Is this the change you wanted?
Well it looks like the President-elect is choosing Eric Holder as his nominee for Attorney General of the United States. According to Forbes.com,
A Democratic official says President-elect Barack Obama plans to name his picks for U.N. ambassador, attorney general and homeland security secretary at a news conference Monday.
So…let’s take a look at the change this will bring.
Holder served as deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration and is now a partner at the Washington law firm, Covington and Burling. This Newsweek article claims Holder was hesitant to accept the post due to concerns the vetting process was sure to bring up questions of his role in Clinton’s presidential pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich who fled the United States for evading approximately $48 million in taxes and other crimes. Indeed, Holder was quoted in this article by The Swamp when asked by the Legal Times if he would accept the AG post.
“Yesterday, though, Holder was even more frank when asked by Legal Times if he would, indeed, accept the AG spot: “That ain’t gonna happen,” he said.
Perhaps at the time he actually believed Obama’s mantra of change and now realizes it was all just campaign propaganda. But it gets better!
This article on Firedoglake describes Holder’s role working for Chiquita International–you know, bananas. It appears the company’s employees were attempting to organize in Columbia so Chiquita hired a paramilitary organization to quell dissent in an effort to keep their costs down! From the article:
Chiquita funded terror to kill labor organizers in order to keep down labor costs. A very rational decision. It sends an interesting message to labor in the US to hire a man who’s worked for a corporation like that to be Attorney General.
Is this the kind of man we want running our Justice Department? How can organized labor–which unequivocally supports the Democratic Party–approve of this appointment?
Remember the furor that arose from liberals when Bush nominated John Ashcroft for AG? Just in case you don’t, here’s a quote from a position paper of the National Association of Social Workers on his nomination.
NASW opposes the confirmation of John D. Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States. John Ashcroft has a record of being insensitive towards the civil rights of minorities, women, and gays and lesbians. His extremist views towards civil rights and reproductive rights for women and minorities convey his inability to be an attorney general that will represent fair justice for all of Americans. While serving as an U.S. Senator from Missouri for the past six years, Ashcroft has demonstrated that he will use his position to promote his narrow extreme right wing vision of justice.
That translates to: John Ashcroft is a Christian who votes according to his faith and that disqualifies him from serving as AG.
Which would make a worse AG? John Ashcroft who votes according to his conscience and Christian faith? Or, Eric Holder who defends companies who hire terrorists to kill and intimidate workers in an effort to control costs?
Now, if that isn’t bad enough let’s couple it with Holder’s position on the 2nd Amendment–you know, that pesky one that follows freedom of speech, religion, the press so that the American people are guaranteed the capacity to protect those freedoms. From this post on The Volokh Conspiracy by David Kopel,
Earlier this year, Eric Holder–along with Janet Reno and several other former officials from the Clinton Department of Justice–co-signed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief was filed in support of DC’s ban on all handguns, and ban on the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home.
As Deputy Attorney General, Holder was a strong supporter of restrictive gun control. He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called “assault weapons” (cosmetically incorrect guns) by anyone under age of 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, national gun registration, and mandatory prison sentences for trivial offenses (e.g., giving your son an heirloom handgun for Christmas, if he were two weeks shy of his 21st birthday).
The brief and his aversion to 2nd Amendment rights are troublesome enough, but when coupled with Holder’s willingness to defend those who hire terrorists to trample the civil rights of people trying to improve their lives and earn a living we can see a clearcut threat to our constitutionally guaranteed right to defend our own.
Think this sounds paranoid? Let’s look at another quote gleaned from this article. Do you remember the Elian Gonzalez travesty during the Clinton administration? The little Cuban boy whose mother died escaping Cuba who was captured in a paramilitary raid on his family member’s home in Florida. Here’s the quote from the Kopel article:
Holder played a key role in the gunpoint, night-time kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez. The pretext for the paramilitary invasion of the six-year-old’s home was that someone in his family might have been licensed to carry a handgun under Florida law. Although a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo showed a federal agent dressed like a soldier and pointing a machine gun at the man who was holding the terrified child, Holder claimed that Gonzalez “was not taken at the point of a gun” and that the federal agents whom Holder had sent to capture Gonzalez had acted “very sensitively.”
Still think Holder’s going to protect and defend your rights? Is this the change America was looking for? I think not.
No comments yet.