The New York Post Editorial Board nails it with their questioning of Eric Holder's selective use of double standards in playing the race card.

By Rob Janicki

Shortly after Eric Holder was sworn in as our first African-American attorney general, he declared the United States “a nation of cowards” on race. 

In an interview this week with ABC, Holder stood by those remarks, and upped the ante. “There’s a certain level of vehemence . . . that’s directed at me and the president,” he said, because both are black. 

What Mr. Holder is either denying or is completely oblivious to is the fact that he has an ethical problem as the Attorney General.  His political bias is thick enough to cut.  His partisanship in leading the nation's law enforcement agency is both an ethical and moral travesty.  It's not only how Mr. Holder views the law or even interprets the law.  The fact is that Mr. Holder is consciously trying, and often succeeding, in perversely suborning the law for political purposes.

While recognizing the historic breakthrough represented by Barack Obama’s presidency, Holder added, “I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus.” 

I'm quite certain that there are some people who don't like Mr. Holder simply because he is black, but the fact is, the vast multitude of hose who oppose Mr. Holder do so based upon he disdain for the rule of law that is so inconvenient to his political objectives and desired outcomes.

Really? When Americans complain about ObamaCare, worry about the high numbers of Americans who have given up looking for a job or express themselves about a foreign policy going up in flames all over the world, is racial animus behind any of that? 

Americans of modest means are simply trying to survive today.  When they see Mr. Holder obfuscating and prevaricating before various congressional committees, their only conclusion is that Mr. Holder is more concerned with political outcomes for the Obama administration than he is about upholding the rule of law, which is meant to protect all Americans from the intrusions of government that we see mounting with each passing day.

Likewise, when Holder himself was held in contempt for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas on the Fast & Furious gun-running program, or was attacked for wiretapping journalists, was this motivated by race? Or were people judging Holder by the content of his character? 

Mr. Holder may well be bright, but he seems quite obviously to have perverted that intellect for dark and devious purposes, none of which comport with our constitutional republic.

Yet for a man quick to find racism in criticism of his performance, Holder has been remarkably silent over some truly ugly — and deliberate — outbursts.

Where, for example, was Holder when Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) slandered Clarence Thomas as an “Uncle Tom”? Or when a syndicated liberal cartoonist portrayed Condoleezza Rice as a servile “Gone With The Wind” slave? And another called her a “house [N-word]”?

Or when liberal interest groups demanded Democratic senators squelch Bush judicial nominee Miguel Estrada precisely “because … he is Latino.” 

Mr. Holder is projecting all his ethical and moral shortcomings upon those who dare to speak to his insidious and unrelenting effort to subvert our legal system.  Mr. Holder's antagonists have a right to be concerned with his perversion of our legal system.  It's the moral responsibility of every America patriot to speak up in the face of government tyranny.  Mr. Holder can play the race card as much as he wants.  It simply doesn't change the facts of his ongoing corruption of our legal system.

Strikes us Holder wants it both ways: to play the race card against legitimate criticisms of the administration’s policies — while standing by when his liberal allies hurl ugly, undeniable racial invective against conservative blacks or Latinos. 

Read source article in its entirety at NY Post