DoJ racial preferences 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.




