Awful. This is so bad it's good. People won't stand for this.

This is not post-racial. This is the worst kind of "racial:" punitive, payback racial.

The public has been wondering for over a year why the [New Black Panthers] case was dismissed. Coates testified why today:

[There is a] deep-seated opposition to the race-neutral enforcement of the Voting Rights Act against racial minorities and for the protection of whites who have been discriminated against.

Coates verified that the DOJ is infested with racially motivated hostility towards equal enforcement of the law. Like me, Coates testified about the history of open and pervasive hostility inside the Voting Section to protecting the rights of white voters. This hostility first emerged in the case against Ike Brown in Noxubee County, Mississippi, going back as far as 2004:

The opposition within the Voting Section to taking actions on behalf of white voters in Noxubee County, Mississippi, Â… was widespread.

Coates confirmed that senior managers didnÂ’t even want to open the investigation into discrimination against white voters in Noxubee County:

The Deputy Chief who was leading that election coverage asked me: “can you believe that we are going to Mississippi to protect white voters?”

Coates described how his memoranda were doctored by former Voting Section Chief Joe Rich, confirming my testimony as well as an article that appeared here at PJM this week.

Coates also testified that he was reprimanded by Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King when he asked attorneys in job interviews if they could enforce the law equally. Coates asked them if they were willing to enforce the law in a racially neutral fashion, regardless of the race of the wrongdoer, even if the wrongdoer was black. Naturally, this inquiry into the applicantÂ’s sense of fairness greatly offended the racially obsessed King. Her agenda was quite different than CoatesÂ’ agenda. Coates testified he was summoned to the senior political offices for a tongue-lashing by King, and the interview questions Coates was asking had to go:

King took offense that I was asking such a question of job applicants and directed me not to ask it again because she does not support equal enforcement of the provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

Note that Mississippi case was from 2004, on Bush's watch, so that doesn't implicate Obama, just the general culture at this Division.

But Coates also testified (that last bit) that he was specifically instructed to not ask if new hires could enforce the law in a racially-neutral way.

Not just that the Division wasn't asking the question, but that he was specifically forbidden to ask it.

They're Jeopardizing Their Own Prosecutions: Laws can be struck, and convictions overturned, for different reasons.

If a law violates the Equal Protection Clause by containing a racially discriminatory element in its very text, it gets knocked down as being "facially" discriminatory. Impermissibly discriminatory "on its face."

But a lot of laws get struck down not for containing some obvious on-its-face discriminatory element, but for being discriminatory "as applied." If a law purporting to neutrally require ID from all voters is usually only applied to Hispanic voters, or black voters, or even white voters, it can be knocked down, and all prosecutions secured under it overturned, as being discriminatory "as applied."

The incompetence here, and pathological payback punitive racism, is therefore astounding. For even if one "understands" why some people would only want to prosecute whites under this law, you'd have to be incompetent to not realize that actually implementing that policy could result in all of your prosecutions of white malefactors being overturned due to discriminatory purpose as applied.

So even if all you want to do is prosecute whites, and don't give a fig if white voters are being intimidated by blacks in places where blacks have the power to do so, you still have to go ahead and do that unless you want to bring the entire law crashing down and set loose all your white criminals too.

This is a very basic thing; it's a Kevin Pollack situation: Were you absent the day they taught law in law school?

The drive to do this then is doubly astounding. Even if I "understand" that some people just might want some racial payback and may want laws that specifically target only one race, you'd think that even these people would know that the system will not permit that, and thus to get the convictions of whites they want so badly they'll also have to suffer the collateral damage of locking up a few caught-red-handed black criminals too.

But... they won't. They're so dedicated to this noxious idea they're willing to set free even the criminals they do want in jail.

And... for God's sakes, if you're going to indulge in a racial double-standard: Here? With truly despicable characters who would intimidate voters from exercising their most basic right under the Constitution? These guys it's even so important to protect you won't prosecute them? This nasty hill is the hill you've decided to die on?

And by the way, here is the sum and entirety of the leftist defense of this. You'll see this in the coming days quite a bit:

Oh Noes! Poor whites are now under a New Jim Crow system! Oh Noes!

So much stupidity and malice is packed into that predictable sarcastic rejoinder. The most important idea expressed: So long as racial discrimination directed against whites does not rise to the level of full, 1955 Jim Crow, no harm, no foul, nothing to complain about, and whites' (and good-spirited minorities', too) objections to such a shabby system of discrimination should just shut their mouths and accept that a little bit of second-class-citizenship is nothing to go crazy about.

So long as the system of racial discrimination isn't as evil as Jim Crow, we can (and should) accept some evil without complaint. Or else ya get the "Oh Noes!" treatment.

Granted: This is not as bad as Jim Crow.

But I'd like a lefty to explain to me why it is not bad at all, or even arguably good. And if it is bad at all -- even if not as bad as Jim Crow -- why should anyone, white black Asian or Hispanic, accept it?

Do we generally have a belief that the government is permitted to dabble in lesser evils? If so, when did we decide that? I don't remember having voted on that.

Actually... For those people in that Mississippi county intimidated away from their right to vote, I can kind of imagine it sure looks like a New Jim Crow to them.

The Colbert Distraction: While this is going on, the media decides it's more fun, and more helpful to Democrats, to cover only tv clown Steven Colbert's joke appearance.

Instapundit also highlights an element here I had overlooked: this doesn't just expose the racially-discriminatory belief system at the Civil Rights Division. It also disproves the Obama spin -- spin? lie -- that the New Black Panthers case was dropped based on the decision of career (non-political-appointee) lawyers and that decision had nothing at all to do with a theory of racial enforcement of the law, just the "facts" of the case.

Posted by: Ace at 08:32 AM | Comments (268)
Post contains 1233 words, total size 8 kb.

This is why letting her keep her Ranking Member position was such a horrible idea, she's turning it into a campaign talking point.

Murkowski, a GOP senator from Alaska who decided to pursue an independent write-in bid for reelection after losing her Republican Senate primary, said that her colleagues' decision to allow her to keep her position as ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee was an "affirmation."

Murkowski said Republican senators "recognize, 'You know what? Lisa might be a risk-taker, but she's got a real shot at coming back here, and it only makes good sense that we would not want to be so punitive that she would be discouraged by the actions of her colleagues,' " she said in a Q-and-A with Time magazine published Friday.

.."This was an affirmation of the relationship that I've built over the past eight years with the people that I work with," she said. "As difficult as the politics are, as awkward as the situation is, I had really believed that my friends would recognize that what I'm doing is for my state."

Love the implied threat there...be too punitive and who knows what might happen, you know like voting with the Democrats in the lame duck.

Joe Miller is still raising money.

In other RINOrific news...Sources are telling Jim Geraghty that's it's 50/50 on whether or not Mike Castle runs a write in campaign for the Senate in Delaware.

What these sore loser are saying is, voters only count when they win and the party is great as long as it's writing checks and providing support. There's very little that can be done since it's state laws that provide these opportunities but the party needs to make it clear that they spoiler candidacies will be fought hard and that those that wage them have zero future.

We all cheered Lieberman when he ran against Ned Lamont after his primary defeat but at least their was a bigger issue involved...support for the war in Iraq and the wider war on terror.

Murky (and perhaps Castle) are just doing it because they think they are so damn important. Well, they aren't.

The GOP establishment would be going crazy if tea party candidates decided to run 3rd party campaigns in the general and rightly so. Now they need to show the same anger towards their own.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:08 AM | Comments (97)
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

Cheap But Good

According to tipster Krukke1 this guy is running against Keith Ellison in MN.

Baby in a business suit, selling cars. So cute I can't even stand it.

Posted by: LauraW at 07:42 AM | Comments (60)
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

The first poll to include all the minor contenders shows that the little guys aren't having much impact in the race between Sharron Angle and Harry Reid.

They're tied with 43 percent of the vote, even when the other minor party or non-party candidates are included. There was some concern that sham "Tea Party" candidate Scott Ashjian would siphon votes from Angle, but he's only getting 1 percent. Ashjian gets to use the Tea Party name because he registered it first, though he's not really part of the Tea Party movement.

On momentum watch, it doesn't look like there's much momentum (the last polls also have them tied or within the margin) until you get into the fine print. Angle wins 51 percent of independents, while Reid only get's 31 percent. Two weeks ago she was only ahead by 9 points among independents.

Update 9:48AM: The commenters reminded me that LVRJ sells their content to that little outfit suing everyone, so I've re-written the post. It had completely skipped my mind.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:19 AM | Comments (283)
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Brand Democrat™ from Slublog.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:53 AM | Comments (97)
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

Mee-ouch!

Thanks to rdbrewer.

Posted by: Ace at 10:22 PM | Comments (90)
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

From RedState; video produced by Ben Howe.

Posted by: Ace at 10:18 PM | Comments (81)
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

The 2013 IPCC report will now include solar effects in their "models".

...Over the famous 11-year solar cycle, the sun's brightness varies by just 0.1 per cent. This was seen as too small a change to impinge on the global climate system, so solar effects have generally been left out of climate models. However, the latest research has changed this view, and the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due in 2013, will include solar effects in its models...

"How's my ass taste now bitches?" - The Sun

Ass munching bonus round - The arctic sea ice strikes back:

...Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 08:01 PM | Comments (116)
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

Tonight's ONT has no theme.

So How Bout Some Robot B-52s?

Performed by a retro computer and various spare parts.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:54 PM | Comments (625)
Post contains 358 words, total size 4 kb.

The entity known as “Editor” has asked me to convey the following message. The poor, trusting fool…

“The Seattle area Morons are planning a Crazy Train election results party for Nov. 2. Details are still undetermined at this time, but the planned location will be somewhere in Fremont. Though, we could pick something different if the interest outweighs our possibilities in Fremont.

Depending on the sort of interest generated, if the venue requires it, we may have a small cover charge. (I.E.; A kickback to Editor or a bribe to please, PLEASE let us into your bar. – ed)

Please reply to Editor at pajamahadeen[at]hotmail[dot]com with your interest of attending. Details will be determined in the next 2-weeks.”

In addition, all participants will be responsible for providing their own individual Thai tranny/crack whore/inflatable sex toy this time as Editor is tapped out due to his recent legal troubles. Such a large team of defense attorneys are bound to have an impact on oneÂ’s personal finances. But they did do quite an admirable job in sewing doubt amongst the jury concerning the mass grave in his basement. I mean really, they couldÂ’ve already been there when he bought the place, right?

Also, there will be a dress code at this event. Unlike the last time, all males in attendance are required to wear pants. Or underwear. Or fer gawdÂ’s sake anything below the waist. ThereÂ’s a finite number of bars in the Seattle area and the number that we havenÂ’t been banned from is rapidly dwindling. Of course for female attendees the usual applies: clothing optional/discouraged.

SluShop courtesy of LauraW, whose name roughly translated in the Inuit language means “Swallower of Souls.”

Posted by: Genghis at 05:24 PM | Comments (45)
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.