Liberal integrity and AG Eric Holder
Eric Holder May 11th. He appeared on at least three major networks over the weekend making similar statements, reiterating his concern there would be racial profiling because of the Arizona law.
He says it's divisive. Why does he say that? Liberal ethics. It's divisive because Liberals don't like it, and because they don't like it it's divisive. They actually think this way.
But it gets better! Aside from explaining why he doesn't like the law in that video, he went on to explain that his Justice Department will be looking for at least two ways to challenge the law.
The video that follows is from May 13th, Eric Holder appearing before the Justice Department oversight committee. Rep Ted Poe of Texas asks Holder point blank if he's even bothered to read the law, then gives him a bit of a spanking.
The answer, of course, was no. The Attorney General of the United States had not yet read the ten page law before appearing on national television to say he is against it, and then setting his Justice Department to work trying to defeat it. Nor did he bother reading it before appearing before an oversight committee! Did this racist, terrorist loving boob not think it might come up?!? How is this excusable to people of good conscience?
How did he know the law was bad? The media told him, of course! More Liberal ethics. The word goes out to the media what the talking points are. The media spreads them. Then the media and all other Liberals cite each other as sources. Whether it's the truth or not becomes impossible to sort out.
We have a problem in this country.
Why should he bother to read it?
Congressional Democrats don't bother to read the bills they supposedly wrote, that they then pass. The Speaker of the House even proudly proclaimed they had to pass health care reform to get to see what's in it!
The President doesn't read what he's signing into law (nor does he honor his promise to post it publicly for seven days so we can read it and explain it to him).
And now Obama has nominated someone for the Supreme Court who's chief qualifications appear to be her unabashed adoration of him, her years as a Liberal academic in all the "right" schools and her "empathy," which is code word for ruling any way she wants without foundation or even mild interest in the Constitution.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media supports it all without question, either circulating the same stories of support and condemnation, or just ignoring what the public might find unpalatable in the Liberal agenda.
So why should the Justice Department know or care what is in a law? The special interests that own them all will let them know how they feel about whatever comes up.
To all of them, apparently, it doesn't matter what's in the law. The only thing that matters is their radical agenda. They aren't even really trying to hide it!
Believe in the agenda or not, I don't see how those who support this administration and its round table of academic radical incompetents given the growing list of things that should be unacceptable (not to mention are grossly hypocritical given their gripes under Bush), can be considered people of integrity. Certainly all of this goes against the plan of our Founders.
Franklin said we had a Republic, "if you can keep it." We are on that edge, and I can't find a modern Liberal who has a problem with that.
Click to viewHe says it's divisive. Why does he say that? Liberal ethics. It's divisive because Liberals don't like it, and because they don't like it it's divisive. They actually think this way.
But it gets better! Aside from explaining why he doesn't like the law in that video, he went on to explain that his Justice Department will be looking for at least two ways to challenge the law.
The video that follows is from May 13th, Eric Holder appearing before the Justice Department oversight committee. Rep Ted Poe of Texas asks Holder point blank if he's even bothered to read the law, then gives him a bit of a spanking.
The answer, of course, was no. The Attorney General of the United States had not yet read the ten page law before appearing on national television to say he is against it, and then setting his Justice Department to work trying to defeat it. Nor did he bother reading it before appearing before an oversight committee! Did this racist, terrorist loving boob not think it might come up?!? How is this excusable to people of good conscience?
How did he know the law was bad? The media told him, of course! More Liberal ethics. The word goes out to the media what the talking points are. The media spreads them. Then the media and all other Liberals cite each other as sources. Whether it's the truth or not becomes impossible to sort out.
We have a problem in this country.
Why should he bother to read it?
Congressional Democrats don't bother to read the bills they supposedly wrote, that they then pass. The Speaker of the House even proudly proclaimed they had to pass health care reform to get to see what's in it!
The President doesn't read what he's signing into law (nor does he honor his promise to post it publicly for seven days so we can read it and explain it to him).
And now Obama has nominated someone for the Supreme Court who's chief qualifications appear to be her unabashed adoration of him, her years as a Liberal academic in all the "right" schools and her "empathy," which is code word for ruling any way she wants without foundation or even mild interest in the Constitution.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media supports it all without question, either circulating the same stories of support and condemnation, or just ignoring what the public might find unpalatable in the Liberal agenda.
So why should the Justice Department know or care what is in a law? The special interests that own them all will let them know how they feel about whatever comes up.
To all of them, apparently, it doesn't matter what's in the law. The only thing that matters is their radical agenda. They aren't even really trying to hide it!
Believe in the agenda or not, I don't see how those who support this administration and its round table of academic radical incompetents given the growing list of things that should be unacceptable (not to mention are grossly hypocritical given their gripes under Bush), can be considered people of integrity. Certainly all of this goes against the plan of our Founders.
Franklin said we had a Republic, "if you can keep it." We are on that edge, and I can't find a modern Liberal who has a problem with that.