I agree, President Obama is selling the country out to foriegn countries right now.
Kenpo 5-0, you site a couple of cases that were not prosecuted, but what we are talking about here is a DOJ policy coming from Eric Holder and Obama to not enforce the law equally and to use racial criteria for that policy. Wether or not the individual cases you point to were not prosecuted because of race or just not persued for other reasons isn't clear. However, you have at least 2 members of the justice department who testified under oath, under penalty of perjury and contempt of congress, testifying about "policy," not individual cases. that might be the difference.
When he was appointed Chief of the Voting Section in 2008, Coates said that he made it a point to ensure that prospective new trial attorneys in his section agreed that enforcement of the Voting Rights Act should be race neutral. He asked each candidate if they were equally comfortable taking cases that involved alleged discrimination against white voter, as they were taking cases in which minority voters were pressing a claim. This reasonable, equitable inquiry offended the woman that the president appointed as Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in 2009: Loretta King. Coates said that Ms. King directed him to stop asking that question, because “…she does not support equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and had been highly critical of the filing and civil prosecution of the Ike Brown case.” He also referred to other potential Voting Rights Act cases that the DOJ has declined to prosecute, these involving elections in largely African-American communities in which all African-American factions were accused of discriminatory acts directed against opposing, racially-integrated factions. In one of these cases, a bank in which absentee ballots were stored was burned, apparently so votes favorable to the mixed-race faction could not be counted.
That being said, however, I haven't seen anything from a policy standpoint that would show that he is making his decisions based on race. For me, you would be much better off arguing socio-economic issues rather than race issues because they are much easier to prove.
This is very true! We are speaking about chidren here though. I suppose it's ok with you that little fat, ginger Kev gets his head flush in the toilet daily and his lunch money stolen, because you have anger issues with white men. Grow up love!!I wouldn't like to see any young kid hurt of psychologically tortured by little ***** hawks. I think children on the whole should be a protected "class" even among each other.I'm always dismayed that straight white males cry victim like no one's looking out for them ... when the truth is they were looked after and protected for centuries. Now they have to duke it out like everyone else ... oh the horror.
This is very true! We are speaking about chidren here though. I suppose it's ok with you that little fat, ginger Kev gets his head flush in the toilet daily and his lunch money stolen, because you have anger issues with white men. Grow up love!!I wouldn't like to see any young kid hurt of psychologically tortured by little ***** hawks. I think children on the whole should be a protected "class" even among each other.
Race issues, and policy decisions driven by racial agendas are commonly explained away as being solely based in "socio-economic" or "monetary" reasoning. It's easy to do. Even affirmative action politics based on the notion of "under-representation" are often cited as being due to "socio-economic" conditions and not race/cultural implications. That's why we throw money at problems without addressing their root cause... often making the root cause worse.
I disagree, I think there are plenty of instances that both Obama and Holder make policy decisions based on race;
When your race driven policy decisions are too much even for the NAACP....
Well, except for the fact that a two minute internet serarch reveals that the initial investigation, and subsequent determination of racial bias on the Dayton, OH police examination occurred under the Bush Administration. So then Obama would be obliged to do something about the test, in this case, the decision was to lower the passing grade.
From no less than Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/1...cision-lower-police-recruit-test-scores-ohio/):
So why is this an Obama policy again?
Actually it was middle eastern muslims that sold them into slavery.Nor do I think that Americans of african heritage should suffer for the transgressions of their african ancestors, you know, the ones who sold their ancestors into slavery in the first place.
I can't tell if your kidding or not, especially since the simple answer is in your own post.
The decision to force the lowering of "acceptable" test scores to failing levels in order to get more blacks hired (the topic being discussed) was made under Obama/Holder, NOT under Bush. That's a pretty simple concept.
Because an investigation is started by the DOJ while the Bush admin. is making its departure is hardly grounds to blame his administration for the continuation, findings and decision to lower test scores, particularly when it was Obama's decision and happened years into Obama's term.
I realize that any putrid smell in the WH is due to Bush's fart in 08 and not any of Obam's yesterday... but come on.
he can, on his first day, executive order out of anything the previous president did, UNLESS it is a law passed by congress.
here is the thing, the FIRST year of obama the 1st reign, he had an excuse, but now it is MORE than half way through his term.
everything now is on HIM and HIM ALONE
Obama care? HIM
sensing a trend here?
A question, if I may, as someone not as intimately familiar with the workings of the American governmental system as most people here.
In Britain, the first few years of a new governments term are spent actually implementing policies and procedures instigated by the previous Cabinet. Is this the same in the USA? Or is a new president not bound by the decsions of his predecessor?
And I get that. However, the subject up for debate here is that Obama is charging his DOJ with a policy that is racially discriminatory against White people, and that he bases his DOJ policy in a manner that favors Blacks. The evidence used for that has been two cases that began before his administration took office. So it begs the question of how these two cases, even though they span both Bush's and Obama's administration, becomes the sole responsibility of Obama.
Plus, another thing that you may not have realized is that the DOJ did not "force" Dayton, OH to lower the passing testing scores. Dayton came up with a solution to address the charge, once again, made under the Bush Administration, that it's testing was racially biased against Blacks. That solution was to lower the passing score. The Obama Administration accepted that solution as being reasonable and appropriate.
Once again, from Fox News:
So blame Obama all that you want, this was a solution put forth by the City of Dayton, OH, not the DOJ.
Again, while a given case may have begun under the Bush administration, it is the responsibility of Obama because the outcome of the case falls under his administration/DOJ.
It's common knowledge that the the Bush administration and the Obama administration handle DOJ/Civil rights issues with fundamental differences, why you're arguing that point is lost on me.
From the NYT;
"Seven months after taking office, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is reshaping the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division...including voting rights, housing, employment, bank lending practices and redistricting after the 2010 census."
"As part of this shift, the Obama administration is planning a major revival of high-impact civil rights enforcement against policies, in areas ranging from housing to hiring, where statistics show that minorities fare disproportionately poorly. President George W. Bush’s appointees.... preferred to focus on individual cases in which there is evidence of intentional discrimination."
Clearly, its Obama and Holders DOJ.... This is clear by the ongoing attempt to spread the their decision with the Dayton PD to the fire department and beyond to other cities/states with a broad brush.
Incorrect. First of all, anyone with any feeling as to how Obama plays politics is well aware of his propensity for tying the hands of others to get his agenda through...
regardless, Dayton had to comply with the DOJ approved new scoring policy (the new lower passing scores) Dayton FOP protested these scores and asserted that lowering the scores to comply with the DOJ's new scoring policy would create a safety concern for both citizens an officers. Dayton PD complied due to the DOJ putting off their ability to hire months after they were already in desperate need of getting new recruits into the academy. Sure, the city complied with the DOJ's new policy, but they were effectively forced to do so. (http://fox.daytonsnewssource.com/shared/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wkef_vid_6103.shtml)
You continue to say this, as though I care that it is from Fox news. I don't have TV/Cable and haven't since 1997. I have seen Fox news a total of probably 5 or 6 times in my life. My news does not come for TV news stations or much MSM in general.
I have seen and read too many times now, statements from Dayton PD officials / Dayton FOP coming out against what they describe as the DOJ policy. Yes they agreed to it and so are complicit, but to say it wasn't DOJ policy is incorrect. Had they failed to meet the DOJ's new policy, they would have remained on a federally imposed hiring freeze - their hands were tied.