, puzzled. No matter how many times I explained my position, it seemed to make so little sense to them, as to gain no purchase in memory banks. This yearly ritual has been repeated six years running.

I don’t believe in Black History Month any more than I believe in White History Month. To me, Black History Month is a complete insult to Blacks. We must prop up an entire race of people, give them special awards, honors, and recognitions, underscoring their accomplishments and achievements and contributions to society, based on their color… as if it’s so truly remarkable that they did it in the first place…and are African American to boot? Stop the presses! A black person accomplished something great! As if they couldn’t have done it on their own, without help. As if they are somehow inferior to whites. That they somehow overcame their blackness…and did all these wonderful things despite the obvious disadvantage, encumbrance, disability…of being a person of color.

Am I the only one in America…who finds this the least bit patronizing and insulting…and downright, well, racist?

I’ve got a lot of black friends who have accomplished great things in the arts and music world, in the business world, the legal profession, the medical profession…and not one of them has ever expected anything from me other than to be a good friend. I celebrate the achievements of all my friends with love and support and good cheer, and with absolutely no patronizing overt or subliminal addendum of how wonderful you did all this “and you’re a black man, too! Amazing!” I don’t compartmentalize my friends based on their skin color, ethnicity, religious affiliation, political leanings or sexual preference. We’re all just people, period.

I believe it was the great Vince Lombardi who, when chastising a player for a grandstanding end zone dance, post touchdown, would yell, “Knock off the hoopla - act like you do it all the time!” We could all learn something about humility…and equality…from those words.

But now I find out we’re a nation of cowards because we don’t talk about race enough.

Mr. Holder went on to say, Even when people mix at the workplace or at after work social events, many Americans in their free time are still segregated inside what he called “race-protected cocoons.”

Uh…yeah. Maybe because people like Eric Holder are so preoccupied with race that every waking thought is consumed with it? And they insist on inflicting into every thought and daily conversation within the black community a general and constant grievance-addled invective that fosters a victimhood mindset? Just a thought.

So…let me get this straight. If I’m a racist coward because I don’t want to talk about race all the time, don’t want to even think about it, just wish all racism would go away, and everybody just get along as if we we’re all just human beings…and truly do want to judge people not based on skin color, but on the content of their character… Does that mean Dr. Martin Luther King was also a racist? If he were here today, and repeated those words about ‘content of character’ …would Eric Holder call Dr. King a coward?

I hear Eric Holder’s words and I get a chill up my spine. It doesn’t sound like freedom from racism to me. It sounds like reverse racism. It smacks of concepts like “reparations”…”affirmative action” (code for racial preferences)…and “get-even-with-‘em”… So, Mr. Holder, what can I infer from your words…but a tacit warning?

This, Mr. Attorney General…this is what you want to stir up? You should be ecstatic for the ultimate affirmative action as reflected on November 4th. White guilt to a very large extent enabled a charming but inexperienced young socialist to assume the reins of the most powerful nation in the world. And still we are cowards because we don’t talk about race enough?

Dude - are you off your meds??

This supports my assertion that no matter what whites come up with, no matter how many ‘adjustments’ or reparations, or consolations they offer, groveling grotesquely at the altar of Political Correctness for the race-baiters…it will never be enough. My severed head on a silver platter would not placate the sense of racial inequality, aggrieved victimization and indignant persecution Eric Holder and his ilk envision has been perpetrated against him and his constituency by myself and millions like me - people who just want to treat everyone fairly and get along.

Our former leader, President George W. Bush, in one of his more articulate moments, exhorted us to “…challenge the soft bigotry of low expectations.”

But you, Mr. Holder, and those who share your views, are the ones who perpetrate racism in America - by never shutting up about it! Yes, we Americans are proud of our ‘melting pot’ - we are proud of our national motto, E Pluribus Unum, “out of many, one”. We are proud of the idea of America, the most brilliant and good and moral proposition ever submitted to the human race: That all people can assemble in this one nation, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, creed…all men and women can come here and be free. We can pursue our dreams to the utmost and are free to enjoy the fruits of our efforts and talent and determination, unimpeded by coercion or kings. We’re not white Americans, or black Americans, or Hispanic Americans…

We’re Americans.

So… if Mr. Holder is calling me a racist and a coward…isn’t he’s calling Dr. Martin Luther King one, as well?

At least I’m in good company.

Basenshukai

02-19-2009, 19:03

Growing up as a latino in a "crack cocaine" infested community in the 90's, I figured out that minorities make most of their own problems and are their own worst enemy. My dad died not being able to speak the English language very well, but he died wealthy (legally). He was as conservative as they come and was a huge fan of Ronald Reagan. A few days after 9-11, he called me and told me, in his "Tony Montana" accented English "Go out there and kill every last one of those motherf*#@s." He was a big proponent of self determination. He used to tell me that if I did not succeed in life, that it would only be my fault, for not being strong enough to succeed. I'm so sick of some minority groups continuing this BS about being "kept down". Why do I talk about minorities in the third person? Because I'm American, regardless of my genetics; I'd die for this Country if I had to. And yes, I have Hector Lavoe and Ruben Blades in my IPod! :)

Richard

02-19-2009, 20:23

...Fort Bragg...The MSGT was black and he went on to warn the black guys that they were in the heart of the Klu Klax Klan and to be careful...

I grew up out here in the Left Coast's Central Valley and was not prepared for the sight of such things as the first North Carolina billboard I saw from the bus window when being shipped from Jump School at Fort Benning to SFTG at Fort Bragg in Jan 71--

"Welcome to Klan country! United Klans of America."

I'll never forget that one. :eek: And I agree with GBTFS - we have come a long way...especially with our kids.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Sigaba

02-19-2009, 20:58

AG Holder repeated six mistakes many make when attempting to broach race relations in America.

Rather than identifying issues for discussion, he used provocative language that left people feeling attacked.
As pointed out by QP Richard, QP greenberetTFS, and others, Holder phrased the discussion in terms of what Americans have not yet done rather than what they have done to advance racial tolerance and justice.
He identified the issue poorly. America is not just black and white but if one were to read his entire speech, one would not find any references to other racial and ethnic groups who have all been impacted by the presence of racism in American history. (Democrats persist in conveniently forgetting Executive Order 9066 (http://bss.sfsu.edu/internment/executiorder9066.html).)
He politicized the topic by situating the modern civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s--as if Americans of all walks of life and both major political parties were not struggling with this issue in the previous decades.

Moreover, by placing the modern civil rights movement as the focal point for other movements in the 1960s and 1970s, he risked alienating potential allies. Put simply, the push for equal rights in America did not automatically mean opposition to the U.S.'s efforts in Vietnam.

He failed to identify specific benefits of a renewed discussion on race relations to all Americans in a way that might secure 'buy in' from a broader group of 'stakeholders.'
Finally, he failed to lead by example. While he offered glimpses into his family history to show the impact of racism on African-Americans, he could have gone one step farther by giving an example of how notions of race in the African-American community remain a significant piece of the puzzle.

Richard

02-19-2009, 21:06

AG Holder repeated six mistakes many make when attempting to broach race relations in America.

Excellent analysis. A+

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Trip_Wire (RIP)

02-19-2009, 21:32

ZooKeeper:

Good article! Thanks for posting!

greenberetTFS

02-20-2009, 10:52

Richard

02-20-2009, 11:30

Does this mean the AG is correct or have we merely managed to remain a nation of wise asses in the tradition of Samuel Langhorne Clemens, Will Rogers, Bill Mauldin, Dave Chapelle, and the like? :confused:

I know how I view such satire on the Porculus Package, this being a similar play on words to that between the UPS delivery guy and the cosmetician in Legally Blonde, but I also know how others might take it and the reactions it would cause.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Obama's Package 'Uncomfortably Large', Complain Some Republicans

Although it was just signed into law earlier today, some Republicans in Congress are already voicing concerns that President Obama's stimulus package may turn out to be even larger than previously anticipated.

Many Republicans, who have been vocally opposing the size of Obama's package since it was revealed, expressed "sincere worry" that a package so large may intimidate most Americans.

"Over the last eight years, the packages in Washington have ranged from average to slightly above average," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), "and no one was complaining about them before. Now, we have one of them [i.e., the Democrats] in the White House, and average suddenly isn't good enough. The whole thing feels like it's designed to make me feel bad and uncomfortable."

"We're being pounded by this huge package," added House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) on the House floor, "but we're also letting our children be pounded as well, and that's just irresponsible."

Radio personality Rush Limbaugh, who recently announced that President Obama had outright "failed at life," has also condemned Obama's package.

"[The package] is the result of a liberal media wanting to see a President succeed," said Limbaugh. "I warned you about the size of their [i.e., the Democrats'] packages before, and now we get to see how utterly enormous they truly are."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected the Republicans' claims, arguing that a new era of Presidents with huge packages penetrating the Beltway can only bring positive change.

"The American people support the package," she said, citing a recent Gallup poll in which 80% of American female economists believed that if anything, the package is "waaay too small."

"More importantly, the lobbyists support the package." With financial structures failing, deterioration of the war in Afghanistan, the foreclosure crisis and something that happened with mortgage-backed securities, "an enormous package is needed", said Pelosi, "to rock the whole world."

"In the past, people may have said that the size of the package does not matter, but I think the American people are tired of the small [domestic] packages of the Bush administration. It may feel too large at first, but by the end of this long night that we're headed in to, the American people will be screaming for more."

"It's about time we had a President with balls," Pelosi concluded.

"What we're seeing here is a trend away from the Bush administration," said Harvard sociologist Grace Rouse. "With [George] Bush and Dick [Cheney], the focus was on waving a big stick internationally, which obviously backfired. President Obama, on the other hand, came to office intent on delivering a domestic package that's practically throbbing with the need to get some much-needed economic friction on."

For all the talk about his package, President Obama remained stern and resolute when signing the bill, although he did briefly smile and blush when he pulled it out.

Razor

02-20-2009, 11:49

That HAS to be an Onion article! :D

Kosta

02-20-2009, 12:00

steel71

02-20-2009, 15:58

The overwhelming media response to recent remarks by Senator Trent Lott shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

In the aftermath of the Lott debacle, we must not allow the term "states’ rights" to be smeared and distorted into code words for segregationist policies or racism. States’ rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution. Most of the worst excesses of big government can be traced to a disregard for states’ rights, which means a disregard for the Ninth and Tenth amendments. The real reason liberals hate the concept of states’ right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility toward anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government.

Yet it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. The federal government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. Americans know that factors other than merit in the free market often play a part in the success of some, and this leads to resentment and hostility between us.

Still, the left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, always implying of course that southern states are full of bigoted rednecks who would oppress minorities if not for the watchful eye of Washington. They ignore, however, the incredible divisiveness created by their collectivist big-government policies.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.

Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

Ret10Echo

02-25-2009, 16:56

Walter Williams Column... you can find it at townhall dot com. Local talk radio read it on-air this evening.

A Nation of Cowards
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Attorney General Eric Holder said the United States is "a nation of cowards" when it comes to race relations. In one sense, he is absolutely right. Many whites, from university administrators and professors, schoolteachers to employers and public officials accept behavior from black people that they wouldn't begin to accept from whites. For example, some of the nation's most elite universities, such as Vanderbilt, Stanford University and the University of California, have yielded to black student demands for separate graduation ceremonies and separate "celebratory events." Universities such as Stanford, Cornell, MIT, and Cal Berkeley have, or have had, segregated dorms. If white students demanded whites-only graduation ceremonies or whites-only dorms, administrators would have labeled their demands as intolerable racism. When black students demand the same thing, these administrators cowardly capitulate. Calling these university administrators cowards is the most flattering characterization of their behavior. They might actually be stupid enough to believe nonsense taught by their some of sociology and psychology professors that blacks can't be racists because they don't have power.

What about Holder's statement that America is "voluntarily segregated"? I say, so what. According to the census, in 2007, 4.6 percent of married blacks were married to a white; less than 1 percent of married whites were married to a black. While blacks are 13 percent of the population, they are 80 percent of professional basketball players and 65 percent of professional football players. Mere casual observance of audiences at ice hockey games or opera performances would reveal gross voluntary segregation. What would Holder propose the U.S. Justice Department do about these and other instances of voluntary segregation?

Attorney General Holder's flawed thinking is widespread whereby people think that an activity that is not racially integrated is therefore segregated. Blacks are about 60 percent of the Washington, D.C. population. At the Reagan National Airport, which serves D.C., nowhere near 60 percent of the airport's water fountain users are black; I'd guess blacks are never more than 5 percent of users. The population statistics of states such as South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Montana and Vermont show that not even 1 percent of their populations are black. Does that mean Reagan National Airport water fountains and South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Montana and Vermont are racially segregated? If Holder does anything about "voluntary segregation" at the state level I hope it's not court-ordered busing; I'm not wild about their winters. Just because some activity is not racially integrated does not mean that it is racially segregated.

The bottom line is that the civil rights struggle is over and it is won. At one time black Americans didn't share the constitutional guarantees shared by whites; today we do. That does not mean that there are not major problems that confront a large segment of the black community, but they are not civil rights problems nor can they be solved through a "conversation on race." Black illegitimacy stands at 70 percent; nearly 50 percent of black students drop out of high school; and only 30 percent of black youngsters reside in two-parent families. In 2005, while 13 percent of the population, blacks committed over 52 percent of the nation's homicides and were 46 percent of the homicide victims. Ninety-four percent of black homicide victims had a black person as their murderer. Such pathology, I think much of it precipitated by family breakdown, is entirely new among blacks. In 1940, black illegitimacy was 19 percent; in 1950, only 18 percent of black households were female-headed compared with today's 70 percent. Both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks.

If black people continue to accept the corrupt blame game agenda of liberal whites, black politicians and assorted hustlers, as opposed to accepting personal responsibility, the future for many black Americans will remain bleak.

Saoirse

02-25-2009, 18:24

alright4u

02-25-2009, 18:59

Saoirse

02-25-2009, 19:23

Wait until you have a couple tell you-" we are biracial." I kid you not. Had I not been shocked by the statement, I would have asked who is BI and who is racial?

I always knew you could bi racials....they are in the aisle right before the radials. :D :p

...:eek:, sorry, couldn't resist.....running off to hide in the woods............

Sigaba

02-25-2009, 20:40

Enduring Vision (http://www.enduringvision.com/news/politics_021809.php), actually. I linked it to all my friends.

Here's what I want to know. People tell me that if I'm going to criticize, I should offer up my own for comparison. I don't understand that. Why do we have to weigh one package against another? Why can't we just decide if a package is good enough on its own individual merits? Just because what I might be able to offer isn't as impressive doesn't mean that Obama's is any better.

Not that I'm insecure or anything.

Kosta--

Just my opinion on the value of offering up one's own on this particular topic. My reading of what the AG was trying to encourage was a degree of soul searching on the part of each American followed by intense conversations with one's trusted friends. I think that AG Holder is trying to get us to examine how notions of racial difference affect our sensibilities, cultural practices, and social interaction. Do we make assumptions? Are those assumptions valid? Are the assumptions useful to us (individually and collectively) in our everyday lives? Might the assumptions be reconsidered, revised, or do they need to be discarded? Do they even matter?

Why I think he would have benefited from leading by example is that the effort this type of exercise might require is inherently great. In some circles, discussions about culture, itself a highly contested concept, are described as trying to nail jelly to the wall. Moreover, the benefits of this exercise are not immediately obvious--if they even exist. (I believe that they do). When an individual looks in the mirror (metaphorically) to see if he's part of the problem in his inability to reach his own goals, it can be difficult--but ultimately liberating--to swallow one's pride and admit "I could have handled that situation better--and I AM going bald." Can that exercise be as liberating when you're doing it on behalf of people you don't know, may not like, or may not respect?

Kosta

02-25-2009, 22:11

Kosta--

Just my opinion on the value of offering up one's own on this particular topic. My reading of what the AG was trying to encourage was a degree of soul searching on the part of each American followed by intense conversations with one's trusted friends. I think that AG Holder is trying to get us to examine how notions of racial difference affect our sensibilities, cultural practices, and social interaction. Do we make assumptions? Are those assumptions valid? Are the assumptions useful to us (individually and collectively) in our everyday lives? Might the assumptions be reconsidered, revised, or do they need to be discarded? Do they even matter?

Why I think he would have benefited from leading by example is that the effort this type of exercise might require is inherently great. In some circles, discussions about culture, itself a highly contested concept, are described as trying to nail jelly to the wall. Moreover, the benefits of this exercise are not immediately obvious--if they even exist. (I believe that they do). When an individual looks in the mirror (metaphorically) to see if he's part of the problem in his inability to reach his own goals, it can be difficult--but ultimately liberating--to swallow one's pride and admit "I could have handled that situation better--and I AM going bald." Can that exercise be as liberating when you're doing it on behalf of people you don't know, may not like, or may not respect?

Sigaba -

While I deeply appreciate your advice, and you did actually give me something to think about, in that particular instance, my comments were not serious, but rather my ad-lib continuation of the "package" joke.

:p

Sigaba

02-25-2009, 22:16

Sigaba -

While I deeply appreciate your advice, and you did actually give me something to think about, in that particular instance, my comments were not serious, but rather my ad-lib continuation of the "package" joke.

:p

Ooooh! Then please just politely not notice the comment about the hair loss.:D

Richard

02-26-2009, 11:04

This is a very good reflective piece on AG Holder's Black History Month speech. The concluding paragraph says it all.

We may not be burning books, exactly, but we are burning argument and ideas, replacing them with applause lines. If we Americans can make our way past the fanfare over the most controversial words in Mr. Holder’s speech, perhaps we can learn from his reminder that democracy needs dialogue more than it needs bumper stickers.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

We’re Not ‘Cowards,’ We’re Just Loud
Stephen L. Carter

JUST weeks before taking the oath of office in 1861, Abraham Lincoln spoke to a crowd in Pittsburgh. The times were fraught. Since Lincoln’s election, several slave-holding states had left the Union. More were threatening to go. But Lincoln told the worried assemblage, “There is really no crisis except an artificial one!”

Actually, Lincoln said much more than that — hundreds upon hundreds of words, calculated to soothe the public’s fear of war. But had his speech been covered the way the news media cover political remarks today, it is likely that most people would have heard only that one line, and Lincoln, the nation’s greatest president, would have been pilloried as an out-of-touch bumpkin.

Writing teachers everywhere tell their students that context is everything. But if the response to Attorney General Eric Holder’s remarks last week to Justice Department employees is any guide, teachers everywhere are wrong. The speech was written for Black History Month. Now, a week later, what most people know about the talk is that the attorney general accused his fellow citizens of being, on the matter of race, “a nation of cowards.”

The speech itself was more than 2,300 words. The already infamous phrase occurred about 150 words in. Thus we are left with well over 2,000 unanalyzed words — that is, the context for the phrase. For too many critics, the context of Mr. Holder’s remarks (like the context of former Senator Phil Gramm’s accusation during the election campaign that we are a “nation of whiners”) is quite beside the point.

Perhaps, as some have suggested, Mr. Holder’s language was infelicitous; but presidents and popes now and then regret their choice of words, so attorneys general can hardly hope for immunity from persecution. More important is what the response to the speech says about the current state of political dialogue.

Indeed, the truly intriguing aspect is not what the attorney general had to say about race, but rather what he had to say about the way in which we discuss it. Our national conversation on race, said Mr. Holder, “is too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own narrow self-interest.”

There is, plainly, something to this. When we talk about race we do tend to talk in simplistic categories, spending more energy on labeling each other than on reasoning together. Consider the entirely predictable battle lines over The New York Post’s infamous stimulus bill cartoon last week, which featured a chimpanzee. One side says the newspaper was insensitive, the other that the protesters have a double standard and are fanning the flames for the sake of attention. Plenty of sound bites, but nothing that moves us forward.

This difficulty, however, is not limited to race. There are few issues of any importance that are not reduced, in public dialogue, to sloganeering and applause lines. Whether we argue over war or the economy, marriage or religion, abortion or guns, we reduce our ideas to just the right size for the adolescent tantrum of the bumper sticker.

Consider, for example, the Obama administration’s evolving tough line on terrorism. Many critics seem to think that reminding us that President Obama’s policies are similar to President George W. Bush’s is argument enough against them. But guilt by association with an unpopular past president does not tell us whether a particular tactic is right or wrong. Or consider the economic crisis, where one cable television network, on the very evening of the Lehman Brothers collapse last fall, had a program promising to analyze not what had gone wrong but who was at fault.

Democracy, at its best, rests on a foundation of mutual respect among co-equal citizens willing to take the time for serious debate. After all, even on the momentous issues that divide us, there is usually the possibility that the other side has a good argument. Yet if we paint our opponents as monsters, we owe them no obligation to pay attention to what they have to say.

Forty-five years ago, in his classic essay “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” Richard Hofstadter warned against this tendency, and worried that it would recur in every era. There is, he suggested, something in the Western psyche that too often makes us retreat to a vision of politics in which there is no complexity. “Since what is at stake,” wrote Hofstadter, “is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish.”

Complexity is the enemy of such fundamentalism, and, as our public dialogue grows more fundamentalist, complexity fades. If you read Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451” — and everyone who loves democracy should read it, at least every two or three years — pay attention to the speech by the fire chief, Captain Beatty, explaining why they burned the books. The reason was not national security or political power. It was complexity. Books, says the fire chief, make ideas too difficult. The reader winds up lost, he says, “in a great welter of nouns and verbs and adjectives.” The people demanded the books be burned because they wanted no complicated ideas.

We may not be burning books, exactly, but we are burning argument and ideas, replacing them with applause lines. If we Americans can make our way past the fanfare over the most controversial words in Mr. Holder’s speech, perhaps we can learn from his reminder that democracy needs dialogue more than it needs bumper stickers.

Stephen L. Carter, a novelist and Yale law professor, is writing a book about what democracy needs now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/opinion/25carter.html?_r=1&em

Sigaba

03-07-2009, 16:53

Source is here (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/us/politics/08race.html?pagewanted=print).

March 8, 2009
Attorney General Chided for Language on Race
By HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON — President Obama has chided his attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., for describing America as a “nation of cowards” when discussing race, wading into a tumult that flared over Mr. Holder’s indictment of the way this country talks about ethnicity.

“I think it’s fair to say that if I had been advising my attorney general, we would have used different language,” Mr. Obama said in a mild rebuke from America’s first black president to its first black attorney general.

In an interview with The New York Times on Friday, the president said that despite Mr. Holder’s choice of words, he had a point.

“We’re oftentimes uncomfortable with talking about race until there’s some sort of racial flare-up or conflict,” he said, adding, “We could probably be more constructive in facing up to sort of the painful legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and discrimination.”

Mr. Holder made his comments last month during an address to employees at the Justice Department, saying that “though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial, we have always been and we, I believe, continue to be in too many ways essentially a nation of cowards.”

His remarks ignited protest, particularly from conservatives. One post, by Stephan Tawney on the American Pundit blog, said that “our attorney general is black, both major parties are led by black men, the president is black.”

“And yet,” Mr. Tawney wrote, “we’re apparently a ‘nation of cowards’ on race.”

Mr. Obama was asked whether he agreed with Mr. Holder. He hesitated for five seconds before responding.

“I’m not somebody who believes that constantly talking about race somehow solves racial tensions,” Mr. Obama said. “I think what solves racial tensions is fixing the economy, putting people to work, making sure that people have health care, ensuring that every kid is learning out there. I think if we do that, then we’ll probably have more fruitful conversations.”

Secretary of Defense Weinberger had to clear every speech with the White House. The requirement advanced the Reagan Administration's plan to speak with a single voice on issues of national defense (although this plan didn't always work).

Should the current president consider such a requirement?:rolleyes:

Richard

03-07-2009, 17:46

Surf n Turf

03-07-2009, 18:04

Secretary of Defense Weinberger had to clear every speech with the White House. The requirement advanced the Reagan Administration's plan to speak with a single voice on issues of national defense (although this plan didn't always work).

Sigaba,
Source Please
SnT

Sigaba

03-07-2009, 18:14

Looks as if the AG is fixing to move into that penthouse under the bus currently occupied by the Veep and all those Cabinet nominees who have had to withdraw from consideration. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

On the bright side, the penthouse will be a part of a green building that is friendly to the environment and has convenient access to mass transit.

I think that the president would benefit from learning the advantages of criticizing in private and confining more of his inner thoughts to his diary.

I want the man to prove my skepticism of his skills, his intellect, and his character to be unfounded. As Dr. Evil would say, "Throw me a friggin' bone!"

Surf n Turf

03-07-2009, 18:35

If the Republicans were more instrumental in helping pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then why are the Dems the one's always screaming about racism and discrimination? They were the one's that actually stood in the way and LBJ had to call on the Republicans for help in passing desegregation laws.

I don't get it. Am I that much of a thick headed Irish girl or has this little fact been excluded from the history books over the past 20+ years?

Saoirse,
Since Berry Goldwater was my Senator, and my first presidential vote, I'll give your the following. Goldwater thought more of the constitution than of winning the presidency.
SnT

Goldwater had a controversial record on civil rights. On the one hand, he was a co-founder of the Arizona NAACP and was instrumental in desegregating the Arizona National Guard. As a Senator, he was a supporter of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960. Nevertheless he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that it was an inappropriate extension of federal power and unconstitutional. even as a majority of the Republicans in Congress voted in favor of the Act. Goldwater's claim that "you can't legislate morality" was echoed later by Ronald Reagan, but the black community countered by stating that such laws ensured protection of minority rights in the face of majority discrimination. Until the end of the 1964 presidential campaign, when he was embittered by what he thought were unfair attacks, Goldwater was reluctant to harness the growing white backlash. Goldwater never officially renounced his position on the 1964 Act: to the end of his career he reiterated his belief that private property rights trumped society's interest in racial equality.

Incumbent Democratic president Lyndon Johnson easily defeated Senator Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election. Because of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Black voters in particular rewarded President Johnson for his highly visible and very skillful support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In many predominantly black precincts in large cities in the North, Johnson received more than 95 percent of the vote in the 1964 presidential election. This was almost 20 percent better than John F. Kennedy had polled with black voters in the 1960 presidential election. This strong shift of black voters to the Democratic Party endured to the mid-1990s, and even then showed no signs of ending.

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/jan_2003/when.htm

http://www.historymania.com/american_history/Barry_Goldwater

Sigaba

03-07-2009, 19:29

Sigaba,
Source Please
SnT

Sir--

Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, WHORM files, FG013 (Department of Defense) has the copies of Secretary Weinberger's speeches. To separate a rhetorical flourish from verifiable archival evidence, I cannot absolutely say that every speech was scrubbed, but the boxes and boxes I've seen have made me confident in the conclusion that such was the requirement.

I would point out specifically to FG013, Box 1, Folder 5, document number 028058, which is also NSC memo 8102792, from Dennis Blair to Richard Allen, dated 19 May 1981. In this memo, Blair discusses potential (mis) interpretations of a story broken by the United Press International and quoted on a BBC TV broadcast on the previous day. The story centered around Weinberger's comments on the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons in a general war. In my judgment, this memo, among other documents in this record group (for instance scrawled notes on routing slips indicating the need for haste as the delivery of a speech was but hours away), shows the extent to which the White House sought to exercise positive control over how senior members of Reagan administration discussed national security strategy.

Additional evidence can be found in John F. Lehman, Jr. Papers, Operational Archives, Naval Historical Center, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. Box 3, folder 4, (Organizational Issues—Bureaucracy). In a letter from Lehman to Weinberger, Lehman offered an apology to his boss.

Cap

I very much regret the embarrassment caused by the ‘strafing’ article, which was a replay of last week’s Prina article. The permanent bureaucrats like Spinney do ‘take power away from the Secretary of Defense.’ I was simply too unguarded with Prina, whom I consider to be a friend.

t is unfortunate that a by-product of an active public affairs strategy is an occasional blunder like this.

I need to be more careful, and I shall be.

John

attached is the verbatim transcript

At issue was an interview for an article by Ed Prina of the Copley News Service on 9 February 1983. In that interview, Lehman said:

An issue in this town is that the federal bureaucracy always wants to centralize and control everything. This administration stands for de-centralization. Cap has applied that principle to the Services but the pressure of the bureaucracy continues and there are studies that masquerade as cost savings—to centralize medical care, to centralize MTMC and MSC, to centralize and consolidate aircraft training; now they’re going to consolidate management under the OSD bureaucrats & all the Service bases so that there will not be Navy and Air Force bases, there will be Defense bases. And you look at DLA and the consolidated defense agencies, they’ve swallowed up nearly a third of the Defense (inaudible). And they are, without question, the worst managed of any enterprise in the Pentagon.

Without question, this building could be run, I believe, at a 20% savings if we could get rid of those 6000 bureaucrats in OSD are accountable essentially to nobody—and they’ve masqueraded as (having) the full powers of the Secretary of Defense. They take power away from the Secretary of Defense and the appointed officials.

The evidence further suggests that the vetting went both ways. Elsewhere in the Lehman Papers, for example, Box 14, folder 5, (SECNAV Blasts—Adverse Publicity—1981-1982) there are examples of the secretary of the navy taking civilian officials and general officers to task for straying 'off message.' In addition to Lehman's exchange with GEN Starry (referenced in the link above), he also reached out to:

the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs;
the CINC of the Strategic Air Command;
and that Air Force general's chief of public affairs.

FWIW, roughly ten years ago, a professor (a prior service Marine officer) at the Marine Corps University gave a laconic so what to my presentation of these findings. With rising ire, he pointed out that these types of reprimands were part and parcel of a professional officer's career--especially in Washington. Then he realized and grudgingly conceded my point--these reprimands were noteworthy (and historically significant) because Lehman was going out of the chain of command to exercise party discipline. (I remain convinced that this professor completely missed my point that these reprimands also served to stifle intentionally professional internal debate over issues of naval and military strategy. But I'm not bitter.)

Sigaba

05-29-2009, 14:36

Bravery indeed.

Source is here (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/print/).

Note: the story itself has video that may be of interest.

Friday, May 29, 2009
EXCLUSIVE: Career lawyers overruled on voting case

Jerry Seper (Contact)

Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.

The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.

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

The lawyers also had ascertained that one of the three men had gained access to the polling place by securing a credential as a Democratic poll watcher, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Times.

The career Justice lawyers were on the verge of securing sanctions against the men earlier this month when their superiors ordered them to reverse course, according to interviews and documents. The court had already entered a default judgment against the men on April 20.

A Justice Department spokesman on Thursday confirmed that the agency had dropped the case, dismissing two of the men from the lawsuit with no penalty and winning an order against the third man that simply prohibits him from bringing a weapon to a polling place in future elections.

The department was "successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again," spokesman Alejandro Miyar said. "Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law."

Mr. Miyar declined to elaborate about any internal dispute between career and political officials, saying only that the department is "committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote."

Court records reviewed by The Times show that career Justice lawyers were seeking a default judgment and penalties against the three men as recently as May 5, before abruptly ending their pursuit 10 days later.

People directly familiar with the case, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because of fear of retribution, said career lawyers in two separate Justice offices had recommended proceeding to default judgment before political superiors overruled them.

Tensions between career lawyers and political appointees inside the Justice Department have been a sensitive matter since allegations surfaced during the Bush administration that higher-ups had ignored or reversed staff lawyers and that some U.S. attorneys had been removed or selected for political reasons.

During his January confirmation hearings, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said that during his lengthy Justice Department tenure, the career lawyers were "my teachers, my colleagues and my friends" and described them as the "backbone" of the department.

"If I am confirmed as attorney general, I will listen to them, respect them and make them proud of the vital goals we will pursue together," he said.

Justice officials declined to say whether Mr. Holder or other senior Justice officials became involved in the case, saying they don't discuss internal deliberations.

The civil suit filed Jan. 7 identified the three men as members of the Panthers and said they wore military-style uniforms, black berets, combat boots, battle-dress pants, black jackets with military-style insignias and were armed with "a dangerous weapon"and used racial slurs and insults to scare would-be voters and those there to assist them at the Philadelphia polling location on Nov. 4.

The complaint said the three men engaged in "coercion, threats and intimidation, ... racial threats and insults, ... menacing and intimidating gestures, ... and movements directed at individuals who were present to vote." It said that unless prohibited by court sanctions, they would "continued to violate ... the Voting Rights Act by continuing to direct intimidation, threats and coercion at voters and potential voters, by again deploying uniformed and armed members at the entrance to polling locations in future elections, both in Philadelphia and throughout the country."

To support its evidence, the government had secured an affidavit from Bartle Bull, a longtime civil rights activist and former aide to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. Mr. Bull said in a sworn statement dated April 7 that he was serving in November as a credentialed poll watcher in Philadelphia when he saw the three uniformed Panthers confront and intimidate voters with a nightstick.

Inexplicably, the government did not enter the affidavit in the court case, according to the files.

"In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll," he declared. "In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi ... I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location."

Mr. Bull said the "clear purpose" of what the Panthers were doing was to "intimidate voters with whom they did not agree." He also said he overheard one of the men tell a white poll watcher: "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

He called their conduct an "outrageous affront to American democracy and the rights of voters to participate in an election without fear." He said it was a "racially motivated effort to limit both poll watchers aiding voters, as well as voters with whom the men did not agree."

The three men named in the complaint - New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson - refused to appear in court to answer the accusations over a near-five month period, court records said.

Justice Department Voting Rights Section Attorney J. Christian Adams complained in one court filing about the defendants' failure to appear or to file any pleadings in the case, arguing that Mr. Jackson was "not an infant, nor is he an incompetent person as he appears capable of managing his own affairs, nor is he in the military service of the United States."

Court records show that as late as May 5, the Justice Department was still considering an order by U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell in Philadelphia to seek judgments, or sanctions, against the three Panthers because of their failure to appear.

But 10 days later, the department reversed itself and filed a notice of voluntary dismissal from the complaint for Malik Zulu Shabazz and Mr. Jackson.

That same day, the department asked for the default judgment against King Samir Shabazz, but limited the penalty to an order that he not display a "weapon within 100 feet of any open polling location on any election day in the city of Philadelphia" until Nov. 15, 2012.

Malik Zulu Shabazz is a Washington, D.C., resident.

Mr. Jackson was an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee, and was credentialed to be at the polling place last Nov. 4 as an official Democratic Party polling observer, according to the Philadelphia City Commissioner's Office.

Efforts to reach the Panthers were unsuccessful. A telephone number listed on the New Black Panthers Web site had been disconnected.

The complaint said that the three men were deployed at the entrance to a Philadelphia polling location wearing the uniform of the New Black Panther Party and that King Samir Shabazz repeatedly brandished a police-style nightstick with a contoured grip and wrist lanyard.

According to the complaint, Malik Zulu Shabazz, a Howard University Law School graduate, said the placement of King Samir Shabazz and Mr. Jackson in Philadelphia was part of a nationwide effort to deploy New Black Panther Party members at polling locations on Election Day.

The New Black Panther Party reportedly has 27 chapters operating across the United States, Britain, the Caribbean and Africa. Its Web page said it has become "a great witness to the validity of the works of the original Black Panther Party," which was founded in 1966 in Oakland, Calif.

The DoJ's official position on such activities is here (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/misc/faq.php#faq03).

What responsibilities does the Justice Department have with regard to voter fraud or intimidation?

....In cases where intimidation, coercion, or threats are made or attempts to intimidate, threaten or coerce are made to any person for voting or attempting to vote, federal civil voting rights claims may be brought by the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division. In such cases where voters are intimidated, coerced, threatened or oppressed or attempts are made to do these acts based on race, color, religion, or national origin, federal criminal charges may be brought by the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division....

Is it the DoJ's position that the defendants were attempting to intimidate based not upon race but rather fashion sense (or lack thereof)?:rolleyes:

Sigaba

09-10-2009, 02:38

Source is here (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/09/inquiry-opened-about-new-black-panther-case//print/). Originally published 03:36 p.m., September 9, 2009, updated 10:20 p.m., September 9, 2009
EXCLUSIVE: Inquiry opened into New Black Panther case

Jerry Seper (Contact)

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility has begun an official inquiry into the dismissal in May of a civil complaint against the New Black Panther Party and two of its members who disrupted a Philadelphia polling place during the November general elections.

The inquiry is disclosed in an Aug. 28 letter to Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee who first raised questions about the dismissal in May and asked unsuccessfully that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. make available the head of the department's Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division for a closed-door briefing on the decision.

In the letter, Mary Patrice Brown, acting OPR counsel, told the veteran congressman from Texas that the office had "initiated an inquiry into the matter" and that it would "contact you with the results of our inquiry once it is completed." A copy of the letter was obtained by The Washington Times.

"I am pleased that someone at the Justice Department is finally taking the dismissal of the New Black Panther Party case seriously," Mr. Smith said Wednesday. "The Justice Department's decision to drop a case against political allies who allegedly intimidated voters on Election Day 2008 reeks of political interference."

Mr. Smith said the department's refusal to provide Congress with an explanation for the dismissal "only further raises concerns that political favoritism played a role in this case."

"Voter intimidation threatens democracy," he said. "These cases must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law without political considerations."

In January, the Justice Department filed a civil complaint in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia against the New Black Panther Party, claiming two of its members in black berets, black combat boots, black shirts and black jackets with military insignias intimidated voters with racial insults, slurs and a nightstick. A third party member was accused of managing, directing and endorsing their behavior.

The complaint said two New Black Panthers engaged in "coercion, threats and intimidation racial threats and insults menacing and intimidating gestures and movements directed at individuals who were present to vote." It said that unless prohibited by court sanctions, they would continue to direct intimidation, threats and coercion at voters and potential voters "by again deploying uniformed and armed members at the entrance to polling locations in future elections, both in Philadelphia and throughout the country."

The original incident was captured on videotape and gained national attention after the video was distributed on YouTube.

Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican and a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, has unsuccessfully sought to interview the career lawyers involved in the case and has called on Mr. Holder to refile the civil complaint. He said he was "deeply troubled" by the dismissal, adding that "this stinks to high heaven."

"After months of unanswered questions, incomplete and faulty excuses, and revelations of political influence, the Office of Professional Responsibility has agreed with our July 9 letter asking for a full investigation of the dismissal of this important voter intimidation case over the objections of both the career attorneys on the trial team and the department's own appellate board," he said Wednesday.

"I fully support OPR's decision to investigate this dismissal and look forward to their report," he said. "I hope the Civil Rights office also will agree that the case should be re-filed."

OPR, which reports directly to the attorney general, is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct involving department attorneys in the exercise of their authority to investigate, litigate or provide legal advice.

Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said, "As a general policy, we don't comment on ongoing OPR matters."

The Times first reported the decision to dismiss the complaint in May and later reported that Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the department's No. 3 political appointee, had approved the decision even after the government had won judgments against the New Black Panthers for their actions.

A Justice Department memo shows that the front-line career lawyers who brought the case decided as early as December to seek a complaint against the party; its chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, a lawyer and D.C. resident; Minister King Samir Shabazz, a resident of Philadelphia and head of the Philadelphia chapter who was accused of wielding the nightstick; and Jerry Jackson, a resident of Philadelphia and a party member.

Witnesses said Mr. Samir Shabazz, armed with the nightstick, and Mr. Jackson used racial slurs and made threats as they stood outside the polling place door.

The Justice Department did obtain an injunction against Mr. Samir Shabazz that prohibits him from brandishing a weapon outside a polling place through Nov. 15, 2012, and Ms. Schmaler has said the department "will fully enforce the terms of that injunction."

Mr. Jackson was an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and was credentialed to be at the polling place as an official Democratic Party polling watcher, according to the Philadelphia city commissioner's office. Records show he obtained new credentials as a poll watcher "at any ward/division in Philadelphia" just days after the charges against him were dismissed.

None of the New Black Panthers responded to the charges or made any appearance in court. The party has not returned e-mails for comment, and the voice mailbox at its Washington headquarters Wednesday was full.

Four months after the complaint was filed, at a time career lawyers who brought the charges were in the final stages of seeking actual sanctions, they were told by their superiors to seek a delay after a meeting between political appointees and career supervisors, according to federal records and interviews.

Loretta King, who was acting assistant attorney general, ordered the delay after she discussed with Mr. Perrelli concerns about the case during one of their regular review meetings, according to the interviews. Mrs. King, a career senior executive service official, had been named by President Obama in January to temporarily fill the vacant political position of assistant attorney general for civil rights while a permanent choice could be made.

She and other career supervisors ultimately recommended dropping the case against two of the men and the party. Mr. Perrelli approved that plan, officials said.

None of the front-line career lawyers who brought the complaint has been made available for comment.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights also has demanded that the Justice Department explain the dismissal, saying a previous response "paints the department in a poor light." In a letter to Mr. Holder, the commission noted that it is "answerable" to the president, Congress and the public to ensure that civil rights laws are enforced and had the authority to subpoena witnesses and documents to guarantee that the laws are being followed.

Commissioner Todd Gaziano, an independent named to the agency by Congress in February 2008, has outlined a witness list in a request for a "major study project" by the commission that would include an extensive investigation by its staff armed with subpoenas and public hearings in both Washington and Philadelphia.

Mr. Gaziano, a former Justice Department lawyer who served in the Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations, said the commission needs to determine, among other things, whether the decision to drop the charges constituted a departure from prior enforcement policy and whether it ultimately would lead to more voter intimidation.

"The dismissal of the lawsuit has the potential to significantly change the understanding some officials have regarding the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, for good or for bad," he said.