That’s correct! President Obama’s administration has wriggled itself out of the corner it found itself trapped in and has found a way to channel taxpayer funds to the group that perpetrates voter fraud across the country and, even worse, has consistently shown itself willing to support illegal activities such as child prostitution, human trafficking, tax evasion and more!
From the ultra-left leaning New York Times:
The Justice Department has concluded that the Obama administration can lawfully pay the community group Acorn for services provided under contracts signed before Congress banned the government from providing money to the group.
But, why would we expect any more from Attorney General Eric Holder? We should have known this was coming. The same Justice Department that we need to provide Constitutional rights to brutal terrorists who were captured by our military on a foreign battlefield has determined the Legislative branch of our government really has no authority whatsoever.
If Obama wants to fund ACORN, he’ll fund the group of sleazebags and to Hell with Congress!
It seems Obama’s lawyers believe the Constitution protects the criminal activities in which ACORN routinely engages. Again from the Times’ article:
Moreover, he [Justice Department Attorney David Barron] argued, requiring the government to cancel contracts with a specifically named entity — “including even in cases where performance has already been completed but payment has not been rendered” — would raise constitutional concerns best avoided by interpreting the law differently.
Hearing these clowns claim the Constitution as the basis of their argument almost makes one ill. I guess this is one of the “negative liberties” our President believes our founders provided us with–the obligation to pay entities friendly to the Executive branch even after the Legislative branch cuts them off. Of course, hardworking Americans should be getting used to this type of Chicago-style politics emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The American taxpayer has felt the sting of President Obama’s knife in the back time and time again. So it’s really no surprise that he would steal from us once again to pay off his friends at ACORN.
As you pay your taxes this holiday season, smile and think about where that money will be going–to that corrupt bunch of criminals who support and promote voter fraud, human trafficking, child prostitution, and more vile, disgusting, illegal activities–even though government funding of this criminal organization is illegal!
The 2nd Amendment is once again under attack, this time by a bipartisan anti-gun coalition in the US House.
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has introduced H.R. 2159 (aka “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009”) seeks to give Obama’s gun ban enthusiast Attorney General Eric Holder sole discretion to decide who can and who cannot purchase a firearm. No trial, no hearing, just Eric Holder’s whimsical determination that a person might be involved in a terrorist act, now or sometime in the future, will be enough to keep an American citizen to exercise his/her constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
According to the NRA, “H.R. 2159 would give ‘the Attorney General the authority to deny the sale, delivery, or transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit to dangerous terrorists. . . . if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.'”
Not long ago, the Department of Homeland Security distributed a classified memo declaring virtually every conservative American and veteran a potential terrorist. So all of us considered “right-wing extremists” by the current administration are likely to find ourselves on Holder’s list of Americans who will be denied this constitutional right.
I seem to recall, in the not too distant past, liberals up in arms claiming President Bush was using fear of terrorism as an excuse to suspend Americans’ constitutional rights. (And Obama continues these very same practices today.) I guess these liberals consider it okay for a Democrat to trash the Constitution.
The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Sign this petition today and contact your representatives to tell them DON’T mess with our 2nd Amendment rights!
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.