…which, as a reminder, was a deliberate, premeditated attempt to murder women and children via arson; and there has been no progress in the investigation since the last time I checked. In fact, despite the fact that somebody tried to burn down a church as part of a political statement – I am uninterested in feeding the delusions of those who would argue otherwise* – federal law enforcement agencies are apparently not investigating this themselves.
And this would be the point where I go away from the keyboard and start to swear.
I posted on this three months ago – and in those three months: if there has been anything done by the current government in investigating this hate crime that would merit an update, I haven’t found it. Somebody attempted to murder several women and children via arson, and it’s becoming depressingly clear that that person (or persons) has gotten away with it clean.
This offends me. It should offend you. If it doesn’t, I don’t really care what your excuse is.
…and no arrests; no updates; and no real indication that the federal government is taking seriously an organized attempt to murder mothers and children by setting their church on fire. Remember: they used accelerant on the doors. There’s no chance at all this was meant to be a ‘prank.’
Eric Holder recently went before Congress to call for a strengthened hate crimes bill. It occurs to me that calling his office at 202-353-1555 and politely inquiring how the Department of Justice is doing in its investigation of this existing one would be an excellent way to start your work week.
PS: The response to this should not break down along partisan political lines; I will be pleasantly surprised if this turns out to be the case.
Now, you can be for or against hate-crime legislation as you choose: whichever side of the argument you’re on, it can’t be denied that there’s an argument going on. But I think it’s just a little disingenuous to be quite this resentful when somebody like Tom Rooney uses your own logic in ways that you don’t like. Even if it does mean adding military veterans as a protected class against hate crimes.
I mean: really, Debbie. Going on the record like that?
Rep. Wasserman-Schultz, of course, has been playing the equivocator game for a while now; from the Iraq War to the Florida Three to the Clinton/Obama endorsement she’s shown no little skill in being on the right side at just the right moment. Probably what’s happening here: now that the GOP caucus is at its currently-low levels, she’s going to have to find some new friends. Which means netroots. Which, of course, means being anti-military.