Tag Archives: Department of Justice

Project Longevity and the Sandy Hook Massacre

Ever heard of “Project Longevity”?
No?
Sounds like some anti-aging scientific research project on the long-sought magical elixir of life, doesn’t it?
Not so.
Project Longevity is the Orwellian name of a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) “comprehensive initiative to reduce gun violence” — not in the cities of Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; or Oakland, California, which are plagued with “gun violence” and high rates of shooting homicides — but in the state of Connecticut!
With a total population of 3.58 million in 2011, here are Connecticut’s crime rates for murder and violent crimes from 2000 to 2011 (Source):
CT crime rates
Does the table above look like a crime-ridden state to you? In fact, the numbers of homicides (133 to 128) and violent crimes (10,083 to 9,767) actualy went down in 2011 from a year ago!
Now compare the state of Connecticut’s murder rates with those of 7 of America’s largest cities (Source):
murder rates of large cities
As you can see, the city of Chicago, with a population that’s 89,000 fewer than that of the entire state of Connecticut, had 292 homicides (murders) in 2011 — 164 more than Connecticut.
And yet the state of Connecticut is the object of the Obama regime’s DOJ’s Project Longevity.
On November 27, 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney David Fein and Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy joined members of law enforcement, public officials, social service providers, community leaders and researchers in New Haven, CT, to launch “Project Longevity.” The project is funded by federal, state and local sources.
This is what Eric Holder said at the launch:
“Project Longevity will send a powerful message to those who would commit violent crimes targeting their fellow citizens that such acts will not be tolerated and that help is available for all those who wish to break the cycle of violence and gang activity. Today’s announcement underscores our commitment to working together – across levels of government and jurisdictional boundaries – to protect the American people from the crime that threatens too many neighborhoods and claims far too many innocent lives.”
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6yqtHsCoik]
On December 14, 2012, 17 days after Eric Holder’s visit to New Haven to announce the launching of Project Longevity, 20 mostly white* school children and 6 adults were shot to death in a town 34 miles northeast of New Haven. The town is Newtown, CT — a peaceful prosperous town ranked the 5th safest city in America by the website NeighborhoodScout.com based on 2011 crime statistics. (* Ana Marquez-Greene, 6, is part black. Her father is black jazz musician Jimmy Greene.)
The subliminal message impressed on the American people is that if the massacre had happened to a place such as Newtown, then no one is safe from gun violence.
Ron Pinciaro, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, said in a telephone interview that “we’ve got to do something” and that the change needed was a cultural shift.
The massacre of 20  upper-middle class first-graders at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, allegedly by a disturbed lone gunman who then killed himself, would be the match that ignited a nationwide call for gun control and for a ban on assault weapons. (See Sen. Feinstein’s “assault weapons” ban bill.)
It remains unclear whether the gunman Adam Lanza actually used an assault rifle to kill the Sandy Hook 26.
H/t FOTM reader Grace.

UPDATE (Oct. 9, 2014):

This post was published 1½ months after the Sandy Hook “massacre”. Since then, there is compelling evidence that the “massacre” was a contrived event. Please go to our “Sandy Hook Massacre” page for all the posts we’ve done on this false flag event, especially “No one died in Sandy Hook: Testimony from Social Security Death Master File.”
In light of this evidence, Project Longevity takes on added and sinister significance.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Obama's Attack-Dogs Go After Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Joe Arpaio, the maverick sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County, has a reputation as “the toughest sheriff in America” — a well-earned reputation because of his tough-on-crime approach. Arpaio jails inmates in tents, dresses them in pink underwear, and strictly enforces the laws on illegal immigration which the federal government refuses to enforce. For that, last July a Mexico drug cartel offered a $1 million bounty for Arpaio’s head.
It is because of his tough reputation as a law enforcer that a Tea Party group, frustrated by judge after judge throwing out lawsuits that challenged Obama’s eligibility, turned to Sheriff Arpaio for help. On August 18, 2011, they met with Arpaio to ask him to investigate the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate, an image of which Skippy had disclosed with great fanfare on April 27, so as to determine his eligibility for Maricopa Ccounty’s 2012 election ballot. As his county’s chief law enforcement officer, Arpaio is obliged to investigate.
In late October, Arpaio said his Cold Case Posse would deliver “surprises” in their eligibility investigation, and that the investigation was extending to the possibility that Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security number. Sources close to the investigation say the posse has decided it needs to see Skippy’s original birth records — not an electronic file, an online image, or scanned copies — before it can conclude whether Obama should be eligible for the presidential ballot in 2012.
I was wondering when Obama would set loose his attack dogs on the sheriff.
Sure enough, in early November came news that Arpaio had received death threats for his eligibility investigation. Undeterred, Arpaio told WorldNetDaily that “Getting death threats is nothing new for me” — the Mexico drug cartel having offered a bounty for his head — but he was puzzled by the major media’s virtual silence about his decision to investigate Obama’s eligibility to run for re-election. He pointed out that “usually the media is all over me, but when I decided to investigate Obama, the media has suddenly gone missing in action.”
Now Eric Holder, Obama’s Heinrich Himmler, is siccing his Department of Justice (DOJ) attack-dogs on the sheriff — the same Eric Holder and the Department of Justice that refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers for their voter intimidation at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008.
Fox News reports that yesterday, Dec. 15, 2011, the DOJ released a report of its 3-year investigation of Arpaio’s Maricopa County office. The report alleges that Arpaio and his office have carried out a blatant pattern of discrimination against Latinos. The DOJ report claims:

  • Arpaio’s office, MCSO (Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office), has committed a wide range of civil rights violations against Latinos, including a pattern of racial profiling and discrimination and carrying out heavy-handed immigration patrols, known as “sweeps,” based on racially charged citizen complaints — that Latinos were merely gathering near a business without committing crimes.
  • Arpaio and his MCSO have no clear policies to guard against the civil rights violations, even after he changed some of his top aides earlier this year. Thomas Perez, who heads the DOJ’s civil rights division, wrote: “Arpaio’s own actions have helped nurture MCSO’s culture of bias. MCSO is broken in a number of critical respects. The problems are deeply rooted in MCSO’s culture.”
  • Arpaio and some top staffers tried to silence people who have spoken out against the sheriff’s office by arresting people without cause, filing meritless lawsuits against opponents and starting investigations of critics.
  • Arpaio’s office treated Latinos as if they are all in the country illegally, resulting in Latinos being 4 to 9 times more likely to be stopped in traffic stops in Maricopa County than non-Latinos, as well as arrested without good cause. Deputies are encouraged to make high-volume traffic stops in targeted locations. There were Latinos who were in the U.S. legally who were arrested or detained without cause during the sweeps, according to the report.
  • During the sweeps, deputies flood an area of a city — in some cases, heavily Latino areas — over several days to seek out traffic violators and arrest other offenders. Illegal immigrants accounted for 57% of the 1,500 people arrested in the 20 sweeps conducted by Arpaio’s office since January 2008.
  • Police supervisors, including at least one smuggling-squad supervisor, often used county accounts to send emails that demeaned Latinos to fellow sheriff’s managers, deputies and volunteers in the sheriff’s posse. One such email had a photo of a mock driver’s license for a fictional state called “Mexifornia.”
  • Arpaio’s jails display a pattern of language-based racial discrimination against Latinos:
  • Latino inmates with limited English skills were punished for failing to understand commands in English by being put in solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day or keeping prisoners locked down in their jail pods for as long as 72 hours without a trip to the canteen area or making nonlegal phone calls.
  • Some jail officers used racial slurs for Latinos when talking among themselves and speaking to inmates.
  • Detention officers refused to accept forms requesting basic daily services and reporting mistreatment when the documents were completed in Spanish and pressured Latinos with limited English skills to sign forms that implicate their legal rights without language assistance.
  • The agency pressures Latinos with limited English skills to sign forms by yelling at them and keeping them in uncomfortably cold cells for long periods of time.

Perez, the DOJ’s expert on racial profiling, calls Arpaio’s office the most egregious case of racial profiling in the nation that he has seen. He claims that federal investigators had interviewed more than 400 people, including Arpaio, reviewed thousands of documents and toured county jails as part of its probe.
The DOJ report requires Arpaio to set up effective policies against discrimination, improve training and make other changes that would be monitored for compliance by a judge. Arpaio faces a Jan. 4 deadline for saying whether he wants to work out an agreement. If not, the federal government will sue him and let a judge decide the complaint.
If the sheriff’s office doesn’t turn around its policies and practices, the federal government could pull millions of dollars of federal funding.
Apart from the DOJ civil rights probe, a federal grand jury also has been investigating Arpaio’s office on criminal abuse-of-power allegations since at least December 2009 and is specifically examining the investigative work of the sheriff’s anti-public corruption squad.
Meanwhile, the DOJ vows they will continue their investigation of Sheriff Arpaio in other areas as well: complaints of excessive force against Latinos; botched sex-crimes cases; immigration efforts “that have hurt the agency’s trust with the Hispanic community”; whether the sheriff’s office has limited the willingness of witnesses and victims to report crimes or talk to Arpaio’s office.
For his part, Arpaio has long denied the racial profiling allegation, saying people are stopped if deputies have probable cause to believe they have committed crimes and that deputies later find many of them are illegal immigrants.
UPDATE:
Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) is defending Sheriff Joe  against Justice Department charges. More Republicans should come forth to support Arpaio. It’s time to circle the wagons!
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlSM1oJpvmA&feature=player_embedded]
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Obama Targets Anti-Fraud Voter ID Law

Let me ask you a simple question:

When you go to the DMV to get a driver’s license, don’t you have to show identification proving you are who you say you are?

When you go to the Post Office to get a passport, don’t you have to show valid identification proving you are who you say you are?

When you go buy something in a store without using cash, don’t you have to show your driver’s license to prove you are who your credit or debit card says you are?

Then why is it that when we go to the voting booth to exercise one of the most important acts as an American citizen, we shouldn’t produce valid ID to prove we are who we say we are? And if you favor voter ID, you’re called a racist?
To prevent voter fraud, many states have passed voter-ID laws. Some of those states even provide a valid identification for free to residents who do not have a driver’s license.
The Supreme Court has upheld those voter ID laws.
But the Obama administration is attacking those exact same laws, using the contorted justification that asking for voter ID discriminates against minorities.
Really? Does Obama have such a low opinion of America’s racial/ethnic minorities that he thinks they’re too stupid to know how to acquire a voter ID card?
Judicial Watch reports, Dec. 7, 2011, that the Obama Administration is once again utilizing the Department of Justice (DOJ) as a political tool, this time to challenge voter identification laws.
The powerful chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee (Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz) is calling ID laws a “full-scale assault” on minority voters designed to “rig” elections for Republicans.
Eight states have strict laws that require a voter to provide picture identification in order to cast a ballot. All but two of the states—Georgia and Indiana—passed their measures this year. But the DOJ’s bloated civil rights division says those measures are “discriminatory” in purpose or effect. Targets of the DOJ’s discrimination probe are Kansas, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Mississippi.
Reiterating the administration’s “commitment to robust civil rights enforcement,” Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez confirmed last week that DOJ lawyers are reviewing some of the recently-enacted state laws to ensure that they are not racially discriminatory. “We have received numerous inquiries about recently enacted state laws relating to voter identification requirements, voter registration requirements and changes to early voting procedures,” Perez said, adding that “we are carefully reviewing these laws.”
In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, ruling that the state’s interest in protecting the integrity of the voting process outweighed the insufficiently proven burdens the law may impose on voters. “There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters,” the nation’s highest court said in its decision.
The ruling makes the DOJ’s aggressive intervention all the more questionable, like some of its other politically-motivated actions. Earlier this year Judicial Watch obtained internal government records that show political appointees at the DOJ ordered a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party dismissed. Clad in military attire and armed with weapons, members of the radical group intimidated white voters with racial insults and profanity during the 2008 presidential election and were scheduled to be prosecuted.
H/t beloved fellow Tina.


Democrats have engaged in voter fraud in 2008 and, most recently, in 2010. Head of the DOJ and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder even admitted that he wouldn’t prosecute the New Black Panthers ’cause they’re “his people.” It’s high time we start calling the DOJ under Obama the Department of Injustice.
Maybe that’s why, more than a year ago, the DOJ changed its website’s banner from the red-white-and-blue to this ominous black:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Obama's DOJ Wastes Your Money on $16 Muffin – Updated!

Feast your eyes on this muffin, for this is the most expensive muffin you’ll ever see.
This muffin costs U.S. taxpayers — those 53% of us suckers who pay income taxes — SIXTEEN DOLLARS.

Reckless extravagance: The Department have been censured for spending $4,200 on 250 muffins, more than $16 apiece

This summer, Michelle Obama insisted on flying a separate jet, Air Force Two, to arrive at Martha’s Vineyard just four measely hours ahead of Skippy. She has already frittered away some $10 million on vacationssince moving into the White House.
Now comes news that Eric Holder’s Department of Justice blew half a million dollars on food at just 10 conferences— spending $4,200 on 250 muffins, at more than $16 a muffin!

Hannah Roberts reports for Daily Mail, Sept 20, 2011, that the exorbitant muffins were served at a 2009 legal training conference in Washington by Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review.
The DOJ is the government department charged with investigating financial mismanagement in the build up to the economic crash. But the Justice Department has come under fire for wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money-on snack food for internal conferences.
The extent to which public money has been wasted on snacks and soft drinks was laid bare in a report issued Tuesday by the Justice Department’s inspector general. In an audit of 10 department conferences, she found excessive spending on food and beverages.
At a single Washington, D.C., conference, the department spent $4,200 on 250 muffins — more than $16 apiece. Another $2,880 was spent on 300 cookies and brownies — at nearly $10 each. At another event for the department’s Office on Violence Against Women, spending reached $65 per person at a lunch for 65 people. Coffee cost more than $1 an ounce, making a single cup $8.24. A snack break at the same conference cost the taxpayer $32 per person for Cracker Jack, popcorn and candy bars.
Altogether, Eric Holder’s DOJ threw away a total of half a million dollars public money on food and beverages at just 10 departmental conferences, all held at major hotels that applied service fees of roughly 20% to the cost of already expensive menu items.

The audit report says that with service charges, taxes and indirect costs, many of the meals and refreshments at the conferences the inspector general examined appeared to be extravagant and wasteful and exceeded department cost limits.
Given the extravagant and downright profligate spending by Barry, Michelle, and Holder, Obama’s stated concerns about reducing the national debt ring hollow.
For that matter, anyone who calmly looks at the facts — just the facts, ma’am — cannot but conclude that they are doing the exact opposite.
Obama, et al, are  deliberately spending America into bankruptcy.
~Eowyn
UPDATE (source):
Since this story went wildfire viral on the net, the DOJ’s Inspector General — the very same entity which cooked up the $16 muffin figure in their audit of DOJ’s conference spending — issued a statement to Bloomberg Businessweek backing out of their original claim. “Since our report was issued, the Capital Hilton has stated that other food and beverage items, such as coffee, tea, and fruit, were included in the charged amount,” the statement said.
But this doesn’t mean that the IG report didn’t flag some potential issues. As Bloomberg reports:

Muffins aside, the IG’s report points up other instances where the Justice Dept. overpaid for sweet treats. At a 2009 Justice conference in San Francisco, the government was billed $32 per person for a snack of popcorn, Cracker Jack, and candy bars. Department officials didn’t jump up to dispute that part of the audit. Says Gina Talamona, a Justice spokeswoman: “We agree that excessive spending of the types identified in the OIG report should not occur.”

 

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Obama to Achieve Gun Control by Stealth


There’s a fascinating piece of information buried in a blog written by Jason Horowitz for WashingtonPost.com, April 11, 2011, which telegraphs how Obama plans to effectuate gun control.
The blog is about Steve Croley, Obama’s gun policy advisor and point man on gun regulation policy.
Here’s the tidbit in Horowitz’s article:

On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said. “I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

In the meeting, she said, Obama discussed how records get into the system and what can be done about firearms retailers. Her husband specifically brought up the proposed ban on large magazine clips…. “He just laughed,” Sarah Brady said approvingly of the president. Both she and her husband, she emphasized, had absolute confidence that the president was committed to regulation.

From this one should conclude that Obama is planning to do gun control by stealth — via some administrative rule or regulation by the executive branch — so as to bypass Congress, the legislative branch of government.
It is no accident that Steve Croley is Obama’s gun policy advisor. Croley has a background in administrative law and wrote a book on it in 2008, “Regulation and Public Interests: The Possibility of Good Regulatory Government.” Since last August, Croley has been Obama’s assistant for justice and regulatory policy. He favors closing a loophole in the law that allows unlicensed gun dealers to sell arms without background checks, especially at gun shows. In fact, Croley argues in his book that regulation is “the least-worst solution to pressing social problems.”
Sure enough, 18 days after that WaPo blog, on May 29, 2011, the UK’s Daily Mail confirmed our worst fears:

The Obama administration is exploring tighter regulation on gun policy that can be secured through an executive order, bypassing congressional approval, officials have confirmed…. The Department of Justice held a meeting on Tuesday – the first in what is expected to be a series – to explore how the administration might be able to rule by decree.”

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Obama DOJ Won't Protect You From Bullying If You're White


It’s now official policy. In Obama’s America, victims of crime and abuse now are color-coded. 
It began with the head of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Attorney General Eric Holder declaring that the New Black Panthers (NBP) who intimidated voters at a Philadelphia voting station in 2008 won’t be prosecuted because they’re “my people” — i.e., because they are black. Led by their leader King Samir Shabazz, members of the NBP in Philadelphia intimidated voters by standing before a voting place in the city, dressed in their uniform of black beret, black jacket, black pants, and black boots and carrying clubs in their hands. Shabazz also was captured on video saying he hates all white people, “every single one of them,” and calling for the killing of all white babies.
Then Holder implied that whites simply haven’t suffered enough to be considered victims of racism when he defended his refusal to prosecute the NBP, saying:

“Think about that. When you compare what people endured in the South in the [19]60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia, which was inappropriate…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people.”

Now, the DOJ is further making it clear that the Obama administration will not protect white school kids from bullying. As part of Obama’s anti-bullying campaign, the DOJ states on its website that children will be protected from bullying and harassment in schools. However, the DOJ also states that it will enforce this policy in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since whites and males are not considered victim groups under Title IV, this effectively excludes whites, especially white males, from the DOJ’s protection against school bullies!
Kerry Picket reports for The Washington Times on March 18, 2011:

[T]he Obama administration has made school bullying a federal issue. Last week, President Barack Obama addressed an anti-bullying conference with First Lady Michelle Obama at his side. The administration’s anti-bullying campaign has been ongoing since the beginning of Mr. Obama’s term.  The Department of Justice announced in December 2010 its intention to hold liable school districts that fail to protect students that are bullied.
DOJ’s website states: 
“The Civil Rights Division and the entire Justice Department are committed to ending bullying and harassment in schools, and the video highlights the Department’s authority to enforce federal laws that protect students from discrimination and harassment at school because of their race, national origin, disability, religion, and sex, including harassment based on nonconformity with gender stereotypes.”
The statement later says:
“The enforcement of the Equal Protection Clause, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 in school districts is a top priority of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Additional information is available at the Civil Rights Division’s Educational Opportunities Section website at www.justice.gov/crt/edo/.”
Here is the catch. DOJ will only investigate bullying cases if the victim is considered protected under the 1964 Civil Rights legislation. In essence, only discrimination against a victim’s race, sex, national origin, disability, or religion will be considered by DOJ. The overweight straight white male who is verbally and/or physically harassed because of his size can consider himself invisible to the Justice Department.
Apparently, the Justice Department is going by George Orwell’s famous Animal Farm ending: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
“We can only take action where we have legal authority,” wrote DOJ spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa in a December 2010 e-mail to The Washington Times Water Cooler. She continues: “As stated in the website below, we are statutorily authorized to initiate suits under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, and under Title III of the American with Disabilities Act. More information on the Civil Rights Act, Equal Educational Opportunities Act, and the ADA can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/crt/edo/faq.php#3.”

So the message from Obama’s DOJ to all people-of-color schoolyard bullies is this:

Go for the whiteys!

And if you’re white and you find yourself being discriminated against, abused or bullied, and you look to Obama’s DOJ for protection or you seek justice from Obama America’s courts — Good Luck!
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

AG Eric Holder Won't Prosecute New Black Panthers 'Cause They're "His People"

In 2008, led by their leader King Samir Shabazz, members of the New Black Panthers (NBP) in Philadelphia intimidated voters by standing before a voting place in the city, dressed in their uniform of black beret, black jacket, black pants, and black boots and carrying clubs in their hands. Shabazz has also been captured on video saying he hates all white people, “every single one of them,” and calling for the killing of all white babies.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p50qHzC01E0]
But Attorney General Eric Holder, the chief law enforcement official in the United States, ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to drop the case against Shabazz and his fellow thugs. If the voter intimidators were white and if a white attorney general, who was appointed by a white president, had dismissed the case, there would be cries of racism to high heaven.
Last July 6, 2010, former DOJ official J. Christian Adams testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that attorneys in the civil rights division were instructed to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white victims. Adams said that “over and over and over again,” the department showed “hostility” toward those cases, including the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. Adams said that some people in the DOJ  “argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation. Less charitable individuals called it ‘payback time.’”
At a New Black Panther Party meeting, its president Malik Shabazz said outright that his brothers got a pass from the Obama Justice Department because “Justice Department leadership changed into the hands of a black man by the name of Eric Holder.”
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JunrpGf5QRc&feature=player_embedded]
Now we have the truth straight from the man himself, Eric Holder.
H/t my friend Sol.
~Eowyn
Eric Holder’s People
The attorney general confirms suspicions of racial bias at the Justice Department.
By James Taranto – Wall St. Journal – March 2, 2011
“This Department of Justice does not enforce the law in a race-conscious way,” declared Attorney General Eric Holder in a House oversight hearing yesterday. But Politico reports on an exchange during the hearing that suggests otherwise. Rep. John Culberson, a Texas Republican, was questioning Holder about the New Black Panther Party voter-intimidation case, which the department dismissed after Holder took over:

The Attorney General seemed to take personal offense at a comment Culberson read in which former Democratic activist Bartle Bull called the incident the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career.

“Think about that,” Holder said. “When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia–which was inappropriate, certainly that . . . to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people,” said Holder, who is black.

It’s sometimes a useful exercise to imagine situations like this one in reverse. Suppose that in the course of defending himself against accusations of bias in favor of whites, a white attorney general referred to whites as “my people.” What would we make of that?

He’s all Americans’ attorney general.

We have to admit that, for historically contingent reasons, such a scenario would be worse. Although civil rights laws protect everyone, they were enacted to remedy brutal and systematic discrimination against blacks. Thus it is of particular importance that black Americans be able to have confidence in the impartial administration of justice.
Yet to say it is of particular importance is to draw a distinction of degree, not of kind. It is of great importance that all Americans have confidence in the impartial administration of justice. Holder understands that, at least in theory, or he would not have denied that his department enforces the law “in a race-conscious manner.” But when the attorney general spoke of “my people” and meant only a subset of Americans, it confirmed the suspicion of bias that he was trying to counter.
“Holder noted that his late sister-in-law, Vivian Malone Jones, helped integrate the University of Alabama,” Politico reports. That’s a legitimate point of personal pride, but in his official capacity Holder owes his allegiance to the nation as a whole. If he approaches the job with the attitude that any group smaller than all Americans is “my people,” he is the wrong man for the position.

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0