DoJ racial preferences Bush's fault!

Aaron Gee
Each morning I get an email from the New York Times (NYT) that outlines the day's headlines.  To date I have yet to receive one that discusses the accusations that are shaking the Department of Justice (DOJ) to it's foundation.  If you are not aware of the case, and if NBC, CBS, & ABC are your only news sources, you have been kept in the dark. Let me recap.

During 2008 election two Black Panthers, one armed with a night stick, stood outside a polling place using racial charged language and intimidating voters. (See video
here) The DOJ pressed charges, won a default judgement, and then mysteriously withdrew, even dropping charges for some of the accused.  A former DOJ attorney has accused the Department of withdrawing the charges because the defendants were black.

Amazingly the NYT's has little to say about the scandal, except that it's President Bush's fault.  Yes, you read that sentence correctly.  You see, in the NYT's world, this entire story isn't about
the man with a night stick outside a polling place, but about President Bush's choices for the Commission on Civil Rights.  In an article about what is transpiring in today's DOJ the article mentions President Bush or the Bush administration 6 times, Obama twice, and Holder is mentioned but once. 

The article titled "Racial Motive Alleged in a Justice Dept. Decision" dated July 6th starts off identifying the whistle blower as a "...lawyer hired during the Bush administration". The article also lets us know that former DOJ attorney Mr. Adams is "... a Republican".  The article's author is clearly trying to imply that Adams may be testifying purely for partisan purposes.  Then again perhaps the Times was making up for the fact that in the past they haven't been able to identify party affiliations very well. The paper failed to identify adulterer Elliot Spitzer as a Democrat in this 1300 word piece. (If you believe that I have this bridge in Brooklyn for sale)

Let me summarize the NYT article for you; "This whole thing is much ado about nothing, and it's President Bush's fault that we are even hearing anything about it due to his rabid partisan appointees to the Commission on Civil Rights".  The NYT conveniently ignores the video, and the fact that the case had been won (describing it as "seemingly won").  The liberal lion
Bartle Bull, a poll observer and prominent voting rights attorney, declared that the purpose of the two men was "...to intimidate voters with whom they did not agree".  Even liberals are outraged.  Between the eye witness testimony and video it is clear that charges filed weren't partisan in nature. 

Watch the video again and ask yourself is this the America we want to live in? Apparently the NYT thinks it is and if you don't like it, then, it's Bush's fault.
Each morning I get an email from the New York Times (NYT) that outlines the day's headlines.  To date I have yet to receive one that discusses the accusations that are shaking the Department of Justice (DOJ) to it's foundation.  If you are not aware of the case, and if NBC, CBS, & ABC are your only news sources, you have been kept in the dark. Let me recap.

During 2008 election two Black Panthers, one armed with a night stick, stood outside a polling place using racial charged language and intimidating voters. (See video
here) The DOJ pressed charges, won a default judgement, and then mysteriously withdrew, even dropping charges for some of the accused.  A former DOJ attorney has accused the Department of withdrawing the charges because the defendants were black.

Amazingly the NYT's has little to say about the scandal, except that it's President Bush's fault.  Yes, you read that sentence correctly.  You see, in the NYT's world, this entire story isn't about
the man with a night stick outside a polling place, but about President Bush's choices for the Commission on Civil Rights.  In an article about what is transpiring in today's DOJ the article mentions President Bush or the Bush administration 6 times, Obama twice, and Holder is mentioned but once. 

The article titled "Racial Motive Alleged in a Justice Dept. Decision" dated July 6th starts off identifying the whistle blower as a "...lawyer hired during the Bush administration". The article also lets us know that former DOJ attorney Mr. Adams is "... a Republican".  The article's author is clearly trying to imply that Adams may be testifying purely for partisan purposes.  Then again perhaps the Times was making up for the fact that in the past they haven't been able to identify party affiliations very well. The paper failed to identify adulterer Elliot Spitzer as a Democrat in this 1300 word piece. (If you believe that I have this bridge in Brooklyn for sale)

Let me summarize the NYT article for you; "This whole thing is much ado about nothing, and it's President Bush's fault that we are even hearing anything about it due to his rabid partisan appointees to the Commission on Civil Rights".  The NYT conveniently ignores the video, and the fact that the case had been won (describing it as "seemingly won").  The liberal lion
Bartle Bull, a poll observer and prominent voting rights attorney, declared that the purpose of the two men was "...to intimidate voters with whom they did not agree".  Even liberals are outraged.  Between the eye witness testimony and video it is clear that charges filed weren't partisan in nature. 

Watch the video again and ask yourself is this the America we want to live in? Apparently the NYT thinks it is and if you don't like it, then, it's Bush's fault.