http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0311/Eric_Holder_Black_Panther_case_focus_demeans_my_people.html
“The Attorney General seemed to take personal offense at a comment (Congressman) Culberson read in which former Democratic activist Bartle Bull called the (Black Panther voter intimidation) incident (in Philadelphia) 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, 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,” said Holder, who is black”
Re-read HOlder’s “my people” statement above. Isn’t it clear from that statement alone that Holder and the Justice Department have a mentality where the people they are most concerned with representing is not with Americans as a whole but with Blacks as a subset. It is almost as if a occupying force that distinguishes between the occupiers as a people and the occupied indigenous people and is concerned for the interests of the occupiers.
Would a Attorney General that was representing all Americans make a distinctions between his people and other Americans? In short Holder’s people are clearly not all Americans but rather Blacks. He is the Attorney General for Blacks and not for Americans.
Also, realize that as Attorney General Holder’s job is to enforce the law. It is not his job to enforce the law if he thinks some violation of the law doesn’t measure up to his interpretation of previous historical grievances. Either the law was broken or it wasn’t. If the law was broken, but not broken as egregiously as it may have been in the past, it does not matter. If the law was broken then the law must be enforced.
What this man is doing is basically saying … “Well, because my people had the law broken more egregiously in the 60’s and suffered far worse indignity than those white folks suffered in Philadelphia, therefore I don’t have to enforce the law now even though it was clearly violated.” Payback is a bitch don’t you know?
For Pete’s sake, the Attorney General even admits the action of the Philadelphia Black Panthers was “inappropriate.” Is that what we now call crimes by blacks against whites that we used to call “illegal?”
This is insane.
Because it is only natural to care for, protect and fight for one’s own, this is not the least surprising. Whites, however, are not permitted to do the same on their own land due to the modern teachings concerning Christianity. We must be self sacrificial! We must die a thousand deaths in order to atone for the sins of our fathers! Regardless of the sins of others, we must be the ones to give our lives in exchange for theirs. Whites are racists when they refuse to lay down and die. I see this as one of the greatest issues arising from the denial of the atonement of Christ. We must needs atone for our own sins – but only the whites – lest they be seen as hateful criminals.
Frankly I’m happy that Holder expressed himself as he did. By doing so he has identified the true black attitude and clearly delineated the real issue–my people against your people. Hopefully it will open some eyes, because the stupid white man doesn’t know he is in a contest for his life.
By JAMES TARANTO
Wall Street Journal
“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?
[botwt0302] Associated Press
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.