Last week US Attorney General Eric Holder displayed astounding arrogance in being questioned about his partisan incompetence and belligerence during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.Afterwards, as we reported here, he ran off to cry like a whining baby before Al Sharpton’s National Action Network (NAN). His immature actions further exemplified someone who is not only unqualified to hold the position of America’s top law enforcement official but of someone bereft, utterly devoid of a reputable character to take personal responsibility for his failures. Eric Holder showed himself to be a whining victim reflective of what liberal progressive policies have created in the black community — and it was embarrassing.
From a professional perspective we turn to an article written in the NY Post by John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky, “A veteran Justice Department lawyer says that Attorney General Eric Holder has politicized the department in a way he hadn’t seen before. In short, “Holder is the worst person to hold the position of attorney general since the disgraced John Mitchell.”They bring out points the mindless lemmings at the NAN would never comprehend: Now in his sixth year as attorney general, Holder has increasingly tilted the department in an ideological direction. It’s one thing to emphasize President Obama’s legal priorities. It’s quite another to decide not to enforce certain federal laws — such as the ban on marijuana — or urge state attorney generals to refuse to defend local laws on same-sex marriage. Legal changes are achieved through legislation, not through a sudden whim not to enforce them. No other attorney general has acted in this manner. Holder clearly believes he has the inherent power to politicize his department.
Holder, and to an equal extent Obama, believe that they are above the law, and actually above scrutiny. Their fall back when questioned is always race as a means to hide their incompetence and radical actions in clear dismissal of the rule of law. This is exemplified in this response by Holder as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte asked him last week whether he believed there were any limits to the administration’s prosecutorial discretion.“There is a vast amount of discretion that a president has — and more specifically that an attorney general has,” Holder responded.
This is the same Eric Holder who said before a gathering of States’ Attorneys General that they did not have to enforce laws in which they did not believe — so much for justice being non-partisan and blind. And we immediately saw the result in Pennsylvania where their State Attorney General threw out a corruption case because she felt it was racist, as we reported — yep, all Democrats.I wonder how Sharpton and his zombie followers feel about Eric Holder and the Justice Department lawsuit against the State of Louisiana’s school voucher program? I can tell you what a US District Court says.
Just last week, a US District Court judge issued an order denying Justice’s request for veto power over school-choice scholarships awarded to students by the state of Louisiana. Justice had sued Louisiana last August seeking an injunction to stop it from distributing school vouchers to kids seeking to escape failing schools using the pretext of decades-old desegregation orders. Justice’s action is pure politics, driven by the fact that Democrats are beholden to teachers unions. Nice, coming from the first black attorney general taking orders from the first black president.
Of course, when you call Holder out on his biases and selective enforcement, he cries racism — and I mean crying like a baby on a redeye flight.
As Fund and von Spakovsky also articulate, Last week, Congress recommended that Holder’s office pursue a criminal investigation against Lois Lerner, the IRS official who admitted that conservative groups were targeted for added scrutiny. Lerner has repeatedly taken the Fifth even as she proclaims her innocence. But does anyone believe the attorney general will seriously investigate this?
But it was the confrontation between Rep Louis Gohmert (R-Tx) and Holder that has liberal progressives decrying racism. Consider the circumstances, which the mainstream media never does, “Gohmert, a Texas Republican and a former chief justice of the Texas Court of Appeals, had read a Fifth Circuit court opinion noting how Holder’s Justice Department had made available 9,600 summaries of transcripts of sensitive conversations to “attorneys for the terrorists” — of which Holder was once one.
When liberals cry racism, sexism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia it’s all a ruse, a tactic, to make those confronting them self-censor because they know they are wrong. I commend my friend and former colleague Rep. Gohmert. I admonish you all not to fall prey to the insidious name calling, but press the attack. As Andrew Wilkow states, “we are right, they are wrong, end of story.”
Gohmert could not understand why Holder would provide documents to terrorists’ lawyers but not provide information sought by Congress. Gohmert added that he realized that “contempt is not a big deal to our attorney general,” referring to the fact that the House has voted to hold Holder in contempt for not turning over documents sought by Congress in its probe of Operation Fast and Furious, probably the most reckless law-enforcement operation Justice has ever instigated.