DOJ official: “The law was written to protect black people.”
Civil Rights Commissioner Gail Heriot deserves a round of applause. Of all the many interesting things in the report on the New Black Panther dismissal by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, none was as revealing as the revelation that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes made it clear to a large public audience that the voting rights laws weren’t meant to protect white voters from discrimination. “The law was written to protect black people,” she told them. Commissioner Heriot digs this disgraceful Fernandes quote up. She made it before she was the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in front of an audience of fellow travelers who certainly agreed with her. Of course Fernandes is literally correct in the most minimalist and irrelevant sense. But the law that was written in fact protected more than black people. It protects whites, Hispanics and everyone else. This helps explain why the DOJ has kept Fernandes under wraps and out of the public eye since Coates and I testified about her racialist attitude. These are the sorts of explicit outrageous statements that should disqualify someone from employment in the Civil Rights Division instead a enjoying a full wagon circle by the DOJ. Had a similar racialist statement been made by a conservative-leaning lawyer inside DOJ, I’ll wager it would be front page news at the Washington Post with rent-a-crowd protests outside the office until the offending speaker resigned.
For the last year, many have brushed off the notion that sentiment exists that white voters shouldn’t be protected under the Voting Rights Act. Commissioner Michael Yaki’s dissent borders on accusing some of a paranoid belief in anti-white conspiracies. Commissioner Heriot does America a great service by cataloging many of these explicit views in the report from a time when it wasn’t so important to keep them a secret. If you read nothing else in the Commission report, read pages 129-135. It documents the well established view among many that the laws don’t protect all Americans. I wrote at PJM about American University professor (and DOJ consultant) Alan Lichtman holding such views. Another racialist academic is University of Virginia Professor Matthew Holden whose vile comments are documented by Heriot. Pages 129-135 are a must read for Americans who want to see the dark evil racialist segment of the civil rights movement and academia that wants laws to protect some Americans, but not all.
I don’t believe the link to the report is correct.
The report can be found here:
http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/USCCR_NBPP_report.pdf
If we are to accept the logic that “The law was written to protect black people” in this case, and therefore doesn’t protect anyone else, like white people, perhaps we could apply it to another law as well.
Maybe the 14th Amendment, which was clearly and specifically written to apply only to former slaves, shouldn’t grant automatic citizenship to the progeny of illeg…, oops, sorry, I meant, Insufficiently Documented Future Democratic Voters who race across the border as their water is breaking to get a free, professional childbirth in a genuine, clean and sanitary hospital and then automatically qualify for all sorts of freebies they can’t get in their own failed state.
If we as a nation have progressed to the point that we are so post-racial that blacks are now in positions of power strong enough to discriminate against whites in the same manner that laws were passed to protect blacks against, then perhaps we no longer need all those other laws anymore, like preferences, and quotas, and diversity training, and the like. Non?
I am left wondering just how many ‘protected’ blacks are voting “yes” for things they won’t or can’t pay for…I’m feeling rather discriminated against myself.
“Of course Fernandes is literally correct in the most minimalist and irrelevant sense.”
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the law was written because blacks needed protection, but was written to protect all?
Thank you for your continued coverage of this disgrace we call a Justice Department. Keep it up!
“…Justice Department”? Its not a justice department. It is a legal department. Justice has noting to do with it.