Archive for the ‘Eric Holder’ Category


September 26, 2014

Eric Holder has tendered his resignation to the president and the world in time for Obama to nominate another conniving, deceitful conspirator while Harry Reid and progressive Democrats still hold power in the Senate. While everything else is put on hold until after the elections, the lawbreakers cannot afford to bet against Republicans, liberal or conservative, taking the majority. Obama must have someone in place to cover his tracks and obfuscate any investigations. He’ll be sorry to see his felonious comrade leave.

There has been talk of changing guard at the highest and most corrupt legal office in the land. I’m a bit confused as to why it has taken so long, unless…

By waiting to announce until now, it has given Valerie Jarrett (please excuse my parapraxis) President Obama the opportunity to understand exactly who his handlers want in place and how he must sell the new Marxist to the nation. Also, by waiting until this late date, it allows Obama to declare it a crisis not to have an Attorney General in place.

Look for him to make the declaration as early as Veteran’s Day, when congress is out for the holiday to put a new malefactor in place for the interim. At the very latest, there will be a new face behind the desk before January, 2015. That will make it easier for the public to accept Harry’s predestined confirmation. To show diversity from the racist ways of the past perhaps, just maybe, a ranking member of the Muslim Brotherhood is the pick.

Holder must leave soon. It is imperative that he be a civilian at the time indictments begin landing on the desks of agency Secretaries and Cabinet members. Just as with Lois Lerner and Hillary Clinton, being out of the office provides a barrier; another plane of distance from the felony under investigation.


July 14, 2014

According to an article by Justin Sink at The Hill, Eric Holder is still trying to separate the country along racial lines.

Holder’s boss, President Obama, uses race, economic status, gender, age, intelligence and or any other means to divide the country. Thus far in his presidency, Obama has pitted young against old, reasoned thought against ideologues, secularists against the religious, poor against rich, care-for-naughts against the responsible, women against men, Democrats against Republicans, ill against the healthy. He has caused the American public to pay for things they neither want or need so that those who want for free may need not want.

I thought, in 1986, that Ronald Reagan’s signing of the Immigration Reform and Control Act was going to be a clarion call for more people to enter the country without proper papers. Was I racist then? When he said, “A nation with no borders is not a nation” I asked what good the borders were if we gave respect to those who did not respect them. Was I racist then? The swarm began immediately and as time passed it became easier and easier for those choosing to skirt the immigration laws. This time Holder and Obama are showing the world that they care little for our sovereignty and our laws are applied when and where it is most convenient for the two of them. This is tyranny! Am I racist, or do I simply disagree with our Attorney General’s policies?

Holder told ABC. “You know, people talking about taking their country back. … There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus.” Yes Eric, and both of those people have been duly admonished. The rest of us simply don’t agree with your insane desire to destroy the country we love.

Holder said. “I think we are still a nation that is too afraid to confront racial issues,” rarely engaging “one another across the color line [to] talk about racial issues.” Hmm, could that be due to the fact that when you’re not blaming Bush for your ineptness you claim the person with a different opinion is racist?

The attorney general also pointed to Republican efforts to enact stricter voter ID laws in southern States as evidence that more needed to be done to protect minority rights. Republicans have maintained the efforts are designed to prevent voter fraud, while Democrats say instances of fraud are exceedingly rare, and far outpaced by the minority population that does not have identification that would be unable to vote. Perhaps if they are asked to produce proof of identity they may not be able to partake of government giveaways and entitlement programs that make and keep them dependent on Big Brother?

Holder called the laws “political efforts” designed to make it “more difficult” for “groups that are not supportive of those in power” to “have access to the ballot.” And just what is the excuse for those who support the party in power but still want you to uphold the law?

Holder said, “this notion that there is widespread in-person voter fraud is simply belied by the facts.”

This, too, might be true if you disregard the reports of certain districts with as much as 116% of the registered voters showing up at the polls and not one vote other than Democratic. It also might be true if you discount districts where poll watchers were forcibly removed from the area by Democratic operatives. Yes, if you consider the facts as you selectively enforce the nation’s laws, I guess voter fraud is belied by the facts.

Yes, I guess racial animus does exist when you ascribe racism to every opposing opinion. Even Harry Reid agrees with you. Harry’s remark about five white men neglected to account for Clarence Thomas. That is, unless he became white before voting on the Hobby Lobby case. Yeah, racial animus can be part of any debate!


May 16, 2013

It floors me that the President of the United States of America, the ruler with the largest cabinet and government the country has ever known, gets his information from the daily newspapers. It has been his excuse with everything from the New Black Panthers at the polls to the Cambridge police / Professor Gates (the police acted stupidly) to Fast and Furious to the IRS scandal and now to the Justice Department plucking phone records from the AP.

Why couldn’t the Justice Department start with the records of government employees using government phones and email to find out who may have leaked information? Why did they have to start with private citizens?

“Just like you, I got the information this morning from the Washington Post.” I guess he has to see what the papers are saying to gin up the proper spin for Carney. Jay, after all, has to point the finger in a direction that will lead truth seekers on a wild goose chase.

His cabinet admits to informing him about Benghazi. But he was tired from a long day and had to rest up before taking the long flight to Vegas to dazzle donors and beg for more money to defeat Mitt Romney. Perhaps that one time he was informed of the disaster created by his underlings before he read about it in the morning paper.

At any rate, we do know there was contact with the President on that one. That was the time some obscure, unseen YouTube video caused all the problems that left four Americans dead. He couldn’t have had all the information about that situation.

The Justice Department secretly pulled phone records from the AP because reporters may have information that is important to the country. Do you suppose Eric did this to keep the President ignorant, to keep the news out of the papers that he might read in the morning?

No, that’s not the case because Eric Holder didn’t know anything about the phone records until that story broke. It was his immediate subordinate, Deputy Attorney General James Cole, whose wardrobe is adorned with tire tread imprints from the proverbial bus this time.

The leader of the nation and his entire squadron of cabinet members and department heads know nothing about what happens within the government. They have to read about it all in the newspapers or watch it brought forth on FOXNews. Once they see it on FOXNews, they can discredit it as just more racism from the Right Wing Conspiracy.

I have been assured by the President himself, however, late yesterday afternoon that he will get to the bottom of it all, and justice will be done, those responsible will be held accountable. Of course, in Obamaspeak, that means someone will retire with full benefits, but not receive this year’s bonus.


June 13, 2012

People around the world have always been suspicious of their governments.  Americans are no different.  If never before, we now have concrete reason to be skeptical and it is brought to you by an administration that promised to be the most ethical, honest and transparent in history.

In 1966, Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  President Lyndon B. Johnson reluctantly signed it.  Shortly after the enactment of FOIA in 1967, it became obvious that it would jeopardize the secretive inner workings of our elected officials.  Once the power elite identified the American public actually had concern for the sleazy underpinnings of the officialdom it became necessary to plug the holes that released information the questionably honest bureaucrats wanted to hide.

The Privacy Act of 1974 not only weakened FOIA, it offered so many ambiguous exemptions that it now, literally, takes an act of Congress – a Congressional Hearing – to extract information from the government that may be detrimental to the citizens of the country those officials are sworn to serve and protect.  We have executives in power who unabashedly hide behind the exemptions allowed by the Privacy Act.  The most famous and most abused of which is “national security”.

Other exemptions under the Privacy Act that appear to protect the very people who might be under suspicion of wrongdoing include: internal personnel rules, inter-and intra-agency memos and documents, personnel and medical files or information compiled by or for law enforcement that might interfere with enforcement or deprive a person the right to a fair trial.

With inter-agency and intra-agency memos exempted from FOIA by the Privacy Act, every government agency or department became autonomous and unaccountable.  When the Attorney General of the United States, the person in charge of the Justice Department, boldly tells a Congressional Investigative Committee that the term “Fast and Furious” does not refer to the gun walking operation by the code name “Fast and Furious” it is his Clintonesque (“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”) way of delaying and denying due process.

The government now guards more information under exclusion than they tend to release.  Holder continues to jam the Congressional Hearings and cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars by refusing to provide the documents lawfully subpoenaed to identify the facts.

One political party and only one political party is controlling the investigation and one of those in control is, himself, under investigation.  Darrell Issa (R), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has expressed concern that Congress needs to look into the Justice Department records and conduct, but Senate Democrats are stonewalling his efforts.

Democrats in the Senate also recently blocked a resolution to introduce an outside special counsel to investigate a number of recent military and intelligence leaks.  Thus, U.S. attorneys under the purview of the Attorney General, Eric Holder, and ultimately reporting to the President will be investigating any wrong-doing within the top levels of government regarding military intelligence and national security leaks.  This is the epitome of the fox guarding the hen house.

How far can this nation sink before the radical dictatorships abroad look welcoming?