Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
OverSword

Holder on Banning Home Schooling

170 posts in this topic

Im just going to reiterate at this point in the topic Holder is a leech on our Constitution and has no ability that I can see that makes him qualified to be in the position of power he is in.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im just going to reiterate at this point in the topic Holder is a leech on our Constitution and has no ability that I can see that makes him qualified to be in the position of power he is in.

Whereas, I see someone that's had a career in the legal profession for over 35 years, including being a judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, a United States Attorney and the Deputy Attorney General.

That you disagree with him politically, on the other hand, is pretty much a given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whereas, I see someone that's had a career in the legal profession for over 35 years, including being a judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, a United States Attorney and the Deputy Attorney General.

That you disagree with him politically, on the other hand, is pretty much a given.

None of those things make him a supporter or defender of the Constitution. So you are right my point of view is a given. I judge him on his recent actions and what hes said publicly. Once he became a member of the establishment to fulfill there minorities in power quota he became part of the problem not the solution. Not ever having been a local judge in my community I cannot tell you his track record in his rulings as a judge and Im going to go out on a limb and say he was a Prosecutor in his early career and youll find some deep mud in his record. But thats just specualtion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of those things make him a supporter or defender of the Constitution.

actually it does. It's based on the constitution.

A lawyer, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is "a person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel or solicitor; a person who is practicing law."[1] Law is the system of rules of conduct established by the sovereign government of a society to correct wrongs, maintain the stability of political and social authority, and deliver justice. Working as a lawyer involves the practical application of abstract legal theories and knowledge to solve specific individualized problems, or to advance the interests of those who retain (i.e., hire) lawyers to perform legal services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is his job description.

Job Description

* Term of Office: 4 years

* As the chief law officer, ensures that the laws of the state

are uniformly and adequately enforced.

* Heads the Department of Justice, which is responsible for

providing state legal services and support for local law

enforcement.

* Acts as chief counsel in state litigation and serves as legal

advisor to the Governor, Legislature, boards, commissions and

agencies.

* Oversees law enforcement agencies, including District Attorneys

and Sheriffs.

*SALARY - $102,000

The problem: .Attorney General Eric Holder might not be sticking around for a second term.

Holder told law school students at the University of Baltimore School of Law that he does not know if he will stay in his job.

Hes overextending his appointment thus adding to the hypocrisy of this administration. Possibly. Unless he steps down.

Edited by AsteroidX
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, I wasn't aware of the Manning allegations prior to your post.

If it's purposefully violated - if it's legislation with a wink, then sure.

What evidence do you have that that's the case, as opposed to, say, an overzealous military?

I've never claimed otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, EO's are constrained by PL.

Yes, constrained by PL, and more importantly, also by the USC.

I have been fascinated by the Manning case from the start, as I was by the Watada case quite a few years back. Two courageous individuals.

You raise a very good point about the over zealous military. That is certainly a good way to put it, and perceptive too, because that is a part of the total equation. A US military that has been encouraged to be vicious for the better part of 11 years now. Encouraged by and through the military chain of command, from the top down. Books have been written about it. Memorandums written in the White House by Office of Legal Counsel.

So yes, the sad part is that so many amongst the military get into the torture thing.

Why does Obama so happily participate, is my question.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does Obama so happily participate, is my question.

Why do you believe that he happily participates in it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hes overextending his appointment thus adding to the hypocrisy of this administration. Possibly. Unless he steps down.

There are no term limits for Cabinet positions. They serve for as long as a president wishes them to (and they agree to do so, obviously).

Edited by Tiggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are no term limits for Cabinet positions. They serve for as long as a president wishes them to (and they agree to do so, obviously).

Possibly part of the problem not the solution. BTW these type of incidents fall under Holders Job Description.

I found a video for our friend Preacherman. Hopefully he can still view it.

[media=]

[/media] Edited by AsteroidX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you believe that he happily participates in it?

Because he has not ended it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because he has not ended it.

Because the man in charge always happily participates in the illegal activities of his employees, against his direct orders to the contrary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the man in charge always happily participates in the illegal activities of his employees, against his direct orders to the contrary?

We all get to witness good leadership from time to time. I know I have. Obama's style does not evince leadership, except of a false variety.

If, for example, he had been willing to prosecute and punish those in the prior administration who had practiced torture, he would have demonstrated some measure of moral courage. He would have been able to demonstrate that he took his oath of office seriously, and that illegal actions would not be tolerated on his watch.

Instead, he swept it all under the rug, proving himself to be both cowardly and unprincipled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all get to witness good leadership from time to time. I know I have. Obama's style does not evince leadership, except of a false variety.

If, for example, he had been willing to prosecute and punish those in the prior administration who had practiced torture, he would have demonstrated some measure of moral courage. He would have been able to demonstrate that he took his oath of office seriously, and that illegal actions would not be tolerated on his watch.

Instead, he swept it all under the rug, proving himself to be both cowardly and unprincipled.

In your opinion.

I personally believe that he was savvy enough to know that prosecuting the former Republican administration would have permanently gridlocked Congress, pitched the CIA, NSA and the military against him and divided the country to the point where civil war was inevitable.

The same reason that Ford pardoned Nixon, basically. The country couldn't take the fallout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your opinion.

I personally believe that he was savvy enough to know that prosecuting the former Republican administration would have permanently gridlocked Congress, pitched the CIA, NSA and the military against him and divided the country to the point where civil war was inevitable.

The same reason that Ford pardoned Nixon, basically. The country couldn't take the fallout.

In your opinion the country could not take the "fallout".

Instead, the country has taken the "fallout" of coming to terms with the fact that men responsible for law breaking are not prosecuted. The country has now come to the cynical realization that the rule of law does not apply to men in government.

Which is worse?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your opinion the country could not take the "fallout".

Instead, the country has taken the "fallout" of coming to terms with the fact that men responsible for law breaking are not prosecuted. The country has now come to the cynical realization that the rule of law does not apply to men in government.

Which is worse?

I'm going to go with "A civil war involving the deaths of millions of innocents, with still no guarantee of being actually able to prosecute the men who broke the law".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your opinion the country could not take the "fallout".

Instead, the country has taken the "fallout" of coming to terms with the fact that men responsible for law breaking are not prosecuted. The country has now come to the cynical realization that the rule of law does not apply to men in government.

Which is worse?

That the rule of law doesn't apply to the men in government is the worse.

Obama didn't have anywhere close to the leadership needed to do the right thing and fall on his own sword if necessary. I'm sure we're shocked about that. Keep hiring from the same bipartisan pool and expecting a different result, because he once made a speech against Bush's war, and then voted for it every chance he got. If he prosecuted the Bush administration instead of giving them an unofficial pardon, he wouldn't have gotten reelected. Compared to his contemporaries, he would have gone down in history for bringing actual "change" to the establishment. A controversial figure in a sea of sameness. If he proved to be the most fiscally conservative President we've had in 30 years, some liberal right wing nut case probably would have tried to assassinate him by now as he drove the precious establishment into the ground, savaging it with political upheaval. The solution to the worse of the two problems, as it were.

But he was too self-interested for all that, and burying those republican sins were much too fashionable, why? Because he was going to continue committing them all himself, as history has proven. Because once these crooks get into office there's not a dime's worth of difference between them. People are sadly indoctrinated in this country to prefer their party's politics and actually they think they're more intelligent for being so. Fox News Channel and MSNBC are partisan soapboxes that pound the airwaves 24-hours a day to make us think that reality comes in a partisan shaped box. How do I strain THIS through my partisan filter? That's the first screen these garbage networks ask before they report on anything.

I'm with you brother. I have enough respect in the rule of law to actually insist on it without letting outlandish partisan fear mongering rule my better judgment.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That the rule of law doesn't apply to the men in government is the worse.

Obama didn't have anywhere close to the leadership needed to do the right thing and fall on his own sword if necessary. I'm sure we're shocked about that. Keep hiring from the same bipartisan pool and expecting a different result, because he once made a speech against Bush's war, and then voted for it every chance he got. If he prosecuted the Bush administration instead of giving them an unofficial pardon, he wouldn't have gotten reelected. Compared to his contemporaries, he would have gone down in history for bringing actual "change" to the establishment. A controversial figure in a sea of sameness. If he proved to be the most fiscally conservative President we've had in 30 years, some liberal right wing nut case probably would have tried to assassinate him by now as he drove the precious establishment into the ground, savaging it with political upheaval. The solution to the worse of the two problems, as it were.

But he was too self-interested for all that, and burying those republican sins were much too fashionable, why? Because he was going to continue committing them all himself, as history has proven. Because once these crooks get into office there's not a dime's worth of difference between them. People are sadly indoctrinated in this country to prefer their party's politics and actually they think they're more intelligent for being so. Fox News Channel and MSNBC are partisan soapboxes that pound the airwaves 24-hours a day to make us think that reality comes in a partisan shaped box. How do I strain THIS through my partisan filter? That's the first screen these garbage networks ask before they report on anything.

I'm with you brother. I have enough respect in the rule of law to actually insist on it without letting outlandish partisan fear mongering rule my better judgment.

Obama is an intelligent guy. I'm sure he understands in his head that JFK was assassinated for not being a team player with CIA and the MIC. So, he plays along so that his daughters will not become fatherless. I can understand that line of reasoning, but considering his oath of office, I cannot respect that line of reasoning. By his actions, he is a domestic enemy of the USC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to go with "A civil war involving the deaths of millions of innocents, with still no guarantee of being actually able to prosecute the men who broke the law".

Which of course is a hypothetical.

It's funny, your mention of "no guarantee of being actually able to prosecute" is almost the very same thing that Holder said in his press conference explaining why there would be no indictments in one of the high profile banking cases a few months back.

He, the AG, presumed to speak for the jury in claiming that no jury would convict.

I say, Mr. AG, give a jury a chance, and make sure it is a fully informed jury while you're at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which of course is a hypothetical.

As is any unwritten course of history.

Such as any alternative timeline proposing that a second civil war wouldn't be the result - even though it's obvious enough, even to you, that the assassination of Obama by the CIA would be a likely first consequence.

The ideal position is obviously prosecution. On that, we both solidly agree.

I'd personally be extremely happy to see cabinet level prosecutions for advocating institutionalized torture (though, I also personally think that prosecuting anyone below that level who followed the legal guidelines handed out by the Government is an extremely dangerous idea). I don't see anything that so far has been enacted that would stop those cabinet level prosecutions from occurring in the future, during less volatile times.

We currently live in a country where literally less than six months ago, almost half of the population willingly voted for a Presidential candidate that publicly stated that he thinks that water boarding is not torture. As long as it remains an issue with that distinct partisan divide, prosecuting it will always be spun into being an unprovoked partisan assault to imprison the opposition for political crimes, with subsequent dire consequences.

It's funny, your mention of "no guarantee of being actually able to prosecute" is almost the very same thing that Holder said in his press conference explaining why there would be no indictments in one of the high profile banking cases a few months back.

He, the AG, presumed to speak for the jury in claiming that no jury would convict.

Part of the Attorney General's job is to decide which cases are worth spending the Government's limited resources prosecuting.

I say, Mr. AG, give a jury a chance, and make sure it is a fully informed jury while you're at it.

Choosing to believe that you have infinite resources to prosecute everything is obviously the much easier path.

Edited by Tiggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiggs

You and I are coming at the very same thing, from different perspectives in life. It sounds like you work in the field of which you speak, and I don't. I happily accept all your knowledge and respect your opinion in it.

But I have the luxury of judging torture all by itself, in and of itself, not as a political perception phenomenon, but more as a moral absolute. I equate torture with assault, personally.

I think the law should too.

You and I do not share that fear of civil disobedience. If the system would actually indict of few of those criminals, actually send them to jail, then there would be far less of that sort of financial crime. The deterrent effect does work within the world of tepid bankers and fraternity men. Send a few to jail for a few years, and the others tighten up their collective act. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.