by Rees Lloyd
The liberal news media are newsing breathlessly that Attorney General Eric Holder is contemplating legal action against Arizona because there is the “potential for abuse” under the new Arizona law requiring illegal aliens to produce a green card or other proof of being illegally in the country.
Could this be a case of justice by color (or, perhaps more politically-correctly, “justice of color,”) or by race?
I ask for the reason that Holder appears very concerned and upset by “potential abuse” — even though all aliens are required by federal law to carry their green cards or other proof on their person, and the Arizona law in fact authorizes inquiry by police only when there has been contact with a person based on other grounds.
The liberal news media are newsing breathlessly that Attorney General Eric Holder is contemplating legal action against Arizona because there is the “potential for abuse” under the new Arizona law requiring illegal aliens to produce a green card or other proof of being illegally in the country.
Could this be a case of justice by color (or, perhaps more politically-correctly, “justice of color,”) or by race?
I ask for the reason that Holder appears very concerned and upset by “potential abuse” — even though all aliens are required by federal law to carry their green cards or other proof on their person, and the Arizona law in fact authorizes inquiry by police only when there has been contact with a person based on other grounds.
But Holder appears not at all upset and concerned about actual abuse.
Consider the case of the black African-American thugs who menaced voters with clubs at polls in the 2008 Obama election, for the purpose, they said, of ensuring that black candidates (e.g., Obama) were elected. The Justice Department filed a suit against them; they failed to respond; a default was entered against them. The judge ordered the DOJ attorneys to prepare the default judgment. AG Holder’s office intervened, stopped the judgment from being filed, although the defendants had defaulted. All defendants but one walked away as if nothing happened at the polls: the other had a meaningless wrist-slap “injunction” imposed against him.
This was a case of black perpetrators menacing with a club non-black voters exercising the right to vote. It is a case of actual abuse. A case of a clear civil rights violation. Yet Holder not only did not prosecute, he undid a default judgment.
Consider the case of the Purple Shirts of SEIU beating down black African-American Ken Gladney, and calling him a “N—er” as they beat him (at least one Purple Shirt was also black). He was beaten because he was exercising the right to pass out Gadston Flags at a Missouri Tea Party. The local authorities dragged their feet before finally, after public pressure, charging these Purple Shirt thugs with ordinance violations. The Purple Shirt thugs are to recently-resigned SEIU boss Andy Stern, fthe Alinskyite former “social worker” and colleague of Obama who is his most frequent guest at the White House, what the Black Shirts were to Mussolini and the Brown Shirts to Hitler. Those Purple Shirt thugs of Stern, recently pleaded “innocent” to the charges — although, of course, their beat-down is on video tape and has been seen by thousands if not millions on the web.
Holder has said nothing to condemn the wanton violent beating by these SEIU Purple Shirt alleged “public servants,” replete with the N-word. He has initiated no federal action for violation of civil rights.
Consider that every “illegal alien” (the legal, statutory term, not “illegal immigrant” or “undocumented worker”) is in fact, “illegal.” Yet Holder wants to formulate an action against American police acted legally under the law, but announces no intent to act against Mexican and other illegal aliens breaking the law and being present in the U.S. “illegally.”
Could this be justice based not on the content of the perpetrator’s conduct, but the color of the perpetrator’s skin?
Where is the voice of the post-racial president in all of this “justice by race and color”?
Does justice for Holder and for Obama depend on the color the color of the perpetrator, or of the victim?
If so, who is the racist?
Consider the case of the black African-American thugs who menaced voters with clubs at polls in the 2008 Obama election, for the purpose, they said, of ensuring that black candidates (e.g., Obama) were elected. The Justice Department filed a suit against them; they failed to respond; a default was entered against them. The judge ordered the DOJ attorneys to prepare the default judgment. AG Holder’s office intervened, stopped the judgment from being filed, although the defendants had defaulted. All defendants but one walked away as if nothing happened at the polls: the other had a meaningless wrist-slap “injunction” imposed against him.
This was a case of black perpetrators menacing with a club non-black voters exercising the right to vote. It is a case of actual abuse. A case of a clear civil rights violation. Yet Holder not only did not prosecute, he undid a default judgment.
Consider the case of the Purple Shirts of SEIU beating down black African-American Ken Gladney, and calling him a “N—er” as they beat him (at least one Purple Shirt was also black). He was beaten because he was exercising the right to pass out Gadston Flags at a Missouri Tea Party. The local authorities dragged their feet before finally, after public pressure, charging these Purple Shirt thugs with ordinance violations. The Purple Shirt thugs are to recently-resigned SEIU boss Andy Stern, fthe Alinskyite former “social worker” and colleague of Obama who is his most frequent guest at the White House, what the Black Shirts were to Mussolini and the Brown Shirts to Hitler. Those Purple Shirt thugs of Stern, recently pleaded “innocent” to the charges — although, of course, their beat-down is on video tape and has been seen by thousands if not millions on the web.
Holder has said nothing to condemn the wanton violent beating by these SEIU Purple Shirt alleged “public servants,” replete with the N-word. He has initiated no federal action for violation of civil rights.
Consider that every “illegal alien” (the legal, statutory term, not “illegal immigrant” or “undocumented worker”) is in fact, “illegal.” Yet Holder wants to formulate an action against American police acted legally under the law, but announces no intent to act against Mexican and other illegal aliens breaking the law and being present in the U.S. “illegally.”
Could this be justice based not on the content of the perpetrator’s conduct, but the color of the perpetrator’s skin?
Where is the voice of the post-racial president in all of this “justice by race and color”?
Does justice for Holder and for Obama depend on the color the color of the perpetrator, or of the victim?
If so, who is the racist?
[Rees Lloyd is a longtime civil rights lawyer and veterans activist]
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com