Blackness Trumps Fairness

Selwyn Duke, American Thinker, July 15, 2013

While George Zimmerman has been acquitted, his troubles are hardly behind him. It’s not just that no small number of thugs want his head on a platter, but that the baddest of them all is the highest law-enforcement official in the land.

The question of whether Eric Holder’s Department of Justice will file a civil-rights-violation suit against Zimmerman is especially salient now. This is because of his acquittal, of course, but also because it must be considered against the backdrop of an open investigation that the department’s Civil Rights Division currently has of him.

An investigation that was proceeding even before Zimmerman’s trial was concluded.

This brings us to the important point that the DOJ has a conflict of interest in the case — a conflict of emotional interest.

It’s a shamefully intense one, too. Consider this: “Right now, hanging on the door of a federal employee’s office in the Department of Justice Voting Section is a sign expressing racial solidarity with Trayvon Martin.” This was written just last month by J. Christian Adams, the former DOJ civil-rights attorney who resigned from the department in disgust in 2010. But is the sign just a rogue employee’s handiwork? Hardly. It is, in fact, reflective of the intense anti-white/pro-black racial bias prevailing at the DOJ.

And it starts at the top. I’ve often reported on Holder’s race card; no, not the one he plays when cowardly calling Americans cowards on race. The actual one that, according to Adams, he carries around in his wallet and which bears the words of a Harlem preacher named Samuel Proctor. The actual quotation is found here, but more interesting is Holder’s interpretation of it. As Adams wrote in his book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department:

When asked to explain the passage, Holder replied, “It really says that … I am not the tall U.S. attorney, I am not the thin United States attorney. I am the black United States attorney. And he was saying that no matter how successful you are, there’s a common cause that bonds the black United States attorney with the black criminal…” [especially when they’re one and the same].

Think about that for a moment. Not only should we wonder what that common cause might be, but Holder didn’t say that it bonded him to the black downtrodden. He didn’t even say black defendant.

He said he was bonded to the black “criminal.”

Now, a criminal is just that: a person absolutely, positively guilty of violating the law. So ponder the reality here, which is so astounding that it bears recasting.

The nation’s highest law-enforcement official has bonded with criminals.

He has common cause with them.

At least, that is, if they happen to share his skin color.

Now consider what this means for Mr. Zimmerman. We generally assume that blacks who may be biased against him would at most rationalize and deny his case a fair hearing in that court between the ears; the idea is that they’d convince themselves Trayvon Martin was innocent and Zimmerman a cold-blooded hunter. But if we’re to take Holder at his word, a different and quite striking conclusion presents itself.

He couldn’t care less if Martin was guilty as sin.

It doesn’t matter if Zimmerman acted in legitimate self-defense.

Holder doesn’t have to rationalize because he doesn’t care if Martin was a “criminal.” Martin was black. And that means Holder has a common-cause bond with him.

If that’s not a conflict of interest, I don’t know what is.

So we basically have the New Black Panthers, sans outfits, at the DOJ. Is it any surprise, then, that Holder dropped the voting-rights-violation case against the out-of-the-closet New Black Panthers who intimidated white voters at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008? And is it any surprise that, as Adams also tells us:

[Last] week, Judicial Watch released documents demonstrating that the Justice Department’s Community Relations Service was deeply entangled in New Black Panther-led rallies and protests in Sanford, Florida, against George Zimmerman. These are the same rallies during which the New Black Panthers called for a bounty on George Zimmerman, and released “dead or alive”posters. The New Black Panther leading the rallies was the same New Black Panther Eric Holder sprang free in the voter intimidation case in Philadelphia.

The common-cause bond strikes again.

So forget about Zimmerman getting a fair hearing at the DOJ; it’s not the facts of the case but the color of his face to the “black United States attorney.”

And what are we to say when America’s top law-enforcement official has served notice that he has no regard for the law? What’s his thinking? I can only conclude that he considers the law unjust by definition because it is “white man’s law.” And when at issue is the violation of unjust law, “criminal” becomes a badge of honor.

Given that much crime is black on black, however, I have to wonder what would happen if, on some dark byway one lonely night, Eric Holder ran into the wrong bond brother. Would the miscreant sense that common-cause connection and not view as a victim the man who wouldn’t view him as a criminal? Well, the chance to find out would be something Eric the Red will never give us.

Justice.

Topics: , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • The__Bobster

    Even if charges are not filed, he says it’s another opportunity for “honest” dialogue.
    _______

    Ask Paula Deen how that worked out for her.

    • bigone4u

      Holder’s definition of honest dialogue is branding all whites as “racist.” Then whites grovel and meekly hide with their tails between their legs thus allowing even more blacks to take over the country’s laws and culture. It’s all in the definition.

    • JohnEngelman

      In an honest dialogue black social pathology should be discussed without sanctions for those who tell the truth.

      • me

        IMPEACHMENT. Along with a public tar and feathering and indictments of TREASON. POTUS, Holder, SCOTUS, and every last one of these racist traitors…..

    • Erasmus

      Anyone left who still doesn’t realize that the United States really has become a banana republic?

  • Creepy as a cracker!

    We as Whites are under attack!

  • bigone4u

    The essayist of this piece, Selwyn Duke, is a real find for American Thinker. I hope he keeps writing about the Injustice Dept and Holder.

    • Non Humans

      I agree. His style of writing is sharp, and with every point, he drives the knife deeper into the heart of the topic.

  • Spartacus

    “And he was saying that no matter how successful you are, there’s a
    common cause that bonds the black United States attorney with the black
    criminal…”

    ———————————————————————————————————————

    It’s called raping white women…

  • David Ashton

    A most important article that deserves wide circulation.

  • John Smith

    The information is already out. Zimmerman is a registered Democrat who voted for Obama and agitated for others to vote for Obama also. There isn’t a racist bone in his 1/2 Jewish 1/2 Hispanic with Afro-Caribbean roots body.

    The real crime here would be to manufacture charges against a non-racist for Civil Rights violations he never committed simply to appease an ignorant mob.

    • Lop_Eared_Galoot

      >>
      The real crime here would be to manufacture charges against a non-racist for Civil Rights violations he never committed simply to appease an ignorant mob.
      >>

      And this is a bad thing because…?

      I hate to be cold but I have yet to hear a good argument for why we should defend a Hispanic who, if he’s like most of those I have met, -wants- to be considered White. So that he has better access to privileges of interbreeding and eventual social status.

      While clearly the blacks want Hispanics to know that they hate them for being interlopers and that they see Zimmerman as just the latest step towards acknowledging Black disenfranchisement ‘at the peak of their influence’.

      The traditional answer for why we should step into this is: “If we side with the Hispanics they will help us with the blacks.”
      No, they will help themselves. As they have for the last 20+ years of welfare entitlements and family reunification as race replacement. If Hispanics ‘tame’ black criminality, with total social disenfranchisement as control over ‘the jobs only blacks used to do’, they will also control (by population numbers) the nature of a society which no longer favors white work ethic, intelligence or moral as ethical discipline.

      The alternative: “If we don’t take a side, both will hate us equally.”
      Approaches wisdom obliquely but doesn’t acknowledge what it sees. If Hispanics know they can expect absolutely no aid from us, they will resent us but they will be busy with blacks who will sense that it is open season and act accordingly. And they already DO hate us equally, for what we are as much as have. They just ignore each other as much as they can in attempting to take from us.
      Of course there is the argument that “If someone sticks up for due process as law, it will define the moral center”. No. Because if there was a moral center to this idiocy, it was that ZImmerman was supposed to be white and what is now on his head was supposed to be another guilted white moment /because/ he was white.
      Only our absolute refusal to own his skin as our blood kept him from being ‘assigned’ to us anyway in what must be the most absurd of:
      “He’s white, take him in so we can nail you to a cross properly!”
      vs
      “No he’s not! Stop blaming a Hispanic for a White hate crime!”
      Media exchanges.
      If Zimmerman’s railroading fizzled for any reason at all, it did so because someone let the air out of the low rider’s tires by acknowledging that whatever happened it wouldn’t happen to the intended victim: whites.
      UNDERSTAND THIS.
      And _know_ that we have no shelter with either group. It’s time we acknowledged that our very society has been turned against us by making it clear that we have turned against it and will no longer keep the peace as a functional justice system.
      Let the Hispanics and the Blacks show their worst sides. Let the ‘low level race war’ become a full intensity blood bath as genocidal competition.
      ONLY then will Whites see exactly the kind of people we have allowed among us. And begin to seek out each other as a common bond group whose racial ideals are as exclusive as the rights and privileges ‘we hold to be self evident’.
      Solely for ourselves.

  • knuckledragger

    …that Austrian house-painter might have been onto something.

  • gemjunior

    It’s a lesson for those who didn’t already know how racist blacks are. If anyone ever has the stupidity to vote for another black president (who will then appoint all the blackest negro losers he can find to every post) then they must be mental. Obama has shown he and his people can’t be trusted on any level to be fair. When blacks are involved they are blind to everything else that’s not black black black. They can never be fair and so can’t be trusted with jobs that involve thinking and judiciousness, or fairness. They are best suited to simple jobs where they can play music and don’t have much responsibility or expectations.

  • Creepy as a cracker!

    Typical negro response. Violence is all they know and appreciate!

  • Creepy as a cracker!

    Typical negro response. Violence is all they know and appreciate!