Just A Game; Don’t try analyzing what you are playing

I posted this before on another page, but I would like to post it here as well. The original article, “Are we what we play?” was published on 1UP.com last year, and I wasn’t too impressed with what I read…

*****

Upon reading “Are we what we play?”, I thought to myself about the games I play and what they say about who I am. Thinking through the various titles I have played over the years, the simple answer arouse, sometimes I just want to be the hero. I like saving the day, watching good triumph over evil, getting the girl in the end, but what does that mean? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Everyone likes to have a feeling of self-importance once in a while, and I myself am no exception. Before video games, children had plastic guns and played “Cowboys and Indians”, before that, children had wooden swords and played “Robin Hood”, etc I think the real issue is that we over analyze everything these days trying to find a hidden meaning, and one of those topics, especially since the mid-90’s has been video games. Let’s take a step back to understand this before we begin.

By the mid-90’s games like Doom and Duke Nukem had raised fears of violence among children, fears that these games would lead to dysfunctional grown ups, which seemed to have been justified in April of 1999 when the two students shot up Columbine High School. After the massacre, news media and concerned parents blasted the video game industry and the use of violence in such games, but many ignored the real issues on the case. Sensationalize the fiction, ignore the facts, and get your face on the television. In 1966, Charles Joseph Whitman grabbed a rifle and killed fourteen at the University of Texas at Austin, and before that in 1927, Andrew Kehoe killed 45 when he set off three bombs at the Bath Consolidated School, which took place in a time before video games. The issue is social pressure and the psychological state of these murders, not their hobbies, and yet this fiction still persists. Have we become so self-obsessed we look inwards instead of outwards at the bigger picture?

If we are going to sit down and seriously discuss the impact of the games we play, why not breakdown some of the more popular titles of the last decade or so and find their deeper meaning and what, if any, impact they have had on society…

Final Fantasy VII – I am one of many players who enjoyed this adventure without paying too much attention to the story. On the surface, it looks like a simple game about a hero and his companions trying to save the world from a great evil, but when you look closer, we see that are team of would-be heroes are eco-terrorists and the great evil, for most of the game, is a large corporation bent on hurting the environment for profit. I will tell you right now, I do not support the actions of radical environmental groups in anyway, and I am also a person who believes in big business and loves a good steak (Mmmmm, dead animal flesh), but that didn’t stop me from picking up a Playstation 1 and this game and spending over a hundred hours playing through it a few times. Cloud Strife, a character beloved by many, spends the first disc blowing up two power plants and attacking a corporate head quarters in a militia style raid, so what does that say about his fans, including me? The truth is that it doesn’t say anything about my social or political beliefs, but there are those misguided individuals who turns to this game as a “Bible” of social doctrine and correctness. These few are not a sign that this game was trying to push a political agenda, so I wouldn’t spend much time debating Square’s beliefs when it comes to the environment or capitalism.

Final Fantasy X – As Final Fantasy VII could have been seen as a tool for discussing environmentalism, Final Fantasy X could be viewed as a social and political statement about religion and society. Surprisingly, in a world where political correctness deems such faiths as Christianity as hateful, this game seems to have flown in below atheist radar, especially with Sin being such an important part of the plot. In the game, our heroes are caught in a battle between science (the Al-Beds) and religion (the Yevonites), finally siding against these theological tyrants to bring about peace. As a Roman Catholic, I should be offended, I should have written a letter to Square-Enix and demanded an apology for attacking my faith in such a way, but instead I bought the game, spent over a hundred hours again playing through it a few times, then went out and bought the sequel. Why didn’t I sit down and examine the morals and beliefs which seem to be pushed by the game’s creators onto a naive audience? Simply because to me it is just a game, and no matter what the story, as long as it has good graphics, good game play and a well developed cast of characters, I am going to play it.

The Street Fighter Series – I can remember my brother and I begging my father to let us buy Super Street Fighter II for the Super Nintendo. My parents were sure that such a game would make their children more violent, but finally they broke down and gave into our wants (I love my parents). I can still clearly remember sitting outside Toys R Us in the family car with my mother and two brothers while my father went inside and purchased the game for me and my twin as a birthday gift. We spent hours upon hours beating each other up as Ryu and Ken, playing through the game hundred of times with various characters, trying to beat our high scores, and yet, even when spending such time around such a violent game, nothing happened. My parents’ fears never were justified, all that came of it was that Street Fighter brought my brothers and I closer, giving us an outlet for the various frustrations we had to deal with in school. In a time where school fighting is now an expellable offense (something I find disturbing), it is good to have these outlets. Does that mean people who play these games are more prone to violent outburst and need to release anger through these forms of entertainment? Not at all, especially since everyone vents their bottled up emotions in one way or another. Some do it through painting, others do it through sports, I just happen to like beating up a computer controlled opponent when things get a little rough.

Call of Duty – Killing Germans, Japanese, Italians with guns and grenades sounds more like post-war racism gone rampant than an educational and enjoyable video game. Some groups are now trying to outlaw the word “Nazi” in public schools, so what does it say when someone plays this and other war themed games? If it isn’t “just a game”, what are the deeper meanings to be found in such a title? Because players can play as both American and Soviet Russian soldiers, does that mean the creators of this title and titles like it are pushing the political beliefs of either group? No. Does this push gun violence or make me want to grab a rifle and start shooting people? Not at all, in fact, being a Canadian, I most likely will never even handle a gun, let alone go around shooting at people. What is the hidden meaning, what does it say about people who play these titles? At most, I would say it appeals to people who enjoy studying World War II history and enjoy playing video games. It doesn’t mean anything for someone to buy this game, play this game, and talk about this game with their friends, so quit worrying about the social impact of war-themed shooters because I have yet to come across any study which supports any claim that Call of Duty or titles like it lead to gun violence. This fact however seems to be ignored by many who keep trying to explain school shootings as a side effect of youths who spend time killing Nazis on the beaches of Normandy.

Need For Speed 2: Hot Pursuit – My first girlfriend loved playing this game, and even after our breaks ups, I continued playing this title. What does that say about me? Do I hold some ill-feelings towards authority, or at the least, highway police? For anyone who hasn’t played this game, the basic premise is that players take famous cars and race them against friends and computer controlled opponents while being chased by computer controlled police officers who try to arrest you for breaking the law. People who play this game, as “not just a game” logic goes, should hate police officers or at least want to race their friends down the highway in whatever car they can afford. Shouldn’t this game be breeding a generation of players who drive fast cars dangerously fast and hate the police? Only a handful of players will buy a Honda Civic and customize the car for racing, and this isn’t because of the game, this is because of social pressure due to popular trends highlighted by the popularity of the Fast and the Furious movies. Once again, people play it because it is fun, not because of any deeper meaning.

In the end, video game players don’t buy a game because of a deeper meaning which will later lead them to commit various criminal acts, they pick it up because of what it looks like, what people say about it, what the price is, etc Working at EB Games and later Toys R Us, I can tell you, I have never been asked by either a gamer or a gamer’s parents what effect, if any, this title will have on their personality or social/political views. Especially among male players, what really matters is what you get to do, be it killing monsters, racing expensive cars, etc, and how big the breasts of the female characters are (come on guys, that is half the reason we buy Dead or Alive, you know it). Sex has more to do with game sales then social/political views, but this really isn’t an issue that many want to raise in a sexually tolerant society, especially with the popularity of “alternative lifestyles”. Honestly, sit back, enjoy and remember, it is just a game.

Erik Millett won’t go away; Pansy can’t take what he dishes out

I wrote about Erik Millett a few months ago when it came to light that this former school principle had banned ‘O Canada, our national anthem, from Belleisle Elementary. I said that this man was a tool, probably did drugs (pointing to apparent intoxication during his CBC interview), was a pathetic excuse for a Canadian, etc but never did I threaten his life. Why bother? He isn’t worth the effort. Millett is the kind of pansy you chase off your lawn with a stick, not by hitting him with it, but by waving it around angrily. So when Brad Howland threatened Millett’s life, he crossed not only a moral line, but a legal one.

This from the Telegraph Journal…

A Kars man who threatened a Belleisle Elementary School principal at the centre of a controversy over the playing of O Canada was given a conditional discharge Friday and placed on probation for eight months.

Brad Howland’s brain “became somewhat disengaged from his mouth,” Judge Henrik Tonning said in handing down sentence in Sussex provincial court.

Howland, who has children at Belleisle Elementary, also has to pay a $500 fine to cover out-of-pocket expenses for both principal Erik Millett and his partner.

Tonning said educators must be protected from people such as Howland who “took matters into his own hands” and used the wrong approach to solving a difference of opinion.

The judge said he believes Howland’s motivation came from concern for his community, but he “let his passion for the issue misguide his words.”

If Howland, 43, stays away from Millett and his partner, Marie-Christine Cauchon, for the next eight months and keeps off all school premises unless accompanied by his wife, he will not have a criminal record.

Howland was found guilty on July 23 of uttering the threats to Millett in the principal’s office of the school on Jan. 31. It was at the height of what became a national controversy over the appropriate singing of O Canada that Howland visited Millett and said he would drag him outside by the collar and beat him senseless if the school’s secretary wasn’t there to witness it.

Howland also said he had supporters standing behind him that would help drive Millett from the community.

Even a disgrace like Millett deserves legal protection when his life is threatened, and I will not support anyone who decides to use the threat of violence to further a social agenda. I will, however, support Howland’s efforts to drive this political radical from their community, as long as from now on they are peaceful. Why? Well keep reading the Telegraph Journal article…

Outside the court, Millett said he accepts Howland’s apology and considered it sincere.

However, he demanded an apology from Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson.

Thompson criticized the anthem decision in an interview with the Telegraph-Journal in January. He told the newspaper Millett lacks sensitivity on some issues and embarrassed himself by curtailing the singing of the anthem.

Millett has given Thompson one week to apologize and said if he doesn’t, he will call on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to fire him.

If Thompson isn’t fired, Millett said he will sue Thompson for defamation of character.

Thompson said he is standing by the comments he made in the newspaper story.

“I stand by everything I said in that story. Period,” Thompson said after hearing of Millett’s ultimatum Friday.

Millett also threatened to file a lawsuit against parent Susan Boyd unless he receives an apology from her within a week.

Boyd was one of the most vocal parents fighting for restoration of the daily playing of the anthem. She could not be reached for comment.

I have no use for such a disgraceful little pansy. To use his legal victory against Howland to go after not only Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson, who’s crime was speaking the truth, but Susan Boyd, the mother of the “whistle-blower” Kara Boyd, is downright disgusting. Just because Judge Henrik Tonning said it was wrong for someone to threatening Millett’s life, it doesn’t mean he can now go after everyone who pointed out that his stupidity is what got him the threats of violence in the first place. When this story broke a few months ago, Tammy Robert of News Talk 980 CJME asked whether anyone felt sorry for Millett. She concluded in her blog post that neither he, nor the parents who complained about the anthem should receive any sympathy, and after reading the Telegraph Journal article, I can’t help but strongly agree.

The problem with Erik Millett is that, having failed in all other pursuits, he now tries to justify his lunacy by abusing our legal system. Millett’s abuse of his position as principle cost him his job, but instead of taking a hint, retreating from the spotlight to rebuild the career that he himself destroyed, this moron is giving his critics more and more reasons to target him. I myself would have left this alone if not for his desire to lash out against the Boyd family for exposing him as a political deviant. It is because of Boyds and others parents that bloggers like myself decided to looking into Millett’s background and find out who he really was. Erza Levant wrote an article a few months back exposing this disgrace as a fringe-left radical, who’s political idols included Che Guevera, Noam Chomsky, and Malcolm X (El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz). Knowing this, how was such a lunatic even allowed near children with such perverted political views? Who would want their children to be “educated” by such a radical? Disgraceful…

Yes it is upsetting that some would threaten his life, but that doesn’t mean Millett is the victim in all this. By banning the national anthem, he attacked our national identity, and while we shouldn’t cross legal lines, we should be allowed to express our outrage at this disgrace. This ongoing farce should force us not only reexamine the importance of the national anthem, but also whether or not there are more teachers and principles like Erik Millett hiding in schools across this great land of ours. I am sure he isn’t the only one trying to “re-educate” children to be intolerant of displays of patriotism, especially having seen it myself in high school and university. If anything can be learned from this event, it’s that those preaching “anti-patriotism” can’t defend their actions, and that if we stay within the law to voice our concerns, we can drive them out of from position of importance…

As for Erik Millet himself, I have one thing to say; GET LOST YOU PANSY! If you can’t take a little criticism for attacking our country, you don’t belong in it… A pathetic waste of citizenship…

UPDATE: I pride myself on giving credit where credit is due, and I have to say The Nexus of Assholery was far kinder to Erik Millet than I could allow myself to be. Although more fair and balanced than my post, Nexus does reach the same conclusion that I do, that Millett himself is the one to blame for the criticism he is getting. A very good post and I recommend those reading this post give it a read.

Also, for those who have read my posts on China and my experiences there, give this one a read. Another good post from Nexus, and I can’t agree with it more, especially since I have been to the country myself.

The Passing of a Political Giant; Senator Ted Kennedy Dead at 77

Both Michelle Malkin and Ed Morrissey at Hot Air have sent their condolences, so I think it is only fair that I send mine. Whether or not you agreed with his politics, one can’t deny that Edward Moore Kennedy was irreplaceable figure in Washington. An interesting man who had an interesting life, Ted will be missed. My prayers go out to his family and friends, those hurt most by his passing…

May Ted join his brothers, the late President John F. Kennedy and the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy in God’s “Camelot”…

Journalistic Malpractice; CNN and MSNBC push fake stories with amateur editing

And we thought Charlie Gibson’s editting was shameful…

Sounds bad right? A right-wing, anti-Obama protester who is concerned about the what government program will do to America’s health care system right? WRONG! This portrayal of this radical protester couldn’t be further from the truth. It doesn’t surprise me that CNN’s Larry King would try and create news by showing an edited video like this one, especially when the guests he brings on his show to discuss recent issues mostly have a left-wing bias. Yes, I said edited. Rachel Brown, the woman in the clip, admits she is a LaRouche Democrat before asking Barney Frank this disturbing question, something which was purposely left out. So who is Lyndon LaRouche? Well he is that seven-times-failed Presidential Candidate, admitted “Trotsky-ite” Communist and conspiracy theorist who is also behind the “Obama as Hitler” posters that are popping up at these protests. Both Michelle Malkin and NewsBusters are covering this story, but I doubt King will issue any correction for this disgusting display of bias. You don’t report on a story until you get all the facts, but he didn’t even bother showing the entire clip, let alone admitting that Rachel Brown wasn’t a conservative protester, but a fringe-left headcase. Dan Rather lost his job for less, but Larry won’t even get a slap on the wrist for this one… BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!

MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer would be fired if the news outlet she worked for had any credibility. As you can see from the video, we don’t have any idea what the colour of this person’s skin is, and instead of allowing the full video to be played, editors have looped it to keep from revealing this. Chris, the man carrying the gun shown in the clip, is black, not white. Now why would anyone want to make this about race? Since the health care debate started, MSNBC has tried to paint protesters as racists. Just the other week, Carlos Watson was saying how “socialist” really meant “n*****”, and the people at these rallies simply didn’t like that President Barack Obama was black. After seeing this, it is hardly a surprise that there was no mention of the fact that the creator of the “Obama as Joker” poster was NOT a white conservative, but a far-left Palestinian. I agree with Allahpundit on this one, that this kind of bias is unreal… Journalistic malpractice at its finest…

*****

I have to say that such partisanship goes far beyond anything I have ever witnessed, and I spent time in China. Even the state-run media in that country doesn’t go to these extremes when pushing a government-friendly story. It isn’t like these reporters didn’t know the facts of their stories, they did, but chose to ignore them. In Larry King’s case, maybe the edited video was fed to him without any of the facts, but even then he should have released a statement apologizing for misleading his viewers. Both Brewer and Watson have no excuse for labeling health care protesters as racists, especially when they know the facts point to the contrary. If Americans have a problem with Obama, it isn’t because he is black. The problem they have with their president is that he is “red”…

We aren’t all socialists now, the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t support this administration’s radical agenda… And in saying that, myself and others shouldn’t be branded as racists… Pathetic…

UPDATE: This from Allahpundit at Hot Air, MSNBC’s statement to Politico on this event…

Following the shot of the African American man focusing specifically on the gun, MSNBC host Contessa Brewer said that “you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists or to their legs.”…

[B]y raising the racial issue in this context, bloggers claimed that MSNBC was purposely misleading viewers by not showing that at least one African-American man has also carried a gun to an event.

An MSNBC spokesperson responded to POLITICO: “Contessa was speaking generally and not about that specific person with the automatic weapon.”

Once again, I agree with Allahpundit that this is a lame attempt to justify a blatant lie. The video was purposely looped, edited to hide Chris’ racial identity. Aside from him, I haven’t heard of any other gun-carrying protesters. Should he have brought the gun to the protest? No, even with the threat of violence, bringing a weapon to a rally sends the wrong message. The problem is that his mistake has branded whites, not blacks, as violent racists.

Also…

On behalf of the nearly half million members of Americans for Limited Government — and tens of millions of other equally appalled Americans of all races nationwide — I hereby demand the immediate termination of Contessa Brewer, Toure, Dylan Ratigan and any and all others involved in any way with the fraudulent “news” that ran in the 10:45AM segment of your August 18 broadcast.

You network has besmirched the dignity and honor of American people. You have endangered the life of the President of the United States. You have purposely fanned racial tensions. And you have deliberately lied to your own audience.

What can I say? As I stated above, Dan Rather was let go for less. I highly doubt anything will happen to Brewer or any other faux-journalist at MSNBC for blatantly lying to viewers. I do agree that such false reporting is dangerous, not just to the President, but to protesters themselves. MSNBC is trying to rally support for ObamaCare, and they seem to be reaching out to the radical fringe with this kind of nonsense. These groups are known for being hateful and violent, and the last thing America needs is for these peaceful protests to turn into large riots because someone is purposely feeding these radicals false information to get them into the streets…

You don’t go around doing this, not with tensions running high. It is journalistic malpractice of a dangerous kind, and something must be done about it before something does happen… Mind-boggling…

UPDATE: Now Michelle Malkin herself is on this issue,

I don’t think there is a Cone of Shame big enough.

I have to agree, but I don’t think a “Cone of Shame” would be appropriate for this kind of journalistic malpractice. They should be black-listed, branded as liars, etc for painting protesters as violent racists, but of course we won’t see any of that from MSNBC… Pathetic…

Department of Injustice; Eric Holder has to go

I have to ask whether or not people understand the consequences of this kind of action, especially Eric Holder himself. This from the Chicago Tribune…

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder appears poised to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate CIA interrogation abuses, a step that would bring unprecedented scrutiny to cases that ended in the alleged torture and death of detainees, current and former U.S. government officials said.

But a probe of even the most egregious abuses is unlikely to lead to criminal convictions because of an array of evidentiary and legal obstacles, according to current and former CIA and Justice Department officials who have firsthand knowledge of the details of the interrogation files…

…Opening a criminal probe is something Holder “has come reluctantly to consider,” the Justice Department official said. “But as attorney general, he has the obligation to follow the law”…

…”I don’t blame them for wanting to look into it,” said a former high-ranking Justice Department official familiar with the details of the program. “But if they appoint a special prosecutor, it would ultimately be unsuccessful, and it would go on forever and cause enormous collateral damage on the way to getting that unsuccessful result.”

Excuse me, but the only reason he could have for doing this would be to damage the CIA. That is of course what you and the Democrats are trying to do isn’t it? Undermine the military and intelligence community in America? Like the way Nancy Pelosi went out and attacked the CIA for proving her a liar when she said she wasn’t briefed on waterboarding? Pathetic…

Let’s not forget who Eric Holder is, and why he shouldn’t be anywhere near the Department of Justice.

1. Holder was the one who pardoned Marc Rich, the criminal who was not only evading taxes here, but making back-door deals with Iran for oil during the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

2. Holder was the one who commuted the sentences of the 16 Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional terrorists who killed four in the bombing of Fraunces Tavern in New York’s financial district.

3. Holder was the one who opposed the “Patriot Act”, the NSA wiretappings, the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and the use of “torture” to obtain information (no wonder he is hoping to prosecute them now).

4. Holder’s law firm is defending 18 terrorists (17 Yeminis, one Pakistani) currently held at Guantanamo Bay.

The last point in particular demonstrates his blatant conflict of interest. Let’s not forget that the Department of Justice, under Holder’s supervision, dropped the charges against the New Black Panther Party members who were arrested for voter intimidation last election day. Why is it that he is soft on criminals and terrorists, but tough on those doing their best to protect the United States? It is obvious this man has to go, he needs to be removed from office for his blatant abuse of power. While these actions seems to be the popular among Democrats these days, America can’t have one of these cronies as the U.S. Attorney General…

I have to admit that, as of now, Eric Holder is my choice for worst administration official. Such a pathetic excuse for an American, let alone a human being… Downright pathetic…

UPDATE: According to ABC News, Leon Panetta is threatening to leave the CIA if Eric Holder goes through with an investigation into the organization’s interrogation methods…

A “profanity-laced screaming match” at the White House involving CIA Director Leon Panetta, and the expected release today of another damning internal investigation, has administration officials worrying about the direction of its newly-appoint intelligence team, current and former senior intelligence officials tell ABC News.com…

…According to intelligence officials, Panetta erupted in a tirade last month during a meeting with a senior White House staff member. Panetta was reportedly upset over plans by Attorney General Eric Holder to open a criminal investigation of allegations that CIA officers broke the law in carrying out certain interrogation techniques that President Obama has termed “torture”…

The article the explains that this may not be the reason for Panetta wanting to leave, that his continuing frustrations may be to blame, but one has to take these official statements “with a grain of salt”. Do I blame him for being mad? Not at all, especially with Holder and the Department of Justice now trying to villainize the CIA by releasing all this damning intelligence. Michelle Malkin is covering this, as well as the release of this information of the interrogation methods used on Khalid Sheik Mohammed. I don’t care if they threatened his family or waterboarded him, this man IS A TERRORIST. He has information vital to national security, he isn’t going to simply hand it over, and the clock was ticking… The interrogators did what was necessary and I don’t have a problem with that at all.

Eric Holder has shown just how dangerous he can be. Any information gathered during this “investigation” will be used by his law firm and other defending our enemies, to get them out of custody and back on the battlefield. Not only that, but the CIA itself will be dealt a serious blow. If the CIA can’t do its job, expect more bombings and more bloodshed. Is that what you want Mr. Holder? You have shown that you are willing to take action AGAINST the United States of America to pursue your own perverted agenda. You are dangerous and downright pathetic and should be removed from office… Disturbing…

UPDATE: Here’s another from Michelle Malkin…

U.S. Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.), U.S. Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and other senators today sent the following letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in response to his decision to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate CIA officials who interrogated al Qaeda terrorists:

“We are deeply disappointed by today’s announcement that you have chosen to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate CIA officials who interrogated al Qaeda terrorists. As we explained to you in a letter dated August 19, 2009, reopening those cases—which career prosecutors have already determined do not warrant criminal prosecution—could, among other things, have a chilling effect on the work of the intelligence community”…

I have to slightly disagree about their nerve to complain now that they know about Eric Holder, especially since he was sold as part of this “Hope and Change” fiasco which so many bought into a few months ago, but I’m definitely on side with her assessment about how they should have known better. It isn’t like this is out of character for the Attorney General, after all, he has a history of being on the wrong side of these issues. So many of these Republicans wanted to be part of this “new era”, that they were willing to vote against their better judgment… Pathetic…

I don’t think this will be the end of Holder’s abuse of power, and I am hoping that sooner or later someone has the right mind to appoint and investigator into his wrong doings and have him thrown out of the Department of Justice. Once again, he should never have been appointed, especially with his many conflicts of interest, and these Republicans AND Democrats who helped put him there should have known better… Mind-boggling…

UPDATE: I know it is an older post, but I felt the need to update it since Michelle Malkin has a new post up about Eric Holder’s deliberate failure to do his job, especially when it came to the New Black Panthers voter intimidation. Where to begin?

My interest in this case was reignited by Pajama Media’s Joe Hicks of The Hicks File, who noted in a recent video that the Department of Justice had far more than enough to convict these New Black Panthers, but choose to drop charges because Holder felt a promise from the racist organization to never participate in voter intimidation again was sufficient. As Michelle pointed out, this reeks of political inference by a man who has made a career of it. Let’s not forget that he has also dropped investigations into fellow Democrats Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, and Charlie Rangel, and one can see that Holder is not simply abusing his new position of power, but doing it in pursuit of a political agenda. How can anyone continue to claim that the Obama administration is “post-partisan”? Pathetic…

Once again, Holder should be resign from his position as Attorney General. He is just another Van Jones, a well-connected radical who would use his position to forward a perverse political agenda… Disgusting…