Attorney General Eric Holder said that he was going to pursue civil rights. Holder called us a “nation of cowards” for failing to protect the rights of all Americans. Holder’s words ring hollow and partisan in light of the Justice Department’s recent actions. His team is applying the rule of law selectively according to his ideology, instead of objectively. Is this the dream that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. espoused? No, he did not want to change positions with whites - allowing blacks to become oppressors. King argued that all the rights and privileges of the constitution should apply to all Americans - regardless of color or creed.I was actually appalled when I first discovered that the Justice Department did not criminally prosec
ute Black Panther Party members for voter intimidation at the polls. It was even more fascinating to hear J. Christian Adams’ (the ex - Justice Department official) testimony before the US Commission on Civil Rights. He declared very clearly that “over and over again” the department had shown “hostility” toward cases that involved black defendants and white victims, favoring the defendants. He went on to say, “We abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens.” In other words, Adams was blowing the whistle on a kind of reverse racism.As if this were not enough, on Tuesday July 6, Robert Gibbs made a rather startling statement. He could not explain why the Justice Department would bring a lawsuit against the State of Arizona (claiming that their most recent immigration laws attempt to supplant current federal law), while allowing the self-proclaimed “Sanctuary Cities” to function without challenge. He told the reporter who asked the question, “I’ll have to get back to you.”
As we know, the Sanctuary City term refers to municipalities that refuse to use municipal funds or resources to enforce federal immigration laws, in direct defiance of Federal law. Typically, they forbid municipal employees or police to inquire about a person’s immigration status. Undocumented aliens are free to go about their lives without fear of arrest despite their violation of federal laws. Just like the Black Panther case, in the name of creating justice, good laws are being ignored.
Consider the New Black Panther case and its history for a moment. The Justice Department abandoned the New Black Panther Party case last year, after winning a default judgment in federal court in April due to Black Panther members’ failure to appear. The charges against the Panthers stemmed from an incident on Election Day in 2008 in Philadelphia. Party members were videotaped in front of a polling place, while dressed in military-style uniforms and recorded hurling racial slurs at voters. One of them was even carrying a nightstick. The Holder Justice Department dropped the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree not carry a “deadly weapon” anywhere near a polling place until 2012.
The Black Panther ideology of hate is at the very roots of the organization. For example, two of its leaders, Khalid Abdul Muhammad, who led the original Black Panthers from 1993-2001, and Malik Zulu Shabazz, the leader of the New Black Panthers, have made numerous anti-Semitic statements. They have spoken hatefully, laying the issues of the Holocaust, slavery, and even September 11th events at the Jews’ feet. The Party holds to a conspiracy theory that states that 4000 Jews called in “sick” that day as they had advance knowledge of the attacks.
In 2007, New Black Panther Party leader, Shabazz, was interviewed on the O’Reilly Factor program by Michelle Malkin. In the wake of the Duke University Lacrosse bogus rape case, Shabazz had protested at the university and during multiple interviews, demanding that the three players be convicted. In his interview with Malkin, Shabazz showed his dissatisfaction with the outcome of the trial. He stated that the players were exonerated because of pressure applied by the rich white community. He refused to apologize for his incendiary statements made during the trial. He went on to accuse Malkin of becoming a “political prostitute for a racist like Bill O’Reilly.”
What does the original Black Panther Party think about the New Black Panthers? Several members of the original group as well as members of the Huey P. Newton Foundation (named after the co-founder of the original party) have registered their repugnance of the new movement. The Newton Foundation released a statement, which denounced the new party, stating that the new group took on the name of “Black Panthers” when they had failed “to find its own legitimacy in the black community.”
If the original members are denouncing the New Black Panther Party, why should the Justice Department give them acknowledgment and even, favor? Eric Holder is acting in a blatantly prejudicial manner. He needs to uphold the justice he took an oath to maintain. Our justice is for all the people - black and white, rich and poor. It is time to call the Justice Department to account and bring it back to the service of the people.
On This Day in History:
1815 Napoleon Bonaparte captured
1937 Japanese invade China
1964 Goldwater nominated for President by Republicans
1971 Nixon announces visit to People's Republic of China
Now, here is a clip of our Attorney General admitting to a Congre3ssional Investigation that, although he had already gone on record as intending to sue Arizona for it's immigration law, he had not yet even read the bill!
No comments:
Post a Comment