tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7825618881459948402.post4524592941238428177..comments2024-03-08T02:29:14.906-08:00Comments on Talkback with Chuck Wilder on CRN: 4/29 - Byron York, Robert Peteres, Jim KouriJennifer Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05740154344770741600noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7825618881459948402.post-59242249002144182132010-04-28T17:30:18.224-07:002010-04-28T17:30:18.224-07:00ARIZONA LAW VS HOLDER LAW: Which is justice by col...ARIZONA LAW VS HOLDER LAW: Which is justice by color? <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Could this be a case of justice by color (or, perhaps more politically-correctly, "justice of color," or by race?<br /><br />I ask for the reason that Holder appears very concerned and upset by the "potential abuse" (even though under 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 is not at all upset and concerned about actual abuse.<br /><br />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 it was a default judgment. All defendants but one walked away as if nothing happened at the polls: the other had a meaningless wrist-slap "injunction" imposed against him. <br /><br />This was a case of actual abuse: Holder not only did not prosecute, he undid a default judgment.<br /><br />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), for his "crime" of passing out Gadston Flags at a Missouri Tea Party. The local authorities dragged their feet, finally, after public pressure, charging these Purple Shirt thugs with ordinance violations. The Purple Shirt thugs, who are to recently-resigned SEIU boss Andy Stern, the Alinsky-ite 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, recently pleaded "innocent" to the charges -- although, of course, their beat-down is on video tape. <br /><br />Holder has said nothing to condemn this wanton violent beating replete with the N-word. He has initiated no federal action for violation of civil rights. <br /><br />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."<br /><br />Could this be justice based not on the content of the perpetrator's conduct, but the color of the perpetrator's skin, his race?<br /><br />Where is the voice of the post-racial president in all of this "justice by race and color"?<br /><br />Does justice for Holder and for Obama depend on the color of the victim the color of the perpetrator?<br /><br />If so, who is the racist?REES LLOYDnoreply@blogger.com