What part of “support and defend the Constitution” does Holder not understand?

posted at 2:14 pm on April 1, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

All federal officials take this oath before assuming their duties, including the Attorney General of the United States.  Eric Holder took that oath roughly two months ago, but apparently he’s already forgotten it.  Despite a ruling from the Office of Legal Counsel that the DC voting rights bill violates the Constitution, Holder has ordered his staff to find ways to get it into law anyway:

Justice Department lawyers concluded in an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the historic D.C. voting rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional, according to sources briefed on the issue. But Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who supports the measure, ordered up a second opinion from other lawyers in his department and determined that the legislation would pass muster.

A finding that the voting rights bill runs afoul of the Constitution could complicate an upcoming House vote and make the measure more vulnerable to a legal challenge that probably would reach the Supreme Court if it is enacted. The bill, which would give the District a vote in the House for the first time, appeared to be on the verge of passing last month before stalling when pro-gun legislators tried to attach an amendment weakening city gun laws. Supporters say it could reach the House floor in May.

In deciding that the measure is unconstitutional, lawyers in the department’s Office of Legal Counsel matched a conclusion reached by their Bush administration counterparts nearly two years ago, when a lawyer there testified that a similar bill would not withstand legal attack.

Holder rejected the advice and sought the opinion of the solicitor general’s office, where lawyers told him that they could defend the legislation if it were challenged after its enactment.

Critics complained that George Bush politicized the Department of Justice, but he had nothing on Barack Obama and Eric Holder.  The OLC issues opinions considered binding across the executive branch.  If Barack Obama’s OLC concludes that the legislation violates the Constitution, the AG has a duty to fight against its implementation.  I explained the problem in February, and apparently the OLC agreed with my analysis.

So why is Holder bucking the OLC and trying to subvert the normal checks on DoJ actions?  He claims that his interpretation of the bill supercedes that of the OLC.  However, what’s really at stake is the appeasement of DC voters and the Democratic Party, which has tried to get the law passed without the necessary and politically impossible task of amending the Constitution to allow for it.  Democrats want more voting power in Congress and want to throw a sop to the Congressional Black Caucus, which has long demanded action on DC voting rights.  The Obama administration apparently has no qualms about acting unconstitutionally to get it for them.

Holder is violating his oath and deliberately abandoning the Constitution for partisan political gain.  I await the outrage from Bush critics with bated breath.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Palin rules!

UltimateBob on April 1, 2009 at 2:15 PM

The McCain thing on this picture totally ruins it.

lorien1973 on April 1, 2009 at 2:15 PM

It’s a (barely) living document….

ask ‘em

sven10077 on April 1, 2009 at 2:16 PM

lorien1973 on April 1, 2009 at 2:15 PM

What, you’d rather have that Holder pic that makes him look like Hal Linden again?

Snowed In on April 1, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Holder is violating his oath and deliberately abandoning the Constitution for partisan political gain. I

….

Wait.

Are you suggesting…nah!

artist on April 1, 2009 at 2:17 PM

“A nation of laws, not of men.”

At least, we were.

cs89 on April 1, 2009 at 2:18 PM

The Constitution is a worthless document, that impedes America’s victory – a Worker’s Paradise.

There will be no Anti-Obama Agitation [Article 58-Criminal Code of the Socialist States of America].

OhEssYouCowboys on April 1, 2009 at 2:18 PM

All federal officials take this oath before assuming their duties, including the Attorney General of the United States.

Somehow, I get the feeling that Holder and a lot of Obama’s appointees took an similar to the one Flounder and Pinto took in Animal House when they pledged Delta Chi. Unfortunately, the brothers at Delti Chi are far more competent.

BuckeyeSam on April 1, 2009 at 2:19 PM

( sigh ) another Trick Question……….

Holder understands the possibilities that being the U.S. Attorney General offer for DESTROYING the Constitution

so it don’t matter what he actually understands……….

Janos Hunyadi on April 1, 2009 at 2:20 PM

The big 0 and his incompetent AG do not consider the Constitution to be the law of the land because only old rich white guys took part in its creation. Holder’s ancestors were only 3/5′s of a person and the big 0′s were busy enslaving all they could in africa to sell to the democrats of the future CSA!

No sarcasm intended!

calguyintexas on April 1, 2009 at 2:20 PM

I await the outrage from Bush critics with bated breath.

Ha!

Read Michael MooreOn’s latest post regarding His Majesty King Obama’s firing of GM’s CEO…

Paraphrasing, “I imagined that George Bush acted like a King and it was the end of the world…Obama actually acts like he has no limits AND IT’S A GOOD THING! PRAISE OBAMA!!!!!”

Rogue on April 1, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Yeah, but the Constitution is a living document, so it means whatever it is we want it to mean.

rbj on April 1, 2009 at 2:21 PM

I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Domestic enemies – I thought that that needed to be highlighted.

Also, inasmuch as Socialism equates to the elimination of God from the public forum – how long will it take to eliminate the mention of God from the aforementioned oath?

OhEssYouCowboys on April 1, 2009 at 2:22 PM

At this rate, GM will outlive constitutional government in the US. Strike that: At this rate, GM IS outliving constitutional government in the US.

A New GM for a New US!
Lawlessness is Justice!
Loss is Profit!
Freedom is Control!
Bankruptcy is Success!
Long live Big Obrother!

CK MacLeod on April 1, 2009 at 2:22 PM

(though this site has never looked better – so at least we still have that)

CK MacLeod on April 1, 2009 at 2:23 PM

There’ll be minimal outrage… as usual.

Griz on April 1, 2009 at 2:23 PM

Boy, that pesky Constitution is such a pain when you are trying to establish a one-party totalitarian state!

rockmom on April 1, 2009 at 2:24 PM

For Holder the Constitution is meaningless drivel that can be interpreted or changed at his will. I don’t think the liberal, left wing slugs in this country have any idea what they have done to us.

rplat on April 1, 2009 at 2:26 PM

Website of cowards.

Ted Torgerson on April 1, 2009 at 2:26 PM

Griz on April 1, 2009 at 2:23 PM

Yup.

Proceed at will.

artist on April 1, 2009 at 2:26 PM

And when will one of our representatives take this and run with it?…Why are they not holding a press conference?… Calling into talk shows?…

I’M MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!

katy on April 1, 2009 at 2:28 PM

I have a good use of stimulus money. Let’s buy a copies of the Constitution and give them to the new leaders of government. I know they will disappointed that they are expected to follow such an unfamiliar document… maybe they just don’t know what we expect of them.

Probably Bush’s fault…along with all the calculators at treasury Bush all founding documents with him.

petunia on April 1, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Who was the last high-level politician to take the oath seriously?

Let’s amend the consitution to get the oath to reflect the new reality:


I (name), will pretend to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to my campaign donors; that I take this obligation with many mental issues for the purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully charge expenses related and unrelated to the duties of the office on which I am about to profit. So help me Barack

WashJeff on April 1, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Holder studied under the semi-literate, corrupt incompetent Janet Reno.

This is the jackass who presided over an armed effort to break into a house and then seize a young boy from his family, only to hand him over to a dictator’s thugs.

Holder is a complete piece of garbage and expecting anything ethical, reasonable or intelligent from his is like expecting a baboon to sing an opera.

NoDonkey on April 1, 2009 at 2:30 PM

Boy, that pesky Constitution is such a pain when you are trying to establish a one-party totalitarian state!

rockmom on April 1, 2009 at 2:24 PM

It’s only pesky if we hold them to it. So far I’m not seeing much accountability.

petunia on April 1, 2009 at 2:30 PM

All is well! All is well! We have Maxine Waters in Congress.

Fear not.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 1, 2009 at 2:31 PM

If I am not mistaken, the court throws out a lot of constitutional challenges because the plantiff is not directly injured or impacted by the law being challenged. It would seem that this law impacts all voters since it dilutes my representation.

Unleash the lawyers (gulp) and I will back them with contributions to fight this.

WashJeff on April 1, 2009 at 2:32 PM

I can’t get enough of Gov. Sarah Palin………..

Seven Percent Solution on April 1, 2009 at 2:34 PM

Holder studied under the semi-literate, corrupt incompetent Janet Reno.

NoDonkey on April 1, 2009 at 2:30 PM

I beg to differ. Reno could read quite well. The problem is that she only read what she wanted to read. And that is what Holder learned under her tutelege.

myrenovations on April 1, 2009 at 2:35 PM

WashJeff on April 1, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Lack of standing.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 1, 2009 at 2:36 PM

O/T LOL! Twelve threads with Palin photos.

My collie says:

I think it’s time to rename the HotAir website.

How about something like “Fools for Palin” ?

CyberCipher on April 1, 2009 at 2:36 PM

Yeah, but the Constitution is a living document, so it means whatever it is we want it to mean.

Not a living document, an undead document…a crude, staggering, barely-functioning likeness of it’s former self that only gives the illusion of life, while being guided by a very different spirit.

Nosferightu on April 1, 2009 at 2:37 PM

We need the Sarah Palin winkin’ pic … she is so cute in that pic.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 1, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Not a living document, an undead document nation…a crude, staggering, barely-functioning likeness of it’s former self that only gives the illusion of life, while being guided by a very different spirit.

Nosferightu on April 1, 2009 at 2:37 PM

Ameica – defined.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 1, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Insert “r”.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 1, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Bush and his cabal are shredding the Constitu…what?

Bishop on April 1, 2009 at 2:41 PM

These people took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and they are ignoring it. Despicable!

Maxx on April 1, 2009 at 2:43 PM

This has nothing to do with the Constitution. I’ts another power grab, by adding a reliable Dem vote to the House.

Utah should refuse the extra seat.

Wethal on April 1, 2009 at 2:47 PM

Honestly, I don’t think this administration really cares, if they abide by, uphold, or defend the Constitution.

The destructive path they are on, the total disregard for this countries citizens, and the fact that they pander to terrorists, and willfully allow terrorist suspects loose on the general public, and force us to support them….

It saddens me to no end, to see what’s happening to this Great Nation.

capejasmine on April 1, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Well it is a fundamentally flawed document uh uh uh a political document uh uh uh that reflects a blind spot you know so let’s just change it.

msmveritas on April 1, 2009 at 2:50 PM

This has nothing to do with the Constitution. I’ts another power grab, by adding a reliable Dem vote to the House.
Wethal on April 1, 2009 at 2:47 PM

\

Wha??? The STATES shall select representatives to congress acc. to art. I. DC ain’t a state. This has EVERYTHING to do with the Constitution, which is why the Obamunists will take the wrong side as sure as the sunrise.

Akzed on April 1, 2009 at 2:52 PM

But Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who supports the measure, ordered up a second opinion from other lawyers in his department and determined that the legislation would pass muster.

Keep asking the question until you get the answer you were looking for.

Sounds a lot like my ex-wife.

MarkTheGreat on April 1, 2009 at 2:55 PM

The Obama administration apparently has no qualms about acting unconstitutionally to get it for them.

Why not, the constitutions been pretty much a dead letter for the last 100 years or so anyway.

MarkTheGreat on April 1, 2009 at 2:58 PM

The will start upholding the oath at the same time they start paying taxes. :-)

JeffinSac on April 1, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Akzed on April 1, 2009 at 2:52 PM

To the Obama administration, it has nothing to do with the Constitution. Holder would have kept on looking until he found some Ivy League law professor who’d back him. As it turned out, he had one already installed as SG.

They will do what they want, and then somehow justify it afterwards. Which is Harold Koh’s view of the judicial delibertive process.

Wethal on April 1, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Look Ed, you were warned about Obama. Did you think that Obama would nominate a constitutionalists after he himself has kicked to the curb. Demand the birth certificate, demand proof of eligibility before we are toast.

If we must take up arms against our current usurper than must do that to preserve our liberty, to preserve our republic but I fear in the end we are going to have that civil war.

larvcom on April 1, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Cut him some slack. I see no evidence that any current politician has actually read the Constitution. So he has no idea that he’s violating it.

hawksruleva on April 1, 2009 at 3:02 PM

What’s the deal with Palinmania on the pictures?

MarkT on April 1, 2009 at 3:03 PM

I hate to spoil the fun, but doesn’t OLC work for Holder? He may be wrong on interpreting the Constitution in this case, or maybe not, but why is he bound by what OLC says?

Anyway, as I pointed out in the headlines:

“There’s a difference between getting advice on what the Constitution actually means (Office of Legal Counsel) and getting advice on whether the opposite position is plausibly defensible in court (Solicitor General). The government’s lawyers do not lightly refuse to defend the constitutionality of a federal statute.”

Looks like Holder doesn’t want to squash the bill with constitutional objections before it becomes law. After it becomes law, he’ll defend it, even though his people at OLC think it doesn’t pass the constitutional smell test.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on April 1, 2009 at 3:05 PM

Holder and Ogabe don’t consider the US Constitution a valid document because it wasn’t ratified by Europe.

SKYFOX on April 1, 2009 at 3:06 PM

AP has a fevah, and the only prescription is
more ‘Cuda??

Mike D. on April 1, 2009 at 3:15 PM

I agree that this is politically motivated and dishonest, but I disagree that Holder is purposely failing to support and defend the constitution.

His claim is that the bill is constitutional. Obviously this is a politically motivated opinion (and I think it’s wrong in any case), but having such an opinion is no different than any politically motivated opinion about the constitutionality of a law.

The OLC issues opinions considered binding across the executive branch.

I don’t think this is true. It’s true that OLC opinions about enacted legislation are binding, but not necessarily about proposed legislation. Holder has simply asked for a review of this opinion, since he disagrees with it.

That’s why I consider this to be wrong, politically motivated, but not more egregious than any administration taking a position that’s politically motivated. This is the same as an administration saying that a law is constitutional when you think it’s not, not more than that.

tneloms on April 1, 2009 at 3:15 PM

Holder & Obama & Barney & Maxine & Timmy & Hillary & Harry & Nancy
DON’T NEED NO STINKIN’ LAWS

mountainmanbob on April 1, 2009 at 3:16 PM

Isn’t the new Solicitor General someone who never practiced law or appeared before the Supreme Court, evah?
It’s no wonder that Holder went there, they don’t have a clue. And notice the curious phrasing, ‘we could defend it’, that doesn’t mean it’s constitutional, it means that politically they would advance arguments having tenuous legal merit in order to appease the base.
We’re waiting for those guardians of the Constitution on the left who wailed and moaned about the Bush desecration of the US Constitution, to do the same here. As if…

eaglewingz08 on April 1, 2009 at 3:18 PM

You don’t really expect them to uphold that old, fundamentally flawed document, do you?

RegularJoe on April 1, 2009 at 3:20 PM

Oh come on Ed. If the situation were reversed and an AG was pushing a bill you agreed with and considered constitutional but that the OLC said was not, why then you’d want the AG to ignore them. He’d not be playing politics but rather showing courage and perspicacity. Outrage over his ignoring the OLC is hypocritical.
The legitimate criticism of Holder is that this policy *is* unconstitutional and the legitimate remedy is to hold him and his boss politically accountable.
Political accountability seems to have become much harder to get these days though. How is it to be done when we have such dolts in the opposition party? And when neither party really has America’s interest at stake? I think there’s only one solution and that is to get the people more directly involved. We need national initiatives and referenda. It’s not a panacea I know but would improve the situation and the other idea of significantly diminishing the federal governments power and influence is a nonstarter.

edshepp on April 1, 2009 at 3:20 PM

edshepp on April 1, 2009 at 3:20 PM

I’m curious; Ed’s been writing a BUNCH of stuff, every day, for quite a few years, much of it during the Bush administration. If what you say is true, surely there must be some instance when Ed promoted legislation that had been authoritatively judged unconstitutional.

So can you find an example of this? Or are you just trying to rationalize Holder’s (and indeed the entire Obama administration’s) flouting of the Constitution?

RegularJoe on April 1, 2009 at 3:31 PM

Holder just figures that by the time this clearly unconstitutional bill is passed into law and challenged in court, Obama will have been able to put a couple more liberal nutjobs on the SCOTUS who will uphold it. The sad part is, he’s probably right.

AZCoyote on April 1, 2009 at 3:41 PM

If these idiots are violating the oaths they took isn’t there a way they can be fired! There has got to be somebody in America or Washington that can stop the madness

kthomas8268 on April 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM

And just this is a concern? TARP, The Auto Industry bailout, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, ethanol,farm subsidies- the list of unconstitutional bills, laws, departments, regulations fills at least 75+% of the Federal Register.
And suddenly THIS is a big deal?

Amendment X on April 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM

edshepp on April 1, 2009 at 3:20 PM

I’m curious; Ed’s been writing a BUNCH of stuff, every day, for quite a few years, much of it during the Bush administration. If what you say is true, surely there must be some instance when Ed promoted legislation that had been authoritatively judged unconstitutional.

So can you find an example of this? Or are you just trying to rationalize Holder’s (and indeed the entire Obama administration’s) flouting of the Constitution?

RegularJoe on April 1, 2009 at 3:31 PM

Other Presidents open the door. Obama’s widening it and make double doors all around!

Amendment X on April 1, 2009 at 3:47 PM

Loyalty to the Constitution? Silly boy! Holder is loyal to The One. Give him enough money and he’ll prosecute and defend the same case.

GarandFan on April 1, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Holder is loyal to The One. Give him enough money and he’ll prosecute and defend the same case.

If the Attorney General was about merit and not about being a black Democrat political hack, we’d have a real attorney general and Holder would have his stupid face plastered on a phone book, above the words “Hurt in an Accident – Call Attorney Eric Holder!”

NoDonkey on April 1, 2009 at 4:21 PM

It’s more than clear that our cherished Constitution is not so valued by our Usurper in Chief and fellow fiends.

Maquis on April 1, 2009 at 4:36 PM

This is the jackass who presided over an armed effort to break into a house and then seize a young boy from his family, only to hand him over to a dictator’s thugs.

NoDonkey on April 1, 2009 at 2:30 PM

That was the one time when Holder actually followed both the constitution and the law. If Elian had not been returned, there would be hardly any difference between us and Hamas with that Israeli soldier.

platypus on April 1, 2009 at 4:48 PM

If Elian had not been returned, there would be hardly any difference between us and Hamas with that Israeli soldier.

You can’t be serious.

That was a real proud moment in American history. Some clown in battle dress breaking down a door and brandishing a gun at a seven year old.

A mother dies to get her son to freedom and Holder throws him back to a communist hell hole.

How exactly does that equate with a known terrorist organization, operating outside the rules of armed conflict, kidnapping a soldier from a military operating within the rules of armed conflict, for ransom?

NoDonkey on April 1, 2009 at 4:58 PM

I’m as outraged as you, Ed, and expressed this on my site earlier today. But I worry that the outrage at Congressional leaders was sorely lacking, even if Holder takes some heat here. Unless and until all three branches of the federal government at least attempt to abide by the constitutional text as it is plainly written, this document will continue to be slaughtered at the altar of political expediency.

It makes one wonder, too, why Senators would be more beholden to party interests than to guaranteeing the integrity and sovereignty of their respective States. Oh right, we gave up that possibility with the constitutional amendment for their direct election. No wonder!

cackcon on April 1, 2009 at 4:59 PM

GarandFan on April 1, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Holder’s attitude toward D.C. is roughly the same as his attitude toward the Second Amendment, Heller Vs. D.C. be d*****d. He will do as he pleases- and as the One bids.

Which reminds me of this;

Fury said to a mouse,
That he met in the house,
“Let us both go to law:
I will prosecute YOU.
— Come, I’ll take no denial:
We must have a trial:
for really this morning
I have nothing to do.”

Said the mouse to the cur,
“such a trial, dear Sir,
with no judge or jury,
would be wasting our breath.”

“I’ll be judge, I’ll be jury,”
Said cunning old Fury,
“I’ll try the whole cause,
and condemn you to death.”

-Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll, chapter III

After all, he got away with it for eight years the first time around.

clear ether

eon

eon on April 1, 2009 at 5:11 PM

You can’t be serious.

That was a real proud moment in American history. Some clown in battle dress breaking down a door and brandishing aiming a loaded gun, with his finger on the trigger, directly at a seven year old.

NoDonkey on April 1, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Fixed that for ya, NoDonkey.

And I agree with you. But maybe platypus wasn’t serious. He couldn’t have been.

UltimateBob on April 1, 2009 at 5:20 PM

You can’t be serious.

That was a real proud moment in American history. Some clown in battle dress breaking down a door and brandishing a gun at a seven year old.

A mother dies to get her son to freedom and Holder throws him back to a communist hell hole.

How exactly does that equate with a known terrorist organization, operating outside the rules of armed conflict, kidnapping a soldier from a military operating within the rules of armed conflict, for ransom?

NoDonkey on April 1, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Quite serious.

When Elian was rescued, he was a foreign national AND a minor child. He had no right to be in this country even under that idiotic wet foot dry foot policy.

Upon arriving in this country as an undocumented and incompetent person, he “belonged” to INS. Only INS had authority to deal with him and to care for him. INS behaved responsibly by “paroling” him to known blood relatives in South Florida. So far so good.

Then shyster attorneys frivolously filed legal documents in Florida state courts under state statutes because they knew that the end result was ordained by federal law – he must be returned as soon as his only parent demanded it. They should all have been disbarred, in my opinion.

The idiot judges in state court never addressed the first question every court must address – jurisdiction. The court had jurisdiction to make custody decisions but the party petitioning the court had no standing to be there asking for relief. (Note – we fought a war over standing. It’s commonly called the Civil War.)

As the charade circus was playing out in state court, the federal government (INS and State) was quietly trying to resolve the problem with a government with which we have no diplomatic relations. Cuba’s sovereign demand was simple – return Elian immediately. Pragmatically, Castro understood that we could simply refuse and he would be powerless to do anything but bitch. So his diplomats were willing to allow us to “interview” Papa Gonzalez regarding any desire to seek asylum. He said no, I just want my boy and I want to go home.

Then when Reno told the Florida relatives that they had to give up Elian, they not only refused but they organized a rebellion. The drama went on for weeks while Reno tried to avoid using force (mainly because she had the ghost of Waco on her). The Florida relatives were firm – Reno would have to take him. So she did.

The SWAT team tactics were in direct response to veiled threats of violence should a effort be made to take Elian.

I said at the time that Elian was actually a stealth agent programmed by us and openly sent back to a closed society. As such, he was likely to be a future leader of Cuba after Castro dies and that he would not forget the single most important thing in any male child’s mind – being with daddy.

I said he would never forget that the United States honored his right to be with his father over the United States’ desire to beat Castro.

I stand by my views.

platypus on April 1, 2009 at 5:26 PM

testing

platypus on April 1, 2009 at 5:27 PM

I just spent a half hour typing up my response and hit submit and it vanished. I’m not doing it again right now.

platypus on April 1, 2009 at 5:29 PM

Does anyone actually THINK that Holder, Napolitano, Geitner, Emmanuel, or Obama suports the Constitution?….if you do, BACK AWAY FROM THE CRACK PIPE!

PEOPLE! Learn this if you learn NOTHING else today…THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF PROPAGANDA.
People will believe a lie if:
A; those people are AFRAID what is said is true
B; those people WANT what is said to be true

An example is the propaganda that large numbers of firearms are being smuggled INTO Mexico from the U.S.
This is a lie, it’s false, the is absolutely NO proof and even the BATF admits they have NO proof this is happening. This is propaganda by Holder and Napalitano, the BATF and the entire Obama Administration to enact legislatation and policy to deride the 2nd Amendment. Furthermore, anyone with experience in firearms KNOWS that fully automatic weapons have largely been illegal in the U.S. since 1934, sell on the black market in the U.S. for well over $10,000 yet sell in Mexico for a few HUNDRED dollars and that Hezbollah, Venezuela and the Chinese are involved with funelling firearms to Mexican Cartels.
Even Newt Gingrich has swallowed the koolaid of this Obama Administration propaganda because he “FEARS” it might be true.

nelsonknows on April 1, 2009 at 7:08 PM

If a public official breaks his oath to the Constitution, what is the remedy?

Can I make a citizen’s arrest and kick him in the ballz?

ex-Democrat on April 1, 2009 at 8:30 PM

… If a public official breaks his oath to the Constitution, what is the remedy? …

In Holders case, congressional inquiry would come first. Followed with legal action where appropriate. As an example, search for ‘John Mitchell Atty general’

Is it possible there is a connection between the Frank and Reid attacks on the supreme court, and the ongoing abuse of the constitution by the democrats? Somehow, I dont think it is a simple accident that they were mentioned last week.

Freddy on April 2, 2009 at 1:38 AM

We can thank the spineless republican senators for allowing this proven thief and toady to be appointed. They had the evidence to stop it.

Amazed on April 2, 2009 at 10:02 AM