WHO'S DISCRIMINATING IN THE LORETTA LYNCH NOMINATION?

           SR has previously explained the compelling grounds for blocking the confirmation of Loretta Lynch, Obama's nominee to continue Eric Holder's anti-constitutional and racially biased policies as Attorney General.  See the recent Splashing Rocks posts of November 11, 2014, and February 17, 2015, at http://splashingrocks.blogspot.com/.

            Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky recently announced his strong opposition to Lynch's nomination, based on a combination of issues:  (1) her support of Obama's unconstitutional amnesty order for illegal aliens; (2) her enthusiasm for draconian civil asset forfeiture remedies as U.S. Attorney; and (3) her refusal to condemn and oppose the possible use of a drone missile to kill a suspected American citizen terrorist on American soil.  Significantly, Paul's opposition had nothing to do with the controversial race-related issues -- like her embrace of radical race-based law enforcement policies pushed by the likes of Al Sharpton and the NAACP -- that Lynch's nomination squarely presents.

            Notwithstanding the clearly libertarian basis of Paul's opposition, the incorrigibly divisive Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) predictably condemned his position as racist.  Of course, these race-obsessed fanatics consider opposition to any black nominee as racist, unless the nominee is a conservative or a Republican, like Clarence Thomas.  The CBC's mindless attack on Sen. Paul is all the more absurd because Paul is the very kind of opportunistic Republican who advocates pandering to the leftist black establishment's bogus claims of persistent societal discrimination.

            But the CBC poses exactly the wrong question regarding possibly racial aspects of the Lynch nomination.  The honest question is not whether opposition to Lynch's nomination is racist, inasmuch as there are compelling grounds to oppose her that have nothing to do with race or even racial issues – most importantly, her open embrace of Obama's patently unconstitutional amnesty order to empower illegal aliens.

           

            The real question – the one nobody seems willing to raise – is whether Lynch's nomination was itself made on the basis of race.

            Eric Holder – who is not only black, but openly biased in favor of blacks in his administration of the Justice Department – has been Attorney General for six years.  Meanwhile, the second of the Nation's two most prominent law enforcement offices – Secretary of Homeland Security – is held by another black attorney, Mr. Jeh Johnson.  (Johnson is a Democratic activist who served as special counsel to John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign,  and was an early supporter of Obama's presidential campaign).   With Obama as President -- and thus the Nation's chief law enforcement officer (it is he who must "take care that the laws are faithfully executed," see U.S. Const. art. II, sec. 3) -- this means that blacks (who constitute about 13% of the U.S. population) have a monopoly and a stranglehold on all three positions directing the Nation's law enforcement policies and practices.

            Ms. Lynch's confirmation as Attorney General will perpetuate that monopoly.  Yet no one seems to notice.  More accurately, no one seems to want to notice.

            It is especially pertinent to consider the broader context in which Ms. Lynch was singled out as the one attorney uniquely qualified to hold the highest legal post in the Executive Branch.   Blacks constitute about 4.8% of attorneys in the United States according to data compiled by the American Bar Association.  The black percentage of those highly experienced and accomplished attorneys qualified to serve as attorney general is probably lower than 4.8%, if only because substantial numbers of blacks only started  to enter the leading law schools, law firms, and other proving grounds for high legal office in relatively recent years. 

            Given these realities, the likelihood that a nondiscriminatory process would naturally result in the selection of two consecutive black attorneys for the federal government's highest legal post is rather remote. Moreover, the argument that Ms. Lynch's selection is entirely logical and unsurprising because she is an experienced United States Attorney is unpersuasive.  Lynch is only one of some 93 U.S. Attorneys, a position which is outranked in any event by numerous other Justice Department positions (Solicitor General, Deputy AG, Associate AG, and numerous Assistant Attorneys General).  Nothing about Ms. Lynch's tenure as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, or her other unremarkable career positions, distinguished her as a particular standout among U.S. Attorneys.

            In short, applying the standards that liberals insist on applying in other employment and promotion contexts – standards that call for a finding of discrimination whenever non-racial criteria do not themselves establish the selectee's superior qualifications – the circumstances of Ms. Lynch's selection would, at a minimum, raise an inference of racial discrimination.

            This does not prove that Ms. Lynch was nominated purely on the basis of race.  She does possess the basic credentials that could be considered minimal for an Attorney General, especially her experience (if not her particular distinction) as a U.S. Attorney.  And her evident sympathy for the Obama/Holder legal policies was undoubtedly a consideration – i.e., even a qualified black attorney who did not support those policies would not have been selected.

            Nonetheless, there are powerful reasons for suspecting that a second consecutive nomination for Attorney General selected from a group representing less than 5% of the qualified pool was based upon racial preference.  In light of Obama's and Holder's biased and divisive statements and actions concerning racially-charged incidents such as that in Ferguson, Mo., and the Trayvon Martin case, there are ample factual grounds for harboring such suspicion.  Yet no prominent public voice – whether in the political or media arena – seems willing even to suggest the issue, let alone confront it. 

            The result is that Obama is given complete impunity to make whatever race-based appointments he chooses.  Indeed, by selecting a black nominee, Obama gains the automatic support of the liberal media; the monolithic Democratic Party of Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP; and pandering Republicans like Senators Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.).  The critical need for strong leadership in nondiscriminatory law enforcement is thus subordinated to the imperatives of reflexive political correctness.

         

             Although the predominant liberal media refuse to report it, there is a near epidemic of mob violence by black juveniles in many parts of America today.  Shopping malls have been an especially prominent target for such thug-mob lawlessness, as demonstrated in the extensive and disturbing documentation reported on the American Thinker website .  See "Forget The Terrorists: Malls Already Under Attack from Black Mob Violence," American Thinker (Internet report, Feb. 23, 2015).  Ironically, only today the DHS Secretary warned citizens to be wary of possible Islamic terrorist attacks at Minnesota's Mall of America.  Yet the Obama Administration is silent and unconcerned about the actual ongoing violence in American malls perpetrated by mobs of lawless black juveniles.  

            As the millennials might remark in their quaint jargon, WTF?

            This disturbing mall-riot phenomenon (among others) demands a firm and forceful response from law enforcement to restore a safe and civilized environment in malls, shopping centers, and other public places. Yet many local police departments have sought to minimize the gravity and obvious racial component of these civil disturbances.  

            This troublesome police reticence is undoubtedly influenced by the fear of press and political charges that a forceful and aggressive police response would be "racist."  It is also undoubtedly influenced by Obama's and Holder's persistent and prominent endorsement of the false premise that police throughout the United States harbor an unjustified bias and suspicion against juvenile black males.

            Another attorney general in the mold of Eric Holder – which accurately describes Loretta Lynch -- is the last thing needed to set the tone for U.S. law enforcement in unsettled times such as these.  Obama and Holder view lawless, undisciplined black offenders as victims rather than perpetrators.  And they view policeman who seek to confront and prevent such lawlessness as culpable racists rather than honorable officers seeking to do their dangerous job under enormously difficult circumstances and conditions. 

            Loretta Lynch's public statements and positions have demonstrated that she operates on the same false premise as Obama and Holder – i.e., that a strong element of anti-black discrimination is prevalent in U.S. law enforcement. 

            As demonstrated by decades of government statistics conclusively refuting the related canard that the death penalty discriminates against blacks, for example, the assumptions and premises underlying the distorted, race-obsessed approach to law enforcement embraced by Obama and Holder are false.  The confirmation of Loretta Lynch would only ratify and reinforce that divisive and dangerous mentality at the Justice Department.

            

SENATE REPUBLICANS MUST STAND FIRM TO BLOCK THE SECOND COMING OF HOLDER

              Back in November, Splashing Rocks explained why the Senate should not confirm Ms. Loretta Lynch of New York City to succeed the insidious Eric Holder as Attorney General --  let alone rubber-stamp her nomination during the post-election lame duck session of Congress.  See http://splashingrocks.blogspot.com/2014/11/no-kumbaya-confirmation-for-holder-20.html. 

                Although the Senate did deny Ms. Lynch a swift confirmation in the lame duck, it now appears that a sufficient number of Republican senators may capitulate to their own pathological compulsion to support black nominees, regardless of fitness, to enable this provocative and politicized appointment to go through.  But the battle is not over yet.  A number of GOP senators, like Rand Paul of Kentucky, have become more outspoken in their opposition.  And a group of feisty conservative House Republicans have recently sent a letter to their senate colleagues stressing the urgency of blocking a nominee whose confirmation would rightly be viewed as a ratification of the Obama-Holder axis's subversion of constitutional government in America.

                Yet some spineless Republican senators seem determined to offer a preemptive surrender to the continued dominance of the Dark Side at the Department of Justice.  In particular, Vichy-Republican Senators Orrin Hatch (Utah), Jeff Flake (AZ), and Lindsey Graham (SC) signaled their readiness to support the Lynch nomination even before she had stated her unqualified support of Obama's unconstitutional grant of executive amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.  

                 Al Sharpton and his choice for Attorney General:  Loretta Lynch

               In gratuitously declaring their blind support for Lynch even before the hearings and Committee background investigation had been completed, these invertebrate appeasers have formulated a contemporary revision of the Queen of Hearts' famous legal dictum from Carroll's Through the Looking Glass.  While the mad queen declared, "Sentence first, verdict afterwards," the Spineless Senators effectively declare, "Confirmation first, hearing afterwards."

                That embarrassing Ted Kennedy-courtier, Orrin Hatch, was not even content to indicate mere support for Ms. Lynch.  Instead, he impulsively slobbered, "I'm going to be a strong supporter of her nomination. . . .  And I believe she's not only qualified, but exceptionally well qualified, and a very good person, to boot."  Has Hatch forgotten that Kennedy is no longer around for him to suck-up to?

                Hatch's clueless claim that the undistinguished and politically compromised Lynch is "exceptionally well qualified" is utterly unfounded and gratuitous. On the contrary, Ms. Lynch is palpably unqualified to serve as Attorney General in an era when a keen and principled grasp of constitutional law is more essential to that position than ever  – and when the Nation is in desperate need of a racially unbiased Justice Department. 

                Lynch's unqualified support of Obama's unconstitutional seizure of Congress's authority over immigration, and her unquestioning embrace of Holder's racially biased law enforcement policies, demonstrates her ignorance or disrespect of the Constitution.  Even as I write, a federal district judge in Texas has issued a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the unconstitutional amnesty order that Lynch has embraced and endorsed.  And this is wholly apart from her lack of scholarly experience, let alone distinction, in addressing the many other complex issues of constitutional law the Nation faces today.  

               Ms. Lynch is a garden-variety, patently Democratic, pedestrian federal prosecutor -- one of some 93 equally "qualified" U.S. Attorneys -- nothing more.

                Lynch's confused understanding of the law and the Constitution is also typified by her ridiculous assertion that “the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here.”  

                No, Ms. Lynch.  If a person entered and remains in this country illegally, that person does not have the "right" to work.  On the contrary, it is unlawful for such a person to be employed in the United States.  8 U.S.C. 1324a.  This patently erroneous statement alone demonstrates not only Lynch's ignorance of the law, but a recklessness that is flatly inconsistent with the responsibilities of the Nation's chief law enforcement officer.

                Moreover, Senator Hatch's assertion that Ms. Lynch is a "very good person" is an entirely unfounded and gratuitous throw-away line.  The Mormon senator from Utah doesn't even know this heretofore obscure Brooklyn prosecutor, let alone know her long enough or well enough to make authoritative pronouncements on her purported virtue. 

                But here's something we do know:  the degenerate racial agitator and riot-inciter, Al Sharpton, was actively involved in her selection as Obama's nominee, and has declared his confidence that Lynch "will continue in the same vein that Eric Holder had began."  [sic]

                Although there is every reason to doubt Sharpton's honesty and integrity in areas such as tax compliance and inter-racial crime, there is no reason to doubt his conviction that Loretta Lynch will adhere to the same politicized left-wing, anti-constitutional, and racially preferential policies inflicted on the Nation by Holder.  Indeed, Sharpton would have no reason to enthusiastically support Lynch's confirmation unless he were confident that she would further Sharpton's (and Holder's) race-based goals in areas such as criminal law, affirmative action, school discipline, and racial preferences in housing, education, and employment.

                Unfortunately, the Senate Judiciary Committee's toothless and timid examination of Ms. Lynch's background failed to identify a glaring indicator of her blind commitment to the same divisive, race-based approach to justice and law enforcement that has been the hallmark of Eric Holder's tenure at DOJ.

                As reported by the lively Gotnews.com website, Lynch not only endorses the fraudulent narrative that the death penalty is discriminatorily applied against blacks, but apparently is heavily influenced by that false doctrine in her adamant opposition to the death penalty as a tool of federal law enforcement.  See http://gotnews.com/read-lorettalynch-hates-death-penalty-leads-dead-blacks/.  Every senator who votes on the Lynch nomination should read this piece and the sources supporting it.

                This writer has been extensively involved in litigation (e.g., the landmark case of McCleskey v. Kemp), legislative battles, and scholarly debates that have demonstrated that, far from discriminating against blacks, capital punishment is in fact disproportionately imposed on white murderers.  Indeed, a recent posting on this blog presented data reported by Obama's own Justice Department confirming these indisputable facts.  See The Capital Canard of Death Penalty Discrimination, SplashingRocks.blogspot.com (July 17, 2014).  As that article documented, "For roughly three decades now, whites have consistently received a disproportionately large number of death sentences in relation to their portion of the relevant population of homicide offenders, whereas the reverse is true with respect to black homicide offenders."

                Notwithstanding these hard  facts, Loretta Lynch (in her capacity as a prosecuting U.S. Attorney) has rejected the enforceability of the death penalty based on her blind endorsement of the insidious leftist myth that capital punishment is discriminatorily applied against blacks.  Not only does this demonstrate the utter fallacy of her defenders' hackneyed assertion that she is a "no nonsense prosecutor" – the discriminatory death penalty argument is the very epitome of legal "nonsense" – but it provides clear confirmation that Lynch is committed to the dangerous doctrine that federal law enforcement must be tilted and tailored to accommodate the most extreme canards of black racial agitators like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

               

                Eric Holder, a left-wing, race-obsessed fanatic, has been Attorney General of the United States for about six years, since the beginning of the Obama administration.  Holder hardly bothers to pretend to administer the laws and enforce justice even-handedly as between blacks and whites.  In his official capacity as Attorney General, he has openly singled out blacks as "my people."  Whites, East Asians, and others who are not "his people," we must assume, are on their own as far as law enforcement goes.  He has openly and aggressively taken the side of violent black offenders against blameless law enforcement officers and white victims in case after case, relentlessly driven by his fanatical commitment to the most extreme notions of black entitlement and black preference.  And Al Sharpton is confident that Loretta Lynch "will continue in the same vein" as Mr. Holder.

                Six years of discriminatory law enforcement is more than enough.  But with the nomination of Loretta Lynch, Mr. Obama appears determined to perpetuate Holder's race-based administration of justice for the remainder of his term in office.  If Al Sharpton's (not to mention Holder's) enthusiastic promotion and support of Lynch's confirmation were not enough to confirm this, Lynch's endorsement and application of fraudulent and divisive doctrines like the myth of the discriminatory death penalty should remove all doubt.

                Unless the newly elected Republican Senate wants to reaffirm and ratify Mr. Holder's lawless maladministration of the Justice Department, it should firmly reject the nomination of Loretta Lynch --  who was clearly selected to perpetuate Holder's policies at DOJ for the remainder of this administration.

                Addendum:   A portion of Ms. Lynch's testimony in her hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee raises additional troubling questions and inconsistencies respecting her position on the death penalty – and her honesty.

                As noted above, reports on Lynch's remarks at a panel discussion in 2002 contain specific quotes and information strongly indicating that she objects to use of the death penalty because of a purported disparate impact on blacks which has been conclusively disproven by Justice Department statistics and other data.  At her confirmation hearing, however, Lynch tried to deflect possible criticism or objections to her position on the death penalty in the following colloquy with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R.-SC):

                Sen. Graham: "Do you support the death penalty?"

                Lynch:  "I believe the death penalty is an effective penalty.  My office was able to achieve a death verdict there—"

                Graham:  "How about yes?"

                Lynch:  "So, we have sought it, yes," Lynch replied.

                The astute reader will notice that Lynch very carefully avoided answering Graham's question.  Her cagey statement that the "death penalty is an effective penalty" does not mean that she supports it or even that she would be willing to order its enforcement as Attorney General.  Saying the death penalty is "effective" could merely be an acknowledgement of the truism that, on the rare occasions when it is actually carried out, it is "effective" in eliminating a particular defendant through execution.  Lynch's response was patently evasive.

                And when Graham pressed again for a straightforward "yes" answer, Lynch again avoided a direct answer with another evasive statement affirming that her office (the U.S. Attorney's Office in Brooklyn) had sought (and obtained) the death penalty in one case – probably referring to the notorious case of cop killer Ronell Wilson.  She carefully and craftily avoided giving a direct affirmation that she "supported" the death penalty, and answered instead a question that Sen. Graham did not ask.  If Lynch was referring to the Wilson case, moreover, it was the Office of the Attorney General, rather than her office, that made the decision to pursue the death penalty.

                Something simply does not add up here.  Lynch's statements at the 2002 conference provide strong evidence that she strongly objected to the death penalty based on the leftist/racialist myth that it is discriminatorily applied against blacks.  Yet when faced with the prospect that anti-death penalty testimony in her hearings would undoubtedly raise complications for her confirmation among Republican senators, Lynch provided evasive and non-responsive answers, deceptively couched to leave the Committee with the false impression that she does support the death penalty.  The clueless media in fact inaccurately reported that Lynch had affirmed her support for the death penalty, in an obvious effort to reinforce the utterly bogus narrative that she is a moderate, no-nonsense prosecutor.

                More importantly, neither the feckless Senator Graham nor other Republican members of the Committee responded to the obvious prevarication in Lynch's testimony by pressing her to reconcile her race-based anti-death penalty statements in 2002 with her mendacious attempts to create the misimpression that she is now a death penalty supporter.  This is a classic case of what veterans of confirmation hearings have labeled "confirmation conversion" – a sudden and drastic shift of position on a crucial issue in order to facilitate a positive senate confirmation vote.

                The bottom line is that Lynch's misleading testimony on the capital punishment issue provides further grounds to oppose her confirmation – i.e., the failure to testify honestly and forthrightly to the Judiciary Committee.

"PAVANE FOR A DEAD PRINCESS" -- KAREN CARPENTER 32 YEARS LATER

              Today marks 32 years since Karen Carpenter, the beloved Drummer Girl from Downey, California, passed to a better place.  Lovers of great pop music can only be grateful that the unforgettably beautiful recordings produced by Karen and her talented brother and lifelong collaborator, Richard, remain with us to provide a harmonic refuge from the grating cacophony of what passes for popular music today.

                At the height of her success from 1970 to 1975, the Carpenters' songs ruled the charts, the duo were in constant demand for major television appearances, and Karen's enormous popularity spread worldwide from Southern California to the UK, Japan, and ultimately even the Peoples Republic of China.  Ms. Carpenter was indeed the Princess of Pop for her era.  So it seems fitting to commemorate her passing with a classical composition by Maurice Ravel which captures the beauty and melancholy of her tragically abbreviated musical legacy – Pavane for a Dead Princess (video courtesy of YouTube embedded below).

 Ravel's "Pavane for a Dead Princess,"a fitting commemoration for a musical princess

                As thoroughly documented in these pages and elsewhere, see http://splashingrocks.blogspot.com/2013/02/remember-drummergirl.html, an extensive list of Ms. Carpenter's past and recent musical peers have testified to the unique quality of her mellifluous contralto and her standing as one of the 20^th century's truly Great Ladies of song.  Leon Russell, the colorful musical virtuoso who wrote some of the Carpenters' most compelling songs (including the haunting slow-rock ballad Superstar) may have put it best when he said, "Well, Karen Carpenter was just a singularly amazing singer. There was just not anybody like her."  Elton John expressed similar sentiments, when he declared that Karen possessed "one of the greatest voices of our lifetime." 

                         

The late Princess of Pop, wearing her trademark jumper in the early years of her stardom

                Interestingly, Sir Elton made that observation in an interview in which he was subtly drawing the distinction between music that is favored because it is "hip" and fashionable, compared to music that is simply excellent, even if denigrated or downgraded because it might be romantic, rather than reverberating or raunchy.   His fuller remarks were as follows:

                Elton:  I'm never going to be thought of in the same terms as David Bowie
                or Lou Reed.  I'm a different animal.  But then you get Michael Stripe telling
                me he used to go around LA with Courtney Love in a limo listening to Yellow
                Brick Road.  I guess I'm not the sort of artist people are writing in their to-ten
                list, but . . .

               Interviewer:  You're in their cars.

               Elton:  Yeah, like you would never say, "I like the Carpenters."  Yet Karen

               Carpenter is one of the greatest voices of our lifetime.  You would slip Led 

               Zeppelin on and put the Carpenters in the closet.  I accept that.

                            

Quoted from: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/sir-bitch-is-back-20041125#ixzz3Qj4AOYz.

                Sir Elton was pointing out an anomaly that has deprived Karen Carpenter and the Carpenters of their rightful place in the pantheon of recognized giants of American pop and rock music (e.g., their absurd exclusion from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame) -- even while they are recognized and revered as musical legends in leading international markets such as Japan and the United Kingdom (as well as in the world's largest nation, China).  The stifling conformity to the libertine, leftist, and anti-suburban cultural norms of the Woodstock generation and its latter-day heirs created a climate in which feckless youngsters who deeply loved Karen's voice and the Carpenters' music were ashamed to admit it, as though they would somehow be shunned simply for expressing their personal musical tastes. 

             Drumsticks and flowers -- a visitor's tribute to Karen at her burial site

                The very same mindless conformity explains the virtual black-listing of Carpenters' recordings, even today, from the playlists of even many American radio stations that purport to play "classical" pop and rock from the 60's and 70's.  No American group produced more hits than the Carpenters in the 1970's, yet many stations perversely exclude their recordings from their "classic" playlists for that very decade.  Think of the crass absurdity:  A station pretends to play the hits and classics of the 1970's, but refuses to play the group that produced more of those very hits and classics than anyone else.  Only in America.

                As Elton John and his interviewer noted in their exchange, millions of people privately listened to the "unhip" music like the Carpenters "in their cars," notwithstanding the contempt of the self-appointed hipsters and opinion-makers.  Today, you could substitute "on You Tube" for "in their cars." 

                Although radio stations might suppress Carpenters recordings based on a philistine canard, legions of music lovers worldwide still listen to Karen's incomparable voice and Richard's harmonic arrangements on You Tube and other Internet outlets -- sources which are not filtered or censored by the prejudicial norms of a degenerate contemporary culture.  One 45-year-old video of Close to You alone has been visited by 20 million viewers, and well over 60 Carpenters' videos have been visited by at least one million viewers.  And in those East Asian cultures (Japan, China, Thailand, etc.) that are not infected by the bizarre biases of American's twisted contemporary tastes, the musical legacy of Karen and the Carpenters lives on and grows in brightness like an unquenchable flame.

                                       

                                An ethereal Karen Carpenter at Huntington Gardens

                In 1975, the Carpenters filmed a video for their last Top 5 hit, Only Yesterday, at the remarkably beautiful botanical setting of the Huntington Library and Gardens in San Marino, California, near Pasadena.  A still shot from that video shows a ghostly image of a solitary Karen Carpenter strolling gracefully over a gentle rise in the gardens.  It is a fittingly ethereal vision, capturing the spirit of the departed princess who spread so much beautiful music throughout the world during her short time here.