By Selwyn Duke
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.