Obama`s Justice Department, The New Black Panthers, and Civil Rights Laws
June 29, 2010, 04:49 PM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF
Via Kathy Shaidle, who says that "This is one man's claim. It should be investigated immediately", I see there's an op-ed in the Washington Times by J. Christian Adams, who was, until just last month, a voting rights lawyer in the Justice Department.
“Some of my co-workers [in the Department of Justice] argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation.

"Less charitable individuals called it 'payback time.'

"Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the Voting Section.”[Inside the Black Panther case, June 28, 2010]

If you've forgotten the New Black Panthers, there's video of them here. The way we described this case was Obama Protecting Your Right To Vote—Unless You're White.

Mary Frances Berry [Email her]is frequently quoted as saying "Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them". I believe it's on page 141 of Civil Rights Under Reagan, by Robert Detlefsen, which is available in Questia, I don't have a Questia subscription.

This is a popular belief among Civil Rights apparatchiks. Here's another, less well known version of the same idea, co-written  by Ms. Berry:

Mary Frances Berry and Blandina Cardenas Ramirez, a.k.a. the U.S. Civil Rights Commission's silly sisters, dissent in the Commission's report on a recent affirmative action case, Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts:
Civil rights laws were not passed to give civil rights protection to all Americans, as the majority of this Commission seems to believe. Instead, they were passed out of a recognition that some Americans already had protection because they belonged to a favored group; and others, including blacks, Hispanics, and women of all races, did not because they belonged to disfavored groups." (Toward an Understanding of Stotts, January 1985, [PDF])quoted in the Claremont Review, Vintage CRB - Vol. IV, No. 1 , italics in original, online at the Thurgood Marshall Law Library]
This is the same idea as the other quote, but attempts to justify it, not just historically, but on the grounds of natural justice, on the theory that minorities and women are the victim groups, and whites are not.

But things have changed! Can anyone believe that in 2010, there is official discrimination against blacks in Philadelphia, where the (literally) jackbooted thugs of a Black Panther Party were operating? Philadelphia has a black mayor, and has never had de jure segregation.

How about official discrimination against women? Er, no! The only de jure discrimination in America is against white men, and politically, white men are now the disfavored group.