It appears that Al Sharpton, a notorious race-hustler and renowned anti-Semite, is running the Obama Justice Department, this week ordering the agency to investigate a state matter involving the shooting of a black Florida teenager who had been suspended from school.
Like a good lapdog the Department of Justice (DOJ) quickly obliged, though it’s clearly a local case best handled by authorities in the area where the incident occurred. In fact, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney specifically said during a media briefing early this week that thoughts and prayers go out to the slain teen’s family, but “obviously we’re not going to wade into a local law enforcement matter.”
That was a day before Sharpton directed the feds to take over. The incident took place last month in Sanford Florida, a town of about 55,000 just north of Orlando. A 17-year-old from Miami, who was staying at his father’s girlfriend’s place hundreds of miles away during a school suspension, was killed as he walked from a convenience store.
What exactly occurred is not clear, but various news reports say that an armed neighborhood watch volunteer followed the teen and shot him after a scuffle. Calls to 911 reveal that the neighborhood watch patrol, a man in his late 20s, reported suspicious behavior before the shooting but other details are not yet clear. A person was killed and the incident certainly needs to be further probed.
However, it’s a state matter not a federal one. This is probably why the DOJ hasn’t gotten involved prior to receiving its marching orders from Sharpton this week. Authorities in the state and county where it occurred are on it. Florida’s governor and attorney general have ordered all necessary resources be available to conduct a fair and detailed probe. There’s no need for the feds to get their paws all over this.
Not only has Sharpton made this a federal matter, he’s also demanding that the DOJ review a Florida law that allows residents to use deadly force when they are threatened. Sharpton and other like-minded “civil rights” folks believe the measure played a role in this particular case, though Sharpton has taken it a step further than most by bringing slavery into it.
In an opinion piece about the shooting, the reverend says: “I wait for an era when young Black men will no longer have to live in fear. Decades after the abolishment of slavery, we were haunted by the reality of being hunted down, beaten and lynched by both everyday citizens and law enforcement.” Sharpton goes on to write that black and Latino youth are routinely targeted, profiled and mistakenly shot by cops even though police was not involved in this particular case.
As one news report points out, Sharpton has made a career as a peddler of racial grievance so this is par for the course. He’s also a dangerous individual whose malicious rhetoric has led to serious violence and hatred of white people, especially Jews. Sharpton and his “community group,” National Action Network, were behind the deadly Harlem riots intended to drive Jewish businesses out of the area in the mid 1990s.
One of Sharpton’s picketers, an ex-con with an extensive criminal record, walked into a Jewish-owned clothing store with a gun, ordered all the black customers to leave and poured paint thinner throughout the store. He then set the place on fire, killing eight people. The whole thing started to protest the eviction of a black merchant subletting from the Jewish store owner who simply needed the space to expand his own business.
Sharpton made it a racial issue, created a “Buy Black” committee and rounded up troops to hit the streets. Jewish store owners were referred to as “crackers” and Sharpton proudly offered media sound bites that should still haunt him, but clearly don’t. Here are some excerpts: “We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so some white interloper can expand his business on 125th Street…There is a systematic and methodical strategy to eliminate our people from doing business on 125th Street….[O]ne of our brothers…is now being threatened.”
Is this the kind of character who should be ordering the feds around and dictating what investigations the DOJ should and shouldn’t be conducting? Remember, this is the agency responsible for enforcing the law and defending the country’s interests as well as ensuring public safety against threats.
Deputy Associate White House Counsel: “please don’t have them reach out to any reporters before I can clear it w/ wh [White House] press.”
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305
- “I am going to touch base with my public affairs office re your suggestion to get their reaction. I, personally don’t object as my message is the same whether the event is open or not. Our concern had been solely with the inhibiting effect it would have on the gov’t ’ees [employees] who might not speak freely if press are there.” — Melanie Pustay, OIP Director, to Blake Roberts, Deputy Associate White House counsel, December 6, 2009.
- “Ok – please don’t have them reach out to any reporters before I clear w/ wh [White House] press.” — Blake Roberts to Melanie Pustay, December 6, 2009.
- “After talking with… ben labolt [then-Assistant White House Press Secretary], the decision is that the training will be closed to the press.” — Gina Talamona, Press Release Deputy Director for the DOJ to Melanie Pustay and Brian Hauck, Counsel to the Associate Attorney General, December 7, 2009.
- “I think you have the right to give closed training when you want it.” — Brian Hauck to Melanie Pustay and Gina Talamona.
The documents also include a statement by OIP Director Melanie Pustay regarding previous FOIA workshops: “So far I have always held parallel sessions, one for agency ‘ees [employees] and then one that is open.”The training conference, held on December 7, 2009, was jointly hosted by the OIP and the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) as a private workshop to provide tips to FOIA public liaison staff members on communicating, negotiating, and resolving disputes with individuals and organizations submitting FOIA requests.The fact the Obama administration chose to close the transparency workshop to the public led to criticism that the president was reneging on his promises of openness and transparency. On his first full day in office Barack Obama promised to “usher in a new era of open government” and directed agencies to administer the FOIA “with a clear presumption: in the face of doubt, openness prevails.” President Obama further instructed agencies that information should not be withheld merely because “public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.”“There is a scandalously wide gap between Barack Obama’s rhetoric on transparency and the secretive policies of his administration,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. “These documents suggest that it is the Obama White House that is directly responsible for this unprecedented lack of transparency. Only in Washington would political appointees think it appropriate to keep secret a government workshop on transparency. And only in Washington would a politician promote his efforts on transparency while simultaneously taking steps to keep the American people in the dark about their government.”