Zimmerman in the hands of Eric Holder: Is this justice?

Bob Siegel Bob Siegel 1 Comment


Originally published by Communities @ Washington Times

SAN DIEGO, July 16, 2013 — As usual, the Obama Administration, touted in 2008 as the administration that would heal racial division in America, is helping racial matters about as much as a screaming child helps a headache.

In what some would call an unconstitutional example of double jeopardy, George Zimmerman may be tried a second time for the same crime by Obama’s Justice Department.

SEE RELATED: Zimmerman trial could further damage the Bill of Rights

The excuse being floated for that is that the first time Zimmerman was charged with second degree murder, while this brand spanking new charge will be “violating Trayvon Martin’s civil rights.” Supposedly, Zimmerman was more than an overly ambitious volunteer night watchman with a hero complex. He went after Martin simply because the young teen was black!

A decision has not yet been made, but President Obama’s finest appointee, that paragon of legal probity, Attorney General Eric Holder, is actively looking into the matter. Never mind that no racial motive was proved in Trial One. Never mind that Zimmerman’s call to 911 was not consistent with a man dead set on committing murder. Never mind that the FBI has already investigated and found no evidence of racist motive. Our efficient and dedicated government will ignore inconvenient facts and push full steam ahead.

Although few thinking people separate Eric Holder from his boss, Obama’s press secretary is making every attempt to do so.

“This is a decision made by the Justice Department by career prosecutors,” Jay Carney said when asked if Obama was going to weigh in on the verdict.”This is not something the president involves himself in.”

SEE RELATED: Prosecutor Angela Corey accused of violating George Zimmerman’s rights

Actually, Mr. Carney, that ship sailed a long time ago. Obama interjected himself into the discussion back when the tragic shooting first occurred by saying “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

Inasmuch as Trayvon’s picture does not particularly resemble Obama, the strange statement sounded like the kind of racist remark liberals love to accuse conservatives of. Does Martin look like Obama’s son only because they share the same skin color? Can you just imagine the media buzz had George Bush identified with a dead teenager simply because the man was white? Chris Matthews would have a whole month’s supply of editorial soliloquy.

Whatever the interpretation of Obama’s comment, it served to fuel racial discussion into an incident that originally had nothing to do with race. If one year later, Obama now wants to stay out of it, that’s great. It’s also too little, too late.

Prior to Carney’s remarks, Obama said, “I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher … But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son.”

SEE RELATED: Cruz is right: Scandals show Obama & Holder’s Constitutional contempt

That sounds good, Mr. President. So how about following through by reigning in your attorney general?

While considering charging Zimmerman all over again, this time with a civil rights charge, Holder said, “We are determined to meet division and confusion with understanding and compassion — and also with truth … We are resolved, as you are, to combat violence involving or directed at young people, to prevent future tragedies and to deal with the underlying attitudes, mistaken beliefs and stereotypes that serve as the basis for these too common incidents. And we will never stop working to ensure that — in every case, in every circumstance, and in every community — justice must be done.”

“Truth” is not the first word that pops to mind when people think of Eric Holder. That particular quality seemed absent when he testified about Fast and Furious and the AP/Fox scandals.

Neither did Holder see to it that “justice must be done” when people complained about voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers. Samir Shabazz, head of the Black Panthers chapter in Philadelphia, was caught on a 2010 video holding a baton in front of a voting poll and shouting racial slurs while explaining to a reporter that he was there for “security.”

Another video actually shows him calling for the murder of white babies. “You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies.” (National Geographic interview, 2009)

This man and other Black Panthers were prosecuted by the Bush Administration. Then Obama became president. Under Holder’s leadership of the DOJ, the government dropped all charges. Is this Holder’s idea of compassionate justice?

Nothing here should be a surprise. Where racial relations are concerned, Holder, right from the start, has displayed more of an agenda and less of an interest in truth.

One of his early comments after being appointed attorney general was that “America needs to have a serious conversation about race” (Speech before Department of Justice, Feb 18, 2009).

Those insightful words were delivered right after we elected our first African-American president.

Not that our country needed to prove that we had already abandoned the legal persecution of African-Americans long ago, but this was the liberal litmus test: “Hey America, are you finally going to rise above your racism and elect a black man?”

And then, after Obama’s election, the first thing we heard from our new attorney general was that we were still a racist country needing to have a dialogue.

True conversation is an invitation for both sides to listen. Holder seems more interested in lecturing. A real honest-to-goodness conversation would point out that racism can come from many people, not merely whites.

When Martin’s friend said under oath that he described Zimmerman as a white cracker, was that racism?

When white people are beaten up in riots only to he hear the words, “That’s for Trayvon Martin,” are we witnessing racism? Even if Zimmerman had been a racist, would that mean that all white people were guilty?

On the other hand, was Zimmerman dubbed ‘racist’ only because of shameless race baiting?

When the New York Times learned that Zimmerman was part Hispanic and but still went out of the way to call him a “white Hispanic” and, in doing so, painted the case in terms of white against black, were they race baiting?

When the original 911 recording showed that Zimmerman made no mention of Martin’s skin color until asked by the dispatcher and when NBC News edited the tape to make it sound as if Zimmerman was profiling Martin simply because of color, was that race baiting?

Mr. Holder, these are the incidents that deserve discussion. But alas, such matters would only concern an Attorney General who talks about truth and justice a little less and practices it a lot more. In your case, just practicing it occasionally would be a step in the right direction.

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

Bob Siegel is a radio talk show host and columnist. Information about his radio show can be found at www.bobsiegel.net.


Comments 1

  1. Although Holder can carry forward with his racist Jihad against Zimmerman (using taxpayer dollars), he won’t win a conviction. To do so, Holder has to prove that Zimmerman acted for racist reasons. But Zimmerman has an extensive and documented NON-racist history, going out of his way to help blacks on several occasions.

    In addition, Zimmerman actively campaigned for Obama, and is a registered Democrat. I suspect that Zim’s ardor for Obama and his administration will now quickly (though belatedly) fade.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *