By John W. Lillpop
Recent decisions by the Obama administration indicate that our new president has decided to exempt people of color from the rule of law, at least partially.
Indeed, it seems as though Obama is on a mission to atone for 400 years of slavery, jack crow laws, discrimination in housing, education, and employment, and other racist wrongs in just 150 days!
Regrettably, the president's approach is to implement policies that unfairly favor racial groups with whom he is ideologically and politically aligned, rather than swearing off racism altogether.
Obama continues to decry racism, except for "HIS racists," as it were.
Consider these examples.
New Black Panther Party
In the new Obama paradigm for justice, intimidating voters with violence on Election Day appears to be acceptable, provided the intimidator is black and an Obama supporter.
As reported by the Washington Times, in part:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?feat=home_cube_position1
"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."
This racist pandering to violent predators will (we pray) eventually upset even the wackiest of liberals, and should lead to further deterioration of the ugly phenomenon known as Obamamania.
"Poor Choice of Words" by Very Unwise Latina
According to President Obama, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is guilty of nothing more serious than a "poor choice of words" when she said:
""I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
As reported at the Washington Times, in part, the White House attempted to dismiss Sotomayer's racist rant:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/30/nominees-remark-poor-word-choice/?source=newsletter_must-read-stories-today_photo_feature
"The White House said Friday that Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor now regrets saying in 2001 that a Hispanic woman would tend to arrive at a 'better conclusion' in making legal decisions than a white male.
"Her word choice in 2001 was poor," spokesman Robert Gibbs said, seeking to settle what has become an early stumbling point for President Obama's nominee as she prepares for her Senate confirmation battle. "
Excuse me? We are talking about a nominee whom the president described as "brilliant" and yet she is not sufficiently bright to avoid words riddled with the passions of racism and bigotry?
Either Sotomayor is far less than "brilliant" than Obama knows, or she is an unrepentant racist, or, most likely, both!.
Regardless of the nuances and word parsing by Obama, this unwise Latina simply does not belong on the Supreme Court.
Surely, that cannot be all that difficult to understand?
For example, what if the record of Chief Justice John Roberts revealed a similarly poor choice of words? What if Roberts was on record as saying:
""Because of educational and cultural advantages, I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his education and experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a female person of color who hasn't lived that life."
Would John Roberts have been confirmed to the Supreme Court with that quote in his dossier? Even more to the point, would he still be employable in the legal profession?
Surely, President Obama knows full well that the furor is not about Sotomayor's choice of words. Rather it is about the racism and hatred that underlies those un-American and unprofessional blathering.
Critical questions: With so many genuinely "brilliant" and ethical judges to choose from, why is Obama trying to saddle America with a woman who lacks the sensitivity and insight needed to serve on the highest court of the land?
More critically, why is this president intent on supplanting the gold standard of judicial temperament and restraint with "empathy" rooted in racism and sexism?
Preventing Voter Fraud in Georgia
Preserving the integrity of the vote should be a priority with all governments, state and federal.
In the state of Georgia, voting officials implemented a straightforward, common sense system of verifying social security numbers and driver's license data to assure that prospective voters were indeed U.S. citizens.
As reported at signonsandiego.com, the Obama Department of Justice shot down the Georgia system:
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jun/01/us-voting-checks-060109/
"The Justice Department has rejected Georgia's system of using Social Security numbers and driver's license data to check whether prospective voters are citizens, a process that was a subject of a federal lawsuit in the weeks leading up to November's election.
"In a letter released on Monday, the Justice Department said the state's voter verification program is frequently inaccurate and has a "discriminatory effect" on minority voters. The decision means Georgia must halt the citizenship checks, although the state can still ask the Justice Department to reconsider, according to the letter and to the Georgia secretary of state's office.
"This flawed system frequently subjects a disproportionate number of African-American, Asian and/or Hispanic voters to additional, and more importantly, erroneous burdens on the right to register to vote," Loretta King, acting assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's civil rights division, said. King's letter was sent to Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker on Friday.
"Secretary of State Karen Handel blasted DOJ's decision, saying it opens the floodgates for non-citizens to vote in the state.
"Clearly, politics took priority over common sense and good public policy," said Handel, a Republican candidate for governor in 2010.
Justice Department officials said the citizenship match through driver's license and Social Security data has flagged 7,007 individuals as non-citizens but that many have been shown to be in error. "
The obvious point in this absurdity is that all prospective voters, regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality etc. are subjected to the verification procedures in Georgia.
Again, the Obama administration is more concerned with delivering advantages to people of color than in assuring equal, unbiased treatment.
The looming question: Will Obama's empathy, rooted in racism, eventually be his waterloo?
