U.S. Attorney General Erik Holder Supports Terrorist Islam. We have film:
By de Andréa
True to form, Obama’s Muslim Appointee, Attorney General Eric Holder, is obviously in denial that Muslims or Islam has anything to do with Islamic Jihad or terrorism, especially in the U.S. That’s right Eric, Nazis had nothing to do with the “Holocaust” either, that is unless as a Muslim you are in denial of the “Holocaust” as well.
Just as our Muslim President, Barack Hussein Obama who denies that we are even at war with Islam, (I would appreciate him telling us just who exactly we are at war with) Attorney General Eric Holder in a house Judiciary Committee meeting just couldn’t bring himself to say that the attempted Times Square bombing had anything to do with Islamic terrorism or did any other act of terrorism in the U.S. for that matter. Watch the video.
Despite the FBI crediting the Pakistani Taliban with fostering the recent failed car bombing in Times Square, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was reluctant Thursday to say a Muslim or specifically radical Islam was part of the cause of that and other recent attacks. Well of course he’s bloody reluctant; he and his pal Barack are bloody Muslims.
Mr. Holder, testifying to the House Judiciary Committee, repeatedly balked at a half-dozen questions from Rep. Lamar Smith, the ranking Republican on the committee, about whether "radical Islam" was behind the attempted car bombing, and last year's so-called "underpants bomber" or the killings at Fort Hood in Texas.
"There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious," Mr. Holder finally told the committee Thursday, though he would not go further than saying “people who hold radical views may have had an ability to have an impact" on Faisal Shahzad, the man the Justice Department says tried to detonate a car bomb in Times Square. Sounds like Muslim Taqiyyah (decepive) double talk to me.
The exchange comes as President Obama and Republicans spar over whether the administration is taking a tough-enough approach to the war on terrorism. Heck, the administration says we are not at war with terrorism, is may be man influenced disasters or some such nonsense. Critics want the president to hone his criticism, while he and his advisers have sought to avoid painting the conflict as a battle against a religious belief or its adherents.
"I don't know why the administration has such difficulty acknowledging the obvious, which is that radical Islam might have incited these individuals," Mr. Smith, Texas Republican, said after the hearing. "If you can't name the enemy, then you're going to have a hard time trying to respond to them.” Amen! Brother Lamar. Rep Smith finally gave up in disgust, saying he didn’t know why he couldn’t get an answer to a simple yes or no question.
In his near daylong appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Holder was repeatedly asked about Arizona's new immigration law, which the attorney general has criticized and suggested may run afoul of the Constitution.
Obama has asked the Justice Department to review the law to determine whether the federal government should try to block it before it takes effect at the end of July. Block a Federally Constitutional law that the States supports because the Fed refuses to enforce it. And Obama use to teach Constitutional law ---Chicago style….
Mr. Holder admitted to the committee that he hasn't even read the law, and his criticisms were based on what he's seen on television or read in the newspapers about the law. I am sure glad Mr. Holder is not a doctor or he might be trying to practice medicine with what he has learned on Miami E.R.
Mr. Holder said, "I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people who are doing the review, exactly what my position is,". This may be because Mr. Holder puts more credence in ‘Islamic Sharia Law’ than he does in ‘American Constitutional Law’. I wonder if he has ever red the Constitution…
Last weekend, Mr. Holder told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the Arizona law "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” He had earlier called the law's passage "is unfortunate," and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that should be reserved for the federal government. Well the problem here Mr. Holder is that the Federal government refuses to do its Constitutional duty to protect this country and its citizens from a foreign invasion. Article 4 section 4, forget the Arizona law, try reading the U.S. Constitution for a change.
Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could hold those opinions if he hadn't yet read the legislation. "It's hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven't even read the law," the Texas Republican told the attorney general.
The Arizona law's backers argue that it doesn't go beyond what federal law already allows, and they say press reports have distorted the legislation. They point to provisions in the law that specifically rule out racial profiling as proof that it can be implemented without conflicting with civil rights.
But critics said giving police the power to stop those they suspect are in the country illegally is bound to lead to profiling.
Mr. Holder said he expects the Justice and Homeland Security departments will finish their review of the Arizona law soon.
Meanwhile, back in the subject, the failed Times Square attack is the latest incident in which the administration has found itself explaining its strategy toward terrorism.
Authorities on Thursday raided several locations in the Northeast and detained at least three people on immigration violations, Mr. Holder said. They suspect the three people were involved with providing funds to the suspected bomber, though it was unclear whether they had knowledge of specific plans to try to ignite a car bomb in Times Square.
THE BOTTOM LINE: The real problem as I see it, is that the war is not in the Middle East, the war is right here in America. We are at war with our own government, a government that has been infiltrated with a foreign theocracy, foreign ideologies, foreign philosophies, and with the same agenda of our enemy.
As for the war in the Middle East is concerned, I must be from another planet or at least another time period. When I went to the War College in Fort Lee Virginia back in 1959, in the first paragraph of the manual were the words “Know who your enemy is…” something this government has yet to do. It is something we might want to think about since we have been in a state of war for nearly 10 years now. Oh! And another thing, the manual… well… at least it used to say…it continued with the words”before a declaration of war is made”. Oh yeah! That’s something we haven’t done yet either. How can we be at war for ten years, not knowing who we are at war with, moreover, we haven’t even declared war? No wonder we aren’t winning this war, it is with someone we don’t know and haven’t declared it a war yet. Why…we could just pack up and go home, and if someone were to asked us why we quit the war? We could honestly say: What war --- and with whom?
Do you think that if we had this problem during the Second World War we would have known what to do? Of course we would. Just get the bloody Nazis out of our country!
Boy times have sure changed…
de Andréa
By de Andréa
True to form, Obama’s Muslim Appointee, Attorney General Eric Holder, is obviously in denial that Muslims or Islam has anything to do with Islamic Jihad or terrorism, especially in the U.S. That’s right Eric, Nazis had nothing to do with the “Holocaust” either, that is unless as a Muslim you are in denial of the “Holocaust” as well.
Just as our Muslim President, Barack Hussein Obama who denies that we are even at war with Islam, (I would appreciate him telling us just who exactly we are at war with) Attorney General Eric Holder in a house Judiciary Committee meeting just couldn’t bring himself to say that the attempted Times Square bombing had anything to do with Islamic terrorism or did any other act of terrorism in the U.S. for that matter. Watch the video.
Despite the FBI crediting the Pakistani Taliban with fostering the recent failed car bombing in Times Square, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was reluctant Thursday to say a Muslim or specifically radical Islam was part of the cause of that and other recent attacks. Well of course he’s bloody reluctant; he and his pal Barack are bloody Muslims.
Mr. Holder, testifying to the House Judiciary Committee, repeatedly balked at a half-dozen questions from Rep. Lamar Smith, the ranking Republican on the committee, about whether "radical Islam" was behind the attempted car bombing, and last year's so-called "underpants bomber" or the killings at Fort Hood in Texas.
"There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious," Mr. Holder finally told the committee Thursday, though he would not go further than saying “people who hold radical views may have had an ability to have an impact" on Faisal Shahzad, the man the Justice Department says tried to detonate a car bomb in Times Square. Sounds like Muslim Taqiyyah (decepive) double talk to me.
The exchange comes as President Obama and Republicans spar over whether the administration is taking a tough-enough approach to the war on terrorism. Heck, the administration says we are not at war with terrorism, is may be man influenced disasters or some such nonsense. Critics want the president to hone his criticism, while he and his advisers have sought to avoid painting the conflict as a battle against a religious belief or its adherents.
"I don't know why the administration has such difficulty acknowledging the obvious, which is that radical Islam might have incited these individuals," Mr. Smith, Texas Republican, said after the hearing. "If you can't name the enemy, then you're going to have a hard time trying to respond to them.” Amen! Brother Lamar. Rep Smith finally gave up in disgust, saying he didn’t know why he couldn’t get an answer to a simple yes or no question.
In his near daylong appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Holder was repeatedly asked about Arizona's new immigration law, which the attorney general has criticized and suggested may run afoul of the Constitution.
Obama has asked the Justice Department to review the law to determine whether the federal government should try to block it before it takes effect at the end of July. Block a Federally Constitutional law that the States supports because the Fed refuses to enforce it. And Obama use to teach Constitutional law ---Chicago style….
Mr. Holder admitted to the committee that he hasn't even read the law, and his criticisms were based on what he's seen on television or read in the newspapers about the law. I am sure glad Mr. Holder is not a doctor or he might be trying to practice medicine with what he has learned on Miami E.R.
Mr. Holder said, "I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people who are doing the review, exactly what my position is,". This may be because Mr. Holder puts more credence in ‘Islamic Sharia Law’ than he does in ‘American Constitutional Law’. I wonder if he has ever red the Constitution…
Last weekend, Mr. Holder told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the Arizona law "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” He had earlier called the law's passage "is unfortunate," and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that should be reserved for the federal government. Well the problem here Mr. Holder is that the Federal government refuses to do its Constitutional duty to protect this country and its citizens from a foreign invasion. Article 4 section 4, forget the Arizona law, try reading the U.S. Constitution for a change.
Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could hold those opinions if he hadn't yet read the legislation. "It's hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven't even read the law," the Texas Republican told the attorney general.
The Arizona law's backers argue that it doesn't go beyond what federal law already allows, and they say press reports have distorted the legislation. They point to provisions in the law that specifically rule out racial profiling as proof that it can be implemented without conflicting with civil rights.
But critics said giving police the power to stop those they suspect are in the country illegally is bound to lead to profiling.
Mr. Holder said he expects the Justice and Homeland Security departments will finish their review of the Arizona law soon.
Meanwhile, back in the subject, the failed Times Square attack is the latest incident in which the administration has found itself explaining its strategy toward terrorism.
Authorities on Thursday raided several locations in the Northeast and detained at least three people on immigration violations, Mr. Holder said. They suspect the three people were involved with providing funds to the suspected bomber, though it was unclear whether they had knowledge of specific plans to try to ignite a car bomb in Times Square.
THE BOTTOM LINE: The real problem as I see it, is that the war is not in the Middle East, the war is right here in America. We are at war with our own government, a government that has been infiltrated with a foreign theocracy, foreign ideologies, foreign philosophies, and with the same agenda of our enemy.
As for the war in the Middle East is concerned, I must be from another planet or at least another time period. When I went to the War College in Fort Lee Virginia back in 1959, in the first paragraph of the manual were the words “Know who your enemy is…” something this government has yet to do. It is something we might want to think about since we have been in a state of war for nearly 10 years now. Oh! And another thing, the manual… well… at least it used to say…it continued with the words”before a declaration of war is made”. Oh yeah! That’s something we haven’t done yet either. How can we be at war for ten years, not knowing who we are at war with, moreover, we haven’t even declared war? No wonder we aren’t winning this war, it is with someone we don’t know and haven’t declared it a war yet. Why…we could just pack up and go home, and if someone were to asked us why we quit the war? We could honestly say: What war --- and with whom?
Do you think that if we had this problem during the Second World War we would have known what to do? Of course we would. Just get the bloody Nazis out of our country!
Boy times have sure changed…
de Andréa
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment