Make no mistake, this action is PAYBACK. This is called 'You gonna find out what life had been like for US, Cracka!' ... If you believe something else is responsible for this miscarriage of justice, you're wrong. Seriously, it IS that simple. Prove me wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/15/racialist-justice/

EDITORIAL: Racialist Justice
Attorney General Holder's lawyers won't protect whites

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES | 6:32 p.m., Thursday, July 15, 2010

By now, the default judgment about the Barack Obama-Eric H. Holder Jr. Justice Department is that it discriminates intentionally on the basis of race. By the precise definition used in the American Heritage dictionary, the department is racialist.

The Justice Department hasn't seriously contested the accusation of racialism. Recently resigned whistleblowing attorney J. Christian Adams has made credible charges, backed by at least five former colleagues, that the department's Civil Rights Division has adopted a policy of refusing to enforce civil rights laws on behalf of whites victimized by minority perpetrators. Mr. Adams cited an incident from November in which Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes openly stated it was departmental policy not to enforce parts of the federal motor-voter law that involve cleaning up dead and ineligible voters from poll registries. Another former department attorney, Nicole S. Marrone, has written that Ms. Fernandes previously discussed that law in explicitly racial terms.

To such a specific allegation of lawlessness, the Justice Department's response has been dead silence. No specific denial of the accusation. No statement that the department would not tolerate such lawlessness. No investigation. And when The Washington Times asked directly on Monday about the Fernandes statement, Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler responded with boilerplate that neither affirmed nor denied the statement.

As in the voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party - a case developed by Mr. Adams but dropped by the Obama-Holder crew - a failure to contest a charge is to be taken as an admission of the charge. It leads to a default judgment.

Now Mr. Adams says the Justice Department failed Monday to take a simple step that would have disallowed a proposed voting change that was intended to disenfranchise white voters in Noxubee County, Miss. Instead, the department made a flurry of court filings Mr. Adams characterizes as "a strategic feint that allows it to avoid the core issue of equal enforcement" and that is "the most contorted, most expensive way possible to [protect voters.] ... [T]he real motive is to avoid expanding Section 5 to protect a white or Asian victimized minority."

The controversy originated from a case in which Noxubee County Democratic leader Ike Brown canceled ballots cast by white voters. "He stuffed the ballot box with illegal ballots supporting his preferred black candidates," Mr. Adams explained. "He deployed teams of notaries to roam the countryside and mark absentee ballots instead of voters. He allowed forced assistance in the voting booth, to the detriment of white voters. He threatened 174 white voters."

Mr. Brown spearheaded a request for a voting-practice change to approve the same practices - under cover of law - that he previously had done illegally. The Justice Department did not object. Instead, it issued a "no determination" letter that, according to Mr. Adams, effectively leaves the issue open for another day.

The Black Panther and Mississippi cases are hardly isolated instances. In North Carolina (voting), Texas (race-based admissions) and Connecticut (race-based promotions of firefighters), the Obama-Holder Justice Department advocated racial preferences or results predicated by race. Department officials reportedly have espoused biases in favor of minorities in open meetings.

Reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode where the aliens causes the humans to destroy each other by causing them to fight each other. The aliens didn't have to do anything but sit back, wait for the humans to kill each other off and then they could easily take over.

I think the PTB likes keeping us fighting about nonsense like racism. With any luck, we'll wipe ourselves out. At the very least we'll be too tired to fight the real enemy.

that was an AWESOME episode,,,I loved the Twilight zone

thats what the aliens are doing now...

Gee ... this must REALLY be makin' the usual defenders of 'The UN' uncomfortable ... everyone's avoiding the subject of the article ... Where's the defense of the indefensible? Prove. Me. Wrong.

No one is trying to defend it. It is indefensible. The way it's meant to be.

Well, at least that's my opinion.

racism is on both sides,,

whats one more person's opinion with few facts?

what's one more 'report' with little verification?

both sides can find laws and decisions which seem to be racially biased on their surface, and some which might be PROVEN to be as such,,,,,


so whats to defend? kind of seems like a mute point,,

I agree with this as well.

And so the dance around the topic continues ... fine with me ... It's nice to be right.

Remember: Silence implies acquiescence.

or fatigue with running in circles,,,

Yes. Apparently MsHarmony and I are in total agreement tonight.

First off the editorial is not factual.

Second of all checking into who writes the Times is really important.

Behind the Times
Who Pulls The Strings at Washington's No. 2 Daily?

By Fred Clarkson

The Washington Times, the right-wing daily that bills itself as an alternative to the Washington Post, is owned and influenced by Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. But most journalists seem unable or unwilling to consider the political implications of this fact -- despite the role of Washington Times executives in the Koreagate scandal of the 1970s and the Iran-contra scandal today.

Since its inception in 1982, the Washington Times has gained a circulation of about 100,000 and the endorsement of President Ronald Reagan, who reads it every day. Founding editor and publisher James Whelan resigned in July 1984, charging that top Unification Church (UC) officials had taken over the paper in violation of UC guarantees of independence. In 1987, Times editorial page editor William Cheshire and several staff members also resigned over UC interference.

The Washington Times public relations line -- printed as fact in a Time magazine profile (6/15/87) -- maintains that the newspaper is "owned by a group of Korean investors affiliated with the Unification Church." These "investors" -- the Korean-based Tong-II Industries -- do not seem to view the Times as a profit-making venture. Current Times editor-in-chief Arnaud de Borchgrave told the Washington Post (5/6/87) that a Tong-II executive described one of the company's factories as "the logistical tail of the Washington Times." "They are very conscious of the fact that a certain portion of their profit comes to us to meet the subsidy," de Borchgrave said.

A 1978 congressional committee disclosed that 53 percent of Tong-II was owned by the Unification Church. But there is no proof that Tong-II is the sole, or even the principal, funder of the Times. New World Communications (NWC), the privately held parent company of the Washington Times and other Moon media outlets, is neither obligated under the law nor willing to disclose its financing.

Three NWC executives are not only top Unification Church officials, but have also had high-ranking posts in the Korean CIA (KCIA). Sang Kook Han, a "personal assistant" to the KCIA director in the early 1960s, later served as South Korea's ambassador to Norway and Panama. In 1984, Han was installed at the Washington Times, precipitating the resignation of editor James Whelan. Currently senior vice president of New World Communications, Han is described by Whelan as the "de facto publisher" and "inspector general" of the Times.

Kim Sang In, another NWC executive, was KCIA station chief in Mexico in the '70s. There, according to U.S. congressional investigators, he functioned as the "control agent" for Tungsun Park, who bribed U.S. officials to gain favors for the South Korean government in what became known as "Koreagate." Congressional probers disclosed that illegal espionage operations linked to Koreagate were carried out by the Unification Church at the behest of the KCIA.

Bo Hi Pak, the president of NWC, served as liaison to the U.S. intelligence community while posted in Washington as South Korean military attache in the 1960s and early '70s, according to the Koreagate inquiry. Pak is also president of CAUSA (Confederation of the Associations for Unity of the Societies of the Americas), the political arm of the Unification Church. CAUSA was instrumental in providing aid to the Nicaraguan contras.

What are the intentions of those who own and control the Washington Times? The Koreagate probe revealed that the Moon organization functions as a highly integrated unit; each component may maintain the appearance of independence as a means towards larger ends. James Whelan believes he was forced out of the paper because he was too independent.

Opposition to constitutional democracy is a theological premise of The Divine Principle, the basic text of Unificationism. Moon's speeches are riddled with contempt for "American-style democracy," which he denigrates as "a good nursery for the growth of Communism." "We must have an automatic theocracy to rule the world," Moon has declared.

Former top UC official Steve Hassan believes that the Washington Times is a "Trojan horse" within the conservative movement. Hassan told EXTRA!, "Conservative politics is glad to have a voice through the Times, but ultimately it has nothing to do with conservatism. It has to do with fascism."


See FAIR's Archives for more on:
Unification Church/Washington Times
Corporate Ownership
Religion

Conservative-turned-liberal writer David Brock, who worked for the Times' sister publication Insight on the News, said in his 2002 book Blinded by the Right that the news writers at the Times were encouraged and rewarded for giving news stories a conservative slant. In his 2004 book The Republican Noise Machine, Brock wrote "the Washington Times was governed by a calculatedly unfair political bias" and that its journalistic ethics were "close to nil."[34]
..............

The Washington Times has been accused of promoting racist views. Max Blumenthal in The Nation claimed that Times editor Fran Coombs had made a number of racist and sexist comments and was being sued by his colleagues for his remarks.[36]. The Southern Poverty Law Center in its Spring 2005 report criticized the wife of Fran Coombs, for writing articles in what the report claimed as white nationalist websites such as the Occidental Quarterly.[37].

The Times has generally opposed gay and transgender rights.[38] In 2010, the Times published an editorial opposing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because of its legal protections for transgender people.[39][40][41] The editorial criticized transgender people and said that gender identity is a choice, not an innate characteristic.[39]

In 2002, the Times published a story accusing the National Educational Association (NEA), the largest teachers' union in the United States, of promoting teaching students that the policies of the United States government were partly to blame for the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.[42] This was denied by the NEA and by other commentators.[43][44]

..............


In a 2008 essay published in Harper's Magazine, historian Thomas Frank linked the Times to the modern American conservative movement, saying:

There is even a daily newspaper—the Washington Times—published strictly for the movement’s benefit, a propaganda sheet whose distortions are so obvious and so alien that it puts one in mind of those official party organs one encounters when traveling in authoritarian countries.[46]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times