Eric Holder Scores A Jumbo

Charging Elephant

Elephant? What Elephant?

I was going to let this pass—I pass up a Holder or Obama ethics topic approximately twice a day, just for, you know, diversity—but it is such a blatant Jumbo, and such an insulting one, that it has to be noted. When it occurred last week, I called up my two Hill contacts who have worked with Holder, and asked how they could square this with their “Trust me, he’s a good guy and a decent lawyer who is just over his head” assessments. Now that assessment is “He’s a good guy who is just over his head, the nasty politics is getting to him, and he’s not thinking straight any more.”

Speaking to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network,  on April 10, Attorney General Holder went off script to say this, in the context of his remarks about civil rights progress during the Obama administration:

“The last five years have been defined by significant strides and by lasting reforms even in the face, even in the face of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity. If you don’t believe that, you look at the way — forget about me, forget about me. You look at the way the attorney general of the United States was treated yesterday by a House committee — has nothing to do with me, forget that. What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”

The comments were widely and correctly interpreted as an accusation of racial bias, which is exactly what they were:

1. The comments were about civil rights.

2. He was referring to “unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity” to civil rights.

3.  He made the remarks personal, focusing on what he regarded as disrespectful “treatment” of Holder, a black Attorney General, and President Obama, a black President, rather than institutional or policy-related opposition.

4. Allegedly disrespectful treatment and opposition to President Obama’s policies being motivated by racial animus rather than principled disagreement has been a six year theme echoed by other Democratic officials,  as well as high-profile supporters.

5. Holder was speaking to an all-black audience.

6. The audience was made up of followers of Rev. Al Sharpton, a career race-hustler who has made the same accusation of racism routinely on his MSNBC cable show.

7. It strains credulity to think that anyone in the audience thought Holder wasn’t referring to race, given the local, the topic, the group and the speaker, or that Holder was not aware that this is how his comments would be received and understood.

Yet when asked about the remarks by the Huffington Post, Holder denied that he was referring to race.

“I didn’t say there was a racial component. I was very careful not to say that,” Holder said. This is the same man who has accused the U.S. as being made up of “cowards” on the topic of race, and has accused others of using “code” for racial denigration. When a politician says that he was being careful not to say directly what he obviously meant to say, that is really an admission of deceit—the official language of Washington, D.C.

I am pretty sure at this point that Democrats and Obama Administration officials have convinced themselves that opposition to their policies and objections to the deceptions, lack of transparency, dissembling, fecklessness, rejection of accountability and incompetence are all a manifestation of racial bias. That is so much easier than accepting responsibility, and confronting their own mistakes, misjudgments and deficits in skill and management. And we know, or should, that this has been the first line of defense for this administration from the beginning, despite the terrible harm the tactic does to the country and race relations. It works, after all; at least it works to keep the 97% support of the African-American voters.

I am more troubled, I think, that we cannot trust the nation’s top lawyer, who is supposed to represent justice and fairness to all Americans, to admit the truth when denying it is so obviously unbelievable.

‘Race card? What race card?’

______________________

61 thoughts on “Eric Holder Scores A Jumbo

    • I think bad treatment is defined here as “unjustified hostile treatment of dedicated Democratic public servants who have behaved impeccably and honorably at all times, like Barack and me,” as opposed to the fully deserved, justifiably hostile opposition directed at evil, incompetent, defiant and corrupt Republicans, like Nixon, Bush, Mitchell, Meese, Ashcroft, and Gonzalez.

      Glad I could clear that up for you.

  1. I honestly believe that the race card was held in check somewhat until it became patently ludicrous to keep blaming George W. Bush for everything. Now that blaming Bush is only laughable, the race card comes out in full force. “How can they treat me that way?” Couldn’t it be that you’ve lied, dissembled, excused yourselves and others, blamed others for your own failings before the Congress before this? Uh-uh. Must be because of the horrible, racist, divisive Republicans who are tearing this country apart. Really now. Aren’t we all tired of this? And oh, Eric, hasn’t Al Sharpton made a career out of fomenting the very “unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity” you accuse of others? Pick your friends and your audiences, buddy.

    Next I expect for Obama (better, one of his minions) to say that Obama “can’t get respect” from Vladimir Putin because he, Obama, is black. It has nothing to do with his cowardice, indecision, refusal to lead, or lack of willingness to use American power to support the free world. Oh no. Gotta be because he’s black. Wait for it…

    • It wouldn’t be a stretch to guess that. However, I doubt they would. Accusing foreign leaders of racism doesn’t help vilify your opposition during campaigns, nor does it divide the electorate against itself to create “Them or Us” voting mentalities…

      It would be believable if it is used as an excuse to protect his image. But still, Democrats keep the strawman racism card in a special place to use against Republicans. Because it works. Never mind it’s a lie.

        • All they need is a black homosexual non-Christian woman born in country to illegal immigrant parents then there is absolutely no chance that their policy failures can be attributed to actual failure.

          • Tex, you have SUCH a low opinion of the political class – and the complicity of the media. Either that, or you’re incredibly naive. Why do you hate America so much?

            That’ll only work if your black, homosexual non-Christian woman born in country to illegal immigrant parents is transgender – and in a wheelchair.

      • Tex: You’re right, of course. My second paragraph was tongue-in-cheek, but the idea, as you say, is unthinkable only because it’s unworkable, not because it would be wrong…

  2. I do not know what is worse a well educated AG that delivers a carefully crafted speech that allows him to claim that he never was talking about him being treated unfairly due to his race – even though that is the message that he sent or was at least received by many, or an inarticulate – fee avoiding – cowboy whose bumbling rhetoric creates the impression that he feels blacks were perhaps better under slavery.

    When it comes to communicating a message I am more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to an uneducated man or woman whether they be a cattle rancher or a low skilled worker.

    I am sure that Cliven Bundy’s recent remarks will be repudiated by everyone. Taken literally, they are beyond the pale. I have no transcript because the exact text of his rambling comments are not available as I write this. Nonetheless, I am sure they will be played over and over as evidence of his explicit racist point of view.

    However, what if he had been schooled in the art of rhetoric and simply stated:

    I see little difference in being indentured to the government in terms of providing the labor to create value and power for the masters of the land and that of slaves of the old south. Then as now, we are expected to exchange our happiness, dignity of our labor, and our ability to think and act independently of our master’s demands for our master supplied housing, food, and medical care . How can anyone be happier today when the power of government infiltrates every aspect of our lives, and our unwillingness to submit will leave us with few means to support ourselves independent of government resources.

    For the record. I do not support Cliven Bundy’s assertions of state sovereignty of the Nevada lands upon which his cattle have grazed without payment of a fee for some 20 years. I simply wanted to draw a comparison between the statements of legal scholar trained in the art of language and communications and that of an extraordinarily inarticulate rancher. I cannot state with any surety that Cliven Bundy’s remarks were meant to be racially charged but they are no more racially charged than that of AG Holder which I do believe was the intended message.

    • “I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do

      “And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

      Not really inarticulate. Bundy said exactly what he intended to say.

      • As did Holder. And his claim that what he articulated wasn’t racist is exactly as ridiculous as Holder claiming he wasn’t race-baiting. The difference is that Bundy is an ignorant fool and Holder is the Attorney General of the United States of America. We should hold the latter to a higher standard.

        • Holder seemed angry at the way he was treated the day before. He specifically avoided mentioning race. I’m not sure what the fact that he was speaking in front of a majority black audience had to do with anything, though it seems to be a key point for you, as three of your seven bullet points mention some version of that. If, as you say, Obama supporters are always explicitly blaming race for their own shortcomings, why wouldn’t he just say it then? Especially in front of such a supposedly sympathetic audience? Why resort to code?

          • It was barely code. What other possible relevance was the topic of civil rights progress to his treatment in the House?

            You’re really and truly not sure what the fact that he was speaking in front of a majority black audience that are self-selected followers of the most shameful race hustler in the US, meaning that they share the career-position of their leader that whites in power are above all determined and genetically programmed to oppress blacks, has anything to do with how we should interpret his remarks about Republicans treating the first black President and the first black AG (supposedly) worse than any of the whites in those positions that preceded them ?

            Oh,think about it. I have faith in you.

            • So if he was speaking in front of a white audience, the same remarks would not have been racist? But in front of a black audience, the remarks become some sort of nefarious code? Got it.

              • That doesn’t refute anything. Speech wouldn’t have been made or would have been considerably different in front of a different audience.

                You can’t deny the existence of “implications” in communication. They exist quite annoyingly so for the purpose of plausible deniability…so the offender can say to his detractors “Oh please, I didn’t mean that, show me where I said that” and to his audience “wink wink, you know what I meant.”

                • Yes, “dog whistle” is what I believe you are going for. It certainly exists, I was just looking for the “code” that has to go hand in hand with the dog whistle. Even an unnamed, shadowy “they” usually occurs.

                  The speech had been planned for months in front of that audience, and he apparently adlibbed the remarks highlighted. The simplest explanation for me is that he was pissed off about his treatment from the day before, and wanted to rail a little about that. I think it was more about hurt pride than some deep coded racial message.

                  • Context matters. Considering Holder’s race related remarks in the past, one can make the assumptions Jack has made and rest comfortably in the certitude of the following conclusions.

                    • Precisely because of the race-related remarks Holder has made in the past is why I doubt Jack’s conclusions. After being so explicit before, why would he get all shy about it now, and feel the need to speak in code?

                    • If he wasn’t talking about race, why did he feel, as he said, that he had to make sure he didn’t specifically say it was about race? One reason is that he knew he could communicate it without having to, because he knew what that audience would be thinking.

                      So as he was saying this, Holder claims, he was thinking about how people would think it was about race, so he needed to make sure he didn’t give them anything to hang their hat on while saying it, but it had nothing to do about race. If it had nothing do do with race, then why was race so much on his mind that he consciously —he says—avoided referencing it?

                      I guess you really believe this, but for the life of me, I can’t imagine why or how. It’s like the Grand Wizard saying “What, you think I meant blacks and Jews when I said “undesirables” to my KKK group? I just meant undesirables…you know, like criminals and stuff. I went out of my way NOT to reference blacks and Jews!”

                    • But why does all the sudden need plausible deniability now, when he didn’t before? Considering, as you have, his previous explicit race-based remarks. Why cower now?

                    • Because he’s not a total fool. Holder is under fire on multiple issues. He’s an embarrassment, and a political liability to the President. He went off script because he couldn’t help himself, but he tried to thread the needle, and avoid yet another controversy. He failed. But that’s what he does.

                    • Jack,

                      “So as he was saying this, Holder claims, he was thinking about how people would think it was about race, so he needed to make sure he didn’t give them anything to hang their hat on while saying it, but it had nothing to do about race. If it had nothing do do with race, then why was race so much on his mind that he consciously —he says—avoided referencing it?

                      I guess you really believe this, but for the life of me, I can’t imagine why or how. It’s like the Grand Wizard saying “What, you think I meant blacks and Jews when I said “undesirables” to my KKK group? I just meant undesirables…you know, like criminals and stuff. I went out of my way NOT to reference blacks and Jews!””

                      There you go explaining things better…

                      here I thought “plausible deniability” was clear and concise….

                • So there was basically no way that Holder could have referenced what he considered to be his unfair treatment by the House committee, in front of that audience, without someone deciding that he was pulling the “race card”? Even when he goes out his way to make sure that he *doesn’t* mention race as a reason? And given his history, where if he thought it was racially based, he would have said so? It seems like a damned if you, damned if you don’t situation to me.

              • Good. Because speakers communicate to their audience, not to a generic audience. The audience explains why he said what he said, the way he said it. Holder’s comments would have been an accusation of racism anywhere, because that’s what his party wants to convey. His deniability would have been just a bit more plausible, that’s all. Would “What elephant?” have also been convincing for you?

        • The difference, which sucks for Bundy, is that on principle he may be onto something… that is, is it better to be dependent on the government for EVERYTHING or dependent on a corrupted pseudo-political economic system for EVERYTHING? But on application of that principle in stereotypical and racist terms, he’s an idiot.

          • As I’ve noted below, Bundy has some very rosy views of what life was like under slavery. Curious indeed for someone who shouts “freedom!” whenever he is asked to pay fees for grazing on public property. It’s amazing how people are rugged individualists for themselves, and yet are so quick to A) group other people into a big pile and ; B) blithely recommend circumscribing other people’s freedoms.

            • Bundy’s lack of knowledge of the true horrors of the tortures inflicted by slave trader and slave master upon slave certainly taints the analogy to perfection. It doesn’t destroy the spirit of the analogy… which is that being utterly dependent on the Government for material sustenance is autonomy and happiness crushing servitude.

              You’ll have to show how his lack of knowledge of the true horrors of slavery are related to his shouting of, as you say, “Freedom, whenever asked to pay a fee for grazing on [government] property.”

              Rugged individualists have no problems with identifying people as groups, if individuals in those groups have willingly surrendered their individuality for lock-step group identity. Right or wrong, that is probably how Bundy views blacks on welfare… the people his comment addresses.

              How exactly did he, as you say, “recommend circumscribing other people’s freedoms”?

          • Well, the messenger matters, much as we often would like to insist otherwise. If a bunch of pederasts made a brave and principled stand against government over-reach into personal freedoms, they would just set back personal freedom a few centuries.

            From “1776”, as the Founders debate in song who should draft the Declaration…

            Adams:
            Mr. Livingston, maybe you should write it
            You have many friends and you’re a diplomat

            Whereas if I’m the one to do it
            They’ll run their quill pens through it

            Others:
            He’s obnoxious and disliked; did you know that?

            • Oh no, you are quite correct.

              Sarge983 and I just discussed that. If that idiot Bundy had just stopped while he was ahead, he’d have appeared a grassroots hero with sage views on governmental disproportionate overreach.

              But no, that imbecile had to give the Leftist media and the Democrats just what they need.

      • I don’t know if 3 rapid fire double negatives, following a gross verb tense disagreement, rounded out by a clumsy sentence and finalized with another double negative counts as being “not really inarticulate”.

        I believe Chris’s comment is apt. But you are correct, he said what he intended to say (which does not change the validity of Chris’s analysis one iota).

        • Well, Bundy seems to be saying the exact opposite of Chris’s analysis. Bundy believes that black people were better off and more free as slaves, picking cotton, than now. It goes without saying that he has a very rosy view of what life was like during slavery. He is articulate in that I doubt anyone reading or listening to the video would have any trouble understanding his point. He gets that across very well.

          • Then your standard for “articulate” is extremely low. Extremely.

            I think “understandable” is the word you are looking for.

            Burden is on you to show why Chris’s paraphrase is off. It seemed pretty analogous to me.

            • I see little difference in being indentured to the government in terms of providing the labor to create value and power for the masters of the land and that of slaves of the old south. Then as now, we are expected to exchange our happiness, dignity of our labor, and our ability to think and act independently of our master’s demands for our master supplied housing, food, and medical care . How can anyone be happier today when the power of government infiltrates every aspect of our lives, and our unwillingness to submit will leave us with few means to support ourselves independent of government resources.
              **********************************************************
              “…in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do

              “And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

              Bundy seems to bemoan the supposed lack of work ethic among black people. If he had something about the lack of opportunities, or even government overreach, that would be one thing, but he doesn’t. Apparently old people watching kids play is now a sign of culture pathology that means that black people were better off under slavery (where kids didn’t have much an opportunity to play, I guess.) He seems to lean towards the idea that slavery, which is extraordinary government reach into a person’s life, might be better than a government subsidy, which is some money handed out by the government. Essentially he is comparing the two, and finds slavery more favorable (or at least “wonders if slavery would be better”).

              • No, his analogy, given that he doesn’t understand the true torturous horrors of slavery, is quite apt, that addiction to other people’s money actually disincentivizes individual initiative to a culturally debilitating level… so much so, that the “everybody wants to work hard” quality we like to assign to humans is actually overpowered and suppressed.

                Bundy, if anything, has crudely posited, that if we (as a people) are to engage in actions which destroy the autonomy and initiative of a people (which both slavery and welfare both do), we may as well destroy it in such a way that at least some productivity is forced out of those people. And there is no denying, that over half a century into the “welfare experiment”, that welfare merely incentivizes further dependence.

                Crude and inarticulate as it is, it does address the base frustration some people have with welfare. It doesn’t help that the idiot Bundy makes it a racial thing and not a simple psychological thing (which is what it is).

                • Yes, Bundy’s solution to the problem of “welfare dependence” is to prescribe a regimen of government-backed widespread torture, murder, and rape. Which would be like killing the fly with a shotgun.

                  Plus the sheer irony from a man, who has taken from the government illegally, and feels he has no need to pay it back, having the gall to complain about others taking government subsidies, cannot be overstated Remove the plank from your own eye first, dude.

                  • Paragraph 1
                    If you can’t look past Bundy’s ignorance over the true horrors of the torture behind slavery, then I’m not certain we can continue this discussion in Good Faith.

                    If he were erudite and knew, then he wouldn’t have drawn the parallel, but would have used the utterly perfect language of our Founding Fathers to describe government overreach and the destruction of the very autonomy and personal initiative which, when allowed to flourish, form the basis of our polity. All that while coupling it with thoughtful and empathetic language describing how sorrowful it is that governmental policy has grossly and accidentally focused on the destruction of an entire subset of the American people, based wholly on color of skin (the inaccurately described “black” subset).

                    But he isn’t, he’s an idiot…but an pig headed idiot with the right ideas on individualism.

                    And we can’t discuss Chris Marschner’s interpretation of what Bundy “meant” if you can’t look past that. Work with us here. Please.

                    Paragraph 2

                    Bundy is in the wrong about trespassing and stealing from government property. And although ignorance of the law is not a pass, it would seem that he was under the impression that free-grazing on government land was kosher. I’ll bow out on expertise of this. Ablative may be more informed and I’d bet money he is.

                    • If Bundy is ignorant on this point, then it would have to be a willful ignorance of the highest order. Anyone who says they are for individual freedom, but thinks that some people would be better off under slavery rather than having a government subsidy is hyperbolic hypocrite.

                      I’m willing to give a Bundy a pass, perhaps in the beginning when the rules had first changed. But after twenty years and a court order, I don’t think he can really plead ignorance, except, yet once again, ignorance of the willful and convenient kind.

                    • “If Bundy is ignorant on this point, then it would have to be a willful ignorance of the highest order.

                      Wrong. The average working person doesn’t have ANY reason to research the TRUE horrors of slavery. They merely need worry about making sure their families are fed. The end.

                      “Anyone who says they are for individual freedom, but thinks that some people would be better off under slavery rather than having a government subsidy is hyperbolic hypocrite.”

                      You confuse the topics.

                      1) Autonomy and initiative. Bundy is FOR IT.

                      2) Welfare. Bundy is AGAINST IT. Pretty obvious. Then his diatribe, utilizing uninformed stereotypes, asserts that IF WE ARE GOING to engage in cultural activity which stifles autonomy and initiative (which both slavery and welfare do), then may as well do slavery, which at least gets productivity (a positive) out of the negative….

                      The two attitudes are not mutually exclusive…. hence the “if we HAVE to, we MAY AS WELL…”

                    • Wrong. The average working person doesn’t have ANY reason to research the TRUE horrors of slavery. They merely need worry about making sure their families are fed. The end.

                      I don’t think you have to research the “true horrors of slavery.” Just the general knowledge that the government allowed children to be sold away from their parents, that people were whipped and beaten, that people were put up on an auction block and sold like animals should be enough to give anyone making a slavery analogy a slight pause. I think everyone knows at least that much, without research.

                      Welfare. Bundy is AGAINST IT. Pretty obvious. Then his diatribe, utilizing uninformed stereotypes, asserts that IF WE ARE GOING to engage in cultural activity which stifles autonomy and initiative (which both slavery and welfare do), then may as well do slavery, which at least gets productivity (a positive) out of the negative….

                      I got that. But as I pointed out, his proposed cure is worse than the disease. The supposed loss of autonomy under welfare can in no way be compared to the loss of autonomy under slavery. He basically is musing that since we have someone smoking in the house, it might be just better to burn the whole house down. At least the lazy black people can work to find a new place to stay that way.

                    • 1) Not to someone who loves the concept of Freedom. Autonomy and initiative and freedom, taken as tantamount, the comparison to Gone-With-the-Wind “soft slavery” IS *roughly* equivalent to the loss of autonomy, initiative and freedom that goes hand in hand with welfare and other government dependency…

                      Go tell the Spartans, stranger passing by, that here, obedient to their laws, we lie.

                      Unadulterated freedom from outside forces, sometimes does not see degrees of servitude…only servitude.

                      2) He doesn’t propose a Cure….GET OVER THAT. review #1, and you’ll see that any policy, Government, Economic, Cultural, Pseudo-Political, that stifles autonomy, initiative, etc, is seen as anemic to Freedom.

                      And yes… his stereotypic and racist description of the psychologically debilitating disease of dependence does not help his point, but rather creates fodder for the Leftists to divert the discussion. As you are so doing.

                    • Unadulterated freedom from outside forces, sometimes does not see degrees of servitude…only servitude.

                      Then he is even more of an idiot than I thought. Unless he is living on a deserted island by himself somewhere, as long as there is more than one person occupying the same general territory, there will always be curbs and restrictions on freedom. The degree of the restriction matters greatly. Which should go without saying, but apparently not.

                    • The guy had been flouting the law for *twenty* years. Rather than throw him in jail for contempt of court, they rounded up his cattle, as they had been threatening to do for *twenty* years. It can’t have come as surprise. Nor was it particularly disproportionate. Once they seize his property for all the fines he owes, I’m sure he will cry about that too.

                      But they pointed guns at federal agents who were doing their jobs in a legal fashion. And no one died, or was even shot. The whole thing was remarkably restrained.

                    • Uh huh… no one’s denying Bundy was in the wrong on what happened with his “free range grazing”.

                      Additionally to be accurate, force was met by the grassroots after the Federal government went a bit “crazy”. So that’s settled.

                      And to be accurate, when you say, “Once they seize his property…”, you should realize, they’ve already started killing his property… probably the dumbest option they could have done…

                      Last I checked, you brought up his commentary on Welfare. That’s the discussion is it not?

                    • I’m glad we agree on at least a little bit texagg, the man is an idiot. It was nice discussing the issues with you this time around. And with that, I’m going to bed. Goodnight.

  3. Tex
    You wrote earlier: … we can’t discuss Chris Marschner’s interpretation of what Bundy “meant” if you can’t look past that. Work with us here. Please.

    I want to point out that I did not mean that was NOT my personal interpretation of Cliven Bundy’s comments. It is what he COULD have meant. (it is however what I would have written for him to get the appropriate point across)

    I constructed that brief paragraph as a carefully worded contrast to AG Holder’s statement. By not referencing any particular subset of the population I can claim that it applies to anyone. Bundy, on the other hand, made clear to whom he was referencing. Was it a mistake grounded in his ignorance of the fact that in absolute numbers whites receive more governmental transfer payments than African Americans? Or, something more sinister?

    What is interesting is that Deery infers the following meaning into his statements.

    Deery:
    “Yes, Bundy’s solution to the problem of “welfare dependence” is to prescribe a regimen of government-backed widespread torture, murder, and rape. Which would be like killing the fly with a shotgun.”

    Bundy:
    ” . . .And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy?”

    How does wondering about something give rise to become a policy prescription?

    That statement illustrates the entire point. The message received is the one that the audience receives in context of the communication. I did not receive Deery’s inference from Bundy’s statements because I was not predisposed to finding that meaning.

    Tex had it right. AG Holder knew what he was doing and worded his rhetoric for plausible deniability. I cannot make the same statement about Bundy. I can only say he is a horse’s as#.

  4. I am pretty sure at this point that Democrats and Obama Administration officials have convinced themselves that opposition to their policies and objections to the deceptions, lack of transparency, dissembling, fecklessness, rejection of accountability and incompetence are all a manifestation of racial bias. That is so much easier than accepting responsibility, and confronting their own mistakes, misjudgments and deficits in skill and management.
    ****************
    Bingo!

  5. I know this shouldn’t irritate me, but every time I point out unethical conduct by Holder or Obama, the blog loses about 10 followers. If you hear no evil, and see no evil, what you end up with is…well, what we have ended up with. What did Jack Nicholson say? “You can’t handle the truth!” So sad.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.