Posted on 05/16/2010 5:37:15 AM PDT by Kaslin
The chief law enforcement officer in the United States has a problem with rhetoric, not to mention reality. This was in plain view the other day as he attempted to answer questions during a hearing conducted by the House Judiciary Committee. It was not a pretty sight—in fact, it was a tortured display.
Our Attorney General, Eric Holder, wants to have it both ways. He is comfortable speaking with reckless abandon about laws he has never read and he is quite uncomfortable forming syllables about something he actually knows about, but would rather ignore or deny.
First, there was Mr. Holder’s response to a query by Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) who was simply trying to get the Attorney General to utter the words “radical” and “Islam” in the same sentence. Watching the video, I was reminded of one of my daughters trying to get her four-year old son to say the two words “I’m” and “sorry” in similar convergence. Maybe the congressman should have given the highly effective “I’m going to count to three!” warning.
In the past, Mr. Holder has demonstrated no such rhetorical hesitancy when describing America as a “nation of cowards” on matters of race relations. Nor has he ever had trouble putting the pejorative “war criminal” in front of George W. Bush’s name. But when it comes to the vitally important “why” in the recently thwarted Times Square bombing case, uttering the words “radical Islam” in relation to what Faisal Shahzad tried to do is apparently repugnant to our Attorney General.
This should come as no surprise. There has been a concerted effort underway from the moment of Barack Obama’s inauguration to progressively purge language that might offend Muslims from our national debate—even vocabulary. And it all has a Marxist ring to it. Not the Karl kind, but rather the Groucho variety, as with the quip:
“Are you going to believe me, or what you see with your own eyes?”
As if that exchange wasn’t bad enough, Eric Holder still had another foot to chew on the other day during the same hearing. Holder was caught flatfooted when Congressman Ted Poe (R-Texas) asked the Attorney General about the new Arizona immigration law. What follows is the transcript of the exchange. My only regret is that Mr. Poe didn’t interrupt the dialogue with another Groucho Marxism: “A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.”
REP. TED POE: So Arizona, since the federal government fails to secure the border, desperately passed laws to protect its own people. The law is supported by 70 percent of the people in Arizona, 60 percent of all Americans and 50 percent of all Hispanics, according to The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll done just this week. And I understand that you may file a lawsuit against the law. It seems to me the administration ought to be enforcing border security and immigration laws and not challenge them and that the administration is on the wrong side of the American people. Have you read the Arizona law?
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: I have not had a chance to -- I've glanced at it. I have not read it.
POE: It's 10 pages. It's a lot shorter than the health care bill, which was 2,000 pages long. I'll give you my copy of it, if you would like to -- to have a copy.
Even though you haven't read the law, do you have an opinion as to whether it's constitutional
HOLDER: I have not really -- I have not been briefed yet. We, as I said, have had underway a review of the law. I have not been briefed by the people who have been responsible -- who are responsible for that review.
POE: Are you going to read the law?
HOLDER: I'm sure I will read the law in anticipation of that briefing. I know that they will put that in front of me, and I'll spend a good evening reading that law.
POE: Well, I've gone through it. And it's pretty simple. It takes the federal law and makes it -- enacts it in a state statute, although makes it much more refined in that it actually says in one of the sections that no state or subdivision may consider race, color, national origin in implementing the requirements of any subsection of this law.
It seems to outlaw racial profiling in the law. I know there's been a lot of media hype about the -- the legislation. Do you see a difference in the constitutionality of a statute and the constitutionality of the application of that statute? Do you see there's a difference in those two?
HOLDER: Sure, there is a potential for challenging a law on its face and then challenging a law as it is applied. So there are two bases for challenging a particular statute.
POE: And when do you think you will have an opinion as to whether the law is constitutional?
HOLDER: I've used this term a lot, but I think this is -- I think relatively soon. I think that we have to -- there has been much discussion about this. The review is underway. The Department of Justice along with the Department of Homeland Security is involved in this review. And I would expect it -- our view of the law will be expressed relatively soon.
POE: You have some concerns about the statute. And it's -- it's hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you hadn't even read the law.
It seems like you wouldn't make a judgment about whether it violates civil rights statutes, whether it violates federal preemption concepts if you haven't read the law. So can you help me out there a little bit, how you can make a judgment call on -- on that, but you haven't read the law and determined whether it's constitutional or not?
HOLDER: Well, what I've said is that I've not made up my mind. I've only made -- made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talking to people who are on the review panel, on the review team looking at the law.
But I've not reached any conclusions as yet with regard to -- I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with the people who are doing the review, exactly what my position is. (End of excerpt)
Frankly, there is nothing I can add to this—except maybe canned laughter, or possibly another Groucho line Eric Holder may want to use in a future appearance before Congress: “Next time I see you, remind me not to talk to you.”
But the Attorney General probably prefers this Groucho Marxism: “If you’ve heard this story before, don’t stop me, because I’d like to hear it again.”
Holder is nothing but an Obama stooge.
“It was not a pretty sight—in fact, it was a tortured display. “
**************************
I dunno—myself, I enjpyef watching it!
;)
The pendulum swings...
Dick G
typos be me trademark, y’know...
He is truly Constitutionally challenged and should be impeached along with his boss.
Congress don’t read the bills before passing them. so why would we expect AG Holder to READ the laws before enforcing, or not enforcing, or challenging them?
I saw the actual hearing.Holder was a shameful display of ineptitude and ignorance.
considering the reckless statements made by Holder on a law he NEVER READ, drop articles of IMPEACHMENT. Charge him with HATE CRIMES. and above all JUST SAY NO to every single piece of legislation. Bring every last person in the Administration up to explain their Statements. Make this the Big Show that everyone will talk about for years to come.
Affirmative action at the highest echelons of our government. I knew affirmative action was a recipe for disaster when they first trotted it out a few decades ago. Now it has reached the level where it exposes the United States and its people to destruction.
ObaMao and Holder and so many others in this administration are so far out of their league in the respective roles they play that to undo the damage they have created and allowed will be more than a monumental task.
Damn them and the mindless cretins who brought them to power.
Obummer should be ashamed for naming such a pos as our nation's top law enforcement officer.
Affirmative action is a bi@tch America! (on both accounts)
EXCERPT He actually makes Nixon Attorney General John Mitchell look good by comparison! The Attorney General of the United States is the nation's top law enforcement officer. His job description does not include, and in many ways specifically forbids any overtly political action. But Obama's A.G. Holder mixes politics with a new low of imbecility not seen in the office. Here's the latest: [VIDEO AT SITE]
As Mark Steyn points out: Major Nidal Malik Hasan jumped on a table and gunned down his comrades while screaming, "Allahu Akbar," which is Arabic for "nothing to see here"...... The Times Square bomber, we are assured by the MSM, was upset by foreclosure proceedings on his house. Mortgage-related issues. Nothing to do with months of training at a Taliban camp in Waziristan.
Interesting that Holder can't see the hand of "radical Islam" in attacks on American soil but jumped to the conclusion that the Arizona immigration law might lead to "racial profiling" without ever reading the bill.....Holder repeatedly fanned the flames of racial and ethnic tension which is the exact opposite of what we would expect from the nation's chief law enforcement officer.
=======================================
Yawn......last winter, Holder called the US a “nation of cowards” for avoiding frank conversations WRT race.
Do me a favor----wake me when Holder's gone and/or if Holder ever does something worthwhile----not including (a) mirandizing terriorists, and, (b) facilitating the pardon of the US' most flagrant tax cheat (/snix).
=======================================
November 23, 2008
Eric Holder Advocated Special Treatment for Fugitive Marc Rich for Over a Year
EXCERPTED FROM James Bamford, Author of "The Shadow Factory" (the CIA)
WHO IS MARC RICH? Then a fugitive from justice, billionaire commodities trader Marc Rich was one of 140 people Bill Clinton pardoned during his last hours as president. Rich's pardon was facilitated by then-Asst USAG Eric Holder (details above).
Rich, 66, was charged in 1982 with the largest tax-evasion scheme in US history, having evaded more than $48 million in income taxes. In 1983 Rich was indicted on 51 additional counts of racketeering and wire fraud. Rich's accomplice, Pincus Green won a presidential pardon, too. Rich also violated the US Trading with the Enemy Act by conducting business with Iran, even as US embassy staff were being held hostage.
In 1983, Rich fled to Switzerland, never serving a day in jail. After fleeing the United States, Rich renounced his American citizenship, became an Israeli citizen and a major benefactor of Jewish charitable organizations, giving nearly $80 million to Israeli hospitals, museums, orchestras, and universities. Rich later moved to Switzerland....and lives there today, insofar as we know.
An affirmnative action appointment by an affirmative action President.
What else can be expected?
HOLDER: I'll spend a good evening reading that law.
NOTE The Arizona law is 10 pp long.
By the way he is scheduled to go under the bus soon.
The title brought to mind the old Groucho Marx show “You Bet Your Life.” Holder would never “say the magic word” and collect the money.
This moment proves that Eric Holder is not about enforcing laws he’s about advancing the Democratic Socialist Agenda. If there were any integrity left he would have shamefully stepped down after this shameful episode.
A classic display of affirmative action. Gotta have those quotas>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.