Eric Holder: Forget Your Autopsy - I'll Do My Own

In another move that screams of corruption, Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered a second autopsy of Michael Brown's body - this one performed by federal medical examiners. It seems Mr. Holder and Brown's family aren't convinced that the first one, which shows Brown was shot from the front and not in the back.

Mr. Holder's aggressive investigation into the case before the local investigation is even completed reeks of pre-determination of the guilt of Officer Darren Wilson. Rather than wait until the local investigation is completed, reviewing the report and the evidence, and then deciding whether or not to proceed with a civil rights investigation, Holder has already commenced his civil rights investigation, appearing to have already decided Wison violated the rights of Michael Brown and now simply manufacturing collecting evidence to prove it.

David Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor who supervised the criminal civil rights section of Miami's U.S. attorney's office, said the second autopsy is not unusual. "A federal autopsy more closely focused on entry point of projectiles, defensive wounds and bruises might help that investigation," Weinstein said.

But here's the part that worries me about the whole thing.

According to the article I read: 'Federal authorities also want to calm any public fears that no action will be taken on the case, Weinstein said.'

What, exactly, does that mean? By "action" does he simply mean investigation into the facts of the case or does he mean Holder will follow through with civil rights charges regardless of what the investigation shows? The latter seems to be the case from what I've seen so far.

It's getting to the point in this country where any violence toward a black person by a white person, whether it's a legal law enforcement act or not, is viewed by the black community as racially motivated, regardless of the circumstances. If a black police officer had killed a white teenager there would be no civil rights investigation until the local investigation was completed and any action had or had not been taken - and then only if there was something so blatant it couldn't be overlooked. But if a black person is shot by a white person it's automatically assumed by some to be racially motivated.

"He was unarmed!" protesters scream. As I said yesterday - that's absolutely true. However, as I also said yesterday - "when an 18 year old, 300 pound man, who has already assaulted you and attempted to take your weapon from you, refuses orders to cease his actions and charges you with violent intent, most likely to try again to take your weapon and use it against you, then the shooting of that person will most likely be considered justified." And now a second witness, a black woman, has apparently surfaced who is backing the officer's story that he was attacked and that Brown was charging him when the officer fired.

Sadly, I just read an article that says the Ku Klux Klan is now moving into Ferguson, Missouri. With the New Black Panther Party already there, this could quickly escalate into an all out race war in Missouri. The KKK is a hate group just like the New Black Panthers, and neither of the two will help the situation in Ferguson. They will only make it worse.

In the black community, particularly Chicago, genocide of young black people runs rampant. Yet black "leaders" like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and even President Obama say nothing about it and don't get involved. Twenty-eight black people were shot in Chicago over the weekend. Where is the outrage over that? Why does black genocide get ignored but the occasional shooting of a black man by a white person brings a statement from the President of the United States? What kind of logic is that?

I can tell you the answer, and surprisingly it's very logical for the three men I mentioned. First of all - there would be no money to be made by Sharpton or Jackson by standing up to black genocide. Racial division brings in cash. And while President Obama isn't getting rich from racial division, he uses it to maintain his base and keep the confidence of most of the black community. So despite the fact that he is the one person in this country who might make a difference in Chicago, it's not a priority because it doesn't do anything for him politically.

How about this as my parting thought. Democrats (including Attorney General Holder) are wanting to pass laws putting limits on free speech and making hate speech, both racial and religious, a federal crime. If and when that ever happens, will it include race baiting and put people like Sharpton and Jackson out of business? It should. Anyone want to make any bets on it working out that way...?