Instead of cowering from "racism" allegations, they are using the enormous unpopularity of Obama's response to Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates' arrest to pull the "post-racial" veneer off our race-obsessed president.
During the 2008 election campaign, the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee refused to bring up Rev. Wright's anti-white rantings—even going as far as attacking the North Carolina GOP for mentioning it. But now the National Republican Senatorial Committee has put ads on Drudge Report asking visitors to sign a petition criticizing Obama's response.
GOP strategist George Fletcher was quoted saying that Obama got "really close to losing the image he has as a post-racial president. For a few days, the question for a lot of people became, 'Wait a minute. Is he the president of the United States? Or is he just the president of minorities?'"
Of course, as long as Henry Louis Gates keeps his mouth shut—not a sure thing—there may be little more mileage the GOP can get out of this particular story. But, fortunately for the Republicans, Obama has provided plenty of other fodder—for example the non-response from the Justice Department to the New Black Panther Party's voter intimidation.
On Election Day, three leaders of the New Black Panther Party, King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson, were videotaped in paramilitary uniformed wielding nightsticks outside of a polling station in Philadelphia intimidating poll observers and voters. Poll watcher Bartle Bull signed an affidavit stating
"I watched the two uniformed men confront voters, and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters…
"Their clear purpose and intent was to intimidate voters with whom they did not agree. Their views were, in part, made apparent by the uniform of the organization the two men wore and the racially charged statements they made. For example, I heard the shorter man make a statement directed toward white poll observers that 'you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.'"
Like Gates' nemesis Officer Crowley, who taught racial profiling classes, Bull has impeccable anti-racist credentials. He worked as a civil rights lawyer in the 1960s where he filed lawsuits against municipalities in Mississippi that he said were disenfranchising African Americans. Bull concluded, that the actions by the New Black Panthers qualified "as the most blatant form of voter intimidation I have encountered in my life in political campaigns in many states, even going back to the work I did in Mississippi in the 1960s."
The US Commission on Civil Rights filed a complaint against the New Black Panthers. They refused to show up in court or even respond to the charges. Just as sanctions were about to brought, the Justice Department dismissed the USCCR's complaint because "the facts and the law did not support pursuing" it. Of course, Justice did not really give any elaboration as to what particular facts were missing and why the law wasn't violated.
Initially, there was not a lot of noise about this outrage. But as conservatives and Republicans got emboldened by Obama's blatant anti-white agenda, even mushy Congressmen like Frank Wolf have been demanding to know how high up the Justice Department the decision went, as well as calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to re-file the case.
Last week, the Washington Times broke the story that the dismissal went at least as high as Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the number three official at the Justice Department. Perrelli incidentally raised $500,000 for Obama.
The USCCR—which acts independently of the Obama Administration—is not letting up on the Justice Department. It wrote a letter to Eric Holder on Monday once again demanding that he give a full explanation of why the complaint was dismissed. The USCCR accused his Department of being "non-responsive" as well as making "factual errors and ... questionable legal claims". [Letter, August 10, 2009 (PDF)]
Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler continues to give absolutely no defense or justification for the decision beyond stating that after a "thorough review of the allegations and the evidence", it was decided to dismiss the complaint. For good measure she added: "We are committed to vigorous enforcement of the laws protecting anyone exercising his or her right to vote". ['Non-responsive' Justice Dept. pressed again on Panthers case, By Jerry Seper, Washington Times, August 8, 2009]
Just how "committed" is the Obama Justice Department? While it is apparently fine for black thugs wielding weapons to call white voters and poll observers crackers, Justice takes a very, very broad definition of voting rights violations when the disenfranchised are minorities. For example:
it has gone after Fort Bend County, Texas for failing to "implement an effective bilingual election program for Spanish-speaking voters", arguing that "the Voting Rights Act requires Fort Bend County to provide meaningful and equal electoral access to its Hispanic citizens who have limited English proficiency."
Of course, all naturalized US Citizens are supposed to have learned English as a condition of citizenship!
In another attack on white voters, the Justice Department filed a complaint in March against the town of Lake Park, FL.
As in much of South Florida, the town's white population is aging, while large numbers of Haitian immigrants flood in. The non-Hispanic white population was only 38% in the 2000 census, with blacks making up 48%, and Hispanics, Asians, and multiracials making up the remaining 14%.
But because whites are older and more likely to be US Citizens, they still make up 53% of the electorate, while blacks are only 38%—a fact that the Justice Department does not mention in its press releases.
The small town elects its four commissioners in an at large election. For whatever reason, no blacks have been elected thus far. So The Justice Department is demanding that the town divide up its 9,000 residents into four gerrymandered districts where "black persons would constitute a majority of the citizen voting age population in at least one of the districts". [PDF] There are no allegations of disenfranchisement or intimidation against blacks. But according to the US Attorney's office, the "elections are characterized by the use of practices that impair black electoral success".
The state of Georgia passed a common-sense measure requiring that new voters have their citizenship status checked among the Social Security and Driver's license databases. Predictably the ACLU and MALDEF filed suit. And a Judge ended up passed the decision to the Obama Justice Department. Sure enough it ruled that "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." [Feds spike voter citizenship checks in Georgia, By Shannon McCaffrey, Associated Press, June 1, 2009]
Just as in Florida, it's not claimed that there is anything discriminatory about the rule. But because it "disproportionately" affects minorities—who of course make up a disproportionate number of illegal aliens and non-citizens—then it's not allowed.
If the GOP has any brains, it would jump on this theme: Obama's justice department will start witch hunts to get quotas for black elected officials, and give illegal aliens, non-English speakers, and non-citizens the right to vote, but it's perfectly OK with weapon wielding black thugs telling "crackers" that they're going to "be ruled by the black man."
The GOP should consider (gasp!) actually, you know, protecting the voting rights of 90% of its voters.