Leave it to Breitbart.com to dig up this clip from 1995 of Eric Holder explaining how he would like to use the media, and the public relations outfits in Washington DC to push a new theme on the evils of guns in such a way as to mimic what’s been done with cigarettes. His point was that it would be best if young people, particularly young men, never had the desire to have or carry(keep and bear) guns. It’s typical of the left to believe that a PR campaign can fix anything, and of course, to some degree, it probably works on the sort of mind-numbed robots who tend to vote for leftists, but I don’t think Holder made much progress on this. On the other hand, for all his talk about the evils of guns, he sure didn’t seem to mind putting guns into the hands of narco-terrorists in Mexico through the Justice Department’s Fast and Furious and Operation Gun-Walker.
Posts Tagged ‘Eric Holder’
Many of you have complained of late about a noticeable shift in Fox News, not only in its coverage of various political events, but also in its staffing. More and more, they are adding to their paid Fox News contributors with people who are in some way linked to the radical left. People have wondered aloud what could be driving this shift, and while we probably won’t ever know it with certainty, I’d like to call to your attention what could be the basis for a quid pro quo that would offer at least one explanation for it. In the months leading up to the revelations about the phone-hacking scandal at New of the World, another Murdoch news outlet in the UK, we saw the first signals of a change on Fox News, and of course, there have been rumblings of potential investigations and prosecutions here by our own Department of Justice. If Murdoch and Ailes have anything to fear from these scandals here in the US, then it wouldn’t be inconceivable that the corrupt Department of Justice under Eric Holder and Barack Obama could use it as the potential stick to lash Fox News into political compliance.
One of my favorite talkshow hosts, Tammy Bruce, likes to talk about how her listener-supported show and site are advertising-free, and that one of the benefits is that she doesn’t have to put up with the demand of what she calls “Gestapos” who would tell her what kind of content she must or must not have in order to continue her show. It’s rather harder for somebody to take from you the independence of thought on which your success is based if they have no leverage to do so. In that scenario, you’re not worried any longer about advertisers threatening to yank their support. Of course, you could theoretically annoy all of your listeners but that’s not likely if their support was built as much on the character of your ideas as on your personal style and presentation of them, because not many people radically transform their beliefs over night.
The reason I make mention of this is because as a large commercial outlet that makes it money from advertising, and as a corporation operating primarily in the United States, Fox News is subject to all of the laws that the federal government might apply to it. As a subsidiary of NewsCorp, Fox News is subject to political tampering not only by threats of legal action against it directly, but also by virtue of legal threats against the parent company. This would mean that whomever held the prosecutorial sword would be able to exert some influence simply by rattling it a bit. In this case, we’re talking about the most politicized Department of Justice since, well, ever… I have no doubt that the crowd of Chicago thugs in the White House would happily apply pressure to derive the kind of coverage they seek from Fox News. The question then becomes: Are Murdoch and Ailes worried enough about potential legal matters to be man-handled in such a manner?
Obviously, I don’t have the answer to that question, but what I do know is this: Within Obama’s first year as President, pressure of some sort, whether commercial, legal, political, or otherwise seems to have been brought on Fox News and Fox Business. I say this because two things have now happened of which you and I are uncomfortably aware: The lineups at Fox have been changed dramatically, including now the dropping of Glenn Beck, Eric Bolling, and Andrew Napolitano from the line-ups on the two networks. Arguably, these are the three most conservative or libertarian hosts on either of the networks with the possible exception of John Stossel, but his is only a weekly show. It would be hard to claim, for instance, that Beck was removed as a business decision, because his was still the highest-rated news show on cable in that time-slot when he parted company from Fox News. Beck has effectively said that there was some sort of pressure involved. Soros has been waging a public war on Fox News through Media Matters for America, and other shill outfits, but if he could somehow get an “in” at the network, he might be in a better position to change it.
At the same time as this all began, we saw that a number of contributors were brought to Fox News who reflected a much more left-leaning bias, including Jehmu Greene, and Sally Kohn, among others. Greene is a preposterous leftist whose rage is at times barely-restrained as she hurls her defenses of leftists around. Kohn is inexcusable, because she worked for the Soros-funded Center for Community Change. These are just two of a growing number of leftist trolls, just one step from Occupiers, now being picked up by Fox News as they ditch people like Andrew Napolitano? I’m afraid that given all of this, I have to conclude that something is happening, and I doubt it’s a business decision so much as one born of some sort of behind-the-scenes politics. The left wouldn’t want Fox News to go away if they thought they could convert it to their side, and slowly but surely, this seems to be the direction of the the network. While all of this remains supposition, I can’t help but worry a bit about it because so many center-left people have thought that Fox News was a “conservative” network, but in truth it was merely balanced with a slightly right-wing dialogue that would be more amenable to the establishment wing of the GOP.
With conservative and libertarian elements slowly being removed, and rabid lefties being slid into place, one must wonder what is going on, and with all the saber-rattling over at the Obama-Holder DoJ, I think we may have reason to worry. If the leftists have found a way to effectively exert control over Fox News, there’s a real danger that we conservatives may have lost the only television outlet of mildly center-right news we’ve ever had. Many have wondered about the open Romney-pushing going on at that network, and most have assumed it originates with establishment Republicans, but given some of the recent pronouncements of George Soros, one might think again.
Not only did US Attorney General Eric Holder know in advance of his testimony about the circumstances of Agent Brian Terry’s death, and the involvement of Fast and Furious weapons in the event, but in a document dump late Friday night, it has been revealed that he knew of the connection within approximately one hour of the murder of Agent Terry. This is all of the evidence we need to have in order to pronounce Attorney General Holder a perjurer, and let’s not make any bones about it: He knew, and he knew the specific details, and he knew that his own program, Fast and Furious, the operation that provided thousands of semi-automatic firearms to narco-terrorists on the Mexican side of the border, had been implicated in this shooting. There’s no excuse for any of this, but once you understand the original purpose of this grotesque malfeasance, it no longer looks anything like mere incompetence, but something much more sinister.
What you must understand in all this was that as I’ve reported earlier, they wanted to create a statistical bit of evidence to prove why they should be able to monitor and restrict the number of long-guns you could buy at any one time in the US. This was the whole purpose, and it is ultimately the reason Agent Terry and countless Mexican nationals lost their lives: Holder, as part of the Obama administration, had a political goal of limiting firearms sales to Americans, and was willing to sell massive numbers of guns to people who would carry them to Mexico for use by the narco-thugs.
This site has joined previously in the widening call for Holder’s immediate dismissal, but despite more than one-hundred members of the House calling for action, John Boehner and Eric Cantor continue to sit on their thumbs, not wishing to stir up too much controversy in an election year. Rather than worrying about risking their re-election, they should be concentrating on enforcing the law, and taking action against an Attorney General who has repeatedly lied under oath. I don’t understand what they’re waiting to discover, or whether it will take their entire Republican Caucus in the House to get them to act, but the simple fact is that Holder lied, and he must go.
The President should fire him. He won’t. He continues to support his AG because of the damage a dust-up could have on his own re-election campaign. If you’re like me, and tired of all these politicians sitting on their thumbs, pick up the phone, call or write your Representatives, and let them know it is long overdue that Holder make his departure in appropriate disgrace. At the very least, we’re going to need to fire Obama in order to ditch his Attorney General.
I suppose we should all thank Willard “Mitt” Romney for catching up with the rest of us. Of course, the truth is that Romney was being his usual overly-cautious self in waiting until today to suggest that US Attorney General Eric Holder must go. The investigations of “Fast-and Furious” and “Gun-Walker” had progressed far enough weeks ago to draw this conclusion. Why is it that on so many issues, Mitt seems to show up after the matter is settled among voters, or the American people? Did he get word from inside the White House that it now looks as though Holder is on his way out? Is he now coming out with his criticisms because it’s now “safe” to do so? This is not the behavior of a leader, and what this should tell us about Romney is how obsessed he has become with not blowing it. Romney is playing the political version of the often maligned “prevent defense” in the NFL: On defense of a narrow lead, you back up and give ground on small issues on the basis of the theory that you will avoid your opponent scoring with a “big play.” Many NFL fans note that it seems that quite often, by playing it safe, the only thing you tend to “prevent” is your own victory. That’s the danger of Romney’s campaign, and if he takes that same approach to the general election, he and the GOP with him will go down to stunning defeat.
It’s all well and good to say that you’re waiting for more information, but there comes a point at which matters become relatively clear, and waiting until circumstance becomes a fait accompli is not really the manner of leadership this country can afford. Sometimes playing it safe can be a winning strategy, but all too often, it’s a the road to defeat. This isn’t the first time Mitt Romney has come out belatedly to pass judgment on an issue. The Debt Ceiling debate was already reduced to a foregone conclusion before Romney had anything at all to say about it. Honestly, if he’s this indecisive, I don’t want him anywhere near the White House. There’s a difference between thoughtful leadership and self-defeating hesitation for fear of misstep. That is the nature of Mitt Romney’s campaign, and if it is indicative of the sort of President he would be, thank you, no, we have one of those now. We’ve had enough of this “leading from behind” nonsense. It’s time for a President who will stand up front and reform this monstrous government.
That is the problem with Romney, after all, and it has been since the start. There’s nothing attractive to most voters about the unseemly practice of being last on every issue, but that has been Mitt’s role this entire campaign season to date. He simply won’t speak first on any matter of controversy, waiting for every other person of consequence to make up their minds and make statements first. I suppose it’s safer to wait for the parade to form and hop out in front of it than to try to create and organize a parade by your own efforts, and hope others will follow. At some point, this should become a point of embarrassment for Romney. He’s done this so often and on so many issues that it now seems his standard practice. Whether motivated by an obsessive fear of failure, or by political calculations intended to prevent his opponents’ having a “big play,” Romney seems incapable of leading in any matter of controversy.
I’ve got news for Governor Romney: Being President of the United States is all about dealing with controversy, and sometimes your pronouncements are not going to be well-received. The point is that sometimes, even when you think there’s a chance your judgment may be unpopular, if it’s the right thing, you get out there and say it anyway because, well, it’s the right thing. One wouldn’t ordinarily think that it would be so difficult to make peace with a position on such an issue and simply announce it. With Romney, however, his judgments seem timed to avoid becoming involved in the controversy except as a reporter. Mitt Romney thinks Eric Holder must go? Big deal. Most conservatives have thought that for most of this year, and many have been certain of it since all of the disclosures on Fast and Furious in November. I suppose we should all feel relieved now that Romney has joined the rest of the country in condemning Holder’s actions. The matter must have become settled in the polls, and if Romney keeps this up, it won’t be the only matter settled with or without him.
On Thursday, Sarah Palin wrote a Facebook note that I covered here, demanding that President Obama fire Attorney General Eric Holder. As this story continues, it’s clear that Holder isn’t going to take responsibility, and isn’t going to resign in shame as he should. What makes it just that much worse is that this alleged public servant continues to make excuses for his malfeasance at the Department of Justice, and is stubbornly callous in his dealings with the parents of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry who was killed in 2010 with one of the guns that Fast and Furious placed into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. In an act of flagrant disregard for the parents of Brian Terry, he released a semi-apology intended for the Terrys to the press before they had first received it.
Some take this action by Holder and the DoJ under his leadership as an act of cold-hearted folly, but while I am certain that Holder is cold-hearted, I believe it isn’t folly that has dictated his actions. I believe Holder is a calculatingly cold-hearted villain. This was done as a PR move with the press, since only days before he had refused to apologize to the family. The letter was disclosed to Politico, the left-wing online political news-site responsible for digging up the Cain accusers, but Politico is now saying they won’t release it since it was supposed to have been private. Really? Isn’t this the same Internet rag that only two weeks ago was cajoling two Cain accusers and the National Restaurant Association to make the details of confidential agreements public? Interesting it is how quickly times have changed. As we know about Politico, it’s all about whose ox is being gored.
“Eric Holder has told the grieving family of slain U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry that he is ‘sorry for the loss of your son’ and offered to meet with them,”
If accurate, it is a perfect example of a leftist’s so-called “apology:” It’s feigned sympathy posing as an apology. He might as well have said “I’m sorry you have the flu today.” It would have been at least equally sincere, and no less an apology. If Holder wanted to apologize, he could have said something about his responsibility in the matter, but he dare not admit that as at least 38 members of Congress are demanding Holder’s ouster. I’ll be contacting my own Congressman to be sure he’s part of that list, and if not, to demand an explanation.
In related news, Terry’s parents, Kent and Josephine, have finally broken their public silence on the matter. What appears to have anger them most was Holder’s excuse in testimony before the Senate, when in answer to Senator Cornyn, (R-TX) Holder said:
“There are 115,000 employees in the Department of Justice,” and more: “I cannot be expected to know the details of every operation on a day-to-day basis.”
This isn’t about knowing the tiny details of every operation. Holder shamelessly sets up a straw man in this statement: Nobody is asking him to know the details of every operation on a day-to-day basis. They want to know how an operation like this could have been developed in the first place. Holder shouldn’t have needed the day-to-day details to realize that this operation was wrong-headed. It should never have left the planning stage. The management of the DoJ should have prevented this from becoming an operation at all. That means Eric Holder, of course, who has failed to take responsibility for the operation that went forward under his [mis]management.
Consider Holder’s words in response to Cornyn:
“I certainly regret what happened to Agent Terry. I can only imagine the pain that his family has had to deal with, particularly his mother. … We are not programmed to bury our kids. It pains me whenever there is the death of a law enforcement official, especially under the circumstances. It is not fair, however, to assume that the mistakes that happened in Fast and Furious directly led to the death of Agent Terry.”
Terry’s parents are right to view Holder’s attitude as one of brazen contempt, or at least shocking indifference. There’s no excuse for Holder to remain in his post. He has failed to discharge his duties with diligence, and the entire Department of Justice seems now to be engaged in a continuing suppression of the facts. It’s time for the President to to step in and do his duty, exercise some fast fury of his own, and finally send Holder packing. Holder must be made to account for this grotesquely stupid operation, but if the President won’t act, he must be held responsible too.
Thursday evening, Governor Sarah Palin posted a new note on Facebook tackling the fiasco of operation Fast and Furious, and calling upon President Obama to fire his Attorney General, Eric Holder, for his sheer malfeasance in this case. Gov. Palin makes a thoroughly compelling argument for the immediate removal of Eric Holder for having been incompetent, lazy or dishonest(or all three,) and she is right: There is no plausible explanation for why Eric Holder is being permitted to maintain his position as the Attorney General of the United States. Whether singly, or in combination, the three competing(or overlapping) explanations for Holder’s behavior in this scandal as outlined by Palin are quite enough to warrant his immediate dismissal. The stated motives for this program simply defy logic. Lying to Congress is a serious matter, and so is dereliction of duty. The only thing I would respectfully add is this: Obama should fire Eric Holder, and follow that up by tendering his own resignation.
It’s true that a President can’t know the inner workings and minute details of every agency and department under his or her command, but it is nevertheless true that a President should endeavor to know enough to prevent and prohibit those agencies from running wild. A President is responsible for appointing the heads of these departments and agencies, and everything they do is an expression of the authority of the office of the executive. In short, Obama had a duty to appoint people who were not incompetent, lazy and/or dishonest, but in having done so, he exposed his own malfeasance. One of the criticisms of Richard Nixon that persisted long after his humiliating resignation of the office of President had been the fact that whatever virtues he might have possessed, he nullified them by surrounding himself with people of questionable character, diligence, and veracity. In short, Watergate was a scandal conceived in a bungled burglary by third-rate hacks, but ultimately birthed in the intransigence of a President to face up to those who had acted badly without his knowledge. In short, “it was the cover-up, stupid!”
In permitting Holder to continue at the Department of Justice, Obama is himself nurturing a similar environment. In that sense, Obama’s role in the Fast and Furious scandal is analogous to Nixon’s role in Watergate: Knowing there is a serious problem, Obama has a duty to act in diligence, and swiftly, to clean up this mess, and by “clean up,” I do not mean “cover-up.” If Obama were to promptly act on Palin’s demand, and remove Holder from his office at the DoJ, he might provide himself some separation from the incident and operation in question, but by allowing Holder to continue at Justice, all he is doing is to provide the linkage necessary to tie his official affirmation to Holder, operation Fast and Furious, and the whole sorry affair.
Governor Palin aptly noted:
Holder conceded this week, “I have ultimate responsibility for what happens in the department.” He can prove it by resigning. And if he refuses to resign, then President Obama – with whom the bucks ultimately stop – can prove that he respects honesty, transparency, and accountability in his administration by firing Holder.
Implied, but not made entirely explicit is this: If the buck stops with President Obama, and it does, then a failure to act by removing Holder leaves Obama subject to that same fate. Contrary to the media’s attempt to sweep this calamity under the rug, this has been a serious matter and with serious and long-lasting consequences. As Palin reminds us, we’ve lost at least one agent to this lapse in judgment, and at least 200 Mexican citizens have paid with their lives for this program’s alleged aims. It’s clear that this program may have had a more nefarious purpose, and the President demonstrates his support of those purposes by his inaction on the matter of Eric Holder.
Sarah Palin is right: Eric Holder must go. If President Obama won’t fire Holder, then he too must be held to account. This sweeping betrayal of the American people is simply one more instance of Obama ignoring his oath of office. I believe there is virtually no chance that Obama will fire Holder, let alone resign from office himself, but the case must be made to the American people that come next November, we must remove Obama by ordinary means with our ballots. That is the one way to be certain we get rid of Holder: We must fire his boss.