Top critical review
55 people found this helpful
Stage 2 of War on Whites
on December 20, 2011
Adams may deserve 5 stars for courage, but his book receives a mere 3. Why?
Adams is a whistleblower who worked in the U.S. Department of Justice until he resigned in 2010. He reveals many of the inner workings of this influential federal bureau. Though most of his book concerns enforcement of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Adams peripherally discusses issues such as school discipline, Braille for Kindle, and examinations for police and firefighters.
It is the voting rights division that Adams describes most thoroughly, for that is where he worked for five years. He reveals the friction in the department even during the Administration of Pres. G. W. Bush. The problems first arose concerning alleged voter fraud in Mississippi's Noxubee County, which is about 70% Black. A Black man, Ike Brown, rose to political leadership of the county. Although in 1984 he pleaded guilty to forgery and in 1995 was convicted for aiding and abetting on false income tax returns(p. 20), he became chairman of the Democratic Party in Noxubee. When asked what might improve race relations in Noxubee, he replied, "Funerals." [for whites](21)
Brown used his influence so white poll workers would be excluded, and many other means to insure his all-Black slate would be victorious for Democratic nominations. In 2003 the US DoJ sent observers to Noxubee; some wanted to charge Brown with violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Others, in Bush's DoJ, strongly objected to this process - "Could you believe we are going to Mississippi to protect white voters?"(49) and "I know that Ike Brown is crooked, everybody knows that, but the resources of the Division should not be used this way."(49) However, these Leftwing careerists in the DoJ were overruled by Bush's political appointees, and the DoJ filed suit against Democratic leader Ike Brown. Those inside the DoJ who supported this suit were chastised by their Leftwing extremist colleagues, some even being called "Klansmen."(52) The extremist refrain was simple: "I didn't come to work in the Civil Rights Division...to sue black people."(53) Their opponents responded that if Blacks were violating the Voting Rights Act, they should be prosecuted like anyone else. The split in the DoJ was simple - Should Blacks who violate the Voting Rights Act be prosecuted? The Leftists said, No; the Right said, Yes.
When the DoJ prosecuted Brown, some Leftists in the department sought to sabotage the case against the Black Democrat.(56) On 29 June 2007 US District Judge Lee ruled that Ike Brown violated the law when his "racially motivated decision to count the votes of black voters while rejecting those of white voters is discrimination."(60) Not only did the Leftists in DoJ not celebrate the department's victory, they were ashamed the suit had been brought and that the DoJ had convicted a Black man of massive voter fraud.(60) The Fifth District Court upheld Judge Lee's decision against Brown. Nevertheless, the radicals of the DoJ did not believe a Black should be prosecuted if he violates the voting rights of white people. Under Pres. Bush, the Left was forceful in the DoJ, but there were also those who believed the law should be enforced, whatever the race of the violator; whatever the race of the victim.
After Obama's victory in 2008, he appointed Eric Holder as Attorney General, and it quickly became evident that a new policy was set. "In the view of the Holder DOJ, whites aren't protected by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act."(69)
Shortly after Obama's inauguration, the Civil Rights Division hired many more employees. Whereas in the past, during interviews of prospective employees, they had been asked if they would enforce the law in a race-neutral manner against all law-breakers, under Attorney General Eric Holder, that question was not to be asked. Only when Blacks were the victims and whites the perpetrators was the Holder regime interested in filing suit.
The new Administration's policy was highlighted in the case of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia. In November 2008, two members of that party, in party uniform, one waving a baton, harassed and threatened voters outside a polling place. Videos showed their hostile presence outside the voting venue. They were clearly violating the Voting Rights Act, and Adams worked on the case to prosecute them. The NBPP itself did not even respond to the suit. One of the members was also a minor official in the local Democratic Party, and the other, with the baton, had on other occasions (on video) called for the killing of all white people, including all white babies. In effect Adams had won the case, when the Obama DoJ now demanded that the case be dropped. Only the man with the baton was convicted, and his punishment amounted to little more than that he refrain from doing it again.
Happily, Adams includes photographs in his book showing candidate Obama in 2007 marching and, just behind him, leaders of the NBPP with their arms raised in Black Power salute. Elsewhere Obama is shown on a platform with NBPP leaders. And Obama was a member of Rev. Wright's church for two decades. President Obama proves that one need not be born in Kenya in order to harbor Mau Mau ideals.
A large part of this book is about details of voter fraud perpetrated by Black Democrats in Mississippi and Alabama. It is tedious reading, akin to a shortened legal brief. However, it does make a salient point - Black Democrats are capable of massive voter fraud. While the Left and the Obama Administration refuse to prosecute such Black racists, Adams details their hypocrisy. Strangely, Adams almost never calls their anti-white policies racist; they are merely "racialist."
In his last chapter, Adams provides suggestions to a future Republican President to end the "racialist" policies now in place and restore a race-neutral approach to law enforcement. He assumes that laws should be applied to all, whatever their race.
Where has Adams been for the past four decades?
Civil rights had not been one of President John Kennedy's urgent priorities. However, as pressure mounted in the early 1960s with the sit-ins and the Freedom Rides, President Kennedy was pushed to move on the issue. On 28 February 1963 in his special message to Congress on civil rights, Kennedy stressed that the American Constitution is color blind. Nevertheless, neither Kennedy's speech nor Black demands for more jobs would be the catalyst that would hurl civil rights legislation onto the Congressional agenda. It was Birmingham, where television exposed police who blasted young Black protestors with fire hoses and terrorized others with fang-baring dogs. And it was Birmingham where four young girls were bombed inside a church. It was Birmingham that propelled most Americans to accept the need for a civil rights law.
To promote that law, a massive march on Washington was mobilized for 28 August 1963, at which Martin Luther King's speech struck the cord that rang the freedom bell. That day it mesmerized many Americans; today, it's memorized by many throughout the world. It is the only speech one recalls from that event: the speech in which King dreamt that Blacks 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."
This very spirit would be crystallized into the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The proposed law encountered unrelenting opposition from Southern Democrats, some 22 members of the Senate. Most of the northern Democrats supported the bill, but could not muster 67 votes to end a filibuster. So, Republican cooperation was essential for passage. While a few, like Arizona's Barry Goldwater, opposed it, most Republicans were willing to be swayed, if they were certain of the nature of the bill to be passed.
When Congress debated the proposed civil rights legislation, there were ominous trends. In late 1963 Pitney-Bowes, a major manufacturer of postage equipment, announced it would give Negroes preferences in hiring. (Hugh Davis, The Civil Rights Era, p. 116) Other major corporations were quietly hiring Blacks by quotas and providing them preferential treatment. (Davis, 105) Moreover, the Labor Dept.'s Bureau of Apprenticeship Training issued new guidelines that appeared to grant favoritism to Blacks and quotas in recruiting. (Davis, 114-15)
When the proposed civil rights act was before Congress, preferential hiring and quotas were clearly part of the debate. Was the Civil Rights Act to become a quota law? Opponents, mainly Democrats like Sen. Sam Ervin (NC), contended that the law would inevitably result in quotas and preferences for Blacks. Not so, assured the liberals. A leading supporter of the legislation, Dem. Sen. Hubert Humphrey (Minn.), responded to such fears by clarifying:
there is nothing in it [the bill] that will give any power to the Commission [the EEOC] or to
any court to require hiring, firing, or promotion of employees in order to meet a racial "quota"
or to achieve a racial balance...
In fact the very opposite is true...Title VII is designed to encourage hiring on the basis of
ability and qualifications, not race and religion. [Davis, 150]
Furthermore, the floor managers in the Senate for Title VII [the employment section of the proposed law], Democrat Sen. Joseph Clark (Pa.) and Republican Sen. Clifford Case (NJ) issued a joint memorandum to answer opponents of the new law who complained that discrimination was not even defined. "To discriminate means to make a distinction, to make a difference in treatment or favor...which is based on any five of the criteria: race, color, religion, sex, and national origin...There is no requirement in title VII that an employer maintain a racial balance in his work force. On the contrary, any deliberate attempt to maintain a racial balance would involve a violation of title VII because maintaining such a balance would require an employer to hire or refuse to hire on the basis of race. It must be emphasized that discrimination is prohibited to any individual." [Davis, 150-51].
Another event would affect the debate in Congress. In the fall of 1963 a Black, high-school dropout sought a job at Motorola. Like all applicants, he was given a general ability test. He failed it. He then complained to the Illinois Fair Employment Practice Commission alleging he was not hired because of his race. The Illinois state commission appointed a Black to hear the case, and in January 1964 that examiner ruled that the test was unfair to culturally deprived groups and issued a cease and desist order. Motorola was ordered to stop testing to hire the best qualified applicants. To many Americans, requiring companies to hire people who could not pass basic tests seemed unfair and a threat to merit hiring and an efficient work force. Because of this threat, the proposed civil rights legislation was amended in Congress, as the Clark-Case memorandum explained: "There is nothing in Title VII that employers abandon bona fide qualification tests where, because of differences in background and education, members of some groups are able to perform better on these tests than members of other groups." (Davis, 151) Illinois Sen. Everett Dirksen, Republican leader also had the legislation amended so that only intentional discrimination was barred. In June 1964 the Senate voted 71-29 to end the filibuster against the legislation, and passed the bill 73-27.
This is the law that America wanted, Congress passed, and President Johnson signed in July 1964.
Indeed, I would contend that this is still what most Americans understand as the meaning of civil rights in general, and of fair employment practices in particular.
Yet, how did a law meant to insure non-discrimination, merit hiring, maintenance of testing; a law that forbade quotas and racial balance come to mean the opposite? How could the Civil Rights Act be used to enforce quotas (using euphemisms of "goals and timetables" or more recently "diversity")? How could the law be used to forbid aptitude testing when some groups do poorly? How could it be used to prevent an employer from inquiring of a prospective employee about high school grades, or high school diplomas, or criminal records (as such queries would certainly affect groups differently)? So today, in the name of equal opportunity, whites with far better records are rejected and Blacks, or later Browns, with far worse records are hired and promoted. How could it be that a Chair of the Civil Rights Commission some years later would declare that civil rights laws did not apply to white people! How could it be that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would be a major springboard for the attack on equal opportunity for all: the end of non-discrimination; the end of merit hiring and promotion; and the general decline of the American work force? All this in the name of equal opportunity! As Orwell might reply to those questions: all are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Over the next few years it became clear that liberals had pulled a major, classic con-job on the American people: bait and switch. Enact a law to insure the civil rights of ALL Americans, non-discrimination, merit hiring, no racial balance, no quotas, and then use that very law as a basis to implement the opposite.
Here is the essence of the weakness in Adams' book - he does not place the anti-white discriminatory practices of the Voting Rights Division of the DOJ in perspective. Adams makes a strong case that the Obama-Holder DoJ is determined not to enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in a race neutral manner. They will prosecute violators when they are white; and not prosecute when they are Black. They will prosecute when the victims are Black; and not when they are white. Adams makes the case.
But Adams fails to connect this to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It too was race neutral legislation. However, it was subverted by bureaucrats in the EEOC and other agencies. They were aided by court decisions written by activist liberal judges. However, it was Republican President Richard Nixon who made affirmative action a national policy and extended it to include Hispanics, Amerindians, and whoever the bureaucrats determine is their next pet group. Republican President Ford did not interfere with affirmative action. Despite his rhetoric, neither did Republican President Reagan. President G H W Bush even signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, what he called a quota bill, which only solidified the quota programs.
With affirmative action, whites, especially white men, were denied equal opportunity, despite the clear wording of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By the 1980s Mary Frances Berry, the Chair of the Civil Rights Commission, could declare that the Civil Rights Act did not apply to white people.
Now, the DoJ under Obama-Holder covertly declares that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 no longer applies to white people.
To summarize: Stage 1- equal rights and basic civil rights are denied whites, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Stage 2- voting rights are no longer guaranteed for white people, in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Obama Administration is simply taking the anti-white programs of previous administrations to a new level. And Obama will probably do nothing to prevent illegal aliens from voting - if they vote for him. Children of illegals may be given affirmative action admission and scholarships to universities above citizen-born whites. And when whites become a minority in the US, one can expect their rights to diminish even more. Stage 3? Stage 4?
The trend to make whites second-class citizens, or less, is continuing to a new level under Obama-Holder. The book by Adams makes clear the anti-white racism and policies of the Obama-Holder Administration. But Adams fails to place these in context. And his pleas to change things in a future Republican Administration makes one question his grasp of reality. Anti-white policies expanded and become entrenched national procedures under Nixon, and continued with every Republican President after him. Is Adams naïve to expect any better from today's Republicans? On the other hand, Adams clearly exposes how Obama's Administration has escalated the war on whites.
I favor equal rights and equal opportunity for all citizens. I am so old I remember when the mantra of civil rights forces was - to treat everyone without regard to race, creed, or color. But the civil rights organizations of today have abandoned civil rights. They have embraced preferences for pet groups, privileges for those whom they define as oppressed. And they are most willing to oppress any who oppose their view. The civil rights community, like the civil liberties community, has evolved into a community of tyrants. I oppose race and gender preferences. Since the late 1960s American policy has been anti-white. These anti-white racist programs are accelerating under Obama, speeding toward an America where whites are a persecuted minority which may lose all rights of citizenship. Adams' book underscores the acceleration; but not the decades-old process, and not the looming, nightmarish Mau Mau future.
When one successfully over-represented group lost its citizenship, it was announced with great fanfare at party rallies. There will be no Nuremberg rallies in America. America is different. Nevertheless, if whites in the US continue to lose basic rights, it is done behind closed doors by devious folks in black robes or bureaucratic suits or community-organizing casuals. And it is done amid hypocritical howls that it is not being done at all. Adams gives us a glimpse of the stealth theft by bureaucrats who steal citizen's rights from the whites of America.