Obama’s Justice Department to investigate Oakland verdict

A jury convicted the Oakland cop of second degree manslaughter which was not sufficient for the pols in Washington. The jury heard the evidence, so who is Obama or his henchman, Holder, to second guess them?

While we’re on the subject, Obama spokesman Gibbs was asked yesterday why, if the DOJ was suing Arizona for supposedly violating federal immigration laws, the department wasn’t also suing San Francisco and other similar cities that have enacted “sanctuary laws” that also violate federal immigration statutes? Gibb’s response? “Gee, I really don’t know.” Call me, Mr. Gibbs, and I’ll give you hint.

Finally, is there no black leader out there who can convince his people that “protesting” verdicts they don’t approve of by robbing, stealing and looting from their own people is self-defeating and primitive?

11 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

11 responses to “Obama’s Justice Department to investigate Oakland verdict

  1. Anonymous

    Wow. Was happy to see you’re back and blogging, but unfortunately you’ve brought back the racist invective.

    “Is there no black leader out there who can convince his people that “protesting” verdicts they don’t approve of by robbing, stealing and looting from their own people is self-defeating and primitive?”

    I really don’t understand how you can say stuff like that. I just don’t get it. The guy I met once a while back down at RYC was a pretty friendly, seemingly warm guy. This is disgusting.

    • Well I do try to choose my words carefully and here’s my reasoning for the use of the word primitive. Civilized people don’t riot. “Un-civilized” sounds more like a gentleman who wears a straw boater before Memorial Day or after Labor Day. “Savage” carries, to my ear, racial overtones. So I went with primitive, which, to me, includes actions like mass riots, looting, donning children with suicide vests, beheading school girls, and the like. The Greek anarchists setting policemen on fire recently, fit my definition of primitive too.

  2. Anonymous

    Yeah, you still don’t get it. The problem isn’t that you chose “primitive” over “savage.” Asking for a “black leader” (as if Obama or Eric Holder, a distinguished Columbia Law School graduate and former federal prosecutor and federal judge, are only leaders of their “primitive” fellow race-men) to tell “his people” (they’re not your fellow Americans, are they?) to stop rioting when they don’t like verdicts is racist. I know conservatives including you, CF, think that accusations of racism are always unfair and never warranted, but if you can honestly read what you wrote and feel comfortable saying it to an African-American’s face, you’re ignorant at the very, very least.

    And of course all of this is to say nothing of the brutal, brutal irony of your total ignorance of American history here! For most of our country’s nearly 275 years, it was juries who systematically denied justice to African-Americans accused of crimes, and it was whites who “primitively” rallied mobs to hang black Americans from trees. This savage practice was defended for years by the country’s finest gentlemen in the halls of our Congress. So, yes, there are some lingering historical reasons why some African-Americans say, “Hey, maybe we’re not always satisfied that juries are always fair.”

    And before you can say “that’s ancient history!” might I suggest you read this article about how blacks are still systematically excluded and underrepresented on juries in our country: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/us/02jury.html.

    You’ve got a lot of readers, and I would wager that some are African-Americans. They’re not the only ones who can recognize this disgusting vitriol when they see it. You owe your readers — and really, yourself — better.

    • Okay, we’ll adopt the Obama’s terminology and call these “man-made disasters”. Satisfied?

    • I think our basic disagreement , Anon, is your demand for political correctness and my refusal to engage in it. Just as it wold have been entirely proper to call for Catholic priests to admonish their flocks during the Copper Head riots during the Civil War when Irish immigrants were rioting and hanging Negroes from lamp posts, or Lutheran pastors to address their German Nazi flock, so too is it appropriate to call on black ministers – often the most powerful leaders in their communities, to knock it off. Why? Because at least since the Watts riots of 1967, all the riots in this country seem to be engaged in by blacks. That’s the way of it. I hardly think a white Episcopal minister from Greenwich would be very persuasive in the housing projects but if you think it would help, I’ll ask around.

      By the way, if Obama and Eric Holder truly represent all Americans, see if you can gat an explanation for why they aren’t suing San Francisco. The White House Press Secretary couldn’t come up with one but perhaps you can.

  3. Anonymous

    Take a look at the picture of this arrested rioter and tell me which black church you think he attends (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/10/us/10oakland.html?src=mv).

    Then read about how most of the rioters were white anarchist activists from out of Oakland, who came for the opportunity to do their anarchist thing. Give me a damn break.

    If you were even 5% as outraged over the point-blank shooting of an unarmed kid as you were at the unrest that develops as a response to decades of police brutality in Oakland (and Oakland is not alone), you could maybe — just maybe — have the pretense of being fairminded.

    Political correctness? No. And of course none of your seemingly limitless supply of anger and outrage can be appropriated for the systematic injustice of excluding blacks from juries, an injustice as old as slavery and one that continues to this day, as the article I showed you documents.

    If I ever have the opportunity to give real estate advice to an African-American family looking to move to Greenwich, I will tell them to steer clear of you.

  4. Old School Grump

    I am puzzled by the idea that African Americans are “systematically excluded” from juries. I’ve had to serve jury duty 3 times in the past ten years ( some kinda karma following me around) in a city that is 50 percent African American, and every time there were very few African Americans at the voire dires, so it’s not surprising that there were very few on the actual juries.

    I can’t imagine the govt computer-generated “summonses to serve” are
    racially biased. Something else is going on. Does the NYT article address that? (I couldn’t open it.)

  5. Cobra

    As I recall, the O.J. Simpson jury did not experience any systematic exclusion of African Americans. On the contrary, nine out of twelve jurors were African Americans, one Hispanic, and two Caucasians.

  6. Cobra

    Worth noting: All were, and presumably still are, Demonrats and, most probably, Obummer supporters.

    http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/jurypage.html