« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Holder Needs To Be Fired Yesterday

While it would be easy to blame Barack Obama for Eric Holder being the Attorney General, and he does deserve half of the blame, Senate Republicans didn’t take the step to make sure Holder wasn’t confirmed. As Attorney General, Holder is a joke; he’s worse than Janet Reno, worse than Alberto Gonzales, and nearly as bad as Ramsey Clark and John Mitchell. Yesterday, Holder was testifying to a House Appropriations subcommittee chaired by Rep. John Culberson (R-TX). Culberson was discussing the Holder DoJ’s handling of the New Black Panther Party case, which included a comment from former Democratic activist Bartle Bull, who “called the incident the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career.” How did Holder react? In the typical manner, with a straw man and faux outrage [emphasis mine]:

“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.

“My people?” Maybe it’s me who is confused; is Holder the Attorney General only for Americans who are black? It would seem Holder, who is a lawyer and who is supposed to know the Constitution, kind of forgot something called the Equal Protection Clause. Which makes sense since that is what the NBPP case is about.

Holder is projecting. At the same time he takes “offense” at Bull’s comment from Culberson, his own DoJ prevented a NC town from implementing a non-partisan voting system in 2009, even though such systems are used by a majority of NC cities and towns. The acting head of the DoJ’s Civil Rights Division, Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King (who figures prominently in the NBPP case), had this to say about Kinston, NC:

King wrote that data from several prior elections in Kinston indicated that few black residents typically voted, and candidates who would appeal to the black community — which often votes Democratic — win because of straight Democrat ticket votes from the wider electorate.

“Black candidates will likely lose a significant amount of crossover votes due to the high degree of racial polarization present in city elections,” King stated.

Kinston is in one of the areas that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires the DoJ to authorize election changes. It was supposed to be temporary, expiring in 1970, but has been renewed repeatedly since then, most recently in 2006; it isn’t due to expire again until 2031. As a result of King’s ruling, taxpayers had to put out another $15,000 to $20,000 for a primary election Kinston didn’t think it was going to have since voters passed a referendum in 2008 to use the non-partisan voting system. In 2010, a few Kinston residents banded together to sue the DoJ to declare Section 5 unconstitutional; former DoJ attorney Hans von Spakovsky (who is also a frequent target of the left) wrote a piece about the proceedings from that suit that is worth reading.

Now think about what King is saying. King wants to throw out the Equal Protection Clause in order to get more of Holder’s “people” elected to Kinston’s city government, and because, according to King, the vast majority of Americans who are black only vote for Democrats, and without Democrats on the ballot, then Americans who are black won’t know who to vote for. In other words, King is calling Holder’s “people” stupid. She also states all the other voters of Kinston are just as stupid because they will vote for one of Holder’s “people” as a candidate only if that candidate is a Democrat. And all that King did was endorsed by Holder. By doing so, Holder insults every single Kinston voter, regardless of race.

There is a picture of the Kinston, NC city council on this website. The third man from the left is Mayor B.J. Murphy. Here is some more about him:

In 2005, B.J. Murphy ran for mayor of Kinston and lost by less than 300 votes to a much more experienced opponent. Four years later, when Murphy was the first candidate to file in the Kinston mayoral race, few gave him much of a chance in what ultimately turned out to be a three-man race. After all, he was only 29 years old — and he was a Republican.

The vote on Nov. 3 proved the odds-makers wrong by 61 votes. Murphy became the first Republican elected as the city’s mayor in a hundred years and on Dec. 7 was sworn in as one of the youngest mayors in the state.

The Kinston native ran a campaign fueled by the energy of scores of young volunteers and set himself apart of his opponents on issues like involuntary annexation — he’s opposed — and nonpartisan voting — he supports — to prevail in an election that saw about 25 percent of voters turn out but characterized by particularly light participation from Democrats.

Murphy is joined on the reconfigured City Council by new member Bobby Merritt and re-elected councilman Robbie Swinson.

Murphy is the first Republican elected mayor since Reconstruction. The elections for members of the at-large City Council (Kinston is not separated by wards or districts) are staggered; the two elected in 2009 are both Democrats. As mentioned in this piece from 2008, all the members of the City Council were Democrats; since Democrat Swinson was re-elected, and Democrat Merritt was newly elected, they still are.

So King, with Holder’s backing, threw out the results of a referendum to change the election system in Kinston, claiming it would keep Americans who are black from voting or running for office because Americans who are black only vote for Democrats or can only win office as Democrats, which insults every single person in Kinston who is part of the city’s electoral process. Yet after the DoJ ruling, hardly any Democrats voted at all, while all the City Council candidates running for those positions were Democrats. King’s spurious ruling was only meant to help the Democratic Party at the expense of the people of the city of Kinston, NC.

Back to the House subcommittee hearing. So you have Holder “upset” about how certain individuals are doing his “people” a disservice, while at the same time his Department is doing the American people in Kinston, which would include Holder’s “people”, a disservice. As he went on, Holder nearly got unhinged:

Holder noted that his late sister-in-law, Vivian Malone Jones, helped integrate the University of Alabama.

“To compare that kind of courage, that kind of action, and to say that the Black Panther incident wrong thought it might be somehow is greater in magnitude or is of greater concern to us, historically, I think just flies in the face of history and the facts.,” Holder said with evident exasperation.

Remember, Bartle Bull had said the NBPP incident in Philadelphia was “the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career.” Bull wasn’t saying it was worse than other incidents that ever occurred; but Holder took Bull’s comment completely out of context, purposely (in my opinion), to interject items that have nothing to do with the NBPP case, and to provide cover for his DoJ essentially dropping the entire matter back in 2009. When Culberson said there is overwhelming evidence showing the DoJ does not handle matters in a race-neutral manner, Holder replied, “This Department of Justice does not enforce the law in a race-conscious way.” He’s full of it. Worse, Holder and his Department’s actions are completely condescending to his “people” and everyone else in America.

Gerstein’s piece also includes irony the size of a freight train from one of Holder’s fellow Democrats [emphasis mine]:

Rep. Chaka Fattah, a Democrat from Philadelphia, said the Black Panthers “should not have been there.” But he said the GOP was making too much out of a fleeting incident involving a couple of people.

The most unethical thing a person can do is make allegations [ed. note - of race] based on absolutely nothing,” Fattah said. “The only issue of race is singling out this particular decision…That this rises to national significance is bogus on its face.”

This is amazing. Democrats and other leftists, including those in the Democrat media, have made it a point since the Tea Party protests began to make serious inroads upon the American people to state how Tea Partiers are almost exclusively made up of white racists. The lack of any proof of this doesn’t stop fellow members of Holder’s and Fattah’s political party from making these statements. But now she’s “concerned” about what is unethical?

It’s past time for Holder to leave his present job. It’s also past time to get Obama’s other political appointees at the DoJ out of there, and it is certainly past time to get rid of those individuals in the Voting Rights Section, like Loretta King, who refuse to enforce the law as specified by the Constitution.

“My people.” What a ridiculously stupid thing for the country’s No. 2 law enforcement officer (after the President) to say, to add to all the other ridiculously stupid things Holder has said, like calling Americans cowards on race while cowards within his DoJ proceed to insult all Americans and institute race-based law enforcement to benefit only the Democratic Party. Imagine if Holder was a Republican who was white and said that. Oh wait…I don’t have to. According to leftists, Democrats, and the Democrat media, Republicans, Tea Partiers, and all other conservatives who are white are racists.

Get Alerts