Eric Holder never met terrorists he didn't love
It seems to be true that Eric Holder, our Justice Department Csar has never met a terrorist or thief he didn't love. Anyone remember the 16 FALN terrorists he set free just before Hillary's election to the Senate in 2000 and the cuddly Marc Rich? Did Holder have a role in both of these hideous pardons? Read also: read here from book by Barbara Olson, killed in Islamic terrorists attacks of 9/11. According to "rumor" he plans to release Gitmo's worst terrorists into the United States: Guantanamo terrorists may be released into US. If you are a terrorist or a terrorist supporting nation which seems to include the US at the moment, you couldn't get a better ally than the Obama Administration. We give tax dollars to AIR and Citigroup, both practicing Sharia Law Finance so we support terrorist that way; regarding terrorists attacks upon us, we change the name, Islamic terrorist attack, to "man-made incidents". (Someone trying to be cute in a play on the words Weapons of Mass Destruction. No doubt Janet Napolitano our Secretary of Homeland destsruction. Maybe she wants to be invited for tea and some head-turning entertainment.) We are in the time-warp of 1984 by George Orwell. The Ministry of Justice is the Ministry of Injustice to law-abiding citizens; etc. Orwell got it right didn't he, even down to the language. Obama's true color seems to be shining through = RED for Socialist, Markist, CCCP. Of topic, but he sure seems to have brought Chicago politics to DC. Maybe the leftists on the Hill needed to be unleashed upon America so we could see how stark, raving mad and anti-the-US Constitution and the people these elected Lefists really are. Getting any idea yet? We give or plan to give $900,000,000.00 dollars to Hamas so they can buy more weapons and such to hurl at Israel; Obama first appoints Charles Freeman, an anti-semite and now Holder getting ready to release the worse-of-the-worst terrorists from Gitmo into the United States. Maybe the idea is to help Hugo Chavez and lighten his burden of training them on his soil so that they can get in across the border. Now, the United States Justice Department will just fly them in. And if they don't all land "guilty as Hell, free as a bird" (Bill Ayers), they'll go to a federal prison where they can recruit and train more terrorists.
Labels: Eric Holder, FALN pardons, Gitmo, Islamic terrorists, Marc Rich
<$PostedBy Beach Girlo$> <$AtTimeWithPermalink$>
4 Comments:
If Holder is so obviously pro-terrorist then why did a majority of senators of BOTH parties vote to confirm him (including such terrorist-loving Senators as Lieberman, Sessions, Graham, Reed, Hatch and Chambliss)??
Brenda, that's a good question. It would be easy to understand Lieberman, Hatch, and Reid. As for the others, I'd say they're just picking their battles. No need to fight one you know you cannot win. We'll see how Holder holds up if/when the terrorists attack us again as promised by current administration and the other sooth-sayers. I say terrorists would be out of their minds to attack us when we are destroying our freedoms and shredding our Constitution plus printing money as fast as possible. That's what the Third Riech (sp) did before Hitler took over.
We are Americans and we can overcome a lot. I just don't have much confidence in our elected "leaders" at the moment. Of your list, Sessions is the only one I consider a statesman.
Thanks for your reply.
I guess I find the They-were-just-picking-their-battles explanation unsatisfying. Because it doesn't take any more effort to vote "no" than it does to vote "yes." And because the job of a Senator is to vote for what's right even when it is difficult. And because, if the prospect of a U.S. Attorney General who loves terrorists and wants to create an Orwellian 1984 justice system doesn't qualify as something worth fighting against then what the heck does?!
Again, a majority of Senators of BOTH parties voted to confirm Holder. If only Republican senators had been allowed to vote the man still would have been confirmed.
So, it seems to me that there are only two possibilities here. Either:
1) Both parties have failed us, both deserve our scorn, and we should be putting our time, money and votes into growing a third party.
- or -
2) Your assessment of Holder is wrong and he's not nearly as bad as you claim he is.
I mean, those are the basic options, right? Or am I missing something?
Brenda, thank you for the decent dialogue. I admit my assessment could be "wrong" but I doubt it. Time will tell. Both of the pardons I mentioned were designed to help Bill and Hill Clinton and no one else except the parties involved.
I began to see the hypocrisy of our elected officials when the Senate voted for or against the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Setting aside a discussion of the merits of the case presented by the House (for you and me), I watched Senator John Warner of Virginia vote 'yes' on one charge and 'no' on another charge.
President Clinton was impeached - the second president only to have that distinction - but he was not thrown out of office. Because he didn't deserve to be thrown out. No, because had he been thrown out that would have put Al Gore into the Presidency. That would have made George W. Bush - a man I am ashamed to say I voted for twice even for the good he did do - (I believed he should have been impeached and kicked out of office for violating his oath of office to protect us from invasion) - have to run for president against a sitting president/Al Gore. So to my eyes, Senators voted to keep Clinton in office only to keep Al Gore out and make him and Bush run against each other with neither one having been president.
Of course, the Senators could have voted to kick Clinton out but that would have given Al Gore only one term as president had he won as an incumbent president against George Bush.
I have studied politics nearly my entire life and, yes members of both parties deserve scorn. Not all of them on either side. There are a few on both sides that I like.
Another subject - do you think Senators who are actually lobbyists for their spouses should be removed from the Senate? Diane Feinstein comes to mind with the billions of dollars in contracts she has sent her husband's way, Richard C. Blum. She is only one example but a powerful one.
On Holder, I could be wrong. Personally, I think we are all missing a lot because our politicians keep us busy on distractions - like the shell game. Where is the pea? Where is the real issue we should be watching.
I know the "pick their battles" is not a satisfying answer but it is true that Senators do that and also some - mostly on the Republican side - tend to let a president have the people he wants in his cabinet. We'll have to see how Holder does. He could be much worse than I imagine. That is another option. His position gives him incredible power.
Look how long it took to get Bush's weak attorney general out of there - Gonzales (sp).
On the other hand, an excellent jurists - Manuel Estrada (sp - could be the wrong name) could not get appointed to the DC Circuit Court.
The most disturbing thing is how much our Senators play with these appointments - the lady from CA, Rogers I believe is her last name - should have been on the DC Circuit Court but Dems would not let that happen.
It goes on. We'll have to see how Holder does.
About political parties - I believe the Democrat leaders are trying to create a one-party system and growing a third party may be impossible but it could happen. Americans are powerful when we get together and make up our minds that we want freedom and not slavery.
Sorry to ramble on - no caffine (sp) yet!!!
Have a good day... Drop back any time.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home