http://news4whites.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-pitiful-excuse-failure-of-thomas.html

A week ago, the Roanoke Times posted an editorial by Thomas Cullen, the relatively new US Attorney for the Western District of Virginia. In that opinion piece, and entitled accordingly, Cullen made the assertion that “Hate Crimes are on the rise.” It was irresponsible. Not only is the piece factually incorrect, it further betrays systemic biases held by the US Attorney and his office which will have a direct impact on the fair and equal application of justice. Thomas Cullen is under no obligation to embrace White Nationalism; he has a professional obligation to allow the law and evidence to guide his judgement.
His irresponsible editorial fails on both counts – factual and ethical – and thus proves Mr. Cullen is incapable of serving in his current role.
First, let me address my own biases – a capacity that Thomas Cullen lacks. I find the very concept of regulating anything as a “hate crime” abhorrent. No one can or should attempt to regulate “hate.” Why? Because “hate” has such an amorphous definition due to being an emotion. One man’s hate is often another man’s love. Attempting to regulate a subjective emotion is impossible and lends itself to manipulation by political opportunists like Cullen. Worse, it provides a tool that can be wielded irresponsibly by parties who seek to achieve alternative objectives. For example, the SPLC’s “Hate Watch” lists Catholic nuns who oppose birth control and gay marriage on religious grounds among its hate groups, because the SPLC pushes both as part of its broader leftist agenda.
People like Thomas Cullen make it possible for groups to violate the fundamental freedom of personal conscience on the dubious notion that he and his elite peers in government service are better arbiters of emotional constructs than you, the individual.
All of this has led to a systematic weaponization of a noun, hate, by making it a verb with criminal penalties associated. Of course, since that verb is subject to the Left’s own interpretation of hate, the application of law becomes muddied. Black Nationalism, the Left will argue, is simply an outgrowth of anti-racism and Black Pride and thus, not hate. White Nationalism, that same Left will argue, is a sinister attempt to exclude “others” (i.e., non-Whites) from the benefits of a White dominated and constructed society, and is therefore hate. Heaven forbid if the government were to describe a White Nationalist more accurately as a White person who wishes to marry his own, enjoy the benefits of his racial lineage, celebrate his European heritage, and otherwise live a peaceful, prosperous but separate existence from those who are not like him.
That latter definition hardly reaches the definition of “hate” by any textbook definition of the word. But, people like Thomas Cullen and his leftwing allies will make it so. Thomas Cullen will tell you that the latter is evil and in so advocating a position of “White Nationalism,” the peaceful separatist is likely committing a crime. Worse, what if the actions of that thought criminal resulted in violence, not initiated by the White Nationalist, but perpetrated against the White Nationalist? In Cullen’s twisted mind, the White Nationalist has committed the initial violence – his thoughts being inappropriate for modern sensibilities – and therefore, if the White Nationalist is attacked while attempting to exercise his Constitutional Rights to Freedoms of Assembly and Speech, he not only deserves the violence exacted upon him, but is guilty of a crime should he choose defend himself. After all, Cullen has made it clear that he believes such a defense is actually the result of violence provoked by the individual upon himself.

More info at the link above.