Monthly Archives: February 2012

Beneath the Office

 Weekly Standard:  “Just six days before Holder’s testimony, the Justice Department made yet another Friday night document dump. A series of emails revealed that Holder’s deputy chief of staff had informed the attorney general of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s murder on the day it happened, December 14, 2010. The deputy was further informed that Terry had been killed with a gun that was part of the Fast and Furious operation. 


It seems highly unlikely that Holder’s deputy chief of staff would apprise the attorney general of Terry’s death, but not of the crucial information about the weapon used. This suggests Holder may have lied in sworn testimony to Congress last May, when he said he’d heard about the operation for the first time a “few weeks” before. (Holder has already walked back that statement to a “few months.”) Previous Justice Department memos addressed to Holder containing detailed information about Fast and Furious had been released by the oversight committee. Holder improbably claims he did not read them, and this latest revelation only pokes more holes in those protestations of ignorance.  But not only does it appear Holder is not telling the truth about Fast and Furious, he is fighting any attempt to compel him to do so. . .

Of course, if Holder is feeling a bit defensive and beleaguered, perhaps it’s because in the wake of his latest congressional testimony people are now saying things such as this about him:

‘Mr. Holder. How come you can never say my son’s name. You never have. All I ever hear you say is “I didn’t find out or I can’t say.” I’m actually tired of hearing your double talk in answering questions. What a joke you are. You know my son was a real AMERICAN, a WARRIOR, and a HERO, who was also protecting COWARD POLITICIANS like you. Hope you remember that.’

If you haven’t figured it out already, that stinging missive was signed “PROUD MOM OF BRIAN A. TERRY.” The anguished message of Terry’s mother was posted on her Facebook page, presumably because no reporter bothered to ask her how much credit Holder deserves.”

AG Holder questions the racial motives of those who support voter ID

Reporting from New Orleans quotes Attorney General Holder as having made up his mind on the insidious nature of Voter ID laws. Remarkably, he is openly disagreeing with the law of the land and the Supreme Court holding in the Indiana photo ID case as his Department of Justice openly interferes with state implementation of photo ID laws.

Any bets on how long it takes before Holder invokes the memory of “Jim Crow.”  He is now accusing the vast majority of the country of mocking equal access and suppressing the vote.  And to top it off, he is questioning the motives of those passing the laws despite not one scintilla of evidence to support his claim.  Behold, this is the chief law enforcement official in the nation.

New state voter identification laws “too often appear to make a
mockery” of equal access to the polls, the nation’s top law enforcer
said Friday in an address at Tulane Law School, vowing to continue
federal opposition to efforts to suppress voting.


…“We must remain ever vigilant in protecting this most basic and important right,” Holder said.

“The need for photo ID is a solution in search of a problem,” Holder
said, noting that in-person voting fraud is rare. “I have questions,
very frankly, about some of the motives for the institution of these
laws.”

Why military disenfranchised? “Inattention and Incompetence by DOJ”

RNLA reports on the Concerns About Military Disenfranchised Expressed at Summit:

On Friday, the Overseas Voter Foundation held its sixth annual Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act Summit, a conference dedicated to overseas military voting rights.


Representatives from the government tried to emphasize that turnout increased among military voters.  However, the Military Voter Protection Project (MVVP) released a separate report, basing it off of Election Assistance Commission Data.  The MVVP found that the turnout of military voters did not increase.  (Click here for the differences between the government’s data and the MVPP’s data.)


Even if you accept the Federal Voting Assistance Program’s data, there is still reason for concern. The 2010 Federal Voting Assistance Program report did indicate that:


Unfortunately, 29% of active duty military voters indicated they never received the absentee ballot they requested, up from 16% in 2008.  That represents approximately 120,000 active duty military personnel who never received their absentee ballot.


How can the federal government celebrate the “progress” in terms of military voting rights when they admit “[u]nfortunately” disenfranchising 120,000 of them?


At the 2012 summit, the 2009 Ed Meese Award winner and Heritage Foundation scholar Hans von Spakovsky offered a few explanations for how military voters have been disenfranchised.  He criticized the “inattention and incompetence by the Department of Justice” with regard to enforcement of the MOVE (Military Voter and Overseas Empowerment) Act.

Congresswoman Ann Marie Buerkle: Department of Injustice

Well thanks for borrowing the title of my book.  New York Congresswoman Buerkle has this opinion piece about Eric Holder at the actions of the DOJ on his watch:  Department of Injustice


” . . . On Thursday, as I questioned Holder about Operation Fast and Furious. I pushed for him to explain why neither he nor any of his colleagues in Washington had been held accountable for the debacle that was Operation Fast and Furious. He is responsible for leading an agency that is supposed to find justice wherever it may be.

Holder not only denied culpability, he had the nerve to ask for credit for his actions as Attorney General. Exactly what credit, might we ask, does Mr. Holder deserve? Under his watch, the American public has witnessed the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, redistricting controversy, immigration and voter identification challenges, and the threat of bringing terrorists into our country. All of these do nothing but erode the American public’s trust in Mr. Holder’s ability to serve in the Administration. . . . “