Why Aren’t Blacks Charged With Hate-Crimes?

While people were absorbed in what happened to Flight 370 or who would be dancing with whom on Dancing with the Stars, the Obama Justice Department (an oxymoron if there ever was one) has been busy pressing for unparalleled Congressional authority not permitted by the Constitution.

As John Fund writes: “Forty-five states and the District of Columbia provide additional penalties for crimes that they classify as ‘hate crimes,’ over and above what would have been available if the same crime had been committed with a different motivation. In 2009,…Obama signed into law a federal hate-crimes statute that adds a third level of criminalization for violent crimes that occur ‘because of’ the victim’s ‘actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation.’ John continues: “Actual hatred is not required. It is enough that there is causal connection between the crime and one of these grounds.” (Hate-Crime Laws and the Expansion of Federal Power: How does the Thirteenth Amendment justify making certain kinds of violence a federal crime?; National Review; 3/18/14)

The obvious concern is that given the record of the federal government to police itself, how can it be trusted to not just police others; but on what grounds does Obama’s deeply racially biased Justice Department under Eric Holder arrive at the necessary prescience to divine a person’s thought? This is the same Obama Justice Department that saw absolutely nothing wrong with New Black Panther Party members committing one of the most flagrant acts of racially motivated voter intimidation in modern history.

But under Obama nothing is as it seems on the surface, and the additional penalties he signed into law which I referenced above is just such a case. One’s right to be protected from double-jeopardy has been sacrosanct; but, under Obama’s law, federal authorities now have “the power to prosecute a defendant who has already been prosecuted by state authorities. They can even prosecute a defendant who has been acquitted, Double-jeopardy protections do not apply.” But even more egregious: “The Obama Justice Department has argued that the part of the 2009 Hate Crimes Prevention Act that governs race is constitutional under the 13th Amendment, which reads that: ‘Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have ben duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” So the logical question would be, how in heaven’s name can you read into “the 13th Amendment to prohibit criminal activity, though racial in nature, if it has nothing to do with ‘slavery or involuntary servitude?’”

Logical minds would argue you cannot – however, we’re talking about Obama and Holder. But leave that thought for the moment.

Why are not blacks who are brutally attacking whites in depraved, predatory, and animalistic atrocities called “knockout games” being charged with hate crimes? If “violent crimes that occur ‘because of’ the victim’s ‘actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation,’” are defined as hate crimes, why are not these black hoodlums being charged with hate crimes? Give me a scenario in which blacks attack, rape, brutalize, and/or murder whites that it is not based on hate. What clearer evidence is needed?

But the Obama Justice Department is not about Justice; it is about punishing whites. Former Justice Department lawyer J. Christian Adams, who resigned in protest over Obama and Holder refusing to prosecute the New Black PantherParty members, shared in an interview with me that Holder made it known he was only interested in prosecuting civil rights cases if the aggrieved was black.

But, as John Fund notes, “…starting with a 1968 housing-discrimination case, the Supreme Court began stretching the phrase ‘badges and incidents’ beyond any tenuous connection to slavery. In Griffin v. Breckenridge (1971), for instance, the Court held that ‘the varieties of private conduct that [Congress] may make criminally punishable or civilly remediable extend far beyond the actual imposition of slavery or involuntary servitude….Congress has the power under the Thirteenth Amendment rationally to determine what are the badges and the incidents of slavery.’” Further, “After noting that the 13th Amendment ‘has respect not to distinctions of race or class or color, but [only] to slavery,’ the Court concluded that ‘it would be running the slavery argument into the ground to make it apply to every act of [private] discrimination.’”

But I return to my point: and that is, why is it that seemingly only whites can be charged with hate-crimes? And specific to said question, what is the true ratio of white-on-black crimes juxtaposed to black-on-white crimes? Blacks, as I wrote, are not the hunted; they are the hunters. (See: Blacks Are The Hunters Not The Hunted; mychal-massie.com; 2/25/14)

Justice is not served unless she is blind. But under Obama and Holder, Justice is only blind if the perpetrator is black, and the victims are white. If hate-crime provisions were about law and justice we wouldn’t be having this discussion; I wouldn’t be writing this article. But hate-crime laws are not about law and justice. They are about adding additional punishment to the crimes of whites against so-called protected classes.

Additionally, speaking tangentially, I find it interesting that the protected classes do not include the most vulnerable of all – said being the unborn. But that is a “Behind The Political Curtain” piece for another day.

Read more about Why Aren’t Blacks Charged With Hate-Crimes?