@PolitiJim's Rants for Reasonable People |: Eric Holder

Dear Representative Darryl Issa: May I first say that when you began openly and fearlessly proclaiming investigation of this fraudulent Administration even before the GOP took control of the House, I had to recheck your marital status and my stance on gay marriage. "Man crush" doesn't even begin to describe the respect, admiration and affection I have for your laser focus message and deafness to the national media's attacks on you. You sir are a patriot and we are damn proud of your service to this country.

But WTF?

And I really do mean, "What’s The Focus?" Holder has a history of insane ignorance of the law, the Constitution, morality and most illuminated, "doing the right thing." A quick recap (better chronicled in Michelle Malkin's archive) of Eric’s Rap Sheet:

Lied to Congress about participation and knowledge in Fast & Furious scandal (and obstructed justice)
Refused to comply with subpoena on Solyndra
Refused to prosecute Black Panther Voter Intimidation
Refused to pursue a NYC bomb plot
Sided with Mexico to sue a State of America (Arizona) against upholding existing Federal law
Refused to recuse himself from Gitmo prosecutions despite his former law firm representing Gitmo detainees
Hid key information on fugitive Marc Rich as a Department of Justice OFFICIAL to recommend a presidential pardon by Bill Clinton

And let's not even begin to get into earlier stuff like paying terrorists in Columbia through his law firm. So I ask this:

Why is the GOP focus on him to step down instead of Obama to fire him?

The Democratic Insider interviewed by the Ulstermann Report verifies that Eric Holder is the "firewall" that allows Obama to openly subvert the law and protect his machine. Holder ain't leaving. The revelation from a Hollywood Producer that the Obama machine used extensive voter fraud to steal the nomination from Hillary not only ensures that he needs him to protect him from the past - but for what he is preparing in the upcoming elections. The $1 Billion Obama is amassing for the campaign, isn't for TV ads, it is for election fraud.

Mr. Moral Macho Patriot, I am asking that you but the focus on the crime boss rather than the consigliere. If I'm right (and of course I am), Holder obstructs while you continue to tighten the legal and legislative oversight noose, what do we get at the end of the day? Anger, animus and antipathy toward a guy who is willing playing decoy for Obama as he runs above it all in 2012. Have you EVER seen Obama (or any in his administration) take responsibility FOR ANYTHING?

Even if the chorus moves to the mainstream media, Obama can keep "looking into it," avoiding all knowledge or stain of the actual crime(s). But if you, the GOP and every GOP candidate is directed to Barry to "Fire Holder," inevitably WE set the discussion on how (again) Obama is not acting as an executive. The focus is now moved in the public discussion to how Obama could have hired such a guy, not been "managing" him and knowing what was going on in his own Department, and won't have any excuse for not knowing the details by the time we get to the critical part of the elections.

For too long we have let the Democrats and the media set the conversation. We answer stupid questions about "why do you want to kill poor people by depriving them of health care," instead of asking the media, "why do you want hard working families to loose jobs and steal money from their own families?" It's why Newt's answer about OWS went viral when he pointed out the media never asks these guys who pays for the park in which to protest if there is no profit. Who knows. Even the media might commit what Rush calls "random journalism" which will get the rest of the nation asking,

"Yeah, Barry. Why aren't you firing this guy and running your administration?"

When will I learn to shut down the computer without looking at Drudge or checking my Twitter timeline before I go to bed? The New York Times seems to have published this just yesterday, but the discussion has been rattling among my friends and myself for more than a couple of days. The article entitled Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen begins this way:

The Obama administration’s secret legal memorandum that opened the door to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Muslim cleric hiding in Yemen, found that it would be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive, according to people who have read the document.

The question is this:

Does any President have the right
to kill an American citizen?

I have close friends. Patriots. Tea Party people, who believe American born Anwar al-Awlaki should have been killed because he was attacking - or aiding the enemy in attacking our United States of America.

I am the first to get on board air mailing the missile that will vaporize anyone who attacks our country with an intent to kill or injure us. And this character did much worse. He grew up with the privileges of US Citizenship and then recruited and embolden treasonists like the Fort Hood serviceman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan to kill our servicemen and servicewomen while yelling "Mohammad is great." I can't think of a torture that's painful enough for this traitor.

But there is one thing we need to make sure we are especially clear on.

Is it Constitutional?

Now, before you think I've gone all "ACLU" on you, I think we should slow down a bit and make sure this is as simple as we think it is. ESPECIALLY with you-know-who in charge and you-know-who-who reporting to him at the Department of Justice.

Was Weird Al (Awlaki) an American?

Weird Al's father thought so. He also adamantly denied he was a terrorist. Now I'll admit, the evidence was pretty overwhelming. Although he had unclear ties to two of the 9-11 terrorists, it was abundantly clear he was involved with the Nigerian man who tried to blow up the Detroit airliner in December of 2010 and the Times Square bomber. That guy said he was "inspired" by the teachings of Weird Al.

So just like Tony Soprano, we decided to take Weird Al out behind the Italian restaurant in Yemen to introduce him to some really spicy 10 kiloton meatballs. Just one small thing. As much as we WANT to do that, we truly love this country. What it stands for and the ideals upon which it was founded. What sets us apart from every hummus-making hegemony horror is that we have a rule of law. This little "due process" deal that all the kids have gone nuts over. And Weird Al's papa filed a lawsuit to prohibit his son from being included on a list of terrorists.

So we're ok now right? A jury of his peers looked at his citizenship criteria and the evidence and pronounced him either no longer a US Citizen or guilty of treason right? Wrong. You are not going to believe this.

A Federal judge dismissed the lawsuit on December 7th, 2010 saying that the father had no authority to stop the US Government from deciding to kill his son. No peers, no trial, no process. And I'll quote the New York Times background here and even make it larger so you don't miss it:

In addition, the judge held that decisions to mount targeted killings overseas are a “political question” for executive officials to make — not judges. (emphasis mine)

WTH!?? A FEDERAL JUDGE SAYS IT IS NOT UP TO THE JUDICIARY TO DECIDE WHETHER AN AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE KILLED? I'm sorry people. DO YOU REALIZE EXACTLY WHO THE "EXECUTIVE" IN CHARGE IS? Did we decide to simply to do away with the entire "balance of power" concept which was put in place EXACTLY for the purpose to decide what is LEGAL and what isn't? (Sorry for all the SHOUTING. This is getting me really worked up. And that's not the half of it.)

Judge John Bates of the District of Columbia district court acknowledged that the case raised “stark, and perplexing, questions” — including whether the president could “order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without first affording him any form of judicial process whatsoever, based on the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization." (again, emphasis mine)

So Norman Bates here, pardon me... John Bates admits himself that there might be a bit of a problem in suspending 200+ years of Constitutional law and the fundamental structure to prohibit an EXECUTIVE to take the life of whomever he feels like ... but what the hell. That Obama guy went to Harvard. I'm sure he'll make the right decision. (And this from a BUSH appointee no less.)

Well maybe I'm missing something here. Maybe the "Executive branch" had already decided Weird Al Wackadoo had forfeited his citizenship and wasn't an American citizen, right? Let's look at the conditions that can cause your citizenship can be revoked:

Being naturalized in a foreign country; - Nope. He didn't.
Making an oath or other declaration of allegiance to a foreign country; - No.
Serving in the armed forces of a foreign country if those armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the US, You would think he did, but Yemen actually imprisoned him in 2006 and 2007 so there was no "country" at war with the US.
Making a formal renunciation of US citizenship before a US consular officer or diplomat in a foreign country; No record of this or the administration would have argued it.
Making a formal written statement of renunciation during a state of war, if the Attorney General approves the renunciation as not contrary to US national defense; No and no.
Committing an act of treason against the US, or attempting by force or the use of arms to overthrow the government of the US. Ahhhh! It would seem we have a winner except for the fact that "Renunciation by this means can be accomplished only after a court has found the person guilty."

"But PolitiJim! He was making war against the US and clearly was a traitor!" Listen. I'm all for cooking the dude in the new George Foreman Convection Oven on "burnt." But our Constitution has been under assault for at least 100 years and is getting harder and harder to read in broad daylight. Don't you remember what the Democrats did in passing bills before they read them? Or suspending 200 years of Senate rules? Or attaching the piece of one bill to another that had nothing to do with healthcare so that they could force through a bill they themselves didn't have enough votes for? And a LARGE majority of America didn't want? Imagine what they would do with "right" to determine which Americans should be killed without it ever going public? Don't you remember Big Sis's Homeland Security declaration that all of us Right Wingers were Terrorists? (Am I sounding like Glenn Beck right now? Damn! Wish I had a chalkboard. Or Glenn's money.) Why is it such a big deal to NOT have a trial on this guy? We have evidence - even testimony from the Times Square Terrorist - this guy aided and abetted the enemy. Hold a trial, find him guilty of treason and fry the ****** ******. (fill in your own curse words here.) Read the whole background of the guy here. But we know there was no trial to declare him a traitor. So find me where he revoked his American citizenship. It is actually much deeper than that if you read the entire article. We always use the line, "I hate what you say about America, but I will fight for the right for you to do so," because we realize the Catch-22. If you prohibit people to say whatever despicable things they want, against our country or us, when those people are in power they can use the same law against us. This is the beauty of having a written legal standard to decide disputes - not kings, or judges, or Presidents. Or mobs. Let's go back to the opening paragraph in the article. It said, "The Obama administration’s secret legal memorandum that opened the door to the killing of..." (Weird Al). What other "secret legal memorandums" are floating about that don't see the light of day? Especially those that dictate actions against American citizens - much less killing? And how in the hell can it "be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive?" Since when is killing LAWFUL..unless we don't kill him? This sounds like Janet Reno and Waco, Texas all over again. I've been telling you conservatives who want to bury the "unpleasant" crimes of this administration that it will come back to haunt us in terrible ways. The administration now has, in addition to taking over private enterprises, suspended democracy in Congress to force through unpopular (and unconstitutional) privatization of 1/6th of our economy, freely lent money to foreign countries and foreign banks which could bankrupt the nation and now, given power from a FEDERAL JUDGE to decide if an American citizen should be killed without a trial?

Pardon me while I spit on your 8X10 personally signed GOP donor gift picture of Ronald Reagan. Either we have a Constitution that gives protections to make sure we get it "right" on using the power of government against the very worst of us - or we have no Constitution at all. I agree with Rush and any number of other commentators on this "suspending elections" business. The idea floated by some crazy liberal Governor in North Carolina wasn't isolated. Former White House Budget Director, Peter Orszag wrote an article in the New Republic recently as well. And let's not forget the Executive Orders passed within Obama's first year to suspend the internet and take over private businesses in case of an "emergency." Wasn't there MORE of a threat directly after 9-11?

Go back to when Scott Brown was elected and we thought the ObamaCare coffin was nailed shut. Or when the "blue dog" Democrats would never abide by the pro-abortion provisions. Or when we thought, surely, the White House couldn't NOT prosecute a racist with a club threatening voters at a Philadelphia voting booth. J. Christian Adams new book showed up just in time for Halloween. And Freddie Krueger IS in the White House. It is not just enough to vote these people out of office. Reform is needed to (legally) tear down and rebuild EVERY major governmental operation from the FDA, the EPA, the Department of Justice to the continually expanding Executive powers of the President. If not, these people will continue to infiltrate and nibble away at the fundamental spirit of the Constitution until some court WILL find it "legal" to suspend elections. Judges like Bates need to be impeached. The corruption is too deep, too ingrained. And it's not going to be done without a strong, principled Constitutional Executive who has proven they have done it before and aren't afraid to educate American voters to root out this cancer. A pretty looking President may even repeal ObamaCare, but there has to be a "fire in the belly" to not care about anything other than re-educating America on why our Constitution is so precious and in leading an effort to reform every aspect of governmental abuse and tyranny. Did Anwar al-Awlaki deserve to die? NO. In fact, HELL NO - if his Constitutional rights as a US Citizen were suspended. Let's pray 20 years or 20 months from now this line isn't famous:

I didn't speak up for the Islamic Jihadist Americans when they were killed, because I wasn't one.

**************************************

I only agree with Ron Paul on a few things, but I believe he is absolutely correct on the concern for this action. Read his public letter on his Congressional Website Here.

Also:
The White House was questioned about this October 12, 2011. Jay Carney refused to comment if other Americans were on the list. He did not address any of the legal issues only:

I can simply say as a general matter of fact that Mr. Awlaki was an operation leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). He was directly involved in plots to perform terror that would have resulted in terrorist acts against the United States, and, you know, it is, I think it is important to remember that when we assess the overall question.