Should Attorney General Eric Holder Resign?
Apparently someone at the Washington Times thinks so:
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. should resign. He is a disgrace to his office and to his country.
Mr. Holder is a race baiter. On Tuesday, he testified during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on the voting rights case involving members of the New Black Panther Party. In the 2008 election, Black Panthers - dressed in military fatigues and wielding a club - threatened voters at a Philadelphia polling station. They denounced the voters as “crackers” and vowed those voters would not be allowed to help defeat then-candidate Barack Obama. Their goal was to bully and intimidate. This was a clear case of violation of voting rights. Such behavior may occur with impunity in banana republics - not in the world’s leading democracy.
Rep. John Culberson, Texas Republican, confronted the attorney general, demanding to know why the Justice Department refused to prosecute the Black Panthers - especially considering they were caught making the menacing gestures on tape. Mr. Holder shamelessly played the race card. He claimed to take offense at comments by civil rights activist Bartle Bull, who called it the most serious example of voter intimidation he had ever seen at the polls.
“When you compare whatpeople endured in the South in the ‘60s to try to get the right to vote for African-Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia … to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people,” Mr. Holder said.
Excuse me - his “people”? This is one of the most outrageous - and divisive - statements by a senior government official in recent memory. His people are and should be the American people - all of us.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... al-racism/
Glad someone in the mainstream media is finally noticing this. Better late than never.
It's not my place to call for the resignation of a foreign official.
But what I will say is this. He made a decision that was within his authority to make. And now he is being held to account for his decision. This is precisely what is supposed to happen in a free and democratic society.
You will not get universality of opinion about whether this decision was the correct one or not. Personally, I think it was wrong, but even if it was wrong, we do not require public officials to resign every time they make a mistake, or exercise poor judgement. He appears clearly to believe in the correctness of his decision, and he is answering questions from legislators about the circumstances of his decision.
And that, to my way of thinking, is responsible conduct on the part of any official.
_________________
--James
Articles by Jeffrey T. Kuhner
*
KUHNER: Eric Holder's liberal racism
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. should resign. He is a disgrace to his office and to his country. Published March 3 2011
* KUHNER: Obama's homosexual America
Published February 24 2011
* KUHNER: Obama's anti-Israel agenda
Published February 17 2011
* KUHNER: The hypocrisy of Michael Moore
Published February 10 2011
* KUHNER: Obama empowers radical Islam
Published February 3 2011
* KUHNER: Obama is no centrist
Published January 27 2011
* KUHNER: The fetal solution
Published January 20 2011
* KUHNER: Obama's Tucson degradation
Published January 13 2011
* KUHNER: The GOP's last stand
Published January 6 2011
* KUHNER: The fall of America
Published December 30 2010
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
@ skafather84
Normally an author doesn't choose the title given to the article they write. Looking through the:
Kuhner: Obama empowers radical Islam article for example.
Mr. Obama is repeating the fatal mistake of President Carter in 1979. Mr. Carter dithered about whether to back the shah in Iran. Although a ruthless despot, the shah was a pro-American strategic ally. Mr. Carter eventually withdrew U.S. support in the face of massive street protests, delivering Iran to the apocalyptic ayatollahs. Iran’s clerical rulers have proved to be much more murderous and repressive than the shah ever was. Moreover, the Iranian regime is the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the world. It is a fanatical anti-American, anti-Semitic state that is on the verge of acquiring the nuclear bomb. Mr. Carter’s decision not only condemned the Iranian people to an Islamic fascist theocracy but allowed a mortal enemy of the West to seize power.
History is repeating itself. By publicly standing with the demonstrators - albeit belatedly - Mr. Obama has betrayed a key U.S. partner whose collapse likely may usher in a gang of medieval Islamist butchers. The cause of human rights and democracy will be set back even further under the Muslim Brotherhood - buried under the corpses of religious cleansing. After ignoring Egyptian secular-opposition activists for his entire presidency, Mr. Obama now decides to throw in his lot with militant Muslims. Administration officials already have reached out to top leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood to discuss an orderly transition to power.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... cal-islam/
So it is a rather well thought out article. Rather than trying a smear campaign towards people that criticize the Obama Administration from a center or right wing viewpoint, like you usually do, you actually read through the article and look at the merits of the argument.
Where published. What publication. Do you have a web site for it?
ruveyn
I just clicked on Kuhner's name once I went to the Washington Times article article link provided by Inuyasha.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
Bush remained president until the second half of January 2009. There was ample time for his political appointees to try to try to make a show out of this Black Panther business. In fact, in the interests of speedy justice, it was the duty of the judiciary, if a crime had been committed, to get things ready long before Obama's inauguration for prosecution.
Again stop trying to blame Bush, because the Obama Administration's DoJ dismissed the charges after the case had already been won.
The case had ended in a conviction and then Holder's DoJ dismissed the charges after the case had been won. Since the Republicans now have the House, the Democrats can't help cover this up for Obama anymore.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU[/youtube]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 58430.html
A former Justice Department attorney who quit his job to protest the Obama administration's handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case is accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of dropping the charges for racially motivated reasons.
J. Christian Adams, now an attorney in Virginia and a conservative blogger for Pajamas Media, says he and the other Justice Department lawyers working on the case were ordered to dismiss it.
"I mean we were told, 'Drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party,'" Adams told Fox News, adding that political appointees Loretta King, acting head of the civil rights division, and Steve Rosenbaum, an attorney with the division since 2003, ordered the dismissal.
Asked about the Justice Department's claim that they are career attorneys, not political appointees, Adams said "obviously, that's false."
"Under the vacancy reform act, they were serving in a political capacity," he said. "This is one of the examples of Congress not being told the truth, the American people not being told the truth about this case. It's one of the other examples in this case where the truth simply is becoming another victim of the process."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06 ... political/