The Department of Justice Cleared of Racial Discrimination by the Department of Justice


By: Jim Byrd

I knew it the moment I saw the video on November 4, 2008; Election Day. It was reminiscent of the Jim Crow laws: blacks trying to peacefully exercise their ability to vote, and whites suddenly breaching the exclusive polling places of black voters.

I was watching the television, fingers crossed, hoping and praying for an Obama victory. The video made its way to conservative news stations and was presented with duplicity. I knew it was just a matter of time before some cracker would try and make something of it. There they were, a couple of New Black Panther crusaders, Jerry Jackson and King Samir Shabazz, protecting their polling place from the atrocities one might witness during the 1940′s against blacks wishing to cast a vote. They were dashing looking, in freshly laundered and military crisp black uniforms–sort of a black-ops look, with cute matching berets and armed with a dainty little blackjack. Even though the New Black Panthers are a non-racist and peaceful organization, and it would take severe cajoling to cause them to become agitated, such as the suspicious and incredulous audacity that white people would show up at a black polling area uninvited, it was quite obvious by the body language of the New Black Panthers in the video that it was an intimidating experience for them to be approached by the white interlopers. Some said they were poll watchers, others said they were there to vote. Either way, the crackers should not have been there. It was obvious they had McCain and Palin written all over their faces, and there is no question that they would have voted the McCain/Palin ticket at a black polling area.

Without the use of guns, knives, or any other lethal method of killing, the New Black Panthers used a Gandhi-like approach of negotiating with the interlopers; they used the term “cracker” and various other non-violent and peaceful “threats,” along with the perfectly justifiable twirling of their blackjacks that would be the envy of any marching band batonist. The whites fled the scene. If some “cracker” turned tail and ran, they probably had a reason to flee the scene. As Eric Holder has stated, “We are a nation of cowards,” and that is what was witnessed, white people being cowards and running.

Then along come George Bush and his Department of Justice filing charges against the two New Black Panthers for violating the civil rights of the white people. Of course, the New Black Panthers no-showed their court date; what’s the point, the deck was stacked: white President, white Attorney General, white judge. So the DOJ under Bush received a verdict of guilty by default from the court. That is the end of that, they are going to jail for voter intimidation and civil rights violations. But, glory be to God, Obama was elected President and Eric Holder was appointed Attorney General. The rest of the story reads like one of those heartwarming stories from the New Testament, where the dead white guy is brought back to life. Eric Holder and his DOJ asked that the conviction be tossed out the window because, well quite frankly, you just can’t have a federal government, especially with a black President, throwing blacks in jail for violating the civil rights of whites.

Now along comes the United States Commission on Civil Rights with their witch-hunt spewing conspiracy rhetoric: “There was a culture of hostility within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to the race-neutral application of the nation’s voting laws.” The Commission wants to use as “evidence” multiple testimonies from within the DOJ affirming that the DOJ systematically will not prosecute a black on white civil rights violation, the DOJ’s complete unwillingness to cooperate with the investigation, and play hide and seek with evidence requested by the Commission. The rabid conservative leaning Commission would have you believe that there is an unadulterated environment of hostility against whites who complain about their civil rights and discrimination committed by blacks at the DOJ just because there are thousands of pieces of alleged “evidence” to support this claim.

Just as the New Black Panthers’ case was dismissed by a divine miracle protecting all that is righteous and Eric Holder’s people, the DOJ has finally been cleared by the most credible and agenda-free investigative commission possible, the United States’ very own Department of Justice. During the DOJ’s bleakest hours, during the darkest hours of its self-investigation, during the mysterious hours of being overwhelmed with literally thousands of internal e-mails of the Department of Justice, notes, papers, almost 50 interviews, and various other “allegedly incriminating evidence” of blatant racism within the DOJ, the evidence was analyzed, cogitated, and deliberated. The DOJ’s own unbiased investigation was able to conquer the evidence at hand and profess that no professional misconduct or poor judgment was used by the DOJ, and that based on “a good faith assessment of the law” the case against the New Black Panthers was dismissed, but was “not influenced by the race of the defendants.”
It’s official. Eric Holder and the Department of Justice have not demonstrated prejudice and racism against white people.

But, the question must be asked: Is there ever a legitimate reason to skirt the rule of law by the Attorney General, and use a personal vendetta for the law’s application? Absolutely, and Eric Holder made that very case when Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) badgered him about the issue: “There’s clearly overwhelming evidence that your Department of Justice refuses to protect the rights of anybody other than African-Americans to vote,” harangued the Republican provocateur.

Eric Holder rebutted the pronounced prejudice of this elected race-baiter with a heartbreaking and gut-wrenching answer intertwined with metaphysical reasoning that intimidation of white voters at the polling booth by black crusaders with a blackjack cannot be a crime: “When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which was inappropriate, certainly that…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people.”

With all aspects considered, what is wrong with the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ using racial factors when determining whether to enforce voting rights laws? Is it wrong for Holder to protect “his people” from themselves and federal law?

Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) (formally Arthur Davenport, but was renamed when his mother, Frances Brown, decided she was an African Queen, and renamed herself Queen Mother Falaka Fattah), said the Black Panthers–”should not have been there.” But he did assign blame where blame is due by stating that the Republicans were making too much out of a fleeting incident involving a couple of people. “The most unethical thing a person can do is make allegations based on absolutely nothing.” Apparently, Fattah was not hoodwinked by the testimony of DOJ lawyers, thousands of emails, and 50 interviews that manifested rampant racism within the DOJ. Fattah could see beyond the evidential hyperbole.

Fattah is a smart man; he would obviously dismiss the actions of John Wilkes Booth as he just “should not have been at that theater,” and he was less than a “couple of people,” so what is the big deal? Rest assured, following the lead of the DOJ and Eric Holder, it is obvious that Fattah would have been satisfied if James Earl Ray had been acquitted by a jury of his family. That is, of course, unless Fattah has a double standard, which I would find completely implausible.

What would Martin Luther King think about America today under the rule of a black President and a black Attorney General? How proud he would be. What would he think about the progress made where the law of the land commands that no one be judged by the color of his skin? How proud he would be. What would he think about this historical black Attorney General appointed by a black President who insists on judging people by the color of their skin rather than their character? How proud he would be. After all, in his I Have a Dream speech, “King said, I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they are judged by the color of their skin and not by the content of their character, but only if we have a black President and a black Attorney General.

About The Author Jim Byrd:
Jim Byrd's website is A Skewed View.
Website:http://www.jimbyrd.com

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.