As we look at whom Obama surrounds himself with, another problematic individual comes to light as our Regulatory Czar – Cass Sunstein. Sunstein has a very radical stance with a broad series of issues from taxes to animal rights. Is it probable for a man who perhaps has the second most influential position in government intelligent enough to seize our liberties with a stroke of a pen?
Currently, Sunstein has made the assertion that his thinking would not obstruct with his job as Regulatory Czar. However, scores of his observations transpired less than 5 years ago. It is hard to phantom that he can just put his recent ideologies behind while he fine-tune laws pending.
“Although obscure,” reported the Wall Street Journal, “the post [Regulatory Czar] wields outsize power. It oversees regulations throughout the government, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Obama aides have said the job will be crucial as the new administration overhauls financial-services regulations, attempts to pass universal health care and tries to forge a new approach to controlling emissions of greenhouse gases.”
Let’s take a glance at some of his progressive principles and let you decide.
We are all familiar with the need to pay taxes to keep government going. What government should be doing is finding ways to reduce the burden of paying these taxes. How Sunstein believed that there is no liberty without dependency is beyond my cognitive way of thinking. And to say we should have a good time in paying taxes is right down ludicrous:
“Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without any burden whatsoever on public fisc . . . There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate Tax Day.”
In Sunstein’s latest book, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done (2009), Sunstein does not hide any pessimistic attitudes toward bloggers. He has called upon legislators in Washington to execute a “notice and taken down” law where bloggers and service providers are required to “take down falsehoods upon notice.” This is of course an infringement of our First Amendment. If passed, the government will enforce control over all facets of the Internet, dictating what is acceptable to THEIR preference. Bottom line – its censorship, plain and simple:
“We hardly need to imagine a world, however, in which people and institutions are being harmed by the rapid spread of damaging falsehoods via the Internet. We live in that world. What might be done to reduce the harm?”
GUN CONTROL AND HUNTING
Sunstein is a huge supporter of gun control. In 2005, Sunstein published a book titled, Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America. In this book, Sunstein writes about how fundamentalists should not be overwhelmed with confidence that the Constitution gives them the right to possess a gun:
“Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. . . [O]n the Constitution’s text, fundamentalists [that is, gun rights supporters] should not be so confident in their enthusiasm for invalidating gun control legislation.”
Although Sunstein professed at his confirmation hearing that he was all for the Second Amendment, but he tells a much different tale during a 2007 lecture at the University of Chicago:
“My coming view is that the individual right to bear arms reflects the success of an extremely aggressive and resourceful social movement and has much less to do with good standard legal arguments than [it] appears.”
This is Sunstein’s most prevalent quest. Sunstein has a PETA frame of mind when it comes to animal rights. His extreme views believe that animals should have a legal right to file lawsuits. This is not a tall story according to his book, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (2004):
“. . . animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law . . . Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients’ behalf.”
He supports the above assertion by saying that before animals can come into the court system, laws must be passed that ALL animals are not considered as possessions:
“. . . representatives of animals should be able to bring private suits to ensure that anticruelty and related laws are actually enforced. Of course, any animals would be represented by human beings, just like any other litigant who lacks ordinary (human) competence; for example, the interests of children are protected by prosecutors, and also by trustees and guardians in private litigation brought on children’s behalf. … If getting rid of the idea that animals are property is helpful in reducing suffering, then we should get rid of the idea that animals are property.” (Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, 2004)
Sunstein also believes that killing animals for food is merciless. This ideology includes farm animals. Envision his position as Regulatory Czar. He decides to place stringent regulatory guidelines on farmers and meat processors. Imagine when you go to your local grocery store to buy a steak that once cost you $10 but now is $25 because of these regulatory restrictions. In his paper, The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer, there is a section titled, “Increased Regulation of Hunting, Science, Farming, and More” where he talks about endorsing tougher guidelines:
“We should focus attention not only on the ‘enforcement gap,’ but on the areas where current law offers little or no protection. In short, the law should impose further regulation on hunting, scientific experiments, entertainment, and (above all) farming to ensure against unnecessary animal suffering.
. . .
If farms are regulated, the price of meat will increase, and people will be able to eat less meat. Hence it is necessary to weigh the gain to animal welfare against the harms to human beings.”
He also insinuates that federal law should be enacted since the customs of processing farm animals for food are unfettered at the state level:
“The cruel and abusive practices generally involved in contemporary farming are largely unregulated at the state level.”
Another point of view by Sunstein is the guilt people would feel if they knew how an animal died. Since people would have this regrettable feeling, and it is inevitable that animals suffer terribly, these people should not eat meat:
“Of course the largest issue involves eating meat . . . animals used for food are almost inevitably going to endure terrible suffering, then there is a good argument that people should not eat meat to the extent that a refusal to eat meat will reduce that suffering.” (Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, 2004)
Sunstein also expands by suggesting that abolishing the eating of meat may be wise for the American people. During a 2007 speech at Harvard University, Sunstein makes that perfectly clear:
“. . . eliminating current practices such as … meat eating.”
At the same lecture, Sunstein added:
“We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.”
America is on the threshold of Constitutional collapse. And now that we have this wacko running side-by-side with the other czars and circling themselves around the President of the United States, our independence are at stake. Sunstein’s values are far too current for him to come out and say that it will not impede with his job as Regulatory Czar.
Gun purchases have skyrocketed soon after Obama’s appointment to the presidency. Its no secret what Obama and Sunstein will endeavor to do in our upcoming years. Bear in mind Obama’s comments during a clandestine recording in San Francisco when he indicated that rural America wanting to “cling to their guns and their religion.”
So Sunstein is unquestionably a left-wing extremist. Yet our government is far too busy keeping a close eye on him when they continuously bicker with each other. What should we do? How do we save our republic from the grips of tyranny?
Democrat and Republican, liberal or conservative, it doesn’t matter. We must stand united if we are to keep our liberties. As a group, we can differ on many issues. But also as a group, we can be of the same mind when it comes to keeping our liberties. One person should never run a collective. And it appears that is what Washington wants – to control our every day lives.
Fight back! Let your representatives and senators know that you are keeping them under a microscope. Let them know that they are on a fine line of losing a vote.
Don’t know who to write? Well, here is a starting point:
Write to Congress https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
Write to the Senate: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Sunstein was confrimed by the Senate on September 10, 2009. Here is the list of senators who voted and how they voted for Sunstein’s confirmation as Regulatory czar. Remember these elected officials when elections come around:
Grouped By Vote Position
Not Voting – 2
|Boxer (D-CA)||Byrd (D-WV)|
After the resignation of a radical communist turned White House advisor, Van Jones, Americans began to wonder about Obama’s list of czars. As everyone remembers, Obama made the claim that a person is judged by who he surrounds himself with. So what should we think of him as we examine this next czar, John Holdren, our Science and Technology czar?
In the 1970’s, Holdren has co-authored several books, specifically of discovering ways to “de-develop” growing nations while redistributing that wealth (heard that before) to underdeveloped ones. Holdren wanted to level the playing field for the whole world. He also wrote snippets on the topic of a “one-world government” and birth control.
A lot of Holdren’s works are completely disturbing. He believed that our lives are leading to a state of dystopia and only a authoritarian government body can put a halt to all of it. Some Americans may find him to have Orwellian complex while others may find Holdren having similar thoughts of Hitler or Mussolini.
In his early years, Holdren was guided by Paul and Anne Ehrlich. If anyone is familiar with the Ehrlich’s, they were known as the two “doomsayers” who erroneously prophesized overpopulation would come to pass and would cause the world to implode in 2000. According to their book Global Ecology, of which Holdren co-authored, one would read the following paragraph:
“We are not, of course, optimistic about our chances of success. Some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century. (The inability to forecast exactly which one – whether plague, famine, the poisoning of the oceans, drastic climatic change, or some disaster entirely unforeseen – is hardly grounds for complacency.)” (p.279)
Holdren concentrated on three areas that would save the world before it becomes a catastrophic planet: de-development, one-world government and birth control.
In his book, Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions, Holdren writes openly about his theory of economic distribution:
“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being.” (p. 279)
While stripping commodities from overdeveloped nations, Holdren wants to take what was stripped and give it to underdeveloped countries so they can appreciate the same market environment we once had. Only then, according to Holdren, will there be a balance of power. However, mandates will need to be created and enforced to lower everything we consume or use – water, food and utilities to name a few. Is this Obama’s intention when he said during one of his campaign speeches that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody?” Who is everybody? Us? The people of this world? The government? You decide.
“Only one rational path is open to us—simultaneous de-development of the [overdeveloped countries] and semi-development of the underdeveloped countries (UDC’s), in order to approach a decent and ecologically sustainable standard of living for all in between. By de-development we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.” (John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, Global Ecology, 1971, p. 3.)
With the unemployment rate rising conveniently, is it possible that Holdren is requesting not to generate new jobs so his de-development ideas can come true? I don’t know. It is an impressive idea to prevent employment growth in order to de-develop a country. This type of theoretical philosophy is clearly anti-capitalist, anti-wealth, and anti-prosperity. Everything that is against what our Constitution stands for.
“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. . . . Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries. This effort must be largely political.” (John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, Human Ecology, 1973, p. 279.)
Clearly Holdren’s attentiveness is on the American people and stripping resources they worked so hard for. For all of this to work, politics will be the main contributor to the cause. And today we see Holdren where? He is at the White House and playing the role of czar within Obama’s regime.
But de-developing our country doesn’t stop there. Not only does Holdren want to make available more of our goods and services to underdeveloped countries while stripping us, he also believes by doing so will take us to the next stage – a one-world government.
Holdren’s theory of having a one-world government begins with giving the United Nations domain over the world resources:
“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market. ” (John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977, p. 492.)
So with this governing power, the UN will oversee population control over each country. Of course there will be individual governments within their respective countries, only to enforce regulation implemented by this one-world government body. This body will also direct nations on what they can and cannot do depending on how it effects the environment. Bottom line is the needs of the environment are far more important than human life.
“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. . . . The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.” (John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977, p. 917.)
Holdren wants governments around the world (including the United States) to hand over their sovereignty to a “one-world government” initiated by the United Nations. Only then can a “world police” be formed.
This government will be the central point for ALL commodities, commerce, laws, etc. From there, everyone will receive their equal share. No one is rich. No one is poor. We are all living in a methodical state. All of this goes against OUR principles of independence, of having a free market, to have the opportunity to excel in our lives. And now, more than ever, our independence is threatened by an individual who is in the White House and who is against the American dream.
If the first two of Holdren’s ideology doesn’t convince you that he needs to go, the last section certainly will – population control.
Holdren is convinced that if governments did not find solutions to control the birth rates throughout the world, the environment and the world as we know it would burn out. Civilizations will cease to exist. Animal and plant life will die off at an accelerated rate. In a nutshell, the world will end. All of this destruction was to take place in 2000. It never did.
“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.” (John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977, p. 944.)
Holdren assumed that societies would compete for dominance through reproduction. A “force in numbers” one may say. This, in turn, would cause the world to overpopulate far more quickly than expected. This irresponsible act, according to Holdren, had to stop:
“Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be out bred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the “tragedy of the commons,” wherein the “commons” is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.” (John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977, p. 749.)
He also wrote:
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” (John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977, p. 837.)
Holdren relied on the opinion that enforcing population-control standards would not be a violation of our Constitution. Such as mandatory abortions and forced adoptions would become the norm for our country to support saving the environment. Once again, Holdren believes the needs of the environment is far more important than human life.
“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.” (John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977, p. 786.)
Here, Holdren wanted all illegitimate children to be the ward of the government. The single mother is eligible to have her child back only if she can prove that she is capable of taking care of her child. Regardless of this scenario however, Holdren emphasized the child should be cared for by married couples. On top of that, Holdren wanted laws enacted where a pregnant single woman should wed, have the fetus aborted, or give the baby up for adoption.
Now, you may want to prepare yourself for this next notation:
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.” (John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977, p. 787-8.)
Wow! An environmentalist praising the idea of adding chemicals into our water system? Unbelievable. Since we now live in an era of not confiding in our government, if and when they do spike our water resources, we will never know.
And what should this one-world government do with preventive pregnancies in a potentially overpopulating world? Well, Holdren has an answer for that:
“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.” (John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977, p. 786-7.)
Holdren believed that a one-world government can make laws to insert birth control devices without anyone’s permission.
And finally, Holdren tries to convince the reader why enacting compulsory reproduction is not a hard law to pass:
“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?” (John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977, p. 838.)
This is just s small fraction of Holdren’s studies. Holdren’s misconceived notion of an overpopulated world mirrors the astonishing admission of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Now many of you will say that Holdren’s arguments happened so long ago, and since then, have changed his viewpoint. And you may be correct to say that. However, Holdren has not made public any concessions to the contrary. He has been hiding behind close doors in secret.
Holdren included his writings on his resume until just recently when he was introduced into the White House. Huh, I wonder why?
What is scarier is not the fact of what Holdren believed in. We will always have loons like him. It is the lack of the FBI’s vetting process and media attention that should have put on the brakes of Holdren entering into the White House. We are definitely living in dangerous times.
If you find this all shocking and hard to believe, I give you a video clip that should sway your doubt:
The question you must ask yourself is do you want someone like Holdren working as a top advisor to Obama’s administration? As the saying goes, “if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.” This also holds true for Holdren.
Because of your calls to the White House, we rid one extremist, Van Jones, for his radical views on our country. We now need your help in getting rid of this czar. If you wish to protect your liberty, your freedom, please call the White House switchboard (202-456-1414) or contact them by email and demand them to fire John Holdren.
To what degree is our president planning to endanger our national security? Why must he follow an all out legal hunt against the CIA? What does he hope to accomplish?
Obama has no troubles portraying our CIA agents as villains. These are the very people that strived to protect us and our children; to defend our freedoms, our liberties. How can the leader of the free world criminalize our own people for defending our country yet, goes around the world and express regret for our past accomplishments to our enemies? Who side is he on?
Oh sure, Obama already stressed the fact that he didn’t want to dwell on the past, that he wanted to move forward. He tried to focus the blame away from him by saying this investigation was out of his hand, that it belongs to the US attorney general, Eric Holder. I mean, isn’t that what he does best – always blaming someone or something else?
But wait. In a FOX News interview, former Vice President Dick Cheney laid out the roles of the president and the attorney general:
“If you look at the Constitution, the president of the United States is the chief law enforcement officer in the land. The attorney general’s a statutory officer. He’s a member of the Cabinet. The president’s the one who bears this responsibility.”
Hmmm. That is completely different than what Obama told to all Americans.
Let’s take a close look at the US attorney general Eric Holder. Before his appointment in 2009, Holder joined Obama’s presidential campaign as a senior legal advisor in 2007. Prior to that, Holder held the position as Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno (remember Waco?) during the Clinton administration. But these are just generalities. Let’s look closer into his career.
Holder played a role during the Clinton administration of pardoning 16 Puerto Rican terrorists who were convicted with charges of bank robbery, explosive possession, and treasonable conspiracy. The clemency was bizarre because it was opposed by the FBI, the federal prosecutor and the victims. What’s even more intriguing is that all 16 inmates NEVER applied for clemency. Two of them rejected the pardon, and one was later killed in a shoot out with federal agents. I wonder why Holder recommended pardons for terrorists that never applied for it.
Going deeper, Holder gave a lecture to Department of Justice employees at an event celebrating Black History Month:
“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial, we have always been and we — I believe continue to be in too many ways essentially a nation of cowards.”
Interesting, isn’t it? Oh, but there’s more. Just recently Holder dropped charges against the Black Panther thugs who were standing around a polling station, claiming they were security and one even holding a club, during the Obama-McCain election in Philadelphia. He asserted there was no evidentiary proof that these individual were using voter intimidation. Yet these thugs were caught on video on top of eye-witness testimony! One witness, Bartle Bull, a civil-rights lawyer who worked with Charles Evers in Mississippi in the 1960s, called it the worst voter intimidation he had ever seen. By all accounts, justice would have prevailed when the Black Panthers and the people involved didn’t show up in court to deny the allegations. Anyone would think this was a done deal. Instead, Holder dropped the case. Wow! I am not sure what proof Holder is searching for. It makes you wonder if Holder is somehow affiliated with the Black Panthers.
This is what FOX News reported:
Anyway, Holder comes out of the woodwork once again to investigate the CIA for what the Obama administration saw as heinous torture techniques on 9/11 suspects at Guantanamo Bay. Let’s see what the CIA actually did to these detainees.
According to the Washington Post, besides the famous waterboarding method, interrogators threatened detainees with a handgun and an electric drill. However, neither of those weapons was used. Other reports show that the CIA also tortured detainees by blowing cigar smoke at their faces and making derogatory statements about their mothers.
I have to say, I find these tortures mild compare to the photo here where a person had to choose whether to burn in the World Trade Center or jump from the 110-story skyscraper on 9/11. Sorry for the photo but it needed to be shown here. So why does Holder feel that this is acceptable but torturing detainees involved in this person dying unacceptable?
Former Vice President Cheney expressed that the techniques used were very effective in saving more American lives. For example, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, an al Qaeda mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, received the CIA’s harshest interrogation methods. During this time, Mohammed made known to the CIA that more attacks to the US was foreseeable including targets on gas stations, railroad tracks, and the Brooklyn Bridge in New York (source: Washington Post, How a Detainee Became an Asset, August 29, 2009).
Cheney continues his interview:
“We had a track record now of eight years of defending the nation against any further mass casualty attacks from al Qaeda. The approach of the Obama administration should be to come to those people who were involved in that policy and say, ‘How did you do it? What were the keys to keeping this country safe over that period of time?”
Well, I don’t know about anyone else, but the interrogation techniques appear to be working and that alone satisfies my sense of security. After what happened on 9/11, I wouldn’t care if the CIA pushed these terrorists off a cliff. Hell, I’ll bring the popcorn.
What is sad about this current probe is what the former Vice President said as an “outrageous political act that will do great damage, long term.” This ridiculous act will place a grave risk to our national security. Since the records of CIA interrogations are now out, terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Taliban have opportunities to see the workings behind these techniques. In turn, they can train their cells to adapt if captured. Hence, information from any detainee will be harder to obtain.
By exposing the CIA in such a matter, the Obama administration (yes, he is involved in this also) has opened the flood gates once again for terrorists to infiltrate our streets. Why do you think there has been an incredible increase of Americans buying guns since Obama took office? These individuals feel the need to protect their families for what may come their way.
So why is Eric Holder so adamant to act on this? I can only think of one answer, no matter how hard I try to throw it out as being preposterous – racism. The evidence is overwhelming that Holder has a goal of protecting a minority race of people and finding an avenue to exploit the majority in a negative way. From the Puerto Rican terrorists (a minority), to living in a “nation of cowards” (white people), and finally, protecting the supposed rights of al Qaeda detainees (another minority), I can only conclude that this is nothing more than a mild case of racism.
I prefer not to go that route and I hope to find something that will defer me from thinking this way, especially during these times. Don’t let this opinion consume your feelings on one man. Holder is a mild circumstance compared to others who surround themselves around our president, which will be discussed in later blogs. I thought I would never say this in our life time but liberty is being tested by some very radical people.
This investigation must be stopped. Write to your congress and senate. We must maintain the course to protecting our liberties, our freedoms. Our forefathers did it. It is our duty to continue that American tradition.