A report issued today by the inspector general of the Department of Justice shows the Civil Rights Division of one of the most powerful organizations in the federal government has widespread hostility to protecting the civil rights of whites.
The 258-page report, issued by the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, highlights deep ideological and political divisions within the Civil Rights Division.
And it says many employees within this division of Attorney General Eric Holder’s DOJ are hostile to the idea white Americans are protected by the Voting Rights Act and even civil rights laws.
Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., was one of the key lawmakers to call for an investigation of the handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation incident during the 2008 presidential election outside a polling place in Philadelphia.
Four members of the NBPP were brought up on charges, but the DOJ dropped them all.
“The report makes clear that the division has become a rat’s nest of unacceptable and unprofessional actions, and even outright threats against career attorneys and systemic mismanagement,” Wolf said in a statement.
The report detailed two cases where the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division filed suit on behalf of white plaintiffs against minority defendants, both of which were in the presidency George W. Bush.
The first was in 2005, when civil action was filed against the Noxubee County, Miss., Democratic Election Committee, and its black chairman, Ike Brown, alleging multiple violations of the Voting Rights Act.
The second was the case involving the NBPP incident at the voting station in Philadelphia, filed in early 2009.
Intense ideological polarization within the Voting Section of the DOJ Civil Rights Division was found in Horowitz report, including:
- “Polarization within the Voting Section has been exacerbated by another factor. In recent years a debate has arisen about whether voting rights laws that were enacted in response to discrimination against blacks and other minorities also should be used to challenge allegedly improper voting practices that harm white voters. Views on this question among many employees within the Voting Section were sharply divergent and strongly held. Disputes were ignited when the Division’s leadership decided to pursue particular cases or investigations on behalf of white victims, and more recently when Division leadership stated that it would focus on “traditional” civil rights cases on behalf of racial or ethnic minorities who have been the historical victims of discrimination.”
- “In 2007, some career employees made offensive and racially charged comments to and about a student intern who volunteered to assist the trial team in the controversial Noxubee matter, which was the first Section 2 case brought against minority defendants on behalf of white voters. Division leadership reprimanded one career attorney and counseled two others for this conduct. We also found that some Voting Section employees criticized and mocked the trial team in e-mails to each other at work, sometimes using inappropriate and intemperate language.”
- The continued polarization within the Voting Section also came into focus during “brown bag” meetings between section personnel and Julie Fernandes, who was Deputy Assistant Attorney General. During one meeting about Section 2 enforcement, in September 2009, Fernandes made comments about Division leadership’s intention to prioritize “traditional civil rights enforcement” on behalf of racial or ethnic minorities. Some career staff interpreted her comments to signal that division leadership had a blanket policy of not pursing Section 2 cases against black defendants or on behalf of white voters.
In an earlier interview WND conducted with former Department of Justice attorney J. Christian Adams, it was made clear the DOJ operates under a climate that is anything but race-neutral when it comes to the application of civil rights law.
“There’s a hostility [in the Department of Justice] toward even conceiving civil rights protect everybody,” Adams told WND in an exclusive interview. “People in the Department of Justice are philosophically opposed to this.”
Adams is a five-year veteran of the Department of Justice. He was a key attorney in pursuing the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, which he deemed “the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law” he ever saw in his career.
He resigned from the DOJ in June of 2010 after the case was ordered dismissed by his superiors.
When asked what will happen if the Department of Justice refuses to step in and prosecute racially motivated attacks, Adams said, “If Eric Holder and the DOJ don’t do something about it, what do you think is going to happen? Of course it’s going to get worse. They are enabling lawless conduct and abandoning law-abiding citizens. That’s what they’ve been doing since they were sworn in.
“They turned a blind eye to the thugs,” he said.
In Adams’ estimation – and his book, “Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department,” offers compelling evidence to support his view – Mark Kappelhoff is against pursuing civil rights violations when they apply to certain groups of people.
Adams said Kappelhoff, the chief of the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, “doesn’t think civil rights laws should be used in this fashion [to protect whites].”
Kappelhoff supervises and manages DOJ attorneys involved in the investigation and prosecution of federal criminal civil rights violations, which include bias-motivated hate crimes.
Adams, who is now a practicing attorney in the Washington, D.C., area, said of the Eric Holder-run Department of Justice, “It’s like gangsters got a greenlight.”
Cherylyn Harley LeBon, co-chairman of Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives, said the 258-page report is a clarion call for a change of culture within the DOJ.
“When the Justice Department had clear evidence of voter intimidation, Attorney General Eric Holder and his deputy, Thomas Perez, looked the other way. They said they were not involved, but the investigation shows that both were involved and pointedly chose not to fully prosecute cases that did not fall into their politically correct interpretation of the law,” said Lebon, a former senior counsel with the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. “Unfortunately, it appears that Holder is spending too much time impeding the implementation of legitimate voter ID legislation in South Carolina and Texas instead of adequately combating blatant forms of harassment under his own roof!”
The head of the controversial New Black Panther Party, Malik Zulu Shabazz, had told WND’s Aaron Klein in September that his group would again deploy outside voting booths – to prevent “intimidation against our people,” he said – and sure enough, the New Black Panthers were out in force.
Including Jerry Jackson.
Jackson, some may recall, was one of the two New Black Panther Party members charged in what is widely considered the most egregious case of voter intimidation in modern times, when he and “Minister King Samir Shabazz” (aka Maurice Heath), the party’s Philadelphia leader, were videotaped on Election Day 2008 wearing paramilitary uniforms, carrying a nightstick and blocking a doorway to a polling location to intimidate voters.
As WND reported, Samir Shabazz was also noteworthy for having said on video: “You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies!”
Jackson was reported by Fox News as being seen during the 2012 election “outside a North Philadelphia voting site wearing the group’s trademark black beret, combat-style uniform and heavy boots. Fox News confirmed he is a designated poll watcher.”
The 2008 dispute centered on two NBPP members accused of standing in front of the entrance to a Philadelphia polling station in uniforms that have been described as paramilitary, with one member wielding a billy club.
According to complaints, both men standing in front of the polling station pointed at voters and shouted racial slurs, using such phrases as “white devil” and, “You’re about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”
Klein’s interview with Shabazz can be heard below:
The original dispute arose over the following video: