HIV/AIDS is still, ultimately, a death sentence. It is listed as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). It is our moden black plague. But it is an issue of "civil rights" and "gay rights" for those on the left of our government - and that includes the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ. They can't or won't enforce laws to insure that our ballot boxes remain inviolate, but they can pursue a policy that will surely condemn numerous people to new HIV infections.
South Carolina has a policy in its prisons to test new prisoners for the HIV virus before placing them in the general prison population. If a person is found infected, they are placed in a special facility for the HIV infected where they can immediatly start receiving treatment and councilling. Approximately 50% of those found infected by the initial screening did not know they were infected.
This policy has been virtually foolproof in stopping the spread of HIV through the South Carolina prison population. In humanitarian terms, it is a policy that has insured that the infected get treatment. The policy actually costs South Carolina approximately $2 million per year.
Yet, according to J. Christian Adams, Obama's DOJ is quite willing to place all of South Carolina's prison population - and ultimately the larger population in South Carolina and its environs - in danger in order to vindicate the "civil rights" of those people infected with AIDS. This from Mr. Adams:
. . . South Carolina received a letter from the now-infamous Civil Rights Division that the policy of keeping infected inmates at a designated facility, instead of scattered across the state in the general prison population, may unfairly stigmatize infected prisoners. To the Obama political appointees in the Civil Rights Division, this constitutes discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Justice Department objects to separate living facilities and specialized medical treatment for the HIV/AIDS prison population. Naturally, DOJ has threatened a lawsuit.
. . . The DOJ is in a lose-lose situation. Even if DOJ wins a lawsuit, sources tell me South Carolina is simply going to cancel all of the special testing, treatment and counseling, thereby saving the state $2 million a year.
Instead, the state will dump infected prisoners into the general population, and nobody will know they have AIDS. Worse, prisoners who come to prison with HIV/AIDS will never know they have the disease and their lives will be shortened because the testing program will end.
Special counseling would end, too. . . .
Justice raises three primary objections to this effective and humane approach. First, it prevents infected prisoners "from participating in activities and jobs of their choosing." Leave it to bureaucrats in Washington to concoct the grievance that prisoners have choices when it comes to activities in the first place.
Second, DOJ claims the South Carolina program is unconstitutional, something the courts have repeatedly rejected. Once again we see the rule of law falling by the wayside when it comes to decisions of this Civil Rights Division. This is the same Civil Rights Division that was sanctioned more than $4 million during the Clinton administration for bringing cases as frivolous as the one against South Carolina prisons.
Third, with all the pragmatism of a sociology lecture at Harvard, DOJ argues that the separation of the HIV/AIDS prisoners "stigmatizes" the prisoners. Ozmint responds, "Prison is a voluntary activity; breaking the law, earning a criminal record, and wearing 'state issue,' all stigmatize. Since one purpose of prison is punishment, this stigmatization is somewhat intentional." How refreshing. . . .
It is one thing to protect the rights of "minorities" from baseless discrimination. But concern about HIV/AIDS is anything but baseless. The Civil Rights division is simply out of control. At a minimum, people in jail have an 8th Amendment Right to be free from "cruel and unusual" punishment which, I am sure most courts would define to include the likelihood of HIV transmission. Adams is right. The Civil Rights Division is out of control. As is virtually the entire Obama administration.
To promote equality of rights and to eradicate caste or race prejudice among the citizens of the United States; to advance the interest of colored citizens; to secure for them impartial suffrage; and to increase their opportunities for securing justice in the courts, education for the children, employment according to their ability and complete equality before law.
Mission Statement, Charter of the National Association For The Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), 1911
. . . I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." . . .
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. . . .
Martin Luther King, Jr, Speech at the Lincoln Memorial, 28 August 1963
What has happened to so thoroughly corrupt the "civil rights" movement in America. Once it was a noble and laudable struggle for equality. Today, at best, it is nothing more than a naked political tool of the left, to be trotted out as a means of destroying the credibility of the left's opponents. It has nothing to do with achieving equality. It has everything to do with political power and money.
Exhibit 1 - on Tuesday, in a nakedly political move, the NAACP's Board of Directors perpetrated an atrocious libel, voting to condemn the Tea Party for "tolerating racism."
The resolution initially said the NAACP would "repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties" and stand against the movement's attempt to "push our country back to the pre-civil rights era," though the wording was amended to downplay criticism of all Tea Partiers while asking them to repudiate bigots in their own ranks.
"We take no issue with the Tea Party movement. We believe in freedom of assembly and people raising their voices in a democracy," the NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous said in a written statement announcing the unanimous vote. "What we take issue with is the Tea Party's continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements.
"The time has come for them to accept the responsibility that comes with influence and make clear there is no place for racism and anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry in their movement."
NAACP leaders have referenced an incident in March when Tea Party protesters allegedly hurled racial epithets at black lawmakers on Capitol Hill ahead of a health care vote.
The "March incident" refers to when members of the Black Caucus went out into the crowd of Tea Party protesters seeking to solicit any hint of racism. Later that day, several of the members of the Black Caucus claimed to have heard numerous racial slurs hurled at them. They had Jesse Jackson Jr. walking behind them recording their march through the protests. Virtually every broadcast news network and a great many individuals were also recording. Yet not a single bit of evidence has been produced to substantiate their claim. In other words, Rep. Clyburn and every other member of the Black Caucus seem, in fact, to be engaging in slander of grotesque proportions.
None of that has stopped the left from using the "March incident" to tag the Tea Party with racism, and equally outrageous, none of it has stopped the left wing MSM from playing right along. ABC hyped these scurrilous charges, as did the AP, in their reporting of the NAACP's vote to tag the Tea Party with racism.
Elsewhere in just the past week, we were treated to Jesse Jackson twisting Cleavland Cavaliers owner's statement of displeasure at the lack of loyalty of Lebron James into the most vile of racist charges. Most people merely shrugged. It was just Jesse being Jesse.
Then we have one of more odious individuals on the planet, Louis Farakhan, a man who preaches hatred and racism with every move of his tongue, demanding reparations from "the Jews" for the their history of racism and their role in enslaving the blacks. It actually makes a nice circle to this post to point out that the founders of the NAACP were three white people, and one of those three was in fact Jewish - Henry Moscowitz. Historically, Jews were deeply involved in the efforts to achieve racial equality for blacks. It is estimated that "50 percent of the civil rights attorneys in the South during the 1960s were Jews, as were over 50 percent of the Whites who went to Mississippi in 1964 to challenge Jim Crow Laws." None of that of course makes a dent in the wall of ignorance and reverse racism that oozes from the pours of Farrakhan. Nor does it matter to Farakhan that the worst of the worst when it came to the slave traders have been Muslims - and that includes the enslavement of blacks. It should also be noted that the high minded NAACP, while asking the Tea Party to denounce anti-Semitism in their ranks (is their any), is wholly ignoring the single most virulent font of anti-semitism in the U.S. today - Louis Farakhan.
Then there is Obama, a President deeply, if not overtly, involved in the politics of race. Instead of trying to "heal the racial divide," Obama has injected racism ever more into the laws and the national dialogue. What does it say when the First Lady, Michelle Obama, speaks at the NAACP Convention the day before they vote to tag the Tea Party as racists. What does it say when Obama chides the police for arresting Henry Louis Gates, himself a race baiter of the first order, when Gates refused to cooperate with police conducting a lawful search.
Then there are Obama's legislative proposals. Obama's proposed new financial regulations do not merely continue the race based social engineering into lending standards that brought us to financial ruin, they actually expand that engineering. Further those same regulations establish de facto hiring quotas for minorities and women throughout the financial industry.
All of that is vast racial overreach by Obama. But then there is racial corruption at DOJ. Crediting the testimony of whistleblower J. Christian Adams, the DOJ is no longer accepting voting rights cases in which the defendant is black, they are refusing to enforce the law requiring states to scrub their voting rolls, thus suborning vote fraud, and they have lied to Congress about the decision to drop the civil prosecution of the New Black Panthers. And as outrageous as all of that is, it is perhaps dwarfed by the decision of the Holder DOJ to refuse to answer lawful subpoenas from the Office of Civil Rights seeking to investigate these charges.
And on a final note, there is the ultimate betrayal - the fact that virtually all of the "black leadership," in pushing their vile reverse racism, are doing precious little to actually improve the plight of that significant minority of blacks still mired in the poverty and violence of inner cities. These race hustlers preach and push everything through the lens of racism to accrete power and wealth. They would keep all blacks focused on America circa 1859 for the same reason. They don't preach advancement, they preach balkanization. Merely juxtapose two relatively recent bits of news to demonstrate this reality.
The first bit - the death of former KKK member Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Byrd was never a believer in equality of man. As the Daily Caller points out, he did not merely vote against both the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he filibustered the latter for three months. "In 1997, he voted against a voucher program for D.C.; when the program passed almost a decade later despite his objections, it ended up helping African-American students in ways that the District’s failed public schools could not." Yet upon his death, this same man was feted by the NAACP.
Juxtapose against that the utter travesty of Obama and the left's handling of the school voucher program in DC. By all accounts, the DC voucher program was a huge success, offering hope to numerous inner city students whose public school system was the worst in the nation. Within months of his coronation, Obama shut the program down. Why he did so is not a mystery. On the one hand were blacks mired in poverty who were benefiting significantly from a program. Weighed against their plight was a teachers union flush with money taken involuntarily from all teachers and who did not want to see the voucher program continue. It was no contest. So where was the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan and the Congressional Black Caucus when Obama decided to end the DC Voucher Program?
And to it all, a corrupt media yawns, imposing on America the most outrageous of double standards. Where people should be hounded out of office and the public square for their vile reverse racism, for their gross hypocrisy, they instead given a pass by the media and feted by the left. It is perverse and grossly unfair. Most of America supported the call for equality of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the NAACP, else it would not have happened. There can be no doubt whatsoever that most of America fully supports the notion of equality today. But what the NAACP, the "black leaders," and the far left in Washington are seeking today has absolutely nothing to do with racial equality. And tagging Middle America as racist - not the brightest of moves. I said two years ago that electing Obama would set back race relations in America by decades, because it was clear from his history that his claim that he would "heal the racial divide" was purely false. His entire history pointed in the opposite direction.
I am heartened by two things in this video. One is how widespread and effective alternative media has evidently become. The DOJ's dismissal of the New Black Panther case - and the testimony of J. Christian Adams regarding the racial animus / favoritism behind the dismissal - has been the subject of a liberal MSM black-out. Yet from the sound of it, everyone in the room with Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA 27) knew all about it. And two, I am heartened by how difficult it is getting for our representatives to feign ignorance.
Former career DOJ attorney J Christian Adams has made several damning indictments of the Obama DOJ in the past several days - that the New Black Panther case was dropped on racial grounds, that reverse racism pervades the DOJ's Voting Rights section, and that one or more members of the DOJ has testified falsely to Congress. But as serious as those charges are, they pale in comparison to his latest charge made in sworn testimony before the Civil Rights Commission - that the DOJ is deliberately refusing to pursue cases requiring states to update and verify their voting rolls. In essence, this is aiding and abetting - if not suborning - vote fraud. This from John Fund at the WSJ:
. . . Mr. Adams leveled an even more explosive charge beyond the Panther case. He testified that last year Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes made a jaw-dropping announcement to attorneys in Justice's Voting Rights section. She said she would not support any enforcement of a key section of the federal "Motor Voter" law -- Section 8, which requires states to periodically purge their voter rolls of dead people, felons, illegal voters and those who have moved out of state.
According to Mr. Adams, Justice lawyers were told by Ms. Fernandes: "We're not interested in those kind of cases. What do they have to do with helping increase minority access and turnout? We want to increase access to the ballot, not limit it."
If true, Ms. Fernandes was endorsing a policy of ignoring federal law and encouraging potential voter fraud. Ms. Fernandes was unavailable for comment yesterday, but the Justice Department has issued a statement accusing Mr. Adams of "distorting facts" in general and having a political agenda.
But there is some evidence backing up Mr. Adams. Last year, Justice abandoned a case it had pursued for three years against Missouri for failing to clean up its rolls. When filed in 2005, one-third of Missouri counties had more registered voters than voting-age residents. What's more, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat who this year is her party's candidate for a vacant U.S. Senate seat, contended that her office had no obligation to ensure individual counties were complying with the federal law mandating a cleanup of their voter rolls.
The case made slow but steady progress through the courts for more than three years, amid little or no evidence of progress in cleaning up Missouri's voter rolls. Despite this, Obama Justice saw fit to dismiss the case in March 2009. Curiously, only a month earlier, Ms. Carnahan had announced her Senate candidacy. Missouri has a long and documented history of voter fraud in Democratic-leaning cities such as St. Louis and Kansas City. Ms. Carnahan may now stand to benefit from voter fraud facilitated by the improperly kept voter rolls that she herself allowed to continue.
Mr. Adams' allegations would seem to call for the senior management of Justice to be compelled to testify under oath to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. But Justice is making none of its officials available and is refusing to enforce subpoenas issued by the commission. The more this story develops, the more it appears Justice is engaged in a massive coverup of its politicization of voting rights cases.
On a related note, as to our modern "early voting" practices, see this from Tom Blumer at Bizzy Blog.
The bedrock foundation of our nation is the sanctity of the ballot box. If our citizens come to perceive that fraud pervades their vote, then people will begin to feel that their vote does not count and that they are being ruled by people who have gotten their seat by criminal means. When that happens, democracy ends and blood in the streets begins. The left is playing a dangerous game indeed.
PJTV covers the testimony before the Civil Rights Commission given by J. Christian Adams on reverse racism in the DOJ as well as the decision of the DOJ to cease prosecution in the New Black Panther case. Someone needs to go to jail over this. As an aside, apparently two Democratic members of the Civil Rights division did not bother to appear at the hearing.
As Hot Air points out, the subjects of prosecution in the New Black Panther case were not exactly just "nice guys caught in a single instance of bad judgment." Here they are in action in other locales. Do watch.
How does one define "politicized?" Everyone likely remembers how the left cried "politicization" over the Bush Administration decision to can several Assistant AG's because they did not follow up on voting rights cases. But every administration prioritizes classes of cases that they want to see Justice pursue. What Bush did was nothing different. That certainly did not stop the left wing spin machine from howling "politicization." But if the word politicization is to have any meaning, it must be something more far more insidious than merely setting priorities. It must mean lawlessness, unequal application of the law, or falsifying facts for political reasons. And we are seeing numerous outrageous examples of it from within the bowels of the Obama and Clinton Administrations - as well as, of course, the MSM.
First there was Elena Kagan, currently undergoing hearings as Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court. When she worked in the Clinton White House, in an effort to justify Clinton's veto of a law banning partial birth abortion, she was involved in the alteration of an American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology report. ACOG could find no set of circumstances where late term partial birth abortion was necessary to preserve the health of the mother. But Kagan herself added the language 'the partial-birth-abortion procedure “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.'" Read the whole story here and here. ACOG amazingly remained silent after the alteration and for years it went not merely unpublicized, but Kagan's language served as the basis for several court rulings. In short, Kagan was part of a major fraud involving the politicization of science.
Then there was Obama Interior Dept. which, a few weeks ago, convened a panel of experts on offshore oil drilling. At the conclusion of the panel, the Interior Dept. forwarded the experts a draft of a report for their approval. Only after receiving the expert's approval did the Interior Dept. insert into the final report the lie that these experts supported Obama's decision to impose a six month moratorium on offshore oil drilling. Fortunately these experts, unlike the AOGC, chose to immediately point out the falsity.
The above are casebook examples of the politicization of science. But then there is politicizing the administration of our laws. If former career Justice Dept. Attorney J. Christian Adams is to be believed, that is precisely what is occurring.
Obama, who promised to lead us into post-racial America, instead has saddled us with a Justice Dept. that uses race to determine whether or not to apply the law. To be more specific, if you are black and engaged in voter intimidation or voter fraud, you may well get a free pass from Obama's Justice Dept. Do see this entire interview:
If possible, even more outrageous is that the Justice Dept. has refused to respond to lawful subpoenas from the Office of the Civil Rights Division seeking to investigate DOJ's unequal enforcement of the laws based on racial preferences. Apparently, the Justice Dept. is not only engaged in unequal application of the law, but holds itself to be above the law.
All of this should be not merely front page news across the nation, but is of the ilk that the press should be harping on until guilty parties are held liable. It is not, of course, because the MSM itself is politicized. Take for example the recent exposure of Ezra Klein's invitation only Journolist-site which brought together some 400 left wing members of the press. This from Andrew Breitbart:
Ezra Klein’s “JournoList 400” is the epitome of progressive and liberal collusion that conservatives, Tea Partiers, moderates and many independents have long suspected and feared exists at the heart of contemporary American political journalism. Now that collusion has been exposed when one of the weakest links in that cabal, Dave Weigel, was outed. Weigel was, in all likelihood, exposed because – to whoever the rat was who leaked his emails — he wasn’t liberal enough. . . .
I think we’ve seen a paradigm shift, and that the March 20 story will be remembered by conservatives as evidence of how the media accepts attacks on conservatives without due diligence. . . .
. . . The “JournoList” is the story: who was on it and which positions of journalistic power and authority do they hold? Now that the nature and the scope of the list has been exposed, I think the public has a right to know who shapes the big media narratives and how. . . .
As we already uncovered in our expose on the “Cry Wolf” project, members of academia and think tanks are actively working to form the narrative used by the press to thwart conservative messages. Like a ventriloquist’s dummy, the reporters on the listserv mimicked the talking points invented and agreed upon by the intellectuals who were invited to the virtual cocktail party that was Klein’s “JournoList.”
And let us not forget the participation of Media Matters in the larger picture of intimidation and mockery for any reporter, like Weigel, who dares stray from the one acceptable liberal narrative in the media. Flying its false flag as a “media watchdog,” the $10 million-or-so per year agitprop command center creates and promotes a system of conformity in which it relentlessly attacks anyone who strays from the Soros-funded party orthodoxy.
The deluge of intimidation showered upon the occasional heretic by Media Matters represent another distinct layer in the media infrastructure that ensures true believer liberals are overrepresented and conservatives had better watch their step.
The fact that 400 journalists did not recognize how wrong their collusion, however informal, was shows an enormous ethical blind spot toward the pretense of impartiality. As journalists actively participated in an online brainstorming session on how best to spin stories in favor of one party against another, they continued to cash their paychecks from their employers under the impression that they would report, not spin the agreed-upon “news” on behalf of their “JournoList” peers.
The American people, at least half of whom are the objects of scorn of this group of 400, deserve to know who was colluding against them so that in the future they can better understand how the once-objective media has come to be so corrupted and despised. . . .
So at any rate, if during the Bush years you were scratching your head wondering what the word "politicized" - a word splashing across your screen every few minutes - meant, well, now you have some real world examples to define the word for you. That is of course not the only difference between today and the Bush years. Today, you are hearing the word "politicized" a lot less, if at all. It must have fallen out of favor on Journolist.
Posts
