Monday, February 23, 2015


           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

            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.


No comments:

Post a Comment