Rotating Header Image


225wde_coward_wframe3 This news announces an utterly racist, prejudiced decision by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) as communicated by a “Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.”


By Shannon McCaffrey, The Associated Press
4:09 p.m. June 1, 2009

ATLANTA — The Justice Department has rejected Georgia’s system of using Social Security numbers and driver’s license data to check whether prospective voters are citizens, a process that was a subject of a federal lawsuit in the weeks leading up to November’s election.

In a letter released on Monday, the Justice Department said the state’s voter verification program is frequently inaccurate and has a “discriminatory effect” on minority voters. The decision means Georgia must halt the citizenship checks, although the state can still ask the Justice Department to reconsider, according to the letter and to the Georgia secretary of state’s office.

“This flawed system frequently subjects a disproportionate number of African-American, Asian and/or Hispanic voters to additional, and more importantly, erroneous burdens on the right to register to vote,” Loretta King, acting assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said. King’s letter was sent to Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker on Friday.

The decision comes as Georgia awaits word on whether a law passed in the spring that requires newly registering voters to show proof of citizenship will pass muster with DOJ. Under the law that takes effect in January, people must show their proof up front compared to doing checks through databases.

A three-judge federal panel in October ordered the state to seek Justice Department preclearance for the checks under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the same reason the federal agency must sign off on the new law that made Georgia only the second state after Arizona to require such proof. Georgia is one of several states that need federal approval before changing election rules because of a history of discriminatory Jim Crow-era voting practices.

Secretary of State Karen Handel blasted DOJ’s decision, saying it opens the floodgates for non-citizens to vote in the state.

“Clearly, politics took priority over common sense and good public policy,” said Handel, a Republican candidate for governor in 2010.

Justice Department officials said the citizenship match through driver’s license and Social Security data has flagged 7,007 individuals as non-citizens but that many have been shown to be in error.

“Thousands of citizens who are in fact eligible to vote under Georgia law have been flagged,” the Justice Department letter said.

The Justice Department decision marks the first time the new Democratic Obama administration has weighed in on Georgia’s election laws. It is also the first time the Justice Department has rejected a change in election procedures by Georgia since the 1990s, according to a spokesman for the Georgia attorney general.

“We are pleased with this decision,” said Elise Shore, Southeastern Regional Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “It vindicates our filing of the lawsuit.”

But Handel said that more than 2,100 people who attempted to register in Georgia still have not resolved questions regarding their citizenship. Her office’s inspector general is investigating more than 30 cases of non-citizens casting ballots in Georgia elections, including the case of a Henry County non-citizen who said she registered to vote and cast ballots in 2004 and 2006.

Handel said the checks were designed to follow federal guidelines to ensure the integrity of the vote and that those eligible are casting ballots.

But the ACLU and the Mexican American defense fund sued, saying the efforts amounted to a “systematic purging” of rolls just weeks before the election.

Separately, the U.S., Supreme Court is considering a challenge to the portion of the Voting Rights Act requiring Georgia and select other states to seek approval before tinkering with election law.

Any citizen who may be incorrectly “flagged” as a non-citizen can easily substantiate that they are, indeed, a U.S. citizen and are qualified to vote in the United States of America.

Anyone who isn’t a citizen who is flagged as a non-citizen would obviously be “intimidated” (or) that they’d been identified (as attempting to vote while not being eligible to do so, among other aspects to their lives).

So it’s clear who is “protected” here in this horrible, wretched and utterly racist statement by the DOJ and it is not our nation’s Constitutionally defining rule of law that is protected but a criminal process that is.

And determining that “African-American, Asian or Hispanic” as does this person so assert (“Loretta King, acting assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s civil rights division”) are somehow moreso inconvenienced or caused undue extra effort to vote — compared to the “other people” (which is, this statement so alludes to, White people though the statement cowardly avoids being that direct, just extends the implication by declaring the alternatives there) is about the most racist, vile, prejudicial, if not irrational thing I’ve ever read or heard.

Is it now the DOJ’s position that “African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics” CAN’T substantiate their citizenship or SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO DO SO when seeking to participate in actions that require citizenship inorder to do so? That they’re somehow inept at maintaining or are not required to maintain legitimacy so no one should ask them to be legitimate?

How badly does the DOJ actually think of “African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics” that they’d even suggest they are to be served with secondary — “special” — standards of legitimacy (compared to “White people” as so implied: if the population in Georgia is NOT “African-American, Asians and Hispanics” then they are almost certainly by a near 100% going to be “White people” [Caucasian], so note the DOJ’s sly, cryptic avoidance of spelling that out, which is yet more indication that this decision by them is, indeed, what I’d deem the Epitome of Racism in Action).

The DOJ, if Ms. King’s remarkably obtuse, offensive statement expresses, alleges that to be “African-American, Asian or Hispanic” one is more likely to be unable to substantiate citizenship or have reasons to be confused about citizenship or otherwise be compromised if required to substantiate citizenship, while the implied opposite then is, that “White people” would not experience any of those feelings or conditions and/or are to be presented with more challenging requirements as citizens than any other race or ethnicity, BASED UPON ETHNICITY (“being ‘White’ means you are to be more greatly challenged, by this statement and the implication made therein).

Just how racist IS that? While operating under the ruse of “civil rights,” this decision by today’s permutation of the Department of Justice is actually establishing prejudicial conditions.

Of course ethnic and racial supremacy groups are going to be enthusiastic about this type of deplorable nonsense, because it affirms their ethnic and/or racial supremacy perceptions: to be “African-American, Asian or Hispanic” is to be somehow of a different class than are “White people.

As already pointed out, though the statement does not specifically refer to “White” people or Caucasians, the implication is clear BY their distinguishing “African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics” from Americans in general, leaving little else other than Whites, Native Americans and Aborigines, then, to be those who (so the implication there is) aren’t experiencing citizenship issues or upsets surrounding substantiating U.S. citizenship — complying with a challenge as to substantiating who they are when voting — which is just baloney, an intellectually deprived decision if ever I’ve heard one. The decision itself sets up “African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics” as some sort of super-class above or impervious to U.S. Constitutionality while in the U.S.

Of course the “Mexican American Defense League” is going to hail this decision: what does a Mexican have to do, anyway, with voting in the U.S.? If they’re a Mexican, they’re a citizen of Mexico and not the U.S. so the entire involvement of such an organization, in the U.S., declares by it’s very presence that they’re “defending” people of another nation voting (and therefore, illegitimately) in the U.S., or, they’re your run-of-the-mill ethnic-supremacy organization devoted to “defending” “Mexican” ethnicity.

And what in the world does that have to do with legitimate voting in the U.S. or not? Is it contended that to be “Mexican” one can’t substantiate one’s legitimacy in the U.S.?

To repeat myself, if you’re not a citizen of the U.S., you’re not eligible to vote in the U.S., whether you’re from Mexico, of Mexican DNA or otherwise, whatever “Mexican DNA” even is (yet another subsectioning of ethnicity to serve greater access to taxpayer money, these various ethnic-supremacy organizations — “Mexican” is a term referring to a citizen of Mexico, not to any unique race or ethnicity, but “being ‘Mexican'” is now used by many exploiters in and of the U.S. to fan emotional flames of ethnic-supremacy that then suppresses the entire U.S. Constitutionality of who and what is U.S. citizenship and all that citizenship involves).

What is said here is that there’s one kind of non-legitimacy in this nation lately for anyone who is of some ethnicity or race or whatnot, as long as one is not “White.” So witness the segregation, willingly, wantonly, organizing against Whites (Caucasians, generally) under guise of it being of “civil rights” issue: the application OF racism, the separation and disparagement of Whites, who, so this decision implies and suggests, might be asked, possibly, under this wobbly decision by the DoJ, asked to prove their citizenship before voting, while the rest will not or cannot — I suppose that’s what we have to look forward to in the next bleak missive from this DoJ division.

Errors were made, so the accusations go, in implementing this plan in Georgia (screening for legitimately entitled to vote against the non-qualified, as to who is voting in the state) — it’s alleged as a contention that a “higher number of Blacks” were identified in the screening process than anyone else (which isn’t what the DOJ addressed, specifically, however), and it’s quite likely that, then, a higher number of Blacks in Georgia were registering to vote or voted who may have had compromises in doing so, such as felony convictions, unsubstantiated identities used to register, a range of issues that very probably were present. And those disqualifying characteristics, then, are washed away by this DOJ decision with nary a comment by the DOJ as to likely or probable conditions by which this screening process DID function well; the results of that screening process were not well liked by those with racial and ethnic supremacy perspectives, so the DOJ has enforced their ethnic and/or racial supremacy views by placing their prejudice and even whims “supremely over” the rule of law (because the law defines who can vote and who cannot, among those not able to vote in U.S. elections are illegal aliens and convicted felons).

Any state that identifies a large and persistent segment of illegitimate voters voting has reason to be concerned and to take steps to more accurately monitor who is registered and who is voting accordingly. There’s nothing strange, color-fixed or ethnically-associated with those concerns nor with the obvious solutions, particularly where there are large populations of illegal aliens, as has Georgia (among other states). That the majority of illegal aliens, and therefore, the majority of people attempting to vote illegitimately, are, therefore, from that population of illegal aliens isn’t to target any ethnicity or race-other-than-White, it’s to identify who they are within an identified criminal population (illegal aliens).

But this decision from the DOJ actually services the violation of voting rights, implants and amplifies the criminal process in enabling illegitimate voting (a crime). It is then simple to assume and conclude that someone who is not eligible to vote, who is attempting to vote or who is voting illegally would not want their illegitimate nature (if that be so) identified, and, using the now-allowed-by-the-DOJ exploitation of their race, ethnicity and/or gender, could and would rely on those as pratfall excuse/s to avoid being identified as illegally voting — that is, to attempt to avoid their individual responsibility for their illegitimate actions while Justice purrs in support of that).

So here we have the DOJ encouraging a racist rule and a racist, discriminatory view of “African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics” — while, then, also declaring a discriminatory standard of and about the alternatives to those, who would be, in Georgia, Whites.

With a Department of Justice like that, who needs more criminal enterprise? Apparently, the DOJ thinks Georgia does. In this case, the DoJ represents the violator of civil rights as it also does the enabler of crime.

What and only what this wretched, corrupt decision by the DOJ does is declare, in a nutty nutshell, that it’s fine and dandy to vote if you’re “African-American, Asian or Hispanic” without regard for your legitimacy in doing so. We now have a DOJ acting to make it easier, faster, more fun to engage in crime, IF you’re of their favored race or ethnicity.

Loretta King, by the way, and the same division in the DOJ, are currently targeting Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio for doing his job. The problem appears to be that Arapio does his job too well — he detains too many illegal aliens — so he’s the latest, but predictable, target by influences using our justice system that have clearly lost touch with reality while pursuing their own political, racist and ethnic supremacy plans.

square-red-drk-med1 And behind the scenes? Protesting equal protection under the law as it applies to immigration enforcement? The predictable Leftwing New Ager Democrats, calling themselves, profanely, “God’s politics”, ethnic supremacy and racism goes full throttle, complete with boasts as to ACORN’s involvement:


…who (this non-link reference) accuses of “racial profiling”…

I don’t care to link to the site, but here is the url in non-linking terms:

” blog . sojo . net / 2009 / 03 / 12 / action-alert – victory – department – of – justice – to – investigate – arizona – sheriffs – racial – profiling / ”

Our call for the Department of Justice to investigate Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio has succeeded!

Yesterday, Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King sent a letter to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office announcing a Department of Justice investigation of alleged “discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures conducted by the MCSO,” among other alleged violations of federal law under the direction of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The formal investigation follows a request by Congressman John Conyers (head of the House Judiciary Committee) for the DOJ to respond to the myriad of complaints of racial profiling in Maricopa County.

A racial profiling expert called this the “first civil-rights investigation stemming from immigration enforcement” undertaken by the Department of Justice.

This is exactly what we requested. Sojourners online activists submitted more than 9,000 letters to Attorney General Eric Holder, and alongside other groups like ACORN, National Day Labor Organizing Network, and America’s Voice, the total was well over 35,000.

square-red-drk-med1 Update:

square-red-drk-med1 Update II:
A SYSTEM ERODING – IBD Editorials on the DoJ’s decrepit decision regarding Georgia’s voter registration issue

square-red-drk-med1 Update III:
” — Michelle Malkin

C O M M E N T S : now closed