Cabinet Postings (3)

This is the third in a series of discussions about president-elect Obama’s cabinet choices.

Attorney General

President-elect Obama’s pick for Attorney General is Eric Holder. Let’s do a quick review of his career. As the Deputy US Attorney General he was instrumental in an investigation of the Los Angeles Police Department to try to discover if there was a department-wide “pattern or practice” of violation of civil rights stemming from the corruption scandal in the Rampart division. In that situation officers had beaten, shot, extorted, and framed drug dealers. LAPD Chief Parks came down on the situation like a ton of bricks.

Subsequent investigation by the DOJ found that there was no evidence of department-wide corruption. Nevertheless, when Chief Parks and Mayor Riordan called Mr. Holder and asked that DOJ back off after finding no further corruption, Mr. Holder seemed to redouble his efforts. The LAPD agreed to a consent decree to keep out of court. According to the city, it is costs the LAPD $50 million annually to live up to that decree. In this time of shrinking revenues to cities and states across the country, even a city the size of Los Angeles can scarcely afford those kinds of penalties, especially when no further evidence of wrongdoing is found.

In the late 1990’s the DOJ, under the direction of Deputy US Attorney General Holder, held numerous “racial profiling” conferences, primarily the work of the ACLU. If a police department had an arrest rate that did not match racial demographics they faced significant federal litigation, championed by the ACLU. When police departments across the country are more concerned about federal litigation than fighting crime, we are all put in jeopardy.

Let’s take a quick look at Mr. Holder’s judgment. In the waning days of President Clinton’s second administration, one of the Democrat Party’s heavy contributors was Denise Rich, the ex-wife of millionaire fugitive Mark Rich. She gave substantial donations to the party. She also gave substantial donations to President Clinton’s library fund. Mr. Holder played a significant role in obtaining a presidential pardon for Mr. Rich. In all fairness, Mr. Holder has said that he regrets his association with this pardon.

In 1999, 16 members of the Puerto Rican terrorist Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN) received presidential pardons due to Mr. Holder’s direct intervention. These terrorists had, up to that time, been associated with “more than 130 bombings, several armed robberies, six slayings and injury to hundreds of others,” reported the Baltimore Sun. These are bad people who are now allowed to walk among their potential victims. Mr. Holder has stated that does not regret his role in these pardons.

During his confirmation hearing, when questioned about Guantanamo Bay prison, he advocated closing the facility. My question to Mr. Holder would be, where are you going to put the prisoners incarcerated there? If you turn them loose and send them home, statistics show that most terrorists in Guantanamo who are turned loose return to the fight against the US and our alleys. Is he going to release them on bail to await trial? That’s just what we need, terrorists bent on our destruction given a free trip to the US so they can continue their fight on our home ground.

Also during his confirmation hearing, he said that he would respect the Supreme Court decision in the DC vs. Heller case which held that the Washington DC gun ban was unconstitutional. However, during arguments being heard in that case he signed on to Janet Reno’s amicus brief urging that the gun ban be upheld. The amicus brief stated that “the position of the Department of Justice, from Franklin Roosevelt through Bill Clinton, was that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for purposes unrelated to a State’s operation of a well-regulated militia..( “Brief for Former Department of Justice Officials as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners”. American Bar Association.) “Holder said that overturning the 1976 law ‘opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets.’” (Nakamura, David; Barnes, Robert (March 10, 2007). “D.C.’s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out” (Article), Metro: Special Reports, The Washington Post, p. A01. Retrieved on November 19, 2008.)

While Mr. Holder says that he will respect the decision of the Supreme Court, what will be his tact to subvert our 2nd Amendment rights?

While the Democrats and media did not properly vet their candidate, the president-elect is following right along in the same vein. His Attorney General candidate is tainted to the point of being completely impeachable in any case.

As usual, I welcome your comments and discussion.


2 thoughts on “Cabinet Postings (3)

  1. In response to the gentleman who commented to Dan that we must be more willing to give President Obama a pass, I must respectfully disagree. As a Christian, it is absolutely my duty to pray for this man and to ask God to guide him. However, just because he now occupies the Oval Office, is no reason to automatically support him in this role or his politics.

    We hear constantly, “Well, he is our President now and we must support him.” Ridiculous. This man is a Marxist. He supports a socialist agenda and there is no reason conceivable, unless one shares the same philosophy, why those of us who do not support such an agenda, should support him. Furthermore, we should oppose his political success, as long as he continues in this socialist bent, because that very success only buttresses this insidious march toward socialism in this country.

    I support our Constitutional structure of leadership in this great country. Our Founders were brilliant in the way they set up our government and we must fight to ensure that this structure remains strong and in place. This obviously includes the Presidency. However, this does not mean that we blindly follow the occupants of these offices without scrutinizing their political philosophies and intentions, and necessarily opposing them.

    I invite everyone to study Marxism, communism and socialism. Then study our Constitution, our Founders, free markets and capitalism. Once completed – with intellectual honesty – decide which political philosophy and practice most closely describes our new President. Then check history and decide under what philosophy, human liberties – freedom – both flourish and are protected.

    I know the conclusion one will reach after such analysis, and I will never support a leader who openly chooses to reduce and/or eliminate those liberties.

    Too much blood was shed to create this bastion of human freedom and I will not stomp on that blood simply in an effort to ‘give someone a pass’. We don’t all have to get along. We don’t all have to accept the destruction of our Constitution and consequently our freedom, and in great prayer and intelligent thought, I will not.


  2. Great post! I really enjoy reading your blog. Keep up the good work.

    I’ve just started a new blog that will be highlighting the dangerous advances of the secular progressive movement (pro-gay “rights”, pro-abortion, anti-religious freedoms, etc). Unfortunately, most Christians still don’t know what’s going on out there and the mainstream media certainly isn’t covering it.

    We’re looking to build a solid group of social conservatives (especially Mike Huckabee supporters) who’ll frequent the site regularly and contribute to some good discussions. The site gets updated daily with breaking news, so you’ll want to check back often, or you can just sign up for our News Feed. I hope you’ll check it out!

    If you’ll add us to your blogroll we’ll gladly add you to ours. Just drop us a comment over at our blog so that we’ll know to add you. Our blog is called Religion and Morality.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *