Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
RJ

Holders Hypocrisy

Rate this topic

5 posts in this topic

This Attorny General is suing Arizona for trying to protect itself and the so called "Sanctuary Cities" who are deliberately flouting US Immigration Laws get a pass because Holder's boss believes in Political correctness and wants the Hispanic vote.

 

Some one should tell Obama that 60% of the Hispanics in AZ agree with thier State enforcing a federal law that isn't being enforced by the Federal Government. The Democrat politicans in Arizona are all against the attack by the Attorney General. Come Noember, this issue alone will gouge larges chunks out of the donkey party faithful in many states.

 

July 15, 2010

Holder's Hypocrisy

 

By Victor Davis Hanson

 

Attorney General Eric Holder has developed a bad habit of accusing others of acting in bad faith while doing so himself.

 

Take the issue of Guantanamo Bay. In Aspen, Colo., last week, Holder accused Congress of playing politics in preventing President Obama from closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center -- as Obama had serially promised to do within a year of his inauguration.

 

But this accusation is disingenuous for a variety of reasons.

 

Obama campaigned on calls to reverse the Bush administration anti-terrorism protocols, charging that they were either unnecessary or counterproductive. Then, when invested with the responsibility of governance, Obama suddenly reversed himself on almost all of them -- tribunals, renditions, Iraq</SPAN>, the Patriot Act, targeted airborne assassinations and Guantanamo Bay. Holder himself -- in the quite different political climate of 2002 -- once supported the detention of terrorists without regard for the Geneva Conventions. What made him so radically change his views?

 

In fact, any time Obama wishes to close Guantanamo Bay, he can simply carry out his earlier executive order, in the same manner in which President Bush opened it without congressional approval. In blaming Congress, Holder does not mention the real reasons why the president broke his promise: The American public now wants unrepentant terrorists to stay in Guantanamo rather than be incarcerated and tried in civilian courts here at home.

 

Holder got himself into trouble last year when he played politics by announcing that the administration would try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the terrorist architect of 9/11, in a civilian courtroom. The boast was supposed to contrast an enlightened Obama team with the demonized Bush administration's supposed lawlessness in confining Mohammed to Guantanamo.

 

But after New Yorkers protested against holding the trial next to the scene of the 9/11 crime, Holder backed off. Meanwhile, the president rushed to assure the nation that Mohammed would be "convicted" and have "the death penalty ... applied to him." At that point, Bush's planned military tribunals seemed a lot less prejudicial than Holder's planned civilian show trials.

 

Holder's continual refusal to link radical Islam with the epidemic of global terrorism is likewise entirely political. When asked at a congressional hearing whether radical Islamic terrorists were behind the Fort Hood killings, the attempted Christmas Day bombing and the foiled Times Square bomb attack, Holder refused to identify that obvious common catalyst. He cited instead a "variety of reasons." The nation's chief prosecutor was not looking at the evidence, but adhering to a politically correct predetermined dogma.

 

On matters of race, the attorney general castigated Americans as "a nation of cowards" for not engaging in a national conversation on his own terms. This was an odd accusation since at present we have a black president, attorney general, EPA head and NASA chief, Hispanic secretaries of Labor and the Interior, and a recent Hispanic Supreme Court appointment, not to mention that the two previous secretaries of state were black.

 

The president himself accused police of stereotyping minorities and acting "stupidly" in arresting his friend, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. Some conversation.

 

Nor would Holder's envisioned dialogue include attitudes such as Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's self-identification as a "wise Latina" who supposedly exercises superior judgment over the usual white male jurist. In truth, the nation suffers from too much racial self-identification and politicking, not too little.

 

Yet Holder himself has used race for political purposes. He criticized Arizona for its anti-illegal alien law -- after admitting that he hadn't read it. Then he chose to sue the state for trying to enforce unenforced federal immigration laws. Now he has promised that if that tactic fails, he will play the race card on Arizona, alleging in yet another suit that its new legislation would entail racial profiling.

 

Remember, the law has not gone into effect yet, so Holder has no evidence of how it will play out.

 

Holder just dropped a voter fraud case against the New Black Panther Party, which was caught on tape intimidating voters at a polling place. He is leveling charges of racism against those who deliberately excluded racial profiling in their legislation, while giving a free pass to those who blatantly used race to bother voters at the polls.

 

In just 18 months, Holder has proven to be the most political attorney general since Richard Nixon's attorney general, John Mitchell. And like the hyper-partisan Mitchell, Holder will continue to embarrass the nation until he steps down. Given his partisan temperament and checkered record in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, his departure is not a matter of if -- only when.

 

VDH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What gets me is the RICO laws the illegals (gangs/organized crime) and the Black Panthers (Also organized crime) are making. That is a federal law also..................that the feds are not enforcing.

 

He'll never make 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they all want the hispanic vote-why do you think no president has tackled the immigration issue? Clinton-no Bush no Obama no-any real presidential candidate going forward will not as well-only way to do it is on the state level where being tough on immigration is becoming a popular thing-bottom line is it is about what will get them elected-

 

in this post 9/11 era to have any kind of open borders and allow illegals to flow in to this country is a disgrace-it should be one of our top priorities as a nation to protect our security and our treasure as paying for illegals is not cheap either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Postthey all want the hispanic vote-why do you think no president has tackled the immigration issue? Clinton-no Bush no Obama no-any real presidential candidate going forward will not as well-only way to do it is on the state level where being tough on immigration is becoming a popular thing-bottom line is it is about what will get them elected-

 

in this post 9/11 era to have any kind of open borders and allow illegals to flow in to this country is a disgrace-it should be one of our top priorities as a nation to protect our security and our treasure as paying for illegals is not cheap either

 

 

I don't understand why people keep saying this. Bush signed a bill authorizing the construction of a border fence in 2006. Admittedly it went against his own vision of immigration reform but rebuplicans in congress pushed it through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.