Earlier this year J. Christian Adams resigned his Justice Department position and began discussing the new administration’s policy of inequality under the rule of law. This story, which should have been national news, petered out over the past few months. However, there’s a new whistleblower in town corroborating everything Adams said. And it’s not just anyone, it is Christopher Coates, the former Justice Department Voting Rights section chief.
Despite news coverage of this lack of response thanks Eric Holder’s discriminatory direction. New Blank Panthers who threatened voters and verbalized racial slurs, clearly in violation of the law, were never charged. Not only was Chris Adams characterized as a disgruntled employee, but he was forbidden by his former employer to testify if subpoenaed by the US Commission on Civil Rights. Adams left and the story died. Adams was quoted as accusing fellow employees as making comments such as , “this is payback.”
Now Chris Coates, Section Chief, and a vigorous, award winning, litigator for the DOJ, his career has spanned more than three decades, now intends to testify against his former employer. Coates resigned months ago unable to rationalize politicizing his department’s primary purpose. In opposition to the blatant conflict of interest that has been orchestrated by Eric Holder, Chris will appear in court despite obvious pressure exerted upon him to remain silent.
This crucial testimony will uncover the illegal abandonment of duty based upon racial bias and in violation of civil rights laws. Coates testimony will necessitate proceedings against the Department of Justice. As before with Christian Adams, their defense strategy will probably entail trying to discredit Coates by portraying him as yet just one more disgruntled attorney who is making unfounded allegations. The only other possible defense would be to feign ignorance of the internal policy of the DOJ that had dictated an illegal leniency for black offenders. Either defense will prove preposterous. To depict Chris Coates, one of the most prolific defenders of civil rights as a right wing protester to an ideological argument will not bode well for Obama or Eric Holder. It will expose them!
Will the main stream media cover this new development in this story? Shouldn’t this be something the American people are made aware of? There are a few reasons they could sweep this under the rug again.
Could it be that the media is just liberal-leaning and delivers the news much like today’s Justice Department selectively litigates cases? Could “white guilt” be the culprit? Where is the objectivity? Whatever the reason for the media stonewall, the age-old axiom of “blind justice” does not apply to Eric Holder’s Justice Department.
Larry Elder comes to the defense of Rand Paul in this truth-telling article today.
Libertarian Rand Paul, Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate from Kentucky, shocked many conservatives when he refused to give full-throated support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act criminalized public sector racial discrimination, and struck down laws that required discrimination and segregation. But it went much further. It outlawed racial discrimination by private actors such as restaurant and hotel owners who refused to serve blacks.
National Review’s Rich Lowry, for example, wrote: “[T]he Civil Rights Act was the last spasm of the Civil War. The South had frustrated the imposition of black civil rights during Reconstruction in a low-grade insurgency that successfully rumbled on into the 1960s. Black civil rights weren’t going to be vindicated any time soon, absent the application of federal power again … I’m sympathetic to libertarianism, but it sometimes has a weakness for theoretical exercises removed from reality.”
This sounds like a white, guilt-ridden rationalization to justify an abandonment of principle. And it has real world, not merely “theoretical,” consequences. For one thing, it encourages grievance-driven race-based identity politics — and invites special-interest legislation to protect all manner of niche groups perceived as having been “held down by The Man.” It is in these waters that professional victim seekers and exploiters like the Rev. Al Sharpton, race and gender “advocacy groups,” and the Democratic Party do their fishing.
Sean Hannity, rather vigorously, defends Rand Paul’s position on the CRA to a caller on his radio show. He defends it by pointing out the hypocrisy of the argument against Paul.
There’s so much to say about the recent Rand Paul and Rachel Maddow event that it’s difficult to know where to begin. By now every reader of this site has probably seen Rand Paul’s appearance on Maddow’s show last week when he answered Maddow’s questions about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with philosophy instead of soundbites. He answered like a libertarian academic rather than a Republican politician. I find this to be refreshing rather than flawed unlike most of the surface-dwelling progressives castigating and misrepresenting Paul following his remarks.
The question, as it pertains to the Civil Rights Act is, should the government make it illegal for a private business owner to discriminate or should consumers in the marketplace determine whether a private business owner stays in business due to his discriminatory practices?
Market forces, if they are truly free from regulation, produce equality far more pure than any government can create through force of law. Unfortunately, it is human nature to intervene and humans run the government so it is unlikely this assertion will ever become provable beyond doubt.
There are many people better than I am at arguing these points and defending Rand Paul on this issue.
I feel like I’ve become a bit of a collector, so to speak, of attacks on Ron Paul. There really haven’t been any new attacks on Ron Paul since 2007. The attackers all parrot one another while flapping around in a self-congratulatory, moronic bubble of intellectual laziness.
Let’s dig a little deeper and attempt to un-attack Ron Paul. Here is my collection.
The “guilt by association” attack:
This is probably the most commonly-used attack on Ron Paul. Paul was criticized for “accepting” a $500 donation during his campaign from a white supremacist. Of course, the Paul campaign didn’t find out about the donor until it came to light after the donation was made. He refused to return the donation. Instead he argued that it would be better to spend the money wisely in the name of freedom for all rather than returning $500 to a known white supremacist. Some see this as a cop-out. It could also be argued that it was Paul upholding freedom of speech found in the First Amendment. Yes, unfortunately for some, the First Amendment does protect all speech, not just agreeable speech.
People choose to support any given candidate for all kinds of odd reasons. It’s quite common for people to vote for the most likable candidate regardless of the candidate’s political views. I can’t fathom this reasoning (or lack thereof). There are probably some really “scum of the earth” type of people who voted for and supported Barack Obama and John McCain. The reality is that candidates cannot choose their supporters; therefore, they should not be condemned through them.
Note: The inspiration for this article originated in Chapter 1 of Judge Andrew Napolitano’s “Lies The Government Told You,” which I would be remiss not to mention. However, the Judge mostly focuses on the history of discrimination against African-Americans and former slaves, and the resulting affirmative action laws that exist today. I felt that a broader approach was warranted due to the profound implications that state-supported collectivist preference (or outright servitude) has for us all.
From the founding of this nation’s government, we have lived in a society where “all men are created equal,” but are not treated that way. In fact, at some point in America’s short history, you can probably find an example where your ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or religion has received the short end of the state’s disregard for one of the basic rights that they claim to protect. Such discrimination has also occurred in nearly every administration, across party lines, in good economic times and bad, in times of war and of peace. A common thread can be seen in each case: the discrimination has been driven by political motives and the expansion of state power.
For starters, despite the language in the Declaration of Independence, slaves of African descent were not considered equals when it came time to ratify the Constitution. Although some of the Founders were opposed to slavery (such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin), the institution was nonetheless implemented and was kept in tact – largely for economic reasons – until after the Civil War. Even when Abraham Lincoln took office, the only major push to end slavery – the Emancipation Proclamation – was made for political reasons by Lincoln, who wished to create a slave uprising in the Confederate states.
Throughout the first half of the 20th century, racial segregation continued to oppress African-Americans, mostly for the political benefit of those in power (affluent white males). Starting in the 1910s and 20s, the federal government embarked on a national housing segregation program which denied housing loans to those living in “areas in decline” (majority black neighborhoods), since it was believed that the presence of blacks in a white neighborhood would bring down property values. Historically black neighborhoods were destroyed to make way for elevated highways which connected white neighborhoods. Politicians, eager to gain the votes of those white voters in the majority opinion, happily violated the rights of the minority race, both to gain re-election and to expand government power in housing and transportation.
Editor’s Note: Sometimes it’s good to listen to the other side with an open mind because perhaps they know better. This article about Ron Paul was sent to us by our neo-conservative friend, Richard Deekbag, founder of the following website (we apologize for the length of the URL):
I mean just look at the guy. Ron Paul is all skinny, old, and wrinkly. His speeches are rambling diatribes supporting the long debunked conspiracy theory known as the U.S. Constitution. Everyone knows the Constitution expired more than 100 years ago and has no place in our Conservative-Progressive-Democratic-Socialist-Liberal-Republican (ConProDemSocLibRep) society.
After all it was Ru Paul’s isolationist ideas that lead America into its darkest period following the Revolutionary War after his idiotic idols, the Founding Fathers, defeated the British occupiers. Well, they were more like friendly visitors than occupiers. Visitors that honored the American colonies by taxing them heavily and treating them like peasants.
Everyone knows by now that Ron Paul’s efforts to abolish the massively successful Federal Reserve bank is kookier than cookies. The Fed has been our savior over and over and over and over and over again over the years. If it weren’t for the Fed the so-called “Great Depression” would have been much shorter. That’s a gigantic problem because we needed it to last much longer just to prove that government regulation is the lifeblood of the economy!
The morons who are adding the “N word” to the end of “You Lie!” need to simmer down. Yes, that means you Jimmy Carter.
Following Joe Wilson’s outburst during Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress I suggested he was merely representing his constituents. I also suggested that he’s probably a liar too, but not many picked up on that. They were too interested in discussing how disrespectful it was for a man to yell two words at the President during his address, two words that probably should have been three words: “We all lie!”
But what I’m most miffed about is all these charges of racism going around. There’s nothing about what Joe Wilson said that was racist. Those jumping to conclusions about race are instigating racism instead of helping prevent it. Now Jimmy Carter says he believes that Wilson’s comment was “based on racism.” Well I suppose that settles it.
The bottom line is that it is not in any way racist to disagree with the President on health care or any number of issues. Why does having a black President turn so many into race-card-playing Al Sharptons? If this is the way it is 9 months into Obama’s Presidency I’m really starting to worry how this country will be 2-3 years from now.
Here’s a tip. Unless the person disagreeing with Obama is wearing a white hood, is burning a cross, or actually says or writes something that is racist, put your race card back in your pocket where it belongs. If you don’t, you are perpetuating racism by “crying wolf” when there is no “wolf” to be found.
Instead of straw-man-jumping directly to racism in your counter-arguments why not argue the actual issue? If you don’t then you are only reinforcing that you have no counter-argument.
Jimmy Carter is setting a very bad example. Do the opposite.
Perhaps the headline above should read MSNBC turns blacks and whites against each other. In the clip below MSNBC reports on the gun carrying “racists” at Obama’s town hall meetings. The footage they show of the man carrying the rifle does not reveal the man’s face nor skin color. The man is black.
The reason they choose these camera angles becomes obvious as the report unfolds. Revealing the man’s race would not fit their version of the story. They’d look idiotic if they talked about all these “white people” carrying guns at Obama events if the one they showed was actually black. As it turns out they look not only idiotic but extremely biased.
By the way, what former Presidential assassin goes by the name “Mark” Hinckley? At least that comment appears accidental.
The question of secession was more or less settled during the Civil War. Thanks to that low point in American history the right of secession has been tied to slavery ever since. Isn’t it time again to make an effort of untying that knot?
I will not complicate the untying of that knot by quoting our Founders nor Abraham Lincoln. I will instead make an attempt to use logic. It is up to whomever reads this to decide if I’m successful in this endeavor.
The right of secession is a claim of freedom from the State. It is a rejection of State slavery. It is purely libertarian yet it has always been associated with the “peculiar institution” which was a complete rejection of liberty. Slavery has muddied the secession debate to the point that it is difficult for anyone to sound off in favor of secession without being demonized as a kook (at best) or a white supremacist (at worst).
I want to claim publicly, before I get labeled, I abhor slavery in all forms. It is pure evil. How hypocritical it was for the Confederate States to use States Rights in an attempt to continue violating human rights. It is also quite hypocritical today for those who claim to believe in liberty to marginalize those that support secession as a recourse for combating creeping State tyranny. Such tyranny is nothing more than a form of collective slavery.
How can individual slavery be so wrong and collective State-sponsored, taxpayer-funded slavery be right? The answer, of course, is that it cannot. Slavery in all forms is immoral, whether it be evidenced through the government’s incrementalist approach of freedom reduction or by the sound of a whip gashing a man’s back. The drama of the latter should not minimize the evil of the former.
To be a supporter of secession while denouncing human slavery is consistent and moral in the cause of liberty.
History has shown that one era’s fringe is another era’s mainstream. It is unlikely that secession would be considered a viable option by the masses for combating the ceaseless expansion of government today, thanks in large part to those that feel compelled to associate it with slavery. The secession principle is wholly libertarian and deserves more respect than it is receiving from the detractors.
Ron Paul has been a favorite target of the detractors because of his recently released pro-secession video. In it he focuses on the right message, the principle of secession. Instead of attacking Ron Paul we should be emulating him.
If we make the effort to unmuddy the water of secession in our time perhaps the next generation won’t be afraid to swim in its clarity. After we are gone they will thank us for our eternal vigilance so they still know liberty.
Liberty Maven
Loading ...
