Among those who share a throne there can be no loyalty; Dominion’s ever impatient consort…. Marcus Annaeus Lucan
Eric Holders actions in whole, rather than part, point to a disturbing trend that has not until now been vigorously challenged. Issa’s calling Holder on the carpet is just the tip of the iceberg.
Currently Holder’s lying about his knowledge of the “fast and furious” debacle is a distraction from his long list of misdeeds. We can start with Holder’s failure to condemn the voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party coupled with previous statements that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should only apply to people of “color” because it is they, not whites who are oppressed. [1]
I have no idea what you’re talking about….
Steven Hayward wrote an article in the National Review last year quoting a Washington Times article which said ”the Obama Justice Department thinks civil-rights laws apply only to minorities of color. This time it’s bullies. As the Times reports, if you’re a white punk, you’ll get their attention. If you’re a white victim of bullying, though, then you’re on your own. The view on the left that civil-rights protections are meant only for minorities goes back quite a ways; it is only in the Obama administration that civil-rights color-consciousness has been turned up.” [2]
Hayward went on to write, “The view that civil-rights laws should not be color blind was perhaps most explicitly asserted way back in 1985, when Mary Frances Berry and Blandina Ramirez, two longtime leftist stalwarts on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, issued an official statement in their roles as commissioners that said, “Civil rights laws were not passed to give civil rights protections to all Americans, as a majority of this Commission seems to believe. Instead, they were passed out of a recognition that some Americans already had protection because they belonged to a favored group; and others, including blacks, Hispanics, and women of all races, did not because they belonged to disfavored groups.”
Draw deeply on that first sentence: “Civil rights laws were not passed to give civil rights protections to all Americans . . .” That would come as news to the folks who wrote the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [3]
Regarding Holder’s actions concerning the “war on terror,” or as Napolitano announced would be known as “man made ” disasters as to not offend the sensibilities of our enemies. The administration’s reasoning was that the “war on terror” label sounded like “saber rattling.”
Holder’s law firm, Covington & Burling in which he is a partner, represented seventeen of the worst terrorists being held in Guantanamo including Sheik Khalid Mohammad the mastermind behind the 9/11 attack.
Despite his protestations that these murderers deserve a fair representation his actions have far exceeded that venue by giving terrorist battlefield combatants rights under the Geneva Convention and access to U.S. Constitutional protections including writ of habeas corpus. [4]
In a recent Washington Times article, February 11, Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pointed to a number of factors that place doubt on where Holder’s loyalties to the American people lie. Sen. Cornyn was quoted as saying, ” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is “playing politics” with the nation’s anti-terrorism efforts and has compromised national security and put the lives of military personnel at risk. This in reference to Holder’s releasing previously classified memos on U.S. interrogation methods of suspected terrorist “simply because he didn’t agree with the Bush administration anti-terrorism policies.”
The article also quoted the Senator as saying that Holder’s actions provided sensitive information to our nation’s enemies and to give our allies fresh cause to worry about our trustworthiness.” Speaking at CPAC last week Cornyn also said, , “Playing politics with the war on terrorism is unacceptable.” [5]
It is unfortunate that the American people haven’t stood up en mass to Holder’s behavior and by rote that of President Obama who stands behind Holder’s actions. While he is only the front man, or throw away as a cynical friend of mine pointed out, it is ultimately, in my opinion, that Barack Obama’s loyalty that is really in question. But again, that’s just my opinion….WM
[1] https://lincolninstitute.org/article.php?id=4169
[3] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262579/civil-rights-me-not-thee-steven-f-hayward
Why isn’t Holder being tried for treason? Only because obummer and soros are protecting him.
My guess is that there is further conspiracy as to who is or is not controlling this administration. But, as we all know there are no such things as conspiracies.
At least Benedict Arnold started as a patriot. In three months he built and then commanded a fleet of 15 ships. Then In October of 1776 he met the overwhelming British Fleet on Lake Champlain, lost the battle but managed to prevent the British from invading New York and putting an end to the war.
Eric holder sold guns to the Mexican drug cartels culminating with the deaths of hundreds of mexican civilians and a US Border agent. The name of the arrogant pig Holder does not belong on the same page as Benedict Arnold, a once great general who, for reasons we will never be absolutely sure of, lost his way.
Paraphrasing Thomas Paine: Obama, with an army of Czars, the media and assorte dAmerica haters to enforce his tyranny, has declared that he has a right (not only to TAX) but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.
good to see you back admin………. holder, the czars , and et. al. appointed by their friend obama …….. are incapable as he is as far as i can tell ….. i feel they were appointed to help them achieve some benefits of being employees of the federal government …. i.e. salary , hospitalization [to infinite] , etc …they will party until their water is cut off ……… once these types get to suck on the tit of government [tax payer's money] they will stay until death do they part……….. sid
I agree with you. We might well term them all as a “pox” on the land – metaphorically speaking of course….WM
You think he’s disloyal for believing that all humans, no matter how horrifying they may be, should be granted the same rights?
John Adams defended the Boston Massacre guys. Was he disloyal?
I’ve been saying for a long time now that the day you decide to deny rights to *any* human being is the day you cease to be any better than the very people you decry for doing the same thing. Might Holder’s actions have made things worse? Probably. But there’s a pretty heavy price for keeping one’s soul. (Mind you, this is not geared towards Fast and Furious. That whole thing was completely retarded).
The Founding Fathers would be sick to their stomachs to hear this discussion.
The problem I have is that his giving those animals any consideration is that they are unrepentant terrorist murderers.
My experiences have led me to believe that some people given the title of “human” need to act like humans. The problem with Holder is his moral “relativism.” The Civil Rights Act as one facit being a case in point. He would deny those not of “color” the same rights as so called minorities.
He therefore is guilty of reverse discrimination. I’m sure the founding fathers would be disgusted with that malfunction of their intentions to create a system based on justice for all.
Our founding fathers lived in a time where mass destruction was committed by a King who had the power to do so. The constitution was written to provide rights and protect the common man who had no singular power, but power in numbers.
I believe our founding fathers intentions were not to protect false citizens who treasoned against their country or foreigners commiting acts of terrorism. John Adams was a lawyer, and like all lawyers he took the case for recognition.
Holder himself is a liar and his acts are treasonous. This makes him a great lawyer.
Well put Justin. You and other well read people are the reason I do this. There is no way any of the founding fathers would acquiesce to Eric Holders ridiculous agenda. He is disloyal and most likely he, along with Obama and the whole corrupt Chicago cabal would no doubt thrive in any radical socialist country. Simply they do not belong here. Of course that is just my opinion….WM
Uhh, no. John Adams took the case because he truly believed that everyone deserved a fair trial. He took that case knowing that he would catch a lot of grief for it, which he did.
The founding fathers all believed that even the worst criminals deserved the due process of law.
Had Benedict Arnold been caught, he would have faced a trial. Granted, that trial would have not taken very long, and he would have most assuredly been hanged, but they wouldn’t have kept him holed up in a military prison for 8 years.