We do not get involved in racial discourse except as relates to the demagoguery spewed by our politicians or appointed government officials. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has repeatedly and unequivocally demonstrated a very biased and reprehensible approach and attitude to race relations and justice with a pro-black, pro-minority preference specifically vis-à-vis Whites. Such an approach further engenders unprovoked violence by blacks on whites and other races
We saw this in Obama’s reckless and irresponsible involvement in the Cambridge police incident involving his belligerent (black) buddy Henry Louis Gates, Jr., professor of Black Studies at Harvard who falsely claimed racism.
We have seen this with Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder’s dismissal of charges of voter intimidation against the New Black Panthers in video documented evidence in Philadelphia during the Presidential election. Of course, they have refused to release any evidence or explanation of why there was such a dismissal even though the defendants were ready to plead guilty.
The Dept. of Justice under this same racist Eric Holder has been “instructed” not to pursue cases of racism if perpetrated by blacks on whites. However, they are to aggressively pursue cases if it whites were the alleged perpetrators. Insiders have revealed this to be the “culture of justice” of our own Justice Dept.
And of course, who can forget the vitriolic, racist ramblings and screed of Rev. Jeremiah Wright whose church Obama and Michelle attended for years. He never protested such despicable racist hatred and the black liberation theology that was espoused.
Furthermore, Obama was very close not just with Wright but also with Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam who is the quintessential vehemently anti-white, anti-semitic racist and who also preaches anti-American vitriol.
The list of examples of racism by the Obama Administration, his czars (Van Jones) and other appointees is nearly endless and entirely unacceptable.
Why are we bringing this up?
Obama is conveying and instigating by actions, incendiary rhetoric and legislation, an aggressive entitlement and superiority attitude for blacks over the “flawed” and “racist” whites that is spilling out into the African-American community, particularly the lower socioeconomic level. They do not see this as demagoguery but as “reality” and then channel this hateful energy into what they see as acceptable anger and actions aimed against whites. After all, “their” President seems to be doing the same – though not by violence.
There has been a spate of attacks by blacks on whites since Obama has been President. Most of these have seen little news coverage because they do not fit into the progressive media’s far left agenda of “showing” the “abused, downtrodden” blacks.
The following egregious incident (see video below) is an attack perpetrated by 2 black females on a white "female" inside a McDonalds in Baltimore and captured on video. At least some of the employees of the restaurant were black males and could have instantly stopped the beating but didn’t (one was actually took the video as seen below). The Caucasian girl, who happened to be a transsexual, was subjected to a prolonged, violent beating by these uncivilized hateful individuals including a head injury. It is not clear if this specifically was partially motivated by her being white or if there was any knowledge of her sexual orientation.
Outrageously, the local police dept. stated that it is “looking into this” to see whether there was any evidence that this was a hate crime (which the victim believes to be the case).
Are they kidding?
Despite several blacks present inside this McDonalds, it took an older white woman to help stop this.
We haven’t heard a word out of Obama about this. Or from Attorney General Eric Holder.
What about Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton?
You could be sure that if this were reversed with several Whites brutally abusing a black girl even if it wasn't patently motivated by race, there would already be rioting in the streets by blacks and claims of racism by Jackson and Sharpton. Holder would already have a Dept. of Justice investigation underway and the white “perpetrators” would have been already been convicted in the public forum.
This video is very graphic. See the two subsequent articles as well.
Shocking, Disturbing Restaurant Assault Vid: Woman Allegedly Beaten Into a Seizure As Employees Laugh
Jonathon M. Seidl April 22, 2011
When we post restaurant brawl videos, many times the tone centers around disbelief mixed with uneasy chuckles. What you’re about to see might result in audible screams, gasps, and expletives. Warning, it’s disturbing.
The details on the following attack are fuzzy.* What you see is two woman mercilessly attacking another in a McDonald’s. But that doesn’t really do the video justice. The two women repeatedly punch and kick the woman in the head while she lies in the fetal position on the ground. They then drag her across the floor by her hair near the door, where they continue the beating. All the while, the employees stand by laughing (although one seems to give a half-hearted vocal attempt to stop the madness, and another eventually tries to step in).
Eventually, it appears the woman is beaten so badly she has a seizure.
According to a description from the video site LiveLeak, the person filming the incident coaches the attackers to flee:
The two black females exit, then re-enter the store to continue the beating, until an older white woman attempts to stop them from dragging the white victim outside into the parking lot. note: the black male employees have disappeared from camera view, even though they are plenty well capable of stopping the attack.
At the end, the white victim is beaten until she has a seizure, at which point the camera operator warns the black female attackers to flee, because the police are on the way. Note: he makes sure to repeatedly tell the criminal attackers to flee, instead of keeping them there for the police to apprehend.
Many of you have e-mailed asking for more information on this disturbing video. As is mentioned in the article, details are fuzzy right now. There is no word on where or when this occurred or what eventually happened to the attackers or the victim. As soon as we find anything out, we’ll let you know.
McDonald’s has responded to the video and says it occurred in Baltimore.
Video of beating in a Baltimore County McDonald's goes viral
Justin Fenton, The Baltimore Sun April 22, 2011
A video of a vicious beating at a Baltimore County McDonald's restaurant went viral Friday, garnering hundreds of thousands of views on various websites and prompting the fast food giant to issue a statement condemning the incident.
The video shows two women – one of them a 14-year-old girl – repeatedly kicking and punching the 22-year-old victim in the head, as an employee of the Rosedale restaurant and a patron try to intervene. Others can be heard laughing, and men appear to be standing idly by.
Toward the end of the video, one of the suspects lands a punishing blow to the victim's head, and she appears to have a seizure. A man's voice tells the women to run because police are coming.
The three-minute clip was apparently first posted on YouTube, then taken down by administrators who said it violated the site's policies. But it sprung back up on other sites and was ultimately linked from the popular Drudge Report, which gave it top billing for much of the day.
By mid-afternoon, the video had received 450,000 views on one site alone.
County police confirmed that the attack occurred April 18 in the 6300 block of Kenwood Ave. Police said the 14-year-old girl has been charged as a juvenile, while charges were pending against an 18-year-old woman.
The victim suffered cuts to her mouth and face, and a police report said she was in "fair" condition.
The report classifies the attack as a "second degree assault" -- one of the suspects said that the fight was "with a woman over using a bathroom."
As the video spread online, McDonald's acknowledged that the attack had occurred in a Baltimore restaurant and said they were working with local police.
"We are shocked by the video from a Baltimore franchised restaurant showing an assault. This incident is unacceptable, disturbing and troubling," the company said in a statement posted on its website. "Nothing is more important than the safety of our customers and employees in our restaurants. We are working with the franchisee and the local authorities to investigate this matter."
State's Attorney Scott D. Shellenberger said the racial dynamics of the incident – the attackers are black, and the victim is white – could result in hate crime charges.
"We just received this case, and the police department is continuing their investigation," Shellenberger said. "If there is evidence that the crime was racially motivated, we will take a look at those charges and see if we meet those elements. We have the ability, if the facts are there, to upgrade the charges at a later date."
The video begins with two women near a bathroom door kicking and hitting a woman who is lying on the ground. Viewers from across the country expressed shock at the sheer brutality of the video, and the racial dynamics of the attack drove much of the commentary on the sites that posted the clip.
An employee repeatedly tries to separate them, but the attackers continue to stomp and kick the victim's head. People yell, "Stop! Stop!" to no avail, though others can be heard laughing. An older woman at one point also attempts to pull the attackers away, and is shoved.
About halfway through the three-minute clip, the attackers rip a wig off the victim and drag her by her hair to the front door. That is where the victim is sitting before a blow to the head causes an apparent seizure.
Throughout the attack, a man is filming and does not intervene. But when the victim appears to go into a seizure, he yells, "She having a seizure, yo. … Police on their way. Y'all better get out of here."
Through a McDonald's spokesman, the owner of the Rosedale restaurant released a statement. The chain said the owner and employees would not be made available for comment.
"I'm as shocked and disturbed by this incident as anyone would be. The behavior displayed in the video is unfathomable and reprehensible," said the franchise owner, Mitchell McPherson. "The safety of our customers is a top priority. We know the police were called immediately, and we are thoroughly investigating this matter."
The outcome was preordained. Predicted. Completely comporting with the arrogant and corrupt ways of the Obama Administration and Attorney Holder’s Justice Dept.
The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), a section within the Dept. of Justice and under the jurisdiction of Holder, came to the (pre-written before the investigation) conclusion in their investigation of the voter intimidation case of the New Black Panther Party and its handling by that very same DOJ that “Justice Department attorneys "did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment, but rather acted appropriately, in the exercise of their supervisory duties in connection with the dismissal of the three defendants in the NBPP case.”
There couldn’t have been any conflict of interest, could have there been?
A slight lack of true “independence” of the OPR? And, of course, no implicit intimidation by Holder regarding the expected outcome!
This whole situation has been a travesty and needs to be sedulously investigated by Congress.
DOJ Ethics Office: No Evidence That Politics, Race Influenced New Black Panther Party Case
Ryan J. Reilly March 29, 2011
Members of the New Black Panthers Party outside a polling place in Philadelphia, PA during the 2008 elections.
Members of the New Black Panthers Party outside a polling place in Philadelphia, PA during the 2008 elections.
The Obama Justice Department did not improperly let politics or the race of the defendants affect the handling of a high-profile civil voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party, a probe by DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concluded after an extensive investigation.
Justice Department attorneys "did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment, but rather acted appropriately, in the exercise of their supervisory duties in connection with the dismissal of the three defendants in the NBPP case," the head of OPR wrote in a letter to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) obtained by TPM.
OPR's investigation began in the summer of 2009. After an extensive investigation which included reviews of the New Black Panther Party file, "thousands of pages of internal Department e-mails, memoranda, and notes" and interviews with 44 current and former Department employees, OPR "found no evidence that the decision to dismiss the case against three of the four defendants was predicated on political considerations," wrote DOJ's Robin Ashton.
"We found that the decision by the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, a career Department employee, was made following appropriate consultation with, or notification to, career attorneys and supervisors, and Department leadership," Ashton wrote.
"We found no evidence of improper political interference or influence from within or outside the Department in connection with the decision in the case," she wrote. "In sum, we concluded that the decision to dismiss three of the four defendants and to seek more narrowly-tailored injunctive relief against King Samir Shabazz was predicated on a good faith assessment of the law and the facts of the case and had a reasonable basis."
"We found no evidence that political considerations were a motivating factor in reaching the decision. We also concluded that the decision to initiate the NBPP case was based upon a good faith assessment of the facts and the law. We found no evidence that political considerations were a motivating factor in authorizing the civil action against the four defendants," Ashton wrote.
"Finally, we found no evidence to support allegations (which were raised during the course of our investigation) that the decision makers, either in bringing or dismissing the claims, were influenced by the race of the defendants, or any considerations other than an assessment of the evidence and the applicable law," Ashton wrote.
"In sum, we examined only whether any of the individuals involved in the decision-making process - with respect to either the initiation or dismissal of claims in the NBPP case - committed professional misconduct in the performance of their official duties," Ashton wrote.
"We determined that the attorneys involved in the NBPP case made good faith, reasonable assessments of the facts and the law," Ashton wrote. "We did not attempt to evaluate the relative merits of their differing positions."
The first two lines of this editorial says it all:
“Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. should resign. He is a disgrace to his office and to his country.”
We have taken this position long ago as have many others - given his unequivocally racist positions, policies and actions and in spite of the fact that he is the top official in this country charged with enforcing equal rights and justice for all. As the Attorney General and head of the Dept. of Justice, his egregious violations warrant immediate firing from his position.
Unfortunately, his boss, “president” Obama subscribes to the same black liberation theology and sanctions these racist policies.
How about a two-fer?
Eric Holder’s liberal racism Attorney general reveals he is color-conscious, not colorblind
Jeffrey T. Kuhner The Washington Times March 3, 2011
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. should resign. He is a disgrace to his office and to his country.
Mr. Holder is a race baiter. On Tuesday, he testified during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on the voting rights case involving members of the New Black Panther Party. In the 2008 election, Black Panthers - dressed in military fatigues and wielding a club - threatened voters at a Philadelphia polling station. They denounced the voters as "crackers" and vowed those voters would not be allowed to help defeat then-candidate Barack Obama. Their goal was to bully and intimidate. This was a clear case of violation of voting rights. Such behavior may occur with impunity in banana republics - not in the world's leading democracy.
Rep. John Culberson, Texas Republican, confronted the attorney general, demanding to know why the Justice Department refused to prosecute the Black Panthers - especially considering they were caught making the menacing gestures on tape. Mr. Holder shamelessly played the race card. He claimed to take offense at comments by civil rights activist Bartle Bull, who called it the most serious example of voter intimidation he had ever seen at the polls.
"When you compare what people endured in the South in the '60s to try to get the right to vote for African-Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia ... to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people," Mr. Holder said.
Excuse me - his "people"? This is one of the most outrageous - and divisive - statements by a senior government official in recent memory. His people are and should be the American people - all of us.
Mr. Holder is the nation's top law enforcement officer. His duty is to uphold the law and apply it fairly and equally to everyone - regardless of race. In other words, his job demands that he be colorblind. By his own words, he has shown he is unfit for the position. He is a racial tribalist - race trumps justice. When he talks about his people, Mr. Holder sounds like the grand wizard of a black Ku Klux Klan.
This is not the first time Mr. Holder has made offensive racial comments. In 2009, he claimed that when it comes to discussing race, Americans are "a nation of cowards." He said in a 1996 interview with The Washington Post that regardless of how "affluent, educated and mobile" a black person becomes, "his race defines him more particularly than anything else." In other words, according to Mr. Holder, no matter how successful and integrated blacks are in U.S. society, they will always be victims; racial solidarity must supersede their American identity.
Mr. Holder is deliberately evading questions about the Black Panther case. He is guilty of nixing an investigation into blatant voter intimidation because the culprits were black - and the victims white. He refuses to answer questions directly or release documents about the decision-making process that led the Justice Department to drop much of the case. In particular, he refuses to answer whether Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes instructed her subordinates to pursue only civil rights investigations involving victims who are black. Mr. Holderis stonewalling in a desperate attempt to cover up his race-based policies.
Mr. Holder is a product of the 1960s. He embodies radical chic, the belief that America is based on racial domination and capitalist exploitation. The reason he refuses to go after the New Black Panthers is that he largely shares their worldview. The original Black Panthers were fascists. They championed black nationalism, racial supremacy and economic collectivism. Their aim was the violent overthrow of the "white power structure." In short, they were the very opposite of Martin Luther King Jr., who espoused nonviolence, assimilation and the creation of a truly colorblind society.
Since the late 1960s, however, black racial separatism has been growing. The New Black Panthers are the direct descendants of it, as are Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They are race baiters who seek to erect an ethnic spoils system that will balkanize America. Mr. Holder is a polished version of Mr. Sharpton. Despite the fancy suits and lawyerly demeanor, Mr. Holder embraces the same destructive ideas: black nationalism, anti-Americanism, state socialism, support for affirmative action and racial quotas, and the politics of grievance and victimology.
The attorney general insists on making false - and inflammatory - comparisons to the civil rights movement. No one is saying that the Black Panther case is akin to segregation in the South or that whites are systematically being denied the right to vote. Rather, the New Black Panthers are thugs. Their actions represented a fundamental assault on our democracy.
When it comes to America's mortal enemies - such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 - Mr. Holder goes out of his way to defend their rights. This includes supporting efforts to have Mohammed tried in a civilian court. Hence, Mr. Holder thinks jihadists are entitled to full constitutional protections while peaceful, law-abiding Americans exercising their God-given right to vote are not - especially if they are white and possibly pro-Republican.
Mr. Holder lacks the character or competence to be attorney general. He has abused his office and violated his sacred oath. Like other practitioners of racial politics - white, black and Latino - Mr. Holder acts as if everything begins and ends with race. This is a form of intellectual and moral corruption that threatens the very long-term unity of America. This kind of black nationalism is poisonous to the nation's bloodstream. It is divisive, destructive and dangerous. And it is why Mr. Holder must go.
The following editorial examines the true racist nature of the Obama Administration which had touted itself as post-racial and forward looking. What we have been encumbered with is a nightmare conflation of liberal bean counting and black liberation theology promoting black dominance, unequal rights, retribution, race wealth transfer to minorities and naked demagoguery and contemptuousness.
All with the blessings of the “man” who was to bring us into a new age.
The View from Crackerland
Robert T. Smith March 07, 2011
Certainly the recent vexation expressed by Eric Holder over being questioned regarding the New Black Panther voter intimidation case -- i.e., his defense of "my people" -- depicts a new low in race relations here in America. The liberal media and many politicians are curiously not outraged at what is an arguably race-based federal civil rights case.
We were told of a post-racial era that all Americans would enjoy as the outcome of the election of America's first African-American president. As so eloquently described by one of Mr. Holder's people, this post-racial era is not so evident in the view from here in Crackerland.
Post-election of President Obama, the only racial agreement apparent to those of us who reside in Crackerland was Eric Holder's admonition that we are cowards to not discuss awkward racial issues here in America. Here, then, is an offering to contribute to the discussion.
Here in Crackerland, there was some consternation when we noticed then-presidential candidate Obama's unique past and the unusual relationships he had throughout his life. There seemed to be an underlying racial anger and confusion as a mixed-race person in his autobiography Dreams from My Father. An example is Mr. Obama's being so moved by the notion that "white folks' greed runs a world in need."
Mr. Obama's long-term black liberation theology minister and mentor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, represents many other African-American religious leaders. These leaders have perspectives and sermons that seem to be a whole lot more about justifying their racism than supporting Christian theology itself. There is an apparent seemless link between black liberation theology and the racist, bigoted radicals in the Nation of Islam and among the New Black Panthers. Our view from Crackerland was of Mr. Obama as a relatively unknown politician infused with an adult life of racist relationships and thoughts.
Here in Crackerland, we noticed an almost 100% voting rate for Mr. Obama from the African-American community. Difficult to miss were the many formerly non-Democrat African-American persons who stated their support for Mr. Obama based solely on his color -- a clearly racist vote.
As viewed from Crackerland, this affiliation between the Democratic Party and the African-American community appears to be based on the promise that the Democrat politicians will provide for the living conditions desired by the African-American community. The individualism of Crackerland recognizes these government-supplied conditions as dehumanizing, reducing people to veritable chattel of the government. Human chattel of the government is not a condition we crackers wish upon any person, irrespective of race.
Here in Crackerland, we took note that Mr. Obama was elected by both cracker and non-cracker alike. However, it didn't take long for the signs of racism to appear in association with our new president.
The invocation by Reverend Lowery at Mr. Obama's swearing in ceremony seemed a bit inappropriate for such an auspicious, racially historic occasion. The Reverend Lowery was intent on bringing racial issues to the forefront, and he used the occasion and captive audience to vent his lingering racism by means of a recitation of hopes for the various non-white races while admonishing those who are white to embrace what is right. This appeared here in Crackerland to imply that whites somehow had prevented and/or are preventing the other races from achieving their desired hopes -- a racist lie.
The history of America we learned here in Crackerland included hundreds of thousands of dead crackers in the Civil War, decades of cracker-led civil rights struggles, an altering of the very foundation of America's Constitution and laws facilitated by the crackers, and billions and probably trillions of cracker dollars poured into the non-cracker communities -- all of which was only incidental in the Reverend Lowery's mind to doing what is right. Arguably, the view from Crackerland was that the Reverend Lowery outed himself as a racist and perhaps a bigot while serving as an integral part of Mr. Obama's historic day for race relations in America.
Here in Crackerland, we pursue happiness for ourselves and our families' benefit, because self and family are the basic building blocks of society. In Crackerland, we set a lofty ideal in our founding documents and celebrate unalienable rights for all men, endowed by our Creator and not arbitrarily assigned by government officials based on race. We inhabitants of Crackerland don't wake up thinking about how to stick it to other Americans, cracker or non-cracker; we work for ours and expect you to work for yours.
We crackers see our pursuit of happiness realized as the property, money, land, and all other possessions we work hard for, and not as community property to be confiscated by government officials and dispensed to others based on racial status and conditions. The relationship between redistributive socialism and black liberation theology in which President Obama has been steeped and which he has embraced in his policy decisions is viewed by us here in Crackerland as both racist and the antithesis of Americanism.
The racism we see from Crackerland in our current Obama administration, those surrounding the administration, and those who support it looks a whole lot more like retribution than like a brave discourse on race relations here in America. We were told of a post-racial era that all Americans would enjoy as the outcome of the election of America's first African-American president, but that is not so evident to many of us here in Crackerland.
Cowards, as Mr. Holder so ineloquently characterized them, should step aside so that this discussion will not have to be absurdly carried on into posterity. With slavery and civil rights issues distant in the rearview mirror of America's history, the changes in our social structure over time, and the integration of all Americans into all portions of our society regardless of race, this black/white race discussion is now bizarre within the context of racial reparations. It can be viewed now only as a purely political power play.
In his first 2 years as “president”, Obama has revealed himself not to be the leader of all Americans but instead of only certain select groups. We have seen his racist ideologies and proclivities through myriad examples (Reverend Jeremiah Wright; 10 year membership in black liberation theology, racist, anti-American Trinity United Church of Christ; National of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan; Attorney General Eric Holder and the culture of racism (black rights trump white rights) at the Dept. of Justice; the Cambridge police incident; etc.)
His pro-union stance has been quite evident even before the election. It has only solidified with their assistance in electing him “president”. The vehemence of this position and the extents that he goes to support and protect them are … indefensible. To wit: his illegal arrogation of assets from GM to the unions instead of secured holders in violation of constitutional law.
In Wisconsin now as well as elsewhere, he is insinuating himself in local situations, siding with the unions and against the state’s taxpayers and citizens. His words and actions are unwarranted, divisive and destructive.
None of this is a surprise which is why the sooner that he is gone, the better it is for the average hardworking American.
Obama: I will 'paint the nation purple with SEIU'
After viewing the video below we can now say with certainty which side President Obama is on concerning the Wisconsin public union protests. Mr. Obama is not a public union supporter, he is their national leader. This is rapidly becoming a nationwide manufactured "crisis", as orchestrated by SEIU and Obama's Organizing for America. Is this what he meant when he said he would make us a nation of purple states?
The corrupt and coercive actions of the Obama Administration know no limits. Exacerbating this egregious situation is the negligence and patent complicity of the news media in its lack of reportage on any of these issues. By not getting called out and criticized publically, Obama and his elitist, racist and radical cronies have no disincentive to cease these activities.
The story below, written by an attorney who had worked in the Justice Dept. under Holder and was intimately acquainted with policies and culture, details Attorney General Eric Holder’s brazen arrogance and tampering with the New Black Panther Investigation as well his threats to those in the Dept. who refuse to toe his “policies”.
Holder Uses New York Times to Tamper with New Black Panther Investigation
J. Christian Adams
Attorney General Eric Holder recently made statements to the New York Times so detached from reality that they could have been written by scheming Republican operatives for fun. In particular, Holder tells the Times that the lawless dismissal of voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panthers is “a made up controversy.” I have written about Holder’s accelerating detachment from reality in the interview, along with Jen Rubin.
Putting aside the fact video exists of the armed uniformed thugs in Philadelphia, Holder did something even worse than flirt with kooky conspiratorial characterizations of the fallout from the Black Panther dismissal.
When Holder announced to the New York Times that there “is no there there,” he let the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) know what he believes the outcome of their ongoing investigation into the dismissal should be. In other words, he tampered with their investigation.
Holder’s close friend Deputy Attorney General James Cole will have the power to veto any critical conclusions by OPR.
Multiple attorneys, including me, have testified under oath that the Obama Civil Rights Division will not enforce civil rights laws in a race-neutral fashion. Numerous attorneys still at the Justice Department have confirmed the substance of our testimony to the Washington Post. Numerous other attorneys no longer at the Justice Department have also confirmed our testimony.
Holder’s response to the New York Times? It’s a “made up controversy.”
Holder’s performance to the New York Times is more than simply ludicrous, it is meddlesome. When Holder made these partisan campaign-style attacks, he meddled with two ongoing investigations in a way that previous Attorney Generals would never do.
The DOJ OPR is currently investigating whether or not Steve Rosenbaum, Loretta King, and other DOJ political appointees used improper considerations when they ordered the dismissal of the New Black Panther case.
The problem is that Eric Holder sits atop the chain of command for every OPR attorney working on the investigation. Eric Holder, and his newly recess-appointed Deputy Attorney General James Cole, oversee OPR.
They have the power to fire, and as was recently exercised, hire the head of OPR. The incoming head of OPR, Robin Ashton, was just named by Holder. Ashton will have the power to tamper with any findings in the New Black Panther investigation, and bring them more in line with Eric Holder’s pronouncements to the New York Times.
When Holder made wild assertions about the dismissal of the New Black Panther case to the New York Times, you can be sure every single person working down the chain of command on the investigation took note. For them to reach a finding contrary to Holder’s statements guarantees a bureaucratic headwind from the highest levels of the DOJ. That’s a career killer inside Justice. Few can be expected to have the courage to confront the falsehoods of an Attorney General from within the bureaucracy. There aren’t many with the courage of DOJ lawyer Christopher Coates.
The DOJ Inspector General is also investigating the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of the New Black Panther case and hostility toward racially equal enforcement of civil rights laws under Eric Holder. I have already given lengthy interviews with the IG about this hostility, as have many others.
Yet Eric Holder has announced his opinion of the investigation in the interview. The IG is just looking into “a made up controversy,” he says.
America might soon long for the good old days of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. When the DOJ OPR and IG were investigating conduct during his tenure, he had the sense and integrity to withhold comment.
Instead of telegraphing his views to the investigative authorities as Holder did, Gonzales made it clear it wouldn’t be appropriate to comment while an investigation was ongoing.
Holder doesn’t care even about the appearance of impropriety. He plainly let the investigators inside OPR and the IG know what he thinks they should conclude.
Worse, Holder almost taunts the majority of Americans who believe men wielding weapons at the entrance to a poll and hurling racial slurs is a serious matter, no matter the race of the perpetrators. All “made up,” he shockingly concludes, providing sanctuary to armed thugs from the highest levels of our government.