Fischer’s Loony Conspiracy Theory on Holder


Bryan Fischer continues to be a reliable daily weather vane for seeing which way the wingnut mind is blowing. On one of his recent shows he offered up a bizarre and clearly false conspiracy theory on Attorney General Eric Holder, saying that he refuses to prosecute anyone if the victim in the case was white — because he just hates white people so much.

Let’s just start with Eric Holder and the Department of Justice – and this goes to his boss Barack Obama – they believe fundamentally that the United States is a racist nation to its core, that it’s part of our DNA, that the Constitution is a racist document, that it’s a toll of what oppression, that the United States has always been a racist country, it always will be a racist country, it cannot be helped because it’s part of our DNA, as long as the United States exists in its current form, it is going to be racist. So Barack Obama and Eric Holder they see that their role, their job, is to punish America for its racism. And I think part of the reason they want to bring America down is, you know, essentially what Barack Obama has said is you can’t clean this thing up, you can’t correct it, you can’t rebuild it, you just have to destroy it. If you’re going to get rid of the racism that characterizes America, you are simply going to have to destroy the American political system and start all over because it’s in our DNA. There’s no what to rehabilitate it, you got to just get rid of it, you got to get rid of the Constitution because it is a racist document.

So in Eric Holder’s world, and he’s been very straightforward about this, he’s never going to prosecute someone if the victim is white, he’s just not going to do it. Because in his world, by definition, whites can only be perpetrators. It’s impossible, in their worldview, for a white to be a victim, they can only be perpetrators and blacks can never be perpetrators, they can only be victims. So unless the template for the crime is a white person committing a crime against a black person, they’re just completely uninterested. They are not interested in justice, they are interested in racism and pressing their view of race.

Offered without a shred of evidence, of course. Facts? Only liberals need facts.

Comments

  1. says

    “Fischer on Holder” would have sufficed, Ed.

    When Fischer says something that ISN’T based on “loony conspiracy theories”, THAT will be news.

  2. The Lorax says

    Whoa, back the fuck up, guys! This guy is saying that racism is in our DNA, and the only way to get rid of it is to destroy it!

    … OBAMA WANTS TO DESTROY THE HUMAN RACE!! The wingnuts were right all along, he’s some sort of megalomaniacal super-villian! OH EM GEEEEE!!!!

    And the sad part is, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if someone actually believed that. But it’s ok, because that person believes in Sky Daddy and is going to heaven. And beer volcanoes. Or… something.

  3. says

    An example ripped from a winger acquaintance was the voter intimidation by two “new black panther party” members outside a Philadelphia polling place and Holder’s apparent reluctance to grab a rope

  4. tubi says

    #2

    And Obama hates white people so much that he surrounds himself with them!

    That’s odd, only yesterday my father-in-law was telling me that one of the problems he has with Obama is that whenever he appears at some public event, he’s only seen with other “Negroes.”

  5. pacal says

    And of course no one in the media will ask the following questions. “Mr. Fischer why are you uttering such lies?” “Mr. Fischer why are you such a liar?”.

  6. Ben P says

    An example ripped from a winger acquaintance was the voter intimidation by two “new black panther party” members outside a Philadelphia polling place and Holder’s apparent reluctance to grab a rope

    Just to be contrarian if for no other reason, I want to make a comparison here. Even aside from snark the amount of sarcasm in your response is bizarre.

    The black panther incident you reference arises out of video of two men, one of whom is holding a night stick, standing outside a polling place in Philadelphia. When a poll watcher with a camera phone asks them what they’re doing, they ask him for ID in return and say they’re “concerned citizens.” Police were called and asked one of the men to leave at approximately 10:30 p.m. but determined the other had credentials as a democratic party poll watcher. No one registered a complaint about being intimidated, but republican poll watchers stated they saw people turn away while the men were present.

    I suppose you can take issue with assuming the clothing they’re identifies them as “black panthers” but it’s not an unreasonable assumption.

    The Bush justice department started a criminal investigation, dropped it, then filed a voter rights act lawsuit against them. The case remained open when the Obama administration took over in January. The defendants never answered. Subsequently individuals in the OBama DOJ decided they had insufficient evidence to proceed against two of the three men and voluntarily dismissed the suit, then they obtained an injunction (via default judgment) against the man carrying the night stick from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a polling place for three years.

    Subsequently, there were allegations that the decision to dismiss the charges and narrow the sanction sought to that degree was political, but others claimed it was solely based in the weakness of the evidence.

    Now let’s flip it around and look at another case with a strong racial element. The Trayvon Martin case. Obviously the martin case is far more serious, someone died.

    But the police appeared at the scene, questioned witnesses, arrested Zimmerman, took him to the station, questioned him, and then, consulting with a prosecutor, reached a conclusion they had insufficient evidence to charge him with a crime and released him.

    The police were immediately tarred in the media for all sorts of reasons, but the ultimate allegation being that they failed to treating the shooting with appropriate seriousness because the victim was black.

  7. says

    “The police were immediately tarred in the media for all sorts of reasons, but the ultimate allegation being that they failed to treating the shooting with appropriate seriousness because the victim was black.”

    And your point is?

    George Zimmerman was not, afaia, tested for alcohol or drugs at the time of the shooting–that defines sloppy police work.

  8. Ben P says

    George Zimmerman was not, afaia, tested for alcohol or drugs at the time of the shooting–that defines sloppy police work.

    Accusing them of sloppy police work is one thing, accusing them of being implicitly or explicitly racist in not taking Martin’s death seriously because it was someone who is more or less Caucasian (a white hispanic with little accent) shooting an african american is something entirely different.

    That’s my point in a nutshell.

    Maybe politics played a part in mostly dismissing the voter intimidation case against the black panthers maybe it didn’t. However, suggesting the suit claiming they were guilty of voter intimidation was “looking for a rope,” is pretty far removed from the facts.

    Having had that sort of experience I’m inclined to take prosecutors at their word when they say there’s not strong evidence. Frankly, I’d hate to be the prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case right now, he or she’s going to have a hell of a time surmounting the applicable standard in Florida (Florida law provides that if self defense is raised the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was not self defense), and if the jury comes back with a not guilty verdict there’s going to be another huge hullabaloo with every decision of the prosecutor second guessed.

    On the other hand, if someone is seriously of the opinion that prosecuting a voter intimidation case against the black panthers was “looking for a rope,” but believe that Zimmerman clearly committed murder, I’d be curious as to the basis for that belief.

  9. KG says

    On the other hand, if someone is seriously of the opinion that prosecuting a voter intimidation case against the black panthers was “looking for a rope,” but believe that Zimmerman clearly committed murder, I’d be curious as to the basis for that belief. – Ben P.

    You make your own bias abundantly clear here: one does not have to believe Zimmerman “clearly committed murder” to believe he should clearly face trial for murder.

  10. Chris from Europe says

    accusing them of being implicitly or explicitly racist

    How could one believe that a member of the police in the United States is racist, tsk, tsk.

    Seriously, you don’t have to be a monstrous racist for it being problematic in such a case. And in respect to crime and easily recognizable minorities, I would say that the majority of the population is clearly racist to some degree. Many of these people will be good at suppressing their racism most of the time, but in certain situations, like at the voting booth, it may easily make the difference.

    The Martin case has brought quite a few racists out of the closet.

Leave a Reply