Eric Holder Promotes UN Redistribution of Wealth to “Fight Terrorism”

Ben Johnson,The White House Watch

In the film The
Assassination of Richard Nixon
,Sean Penn’s boss advises him that Nixon
was the greatest salesman of all time,because in two successive elections he
hoodwinked the American people with the same promise:that he would end the war
in Vietnam. [1] Eric Holder must have been Penn’s understudy.

The Huffington Post reports
that the attorney general and supreme
representative of his people
told the UN
Secretary-General’s Symposium on International Counter-Terrorism Conference

“Tuesday that the Obama administration will do its utmost to close the U.S.
prison at Guantanamo Bay before next year’s presidential elections.”Bloggers on
the Left
and the Right
have noted Holder’s hypocrisy. None has yet reported that this recycled 2008
campaign promise came as part of a speech that invited the UN to create an
“international legal and policy framework”for waging the War on Terror in
“civilian courts,”and which pledged to redistribute taxpayer dollars to fight
such “root causes”of terrorism as global income “inequality.”Eric Holder vowed
to bring terrorists to the mainland,diminishing U.S. wealth to the Third
World,and UN norms to the halls of power.

As the centerpiece of this feckless conference,UN Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon announced the creation of a new
UN anti-terrorism center —financed by Saudi Arabia
.

On Monday,Holder addressed
the United Nations Secretary-General’s Symposium on International
Counter-Terrorism Cooperation. Holder asserted on 9/11 world leaders agreed “to
respond to national challenges with international action,with global
solutions,and with a renewed commitment to collaboration.”

In this work,the United Nations has led the way – by developing an
international legal and policy framework to foster collaboration and information
sharing,to promote the rule of law,to protect civil liberties and – ultimately –
to enhance our capacity to identify and combat terror threats. Let me be very
clear:The United States is firmly committed to the rule of law approach
enshrined in this framework and to strengthening the capacity of civilian courts
around the world,which have time and again shown their effectiveness at bringing
terrorists to justice.

Holder added,in addition to trying the perpetrators of international
terrorism,the United States must “just as importantly,endeavor to eliminate its
causes as well.”

The UN cannot even agree on a definition of
terrorism
,slightly complicating efforts to eradicate it. If it could,vast
segments of its membership believe in systematically targeting civilian
populations for political ends,rendering nominal opposition to terrorism
disingenuous.

Yet they vigorously and sincerely approve of redistributing U.S. taxpayer
dollars under UN auspices,whether in the guise of stopping environmental
degradation
or ending terrorism.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon himself stated:“Effective
counter-terrorism requires a combination of social,educational,economic and
political tools that target those factors that make the terrorist option appear
attractive. The strategy also recognizes that human rights are an intrinsic part
of the fight against terror,not an acceptable casualty of war.”

The globalist socialist agenda is described in greater detail in the
documents promoted at the conference:the UN Global Counter-Terrorism
Strategy,adopted five years ago,and the Comprehensive Convention against
Terrorism,which Ban Ki-moon urged members to complete then ratify.

The Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and its lengthy Annex focus
on expanding UN authority into virtually every aspect of human endeavor. The
Strategy instructs nations to….

Read
more
.

Obama/Holder Could Face Felony Charges for Fast and Furious

Doug Book,FloydReports.com

Why waste time asking “What did you know and when did you know it?” when the
Obama Regime might already face felony charges?

That’s the question Attorney David Hardy and others are asking those
investigating the role of Regime members in the deadly gun walking fiasco,Fast
and Furious.

Since whistleblowers
brought this scheme to the attention of Congress early this year,Senator Charles
Grassley and Congressman Darrell Issa have been frustrated
by Department of Justice stonewalling,subterfuge,and
misrepresentation.

As Grassley wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder in a July 18th
correspondence,“If the attorneys working on the [Justice] Department’s response
to the Committee spent less time redacting documents and more time producing
them,we would be much closer to understanding the failures in leadership
surrounding Operation Fast and Furious.”

But it is Hardy’s contention that….

Read
more
.

Obama Justice Department Shut Down Federal ACORN Investigation According to Documents Obtained by Judicial Watch

  Obama Justice Department Shut Down Federal ACORN Investigation According to Documents Obtained by Judicial Watch
Washington, DC — March 11, 2010

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) detailing federal investigations into the alleged corrupt activities of Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The documents reference serious allegations of corruption and voter registration fraud by ACORN as well as the Obama administration’s decision to shut down a criminal investigation without filing criminal charges.

The documents include background information on two specific complaints filed in October 2008 by Lucy Corelli and Joseph Borges, Republican Registrars of Voters in Stamford and Bridgeport, Connecticut, respectively, during the 2008 election season.

According to Corelli, on August 1, 2008, her office received 1,200 ACORN voter registration cards from the Secretary of State’s office. Over 300 of these cards were rejected because of “duplicates, underage, illegible and invalid addresses,” which “put a tremendous strain on our office staff and caused endless work hours at taxpayers’ expense.” Corelli claimed the total cost of the extra work caused by ACORN corruption was $20,000. Likewise, Borges contended that: “The organization ACORN during the summer of 2008 conducted a registration drive which has produced over 100 rejections due to incomplete forms and individuals who are not citizens…” Among the examples cited by Borges was a seven-year old child who was registered to vote by ACORN through the use of a forged signature and a fake birth certificate claiming she was 27-years old.

The FBI and Department of Justice opened an investigation. However, the Obama Justice Department, while noting that ACORN had engaged in “questionable hiring and training practices,” closed down the investigation in March 2009, claiming ACORN broke no laws.

By contrast, the documents also include records related to a federal investigation of ACORN corruption in St. Louis, Missouri, involving 1,492 allegedly fraudulent voter registration cards submitted by Project Vote, a liberal non-profit organization affiliated with ACORN on voter registration drives, during the 2006 election season. Assistant United States Attorney Hal Goldsmith initiated the investigation with “concurrence” from the Department of Justice and the participation of the FBI. According to a Justice Department memo, Goldsmith “advised he would prosecute any individual responsible for submitting fraudulent voter registration cards.” Goldsmith identified the statute for prosecution: Title 42, USC 1973 (gg), which provides for criminal penalties for fraudulent voter registrations. In April 2008, eight former ACORN employees from the St. Louis office pled guilty to voter registration fraud.

Other documents show that the Bush Justice Department failed to prosecute ACORN voter registration fraud of non-citizens in Phoenix, Arizona in 2007 because the allegations that led to the opening of the investigation were “unverifiable.” Notably, the FBI document detailing this questionable decision reveals that a “draft Intelligence Bulletin…concludes that ACORN’s employment practices perpetuate fraudulent voter registration.”

The ACORN documents uncovered by Judicial Watch include internal FBI memoranda, signed affidavits, subpoenas, fraudulent voter registration cards, and publications describing ACORN’s policies and practices. The documents also include details regarding numerous allegations of corruption extending beyond voter registration fraud, to include attempts by ACORN employees to coerce workers to participate in campaign activities on behalf of Democratic candidates.

“These documents reflect systematic voter registration fraud by ACORN,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is a scandal that there has been no comprehensive criminal investigation and prosecution by the Justice Department into this evident criminal conduct. Given President Obama’s close connections to ACORN, including his campaign’s hiring of the ACORN’s Project Vote organization, it seems rather obvious why Attorney General Holder has failed to seriously investigate these and other alleged ACORN criminal activities.”

Documents Uncovered

The charade of civil trials for terrorists

The charade of civil trials for terrorists

Don Watson

Eric Holder has said there is no way these guys at Gitmo are walking. If any did it would be political suicide. What does Obama get from this except praise from the loonies?

We maintain a large and complex legal rights system for ourselves for the purpose of minimizing potential abuse from the law. There is nothing divine about it. It is not about being moral. What’s moral about throwing out damning evidence that was improperly obtained? It is a bargain. We know that these rights can result in criminals avoiding prosecution. We willingly pay this price. The more legal rights there are the more loopholes there are for criminals to escape the law. We pay this price in defense of our freedom from over bearing or corrupt law enforcement. Now why on earth would we want to pay this price for foreign combatants who we know have sworn to destroy us?

Not all is fair in love and war. Love maybe, but not in war. The Geneva conventions are treaties between countries to reduce the horrors of war. They are a bargain. The loonies advocating for civil trials for enemy combatants are advocating an asymmetric standard. There is no bargain. What is the reason for doing this? To impress moderate Muslims that we are fair minded? Do they think by this we will lure the fence sitters back to peace and moderation and away from jihad? Do they think they will admire the morality of it?

They won’t. Major Hason was shown an unbelievable, some would say unconscionable, amount of fairness and tolerance for his extreme views. He admired none of it. No Muslim country comes close to having the legal rights that we have even for their own people so why should we think this charade will impress them. They know it’s a charade.

Don Watson

Corruptocrat Eric Holder’s National Security Cover-Up

Corruptocrat Eric Holder’s National Security Cover-Up

Posted By Michelle Malkin On February 25, 2010 @ 12:05 am In FrontPage | 7 Comments

The White House wants to play Transparency Olympics with the Tea Party movement. President Obama’s Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin dared Tea Party activists and conservatives last week to “push the administration to make its policies more open” and make it a “political competition … to see who can be more radical in their openness,” The Hill reported. So, let’s start by knocking down Attorney General Eric Holder’s national security stonewall at the Department of Justice, shall we? Let the sun shine in.

For more than a year, I’ve been writing about the looming national security and conflict-of-interest problems posed by Holder’s status as a former partner at the prestigious law firm Covington and Burling. The company currently represents or has provided pro bono representation and sob-story media-relations campaigns in the past to more than a dozen Gitmo detainees from Yemen who are seeking civilian trials on American soil.

The firm wasn’t just a bit player. It led the charge, contributing more than 3,000 hours to Gitmo litigation in 2007, according to The American Lawyer. At least one known Covington big shot and fellow former Clintonite, Lanny Breuer, now works for Holder as head of the DOJ’s criminal division. Though he himself did not participate in the detainee cases, Holder’s celebrity undoubtedly boosted company-wide prestige.

How many of Holder’s former colleagues and associates are now on the DOJ payroll? How many like them, who worked at other law firms or for left-wing lobbying groups, now inhabit DOJ offices? How many of them have been allowed to work on government terrorism cases related to their past crusades for al-Qaida-tied clients? How many have had to recuse themselves — and have those recusals been full and forthcoming? How can the public judge whether these lawyers are representing America’s best interests — or those of the jihadis?

GOP Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa has been trying to get answers. DOJ information suppressors have snubbed him repeatedly. As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York reported on Friday, Holder has now acknowledged that “at least” nine Obama appointees in the Justice Department “have represented or advocated for terrorist detainees before joining the Justice Department.” But the tight-lipped, taxpayer-funded litigators at the agency won’t name names or cough up any relevant details.

Grassley asked for “the names of political appointees in the Department who represented detainees (or) worked for organizations advocating on behalf of detainees … the cases or projects that these appointees worked on with respect to detainees prior to joining the Justice Department … and the cases or projects relating to detainees that they have worked on since joining the Justice Department.

…” Beyond two DOJ appointees whose work for jihadi defendants had already been made public, Holder gave up nothing. Zip. Zilch.

It’s not even clear that the Gitmo Nine are the end of the line. The list is not a comprehensive tally of DOJ appointees, Holder told Grassley and other GOP senators who pressed for public disclosure. Why not? What are they trying to hide? Who are they trying to spare?

Americans have a right to know whether they are subsidizing jihadi sympathizers, and whether their Justice Department is now a sanctuary for human rights transnationalists and little terrorists’ helpers in the mold of Lynne Stewart, who was convicted of abetting Muslim terrorist mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and spreading messages inciting violence on his behalf while representing him.

Americans have a right to know whether Holder — who put political interests ahead of security interests at the Clinton Justice Department in both the Marc Rich pardon scandal and the Puerto Rican FALN terrorist debacle — has made hiring decisions that provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.

Tellingly, Holder has treated the GOP’s national security concerns dismissively. He’s hoping his nonresponsive blow-off of Grassley’s request will die on the vine. And just as he used his past lapses in judgment during the Clinton era to argue that they made him more qualified for the job he holds now, Holder argues that the phantom jihadi lawyers on the DOJ payroll are a good thing for the country, so we should just shut up:

“A prosecutor of white-collar fraud cases may have previously represented defendants in such cases. This familiarity with and experience in the relevant area of law redounds to the government’s benefit.”

As usual, Holder puts ordinary civilian crimes on the same footing as terrorism plots and acts of war against our country. But why not let the people decide for themselves whether his staff decisions redound to their benefit? “The American people have the right to information about their government’s activities,” Holder himself said in a press release trumpeting new freedom of information rules last year. Put up or shut up, Mr. Attorney General.


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/02/25/corruptocrat-eric-holders-national-security-cover-up/

DOJ: Department Of Jihad?

DOJ: Department Of Jihad?

February 25th, 2010

Investors Business Daily

 What kind of an organization is Holder leading?

The Justice Department employs nine lawyers previously involved in the defense of terrorist detainees. This is a colossal conflict of interest. Just whose side are they on?

From the dropping of a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party to the decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammed in a civilian court within blocks of where the World Trade Center once stood, the actions and attitudes of the Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder toward the thugs and terrorists who threaten us has grown curiouser and curiouser.

We may now have a clue as to why. Last November, Sen. Charles Grassley, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked the Justice Department how many of its lawyers had defended terrorist detainees over whom the department holds sway.

Grassley knew from earlier press reports of two such lawyers who worked on behalf of detainees at the liberal organization Human Rights Watch. He wanted to know how many more there were. Last Friday, Holder answered nine.

“To the best of our knowledge, during their employment prior to joining the government, only five of the lawyers who serve as political appointees in those components represented detainees,” Holder said in a letter dated Feb. 18. “Four others contributed to amicus briefs in detainee-related cases involved in advocacy on behalf of detainees.”

Read More:

Corruptocrat Eric Holder’s national security cover-up

Michelle Malkin 

Lead Story

Corruptocrat Eric Holder’s national security cover-up

By Michelle Malkin  •  February 24, 2010 09:07 AM

My column pounds again on Eric Holder over his jihadi lawyer stonewalling. Question: Where’s Mass. GOP Sen. Scott Brown? Remember when he made this one of his key campaign agenda items and carried the banner on the issue during his election night speech:

“And let me say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation – they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.”

Get on it.

AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Office of the Attorney General Public Comment Line – 202-353-1555

Related must-read: Andy McCarthy on the “Gitmo 9″ and the DOJ cave of darkness.

2nd related must-read: John Yoo in the WSJ – My Gift to the Obama Presidency.

***
Corruptocrat Eric Holder’s national security cover-up
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

The White House wants to play Transparency Olympics with the Tea Party movement. President Obama’s Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin dared Tea Party activists and conservatives last week to “push the administration to make its policies more open” and make it a “political competition…to see who can be more radical in their openness,” The Hill reported. So, let’s start by knocking down Attorney General Eric Holder’s national security stonewall at the Department of Justice, shall we? Let the sun shine in.

For more than a year, I’ve been writing about the looming national security and conflict-of-interest problems posed by Holder’s status as former partner at prestigious law firm Covington and Burling. The company currently represents or has provided pro bono representation and sob-story media relations campaigns in the past to more than a dozen Gitmo detainees from Yemen who are seeking civilian trials on American soil.

The firm wasn’t just a bit player. It led the charge contributing more than 3,000 hours on Gitmo litigation in 2007, according to The American Lawyer. At least one known Covington & Burling bigshot and fellow former Clintonite, Lanny Breuer, now works for Holder as head of the DOJ’s criminal division. Though he himself did not participate in the detainee cases, Holder’s celebrity undoubtedly boosted company-wide prestige.

How many of Holder’s former colleagues and associates are now on the DOJ payroll? How many like them who worked at other law firms or left-wing lobbying groups now inhabit DOJ offices? How many of them have been allowed to work on government terrorism cases related to their past crusading for al Qaeda-tied clients? How many have had to recuse themselves – and have those recusals been full and forthcoming? How can the public judge whether these lawyers are truly representing America’s best interests – or the jiahdis’?

GOP Sen. Charles Grassley has been trying to get answers. He has been snubbed repeatedly by the information suppressors at DOJ. As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York reported on Friday, Holder has now acknowledged that “at least” nine Obama appointees in the Justice Department “have represented or advocated for terrorist detainees before joining the Justice Department.” But the tight-lipped, taxpayer-funded litigators at the agency won’t name names or cough up any relevant details.

Sen. Grassley had asked for “the names of political appointees in your department who represent detainees or who work for organizations advocating on their behalf…the cases or projects that these appointees work with respect to detainee prior to joining the Justice Department…and the cases or projects relating to detainees that have worked on since joining the Justice Department.” Beyond two DOJ appointees whose work for jihadi defendants had already been made public, Holder gave up nothing. Zip. Zilch.

It’s not even clear that the unnamed Gitmo Nine are the end of the line. The list is not a comprehensive tally of DOJ appointees, Holder told Grassley and other GOP senators who pressed for public disclosure. Why not? What are they trying to hide? Who are they trying to spare?

Americans have a right to know whether they are subsidizing jihadi sympathizers and whether their Justice Department is now a sanctuary for human rights transnationalists and little terrorists’ helpers in the mold of Lynne Stewart, who was convicted of abetting Muslim terrorist mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman and spreading messages inciting violence on his behalf while representing him.

Americans have a right to know whether Holder – who put political interests ahead of security interests at the Clinton Justice Department in both the Marc Rich pardon scandal and the Puerto Rican FALN terrorist debacle – has made hiring decisions that provide the common defense and promote the general welfare.

Tellingly, Holder has treated the GOP’s national security concerns dismissively. He’s hoping his non-response blow-off of Sen. Grassley’s request dies on the vine. And just as he used his own past lapses in judgment during the Clinton era to argue that they made him more qualified for the job he holds now, Holder argues that the phantom jihadi lawyers on the DOJ payroll are a good thing for the country, so we should just shut up:

“A prosecutor of white-collar fraud cases may have previously represented defendants in such cases. This familiarity with and experience in the relevant area of law redounds to the government’s benefit.”

As usual, Holder puts ordinary civilian crimes on the same footing as terrorism plots and acts of war against our country. But why not let the people decide for themselves whether his staff decisions redound to their benefit? “The American people have the right to information about their government’s activities,” Holder himself said in a press release trumpeting new freedom of information rules last year. Put up or shut up, Mr. Attorney General.

Corruptocrat AG Eric Holder still covering up

Corruptocrat AG Eric Holder still covering up

By Michelle Malkin  •  February 22, 2010 11:26 AM

For more than year, I’ve been writing about AG Eric Holder’s conflicts of interest as former partner at Gitmo detainee law firm Covington and Burling. GOP Sen. Charles Grassley has pressed DOJ for more transparency on Holder’s recusal policies regarding DOJ staff involved in terror-related work.

Holder has been doing his usual stonewalling.

On Friday afternoon, Byron York at the Examiner reported that Holder has acknowledged that “nine Obama appointees in the Justice Department have represented or advocated for terrorist detainees before joining the Justice Department.”

But he’s still covering:

But he does not reveal any names beyond the two officials whose work has already been publicly reported. And all the lawyers, according to Holder, are eligible to work on general detainee matters, even if there are specific parts of some cases they cannot be involved in.

Holder’s admission comes in the form of an answer to a question posed last November by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley. Noting that one Obama appointee, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, formerly represented Osama bin Laden’s driver, and another appointee, Jennifer Daskal, previously advocated for detainees at Human Rights Watch, Grassley asked Holder to give the Senate Judiciary Committee “the names of political appointees in your department who represent detainees or who work for organizations advocating on their behalf…the cases or projects that these appointees work with respect to detainee prior to joining the Justice Department…and the cases or projects relating to detainees that have worked on since joining the Justice Department.”

In his response, Holder has given Grassley almost nothing. He says nine Obama political appointees at the Justice Department have advocated on behalf of detainees, but did not identify any of the nine other than the two, Katyal and Daskal, whose names Grassley already knew. “To the best of our knowledge,” Holder writes,

during their employment prior to joining the government, only five of the lawyers who serve as political appointees in those components represented detainees, and four others either contributed to amicus briefs in detainee-related cases or were otherwise involved in advocacy on behalf of detainees.

Holder says other Obama appointees, like Holder himself, came from law firms which represented detainees but did no work on behalf of the terrorist prisoners. But other than Katyal and Daskal, Holder does not reveal any names of any Obama appointees, nor does he mention the cases they worked on.

As I noted in Culture of Corruption, the White House built loopholes into their vaunted ethics law big enough to drive an 18-wheeler through:

The White House says that Holder will formally recuse himself from charging decisions and prosecutions affecting any of Covington & Burling’s clients, but he will have unfettered oversight over Obama’s order to close the facility within a year. Moreover, there’s a gaping loophole in the Obama administration ethics rules that will allow Holder to participate in decision-making despite his conflicts of interests if he can show that his participation in a matter outweighs an appearance or actual conflict of interest…

The GOP needs to go to the mat on this issue — and the public can help. Bombard the DOJ:

Show us the money. Cough up the information. Stop the cover-up. Name the names. The public has a right to know.


AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Office of the Attorney General Public Comment Line – 202-353-1555

Morning Bell: When Did the American People Elect Eric Holder Commander in Chief?

Morning Bell: When Did the American People Elect Eric Holder Commander in Chief?

Posted By Conn Carroll On February 4, 2010 @ 9:24 am In Protect America | No Comments

Following weeks of strong [1] bipartisan [2] criticism [3] of their handling of terror trials and detainees, Attorney General Eric Holder released a letter [4] yesterday defending the Obama administration’s criminal justice system approach to prosecuting the war against al-Qaeda. Defending his administration’s handling of the Flight 253 terrorist, Holder wrote: “I made the decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab with federal crimes, and to seek his detention in connection with those charges, wtih the knowledge of, and with no objection from, all other relevant departments of the government.”

First, this statement directly contradicts the sworn Congressional testimony of Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair who, when asked by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) under oath if he had been consulted about how Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated, responded: “I was not consulted. [5]” Under intense political pressure from the White House, Blair has since said his remarks were “misconstrued.” But his politically-pressured retraction was not made under oath. His initial statement was. At the very minimum, Congress must demand that both Holder and Blair testify under oath to settle this contradiction.

But more importantly, both the personal pronouns and the underlying substance of Holder’s letter speaks volumes about this administration’s approach to protecting the American people. Holder wrote [4] yesterday: “Neither advising Abdulmutallab of his Miranda rights nor granting him access to counsel prevents us from obtaining intelligence from him. On the contrary, history shows that the federal justice system is an extremely effective tool for gathering intelligence.” Holder appears to be arguing that reading suspects their Miranda rights is a great way to get them to talk. But as American University law professor Kenneth Anderson notes [6]: “The point of offering suspects the Miranda warning and associated rights is not in order to persuade them to talk, but in order to make sure they know they don’t have to and, if they have much in the way of brains, won’t.”

And, in the past, Holder himself has even acknowledged this. The Weekly Standard’s Stephen F. Hayes flags [7] this exchange between CNN’s Paula Zahn and Holder about American Taliban John Walker Lindh from January 28, 2002. Zahn: “How much pressure should they put on this man to get information out of him as they interrogate him?” Holder replied: “Well, I mean, it’s hard to interrogate him at this point now that he has a lawyer and now that he is here in the United States. But to the extent that we can get information from him, I think we should.”

Holder asserts throughout his letter, and in contradiction to his 2002 statement, that absolutely no intelligence was lost by treating Abdulmutallab like a common criminal. That is just not plausible. In a speech at The Heritage Foundation yesterday, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said: “The fact remains that all the intelligence he possessed concerning the locations, training techniques, and communications methods of Al Qaeda in Yemen is perishable. Yemeni forces needed that information on December 25th, not six weeks later. Meanwhile, the American people are left to wonder whether, in place of interrogations, their safety depends on terrorists having families who can persuade them to talk.”

The criminal justice system can and should play a role in our nation’s fight against al Qaeda. But it should not dictate war-time policy for the entire Executive Branch. Again, from McConnell yesterday [8]: “No one denies that a balance must be struck between preserving civil liberties and protecting the homeland. No one wants to sacrifice one for the other. But in many cases, all that’s involved is a simple question of judgment. And when a judgment call has to be made, our priorities should be clear: keeping Americans safe should always win out, within the law.”

And who should be making those judgment calls? The American people did not elect Eric Holder to balance the interests of national security and civil liberties. They elected Barack Obama to do that.

Quick Hits:


Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.: http://blog.heritage.org

URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/04/morning-bell-when-did-the-american-people-elect-eric-holder-commander-in-chief/

URLs in this post:

[1] strong: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/79589-lincoln-more-democrats-could-support-bill-barring-terror-trials

[2] bipartisan: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32416.html

[3] criticism: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/27/911-panel-chiefs-fault-handling-of-bomb-suspect/

[4] letter: http://www.justice.gov/cjs/docs/ag-letter-2-3-10.pdf

[5] I was not consulted.: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/01/20/intel-chief-s-comments-infuriate-obama-officials.aspx

[6] notes: http://volokh.com/2010/02/03/eric-holder-letter-to-senators-on-abdulmutallab/

[7] flags: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/holder-02-its-hard-interrogate-enemy-combatant-us-because-he-has-lawyer

[8] McConnell yesterday: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/03/watch-live-sen-mitch-mcconnell-r-ky-addresses-the-war-on-terror/

[9] scale back some border security programs: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-04-border-security-budget_N.htm

[10] government programs will account for more than half of all U.S. health-care spending: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703575004575043490639289022.html

[11] changed their mind about ethanol’s impact on global warming: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303804.html

[12] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chairman Rajendra Pachauri failed to correct known errors in his agency’s 2007 global warming report: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7014203.ece

[13] guilty of scientific misconduct: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703575004575043693339038422.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

Eric Holder, ACORN, and Cloward Piven justice

Eric Holder, ACORN, and Cloward Piven justice

By James Simpson

Current law prohibits the community organization ACORN and its associated groups from receiving any federal funds from any federal law currently on the books, (P.L 111-68 Sec. 163). However, the Eric Holder Justice Department has interpreted the law’s phraseology in such a way that permits federal agencies to pay ACORN for “binding contractual obligations” the government made before the current prohibition was enacted. This interpretation may go a long way toward effectively neutralizing ACORN’s funding prohibition, and it is a questionable interpretation at best.

The actual ban reads as follows: “None of the funds made available from this joint resolution or any other prior Act may be provided to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries or allied organizations.” (Emphasis added.)
The Justice Department has decided that the phrase “provided to” is unclear and “has no established meaning in appropriations law.” They cite terms more frequently used, such as “obligate” and “expend,” that have widely accepted meaning in spending legislation. They go on to arduously defend their point by exhaustively listing the many definitions of “provide” given in Webster’s, Oxford and American Heritage dictionaries and even Roget’s Thesaurus. Like Bill Clinton, they probably could have found as many definitions for the word “is…”
It would be interesting to learn who provided the legislative language for this amendment. Someone on Speaker Pelosi’s staff, perhaps? It would also be interesting to know whether or not that person(s) had input from the Justice Department. Either way, it is reasonable to suspect that whoever wrote this legislation knew what they were doing, and that the key phrase “provided to” would cause problems in execution. The question is, why didn’t the Republicans foresee that it might cause problems? Outmaneuvered again
On the other hand, the Holder Justice Department could simply be flat wrong in its legal reasoning. Not too much of a stretch, considering that Holder decided to drop charges of voter intimidation against the clearly guilty Black Panthers, overruling his own legal staff in the process. It is amazing what this administration will do to protect its supporters.
The Justice Department also raised the ugly specter of opening the government up to liability for breaking “binding contracts,” adding that the decision put them on much firmer Constitutional grounds by ensuring that this prohibition would not amount to a “bill of attainder.”  ACORN is already suing the government citing the Constitutional clause (Art. 1, Sec. 9, Para. 3), which prevents the legislature from singling out an individual or group for punishment without first ascertaining guilt by trial.
At first blush, this seems to be a valid concern. If ACORN engages in legitimate activity for which it is paid directly by the government, and has already made financial commitments in anticipation of reimbursement, then perhaps those obligations already made should be honored by the government. Also, it may be bad precedent to use the legislative process to “punish” ACORN for its misdeeds, if that is in fact what Congress is doing.
However, this begs the question. If ACORN has been engaging in massive, nationwide vote registration fraud, as it has; if it has been encouraging a shopping list of illegal activity through its “housing counseling,” as every one of the O’Keefe and Giles tapes demonstrated it has, why hasn’t the Holder Justice Department launched an investigation into the group, especially in light of Congress’s extraordinary, bipartisan decision to deny  ACORN funding? Why don’t they settle the matter once and for all by ensuring ACORN’s Constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial, thereby firmly establishing its guilt or innocence?

Congress is not “punishing” ACORN here. Instead it is exercising rare good judgment in its oversight role by ensuring that it is not inadvertently spending taxpayer dollars in support of criminal activities. The prohibition against funding ACORN is perfectly legal and Constitutional for this reason, according to legal scholars.

There is no legitimate reason for the Obama Justice Department not to investigate this clearly corrupt organization. But so far, they have refused to. The result is the unprecedented spectacle of a private citizen, Andrew Breitbart, demanding the Justice Department investigate ACORN, and threatening to expose even more damaging revelations about the group if they don’t!
Furthermore, what legitimate business is ACORN conducting that requires binding prior commitments the government need reimburse? Is ACORN in the aircraft carrier building business or something?
Who knows? With this group and its 360 odd identified affiliates, it seems like almost anything is possible. Perhaps ACORN has been selected to manufacture the 2012 Pelosi GTxi SS/RT hybrid vehicle. (Okay, so we needed a little comic relief here.)
According to the Cato Institute, from 2003 to 2007 ACORN received almost $16 million from the government. This was broken down as follows:
  • Housing counseling assistance – 62%
  • Self-Help Homeownership – 7%
  • Rural Housing and Economic Development – 2%
  • Fair Housing Initiatives – 4%
  • Community Development Block Grants – 26%
Sixty-two percent of payments go to “housing counseling assistance,” while block grants provided 26 percent. “Housing counseling assistance” would come under the heading of continuing operations, requiring no commitments other than for normal operating costs. Block grants are awarded based on applications that grantees make for future plans, or for ongoing operations that may or may not be reimbursed depending upon whether or not they get the grant. I don’t even know what “fair housing initiatives” and “self-help homeownership” are. And if by “economic development,” they mean commitments to actual building projects, perhaps reimbursement could be justified, if this referred to a tangible fixed asset already under construction. But even if it does, this only represents two percent of government payments to ACORN. I suspect Justice was hoping to let them keep a lot more.
The larger question is this: should the government be obligated to spend money it has good reason to believe will be used for illegal purposes? If, for example, the U.S. Marshal’s Service discovered that it was providing Witness Protection Program funds for “informant relocation” to a private contractor secretly working for the Mafia, wouldn’t it stop immediately and move to shut down the entire organization? Wouldn’t Congress demand funds be cut off immediately, instead of paying out “existing contracts” and worrying about “bills of attainder?” Of course it would.
The Congress is not “punishing” ACORN here. Instead it is exercising rare good judgment in its oversight role by ensuring that it is not inadvertently spending taxpayer dollars in support of criminal activities.
ACORN, as has been discussed many times before, is a key player in the Cloward-Piven Strategy of Manufactured Crisis. As such its legitimate activities — to the extent that it even engages in legitimate activities — are used to facilitate and/or mask its destructive ones. In this regard it is similar to a Mafia organization.
The Mafia runs legitimate businesses to mask illegal ones and launder money. The fact that it owns legitimate businesses that have made “prior financial commitments” doesn’t stop the FBI from shutting them down. Federal law enforcement regularly seizes Mafia business assets, legitimate and otherwise, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes. The same should be true for ACORN.  
The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform published a paper last summer that both documented ACORN’s widespread criminal activities, and determined that appropriate legal remedies for this criminal organization include applying the RICO statutes to seize their assets. Some of the illegal activities uncovered and listed in this report include:
  • ACORN has evaded taxes, obstructed justice, engaged in self dealing, and aided and abetted a cover-up of the $948.607.50 embezzlement by Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke. (Editor’s note: Louisiana’s Attorney General says the actual figure may be closer to $5 million.)
  • ACORN has committed investment fraud, deprived the public of its right to honest services, and engaged in a racketeering enterprise affecting interstate commerce.
  • ACORN has committed a conspiracy to defraud the United States by using taxpayer funds for partisan political activities.
  • ACORN has submitted false filings to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Labor, in addition to violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
  • ACORN falsified and concealed facts concerning an illegal transaction between related parties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Meanwhile, the person who commissioned that ACORN report, Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) , has blasted the administration for ruling that ACORN could continue to receive funding. He said that Congress’s intent was clear, calling Holder’s decision “old-fashioned cronyism.”
So why should the government be paying ACORN at all? It is an organization devoted to the systematic destruction of America. If anything, ACORN needs to be permanently dissolved, its principals arrested and sentenced to long jail terms. Its assets need to be seized and surrendered to the Asset Forfeiture Fund. This organization needs to be unmercifully trounced into the dirt.
So what the Holder Justice Department has essentially done is present us with a Constitutional crisis. If the Constitution demands that an individual or organization be adjudicated guilty or innocent in a court of law before Congress can strip it of funding, then it is incumbent upon the Justice Department to investigate said organization and resolve the question. Yet Obama’s Justice Department, under the incompetent, if not criminal, leadership of Eric Holder refuses to do so. 
This is all consistent with the Manufactured Crisis Strategy, from giving foreign terrorists the legal protections of U.S. citizens, and trying them in a city where they are almost certain to get a mistrial, to demanding criminal investigations of CIA officers who believed they were operating under the force of law. From exonerating Black Panther thugs who engaged in voter intimidation, to protecting an organization devoted to the corruption of our voting system.
Congress must demand the FBI investigate the continuing criminal enterprise we all know by the acronym ACORN. While they are at it, they might request an investigation of political corruption within the Holder Justice Department. If Holder wants a Constitutional showdown to protect Obama’s diseased, corrupt political allies, have at it.
Meanwhile, there is no legitimate reason for ACORN to continue receiving federal funds.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/eric_holder_acorn_and_cloward_1.html at December 01, 2009 – 08:25:08 AM EST

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers