Sunday Book Review: Injustice — exposing the racial agenda of the Obama Justice Department

November 6, 2011

Fundamental to the American system of self-government is trust on the part of the public that votes will be counted fairly, elections will be run fairly, and the laws protecting our right to vote will be applied equally to all. Absent that trust, the system cannot stand: a citizen’s vote will be seen as worthless, elections meaningless, and the law as a tool for oppression and tyranny. It’s the risk of the latter that J. Christian Adams, a former career attorney with the Voting Rights section of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, wants to warn us about.

In “Injustice: exposing the racial agenda of the Obama Justice Department,” Adams asserts that, for years, leftists and liberals in the Voting Rights Section allied with and coming from what he calls the “racial grievance industry” have resisted enforcing the provisions of the Voting Rights Act when the victims are White and the oppressors are Black. To these attorneys, civil rights laws were meant to protect Blacks and other “national racial minorities,” not White voters. When Black and other groups corrupt an election, that’s merely “payback” for decades or even centuries of oppression by Whites — indeed, some lawyers of the Civil Rights Division feel they should facilitate this.

As Adams tells it, the problem goes back at least into the Clinton administration and becomes more of a problem under Democrats because they are generally allied to and supported by the various groups comprising the racial grievance industry, such as the NAACP and ACLU, among others. Under the Republican administration of George W. Bush, and contrary to the charges of “politicization” screamed by the Left, the political appointees at the DoJ who oversaw the career attorneys would either block ridiculous, unjustified legal action or force reluctant left-liberal lawyers to enforce the law in a race-neutral manner. They also made sure to hire attorneys of all political backgrounds — conservative, liberal, and non-political.

This all changed with the coming of Barack Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder: no conservatives have been hired since 2009, even though the Division has been greatly expanded. Indeed, left-liberal civil rights activism became a prerequisite even to be hired at the Civil Rights Division, and new attorneys were regularly hired from leftist advocacy groups. Leftist career attorneys were promoted to supervisory political appointments that gave them the power to set policy. Instead of political appointees being a brake on the racialist instincts of the career attorneys, they became their facilitators and enablers. As one leftist attorney told Adams when asked why he opposed suing in an obvious case of intimidation by radical Blacks directed toward White voters, “I didn’t come here to sue Blacks.”

Adams illustrates his charges of ethical corruption at the Civil Rights Division with specific examples. Among them:

  • Noxubee County, Mississippi, and its Democratic “boss,” Ike Brown, who with his partisans engaged in blatant electoral corruption to elect Black allies and disenfranchise Whites and those Blacks who wouldn’t play along.
  • The infamous New Black Panther Party intimidation case from Philadelphia in 2008, to which Adams devotes two chapters. Not only does he show the Holder DoJ throwing out a case it had won by default, but he also explores a possible explanation via a political payback to the NBPP for support given to Obama when he was an obscure candidate in 2007.
  • The case of the New Haven fire department, which radicals at the Department tried to force to promote Black firefighters over White and Hispanic candidates who had clearly done better on the promotion exams. This went to the Supreme Court as Ricci v. DeStefano.
  • Suing the city of Dayton to force it to hire Blacks onto its police force, even though those applicants had flat-out failed the entrance exams.

And there are many others, including shocking examples of unprofessional conduct, some of which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines against DoJ attorneys.

Adams concludes with a chapter of recommendations to reform the Department of Justice, some as simple as a ban on political activity by DoJ staff (a limited one had been in place, but it was regularly ignored by leftist attorneys from 2008 on), others as radical as breaking up the Civil Rights Division and distributing its duties among other departments that could ensure professional, race-neutral conduct. While not all DoJ/CRD lawyers engage in racialist behavior, Adams makes it clear the problem is widespread and only massive reform will fix things. Naturally, we can’t expect these to be acted on by President Obama and AG Holder; if it is to happen at all, it will have to be under a future Republican administration.

“Injustice” is an important book, one that exposes how far the Civil Rights Division has gone from being a neutral enforcer of the law, to being a partisan of a racial spoils system that misuses the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts to pursue a racialist, radical leftist agenda. And he leaves us with a reminder and a warning: these same people will be supervising the 2012 elections.

As Adams writes, it’s up to us to keep our eyes open and call-out corrupt behavior whenever and wherever we see it, and to make sure real reformers come to power in 2013.

Summary: Highly recommended, appalling yet essential reading, but be prepared to get angry.

RELATED: Adams has also written about the DoJ’s, I kid you not, “secret internal redistricting plans to try to force states, counties and cities to maximize the number of black elected officials resulting from redistricting” — meet “Max Black.” He writes often for PJMedia and also blogs at the Election Law Center. If you have any concern at all for the integrity of our electoral system, you should put him on your reading list.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Department of Injustice: “Don’t enforce the Voting Rights Act.”

July 9, 2010

I linked to this in an update to the previous post, but this really deserves a post of its own: In November, 2009, the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice was told not to enforce the law regarding the integrity of voter rolls:

A lesser-known provision also obliged the states to ensure that no ineligible voters were on the rolls — including dead people, felons, and people who had moved. Our current Department of Justice is anxious to encourage the obligations to get everyone registered, but explicitly unwilling to enforce federal law requiring states to remove the dead or ineligible from the rolls.

In November 2009, the entire Voting Section was invited to a meeting with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes, a political employee serving at the pleasure of the attorney general. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Motor Voter enforcement decisions.

The room was packed with dozens of Voting Section employees when she made her announcement regarding the provisions related to voter list integrity:

  • “We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law. It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it.”

Jaws dropped around the room.

Yeah, I bet they did. What’s next, mandatory registration at all cemeteries?

No Cabinet officer has been impeached since Secretary of War William Belknap under President Grant. It will never happen under a Democratic Congress, but Eric Holder is a shining example of someone who deserves to be the next.

Why bother to have an election at all?

October 20, 2009

This news stopped me in my tracks. The Justice Department voided a change to local election laws in Kinston, North Carolina, that changed elections there from partisan to non-partisan races. The reason? Black voters will be able to elect candidates of their choice only if they know which ones are Democrats:

Justice concludes black voters need Democratic Party

KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

The Justice Department’s ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their “candidates of choice” – identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.

Several federal and local politicians would like the city to challenge the decision in court. They say voter apathy is the largest barrier to black voters’ election of candidates they prefer and that the Justice Department has gone too far in trying to influence election results here.

You’re darned right they have. I can’t count all the layers of “wrong” in this diktat. Here are a few, as pointed out in the article:

  • The town is majority Black. The problem isn’t African-Americans being denied their franchise, but low Black turnout for local elections. The reporter even interviewed Black town officials who opposed this decision.
  • The town is already solidly Democratic. People interviewed for the article couldn’t recall the last time anyone aligned with Republicans had won an election.
  • The decision insults Black voters in the town, by assuming that only Black candidates could authentically represent Black townsfolk and that those candidates could only be Democratic, and that the voters can’t decide their own interests for themselves.
  • The decision insults the White minority in the town by assuming they’re a) racists who wouldn’t vote for a Black candidate (just how did those Black officials get elected then, when African-American voter turnout is usually low?) and b) so partisan that they’d overlook their racism because the Black candidate is a Democrat.
  • The decision shoots dead the principle of local control over local politics, denying the people their sovereign right to decide their affairs for themselves. Remember, the law the DoJ invalidated was passed by the voters overwhelmingly last November, when Kinston Blacks turned out in large numbers to vote for Obama.  In fact, it was a rare moment when more Blacks than Whites voted there. Is Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder saying Kinston Blacks are so stupid that they would disenfranchise themselves?

When the Voting Rights Act became law in 1965, there was a good reason for it. The old Confederacy (and many parts of the rest of the nation) was dismantling the Jim Crow system of apartheid laws, and Whites in the state and local power structure were trying to rig things to keep themselves on top, often by preventing Blacks from voting at all by hook or crook. Federal intervention was necessary to assure African-American citizens their rights under the Constitution.

But, 54 years later, more than two generations have passed and Blacks are well integrated into the political system; while there may be a need for an occasional intervention, that surely isn’t the case here where, again, the town’s Black majority approved the new law. In fact, I can’t see any reason for it whatsoever, and the decision makes no sense. Given the solid Democratic lock on town offices, it isn’t as if Democrats needed to rig an election to win. There’s no benefit for them in it.

Unlike, say, in Chicago….

Whatever the reason, this is another moment in the Holder Justice Department’s troubling history regarding voting rights. Coincidentally, the Obama appointee who made this ruling also ordered the dropping of voter intimidation charges against New Black Panther Party members in Philadelphia, in a case arising from the 2008 election.

So, question: Is the Justice Department under Barack Obama and Eric Holder just inept, arrogant, and clueless about local realities, or are these parts of an effort to assure there’s a D after the name of every winner?

(via Big Government)

TRIVIA: Speaking of North Carolina, did you know the city of Wilmington is the only place in the United States to experience a coup d’etat? The legally elected government, comprising Black and White Republicans, was overthrown by armed White Democrats.

LINKS: Ed Morrissey writes about the further politicization of the Justice Department. Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy calls the DoJ’s Civil Rights Division “cowardice central.” Background on the politicization of the division from Hans von Spakovsky.