Federal Court Rules Historic Mount Soledad Christian Cross in San Diego Is Unconstitutional

The left scored another major victory against Christianity yesterday when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial Cross in San Diego was unconstitutional.

The 29 foot tall cross was erected in 1954 on top of Mount Soledad in La Jolla, California.

The memorial at Mount Soledad also includes plaques of local men and women who lost their lives fighting for this country. (Thomas Moore)

The AP reported:

A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that a San Diego war memorial marked by a four-story-tall Christian cross on public land violates the U.S. constitutional ban on government endorsement of religion.

Capping a legal dispute brewing since the late 1980s, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower-court decision that threw out a legal challenge to the hilltop cross brought on behalf of Jewish war veterans.

The three-judge panel concluded in its 47-page opinion that the U.S. "district court erred in declaring the memorial to be primarily nonsectarian and granting summary judgment in favor of the government and the memorial's supporters."

A group that filed a brief on behalf of 25 members of Congress supporting the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial, the American Center for Law and Justice, condemned the appeals court ruling as "a judicial slap in the face to our military veterans."

The appeals court, recognizing volatile feelings generated on both sides by the case, wrote that America's war veterans can and should be honored, "but without the imprimatur of state-endorsed religion."

In its 3-0 decision, the court stopped short of ordering removal of the cross and left open the possibility that the memorial could be redesigned to incorporate a cross in a way that would "pass constitutional muster."

This was another major victory for the progressives in America.

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/01/federal-court-decides-christian-cross-on-san-diego-hill-is-unconstitutional/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

The Four Myths of the Filibuster – Heritage Panel on C-SPAN Discusses Dem Assault on Senate Rules

Senate Democrats are expected to open the session today with an assault on the filibuster.
After their thumping in the 2010 elections democrats want to solidify their power in the senate by pushing a filibuster-change resolution as their first move.

Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) discussed the Democratic efforts at the Heritage Foundation yesterday live on C-SPAN. A panel of experts led by Brian Darling, Stephen Duffield, James Wallmer, and Bill Wichterman then continued the discussion on the history and use of the filibuster in the Senate. The video is posted at the Heritage website.

CSPAN reported on this planned power grab by democrats:

Following the opening prayer, Vice President Biden will administer the oath-of-office for 31 senators, which includes 16 new senators. Though they maintained the majority, Democrats lost six seats after the November mid-term elections resulting in the make-up of the current Congress at 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans and two Independents.

Once the ceremony is over and the election of other senate officials are dispensed with, Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) plans to raise an objection that the previous Senate's rules be passed over to the new session and submit his filibuster-change resolution. Sen. Udall has cited a Constitutional rule under Article I, Section 5 that allows Congress to determine the rules for its proceedings on the first day of a new session. The senator argues that, while only the U.S. House takes advantage of this provision every two years, it is open to the U.S. Senate as well.

His proposal seeks to implement three requirements: senators that wish to object to a motion to proceed on a bill must remain on the floor to maintain the filibuster; if a motion to proceed passes then a cloture vote must be taken immediately to prevent delays by opposing senators; and finally, the elimination of "secret holds" on bills and nominations.

Though several other senators have voiced their support, including Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Republicans have panned the changes. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) called the attempt "a brazen power grab" by Democrats in a speech yesterday at the Heritage Foundation.

In anticipation of the difficulties ahead, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is likely to recess the Senate at the end of today instead of adjourning members and freeze the official calendar for the next 20 days. This move will technically keep the first legislative day open and allow Democrats more time to negotiate with Republicans, thus removing the short deadline for a vote on the filibuster package.

Brian Darling, Director, Government Relations, at Heritage Foundation, wrote about the history and purpose of the filibuster this week-
"The Filibuster Protects the Rights of All Senators and the American People"

I spoke with Brian Darling, who is a Big Government contributor, after the event yesterday at Heritage Foundation. He later sent me his "List of Myths" that the democrat-media complex will try to push on the American public this week as they go for their power grab in the US Senate.
With his permission, I am posting those "myths" here.

Four Myths about the Filibuster

There are four myths that you will hear over and over again about the filibuster. Don't believe the left when they claim that the filibuster is unconstitutional and was an accident of history. Furthermore don't believe it when you hear that the Senate is not a continuing body and therefore the Senate can only change rules in the first day of a new Congress. The explicit words of the Constitution, the Senate's written rules and the history of the Senate show that the filibuster was created by design, it is constitutional and the Senate is a continuous body.

Myth: The Filibuster is Unconstitutional. Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) argues that "When the authors of the Constitution believed a supermajority vote was necessary, they clearly said so. And while the Constitution states that we may determine our own rules, it makes no mention that it require a supermajority vote to do so. In addition, a longstanding common law principle, upheld in Supreme Court decisions, states that one legislature cannot bind its successors. To require a supermajority to change the rules, as is our current practice, is to allow a Senate rule to trump our U.S. Constitution and bind future Senates."

Fact: The Filibuster is constitutional and efforts to restrict debate in the Senate may be unconstitutional. The Constitution empowers the House and Senate to establish rules of procedure. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states that "each house may determine the rule of its proceedings." This provision in the Constitution empowers the Senate to make rules governing debate. The Senate in 1917 established the cloture rule requiring a 2/3rds vote of all Senators present and voting to shut down debate after years of not having a means to shut down debate. Senate Rule 22 today states "invoking cloture on a proposal to amend the Senate's standing rules requires the support of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting." The clear letter of the Senate's rules mandate a supermajority vote to change the Senate's rules.

Myth: The Filibuster was created by accident. Sarah Binder, Senior Fellow of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institute testified before the Senate Rules Committee on April 22, 2010, "when we dig into the history of Congress, it seems that the filibuster was created by mistake."

Fact: On numerous occasions the early Senate rejected rules changes that would have limited debate. According to John Quincy Adam's diary published in 1874, he wrote that in 1806, Vice-President Aaron Burr advised the Senate that the motion for the previous question was of no use and should be dropped. Burr thought it not necessary. In a 20 minute address to the Senate he spoke of his tenure as chair of the Senate. It was Burr's view that the rule was not necessary for the Senate. This was a decision of the Senate and was made after a discussion of the issue by the Vice President. The opponents would like to characterize this as an oversight, yet future attempts to reinstate a move the previous question were resisted by Senators. According do Senator Robert C. Byrd's "The Senate, 1789-1989, "Henry Clay, in 1841, proposed the introduction of the "previous question" but abandoned the idea in the face of opposition." Byrd also wrote that "when Senator Stephen Douglas proposed permitting the use of the 'previous question' in 1850, the idea encountered substantial opposition and was dropped." According to Byrd, "An effort to reinstitute the 'previous question,' on March 19, 1873, failed by a vote of 25-30. Byrd cited the following: "Between 1884 and 1890, fifteen different resolutions were offered to amend the rules of regarding limitations of debate, all of which failed of adoption." It is clear from the early history of the Senate that the filibuster was not merely an accident of history, it was a design by early Senators.

Myth: The Senate is not a continuing body.

Fact: The Senate's rules memorialize the fact that the Senate is a continuing body. According to Marty Gold and Dimple Gupta's Harvard Law Review article titled "The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures: Majoritarianism Means to Over Come the Filibuster" describing Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson's (D-TX) compromise proposal to make it easier to shut down debate and affirm that the Senate is a continuing body. Rule XXII would be amended to reduce the required vote for cloture to "two-thirds of the Senators present and voting," and, in order to assuage the worries of Senators who opposed the constitutional option, a new clause would be added to the Senate Standing Rules holding, "The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules." Our Founders set up the Senate with staggered 6 year terms and only 1/3rd of the Senate is up for election every two years. Our Founders set up the Senate to be a far different body than the House of Representatives. The length of terms and mandate that every state, regardless of size, gets two votes is evidence that our Founders wanted a Senate to be far different from the House. The facts are that the constitution authorizes the Senate's rules. The Senate's rules confirm that the Senate is a continuing body and that it takes a 2/3rds vote to shut off debate on a rules change. A strong case can be made that the actions of liberals in the Senate violates are an unconstitutional power grab.

Myth: The Senate can only change rules on the first day of the new session by a simple majority.

Fact: The Senate can never change rules with a simple majority vote. The Senate's rules are clear that the Senate is a Continuing Body. As the Senate Web site explains: To foster values such as deliberation, reflection, continuity, and stability in the Senate, the framers made several important decisions. First, they set the senatorial term of office at six years even though the duration of a Congress is two years. The Senate, in brief, was to be a "continuing body" with one-third of its membership up for election at any one time.… " According to Marty Gold's Law review article Senator Leverett Saltonstall (R-MA) argued in 1957 "there never is a new Senate; there is merely a change in one third-of its members." The Senate's rule 5 states1. No motion to suspend, modify, or amend any rule, or any part thereof, shall be in order, except on one day's notice in writing, specifying precisely the rule or part proposed to be suspended, modified, or amended, and the purpose thereof. Any rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided by the rules. 2. The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules. The left claims that new rules are not adopted until the Senate operates under new rules. This claim simply is not true,

Remember these myths this week as you watch the progressives assault the filibuster.

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/01/the-four-myths-of-the-filibuster-heritage-panel-on-c-span-discusses-dem-assault-on-senate-rules/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

As 112th Congress Kicks Off – State-Run Media Begins Its Assault on Republicans

The 112th Congress is not even sworn in yet and the democrat-media complex is already on the attack.

The New York Times pubished this nasty piece of tripe today…

"Pomp, and Little Circumstance"

A theatrical production of unusual pomposity will open on Wednesday when Republicans assume control of the House for the 112th Congress. A rule will be passed requiring that every bill cite its basis in the Constitution. A bill will be introduced to repeal the health care law. On Thursday, the Constitution will be read aloud in the House chamber. And in one particularly self-important flourish, the new speaker, John Boehner, arranged to have his office staff "sworn in" on Tuesday by the chief justice of the United States.

And, The LA Times led off their coverage on the 112th Congress with this jewel…

"Tea party' freshmen embrace status quo"
After campaigning against D.C.'s ways, new Republican lawmakers quickly turn to lobbyists and fundraisers.

Just wait until the Republicans repeal Obamacare or reduce spending.
We haven't seen nothing yet.

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/01/as-112th-congress-kicks-off-state-run-media-begins-its-assault-on-republicans/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

The NY Times Arrogant Attempt to Discard the US Constitution

As the unofficial, official Newspaper of the progressive movement, the NY Times has a core audience to placate, but who would think that they would go out of their way to alienate the rest of their readership. But that's exactly what they did in an editorial called "Pomp, and Little Circumstance", which rebukes the GOP for the attempt to repeal Obamacare, allowing John Boehner to swear his staff in early and most startling, for wasting the people's time by starting off the 112th Congress with a reading of the United States Constitution.

….The empty gestures are officially intended to set a new tone in Washington, to demonstrate — presumably to the Republicans' Tea Party supporters — that things are about to be done very differently. But it is far from clear what message is being sent by, for instance, reading aloud the nation's foundational document. Is this group of Republicans really trying to suggest that they care more deeply about the Constitution than anyone else and will follow it more closely?

The Times doesn't even understand what the Constitution is all about, it is not just a "foundational document," it is the rule book; the guide for the way our U.S. Government is supposed to work.  The oath that members of Congress take as part of their swearing in ceremony pledges their allegiance to the Constitution as a their priority.

I 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.

If these members of Congress have sworn to support and defend the Constitution, shouldn't they know what's in the document? How many times during the 111^th Congress did the American people learn that their legislators voted for a piece of legislation without even knowing what is in it?  That should teach us that that same body may try to "protect the Constitution without reading it.  Certainly the next part of the Times editorial shows that they haven't read the Constitution in a while. The Editorial goes on to label the reading of the constitution as a self-righteous act and suggesting that it has possible racial overtones.

In any case, it is a presumptuous and self-righteous act, suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation. Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person.

That's just the usual attempt of the progressives to label the GOP as racist.  Anybody who ever studied the United States Constitution would also know that the three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; it was an attempt to reduce the number of pro-slavery proponents in Congress. By including only three-fifths of the total numbers of slaves into the congressional calculations, Southern states were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress and electoral votes for selecting the president. Beyond that, maybe the NY Times should read up on the 13^th and 14^th amendments which outlawed slavery and made the three-fifths compromise null and void.  They should know about it—it was in all of the newspapers. Maybe it wasn't covered in the NY Times, after all Lincoln was a Republican.

Next, the arrogant "Gray Lady" goes on to blast the new house leadership for requiring that every new bill cite the Constitutional power given to Congress to enact it, saying that the judiciary that ultimately decides when a law is unconstitutional, not the transitory occupant of the speaker's chair. While this point is certainly true since, according to their oath of office, the primary job of congress is protecting the constitution, this exercise forces the members to consider their oath before enacting a bill.

The Republicans' antics are a ghastly waste of time at a moment when the nation is expecting real leadership from Congress, and suggest that the new House leadership is still unable to make tough choices. Voters, no less than drama critics, prefer substance to overblown theatrics.

The New York Times shouldn't talk about drama critics preferring substance to overblown theatrics.  They took a hack theater critic named Frank Rich and made him an overblown political commentator who substitutes venom for facts.

In its haughtiness, the New York Times has relegated the Constitution of the United States, to the dustbin, a historical nicety. Progressives are quick to say that our Constitution is a living document and they are semantically correct.  They believe that the guide book for our government is living in the way that its meaning can be changed at the drop of a hat, adding things from Health Care to Internet Access to its guaranteed rights. That is nothing but a convenient way to subvert the document's intention.  The US Constitution is a living document because it is as relevant today as the day it was written and if needed has provisions to update it through constitutional amendment.

It is the pages of the NY Times that have become irrelevant, what used to be a proud protector of the truth has become nothing but a mouthpiece for a political movement whose goal is to destroy the meaning of that perfect document ratified on June 21, 1788.

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/NWlS/~3/_IjJ9dIhei0/ny-times-arrogant-attempt-to-discard-us.html

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Video: Reagan budget director David Stockman on TARP, the Fed, Ron Paul and Ronald Reagan

I disagree with him on several points, his biggest defect IMO being that taxes need to be increased to shrink the deficit. As a matter of historical fact that has been proven repeatedly, for each $1 in higher taxes results in $1.17 of new spending. Increasing taxes on anyone in any way will make the deficit worse, not better because Congress in whatever the opposite of infinite wisdom is, will simply spend it on new programs. In any case, here's ReasonTV with Stockman:

From the YouTube caption:

Last fall, Stockman was the GOP-defector du jour once more, arguing against extending George W. Bush's tax rates in the New York Times, on 60 Minutes, the Colbert Report, Parker-Spitzer, ABC, NPR, and MSNBC. Stockman's argument - that it's irresponsible to cut taxes when cumulative U.S. debt is steadily mounting as a percentage of GDP - is based on the simple principle that balanced budgets come only when revenues actually meet expenditures. If we're not willing to actually shrink government spending, he says, then we should pay full freight now, rather than forcing our children and grandchildren to foot the bill down the line.

But the higher taxes will lead to even higher spending, drain money from the private sector to fund the public sector, crash the economy and again cause the deficit to be even larger. The only way to right the ship is to cut the size of government and by quite a bit this time. The full interview with Stockman, almost 45 minutes worth, is here:

Interesting, but I have a bunch of disagreements with him on many points.

http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2011/01/video-reagan-budget-director-david.html

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Why New York can't afford enough workers to clean up the snow

New York city's sanitation department is under criminal investigation for possibly staging a work slowdown during last week's big snow storm. Over at City Journal, Nicole Gelinas reports some eye-opening details on why the city's snow removal agency is so corrupt and incapable: If money could melt snow, Mayor Bloomberg would be...

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BeltwayConfidential/~3/G0HHreh5WZ0/why-new-york-cant-afford-enough-workers-clean-snow

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Department of Justice Goes Black -- Dumps Red, White and Blue

from Atlas Shrugs by Pamela Geller


Department of Justice Goes Black -- Dumps Red, White and Blue: "

I have reported extensively on Obama's Department of Injustice over the past two years here. In every case, the DoJ has gone to war against America. Against the military, against free speech, against the voter, against the war on jihad, against Arizona and the protection of our borders, in support of Islamic law (sharia) and proponent of reverse racism ..... the list goes on.

Department of Justice ditches red, white, and blue stars and stripes hat tip David via Sue

The move speaks volumes.The U.S. Department of Justice has changed its web site. Gone are the patriotic, distinctly proud American red, white, and blue U.S. flag decorations on the page:

Replaced by stark black and white.

And at the top of the page, is a rather interesting quote:

"The common law is the will of mankind, issuing from the life of the people."

Catchy, huh? Just one tiny little (too small to be relevant obviously) point -- the quote is from C. Wilfred Jenks, who in the 1930's was a leading proponent of the "international law" movement, which had as its goal to impose a global common law and which backed lobal workers' rights.'

Call it Marxism, call it Progressivism, call it Socialism -- under any of those names, it definitely makes the DOJ look corrupt in their sleek, new black website with Marxist accessories to match.

http://www.justice.gov/

How very interesting that 'they' couldn't find a nice quote from one of our Founders.

People, we have lost our Republic. Get it back.

"

Russian News Discusses Rise of Communism in New York City (Video)

from The Gateway Pundit by Jim Hoft


Russian News Discusses Rise of Communism in New York City (Video): "

They like to consider themselves “progressives.”

Via Breitbart TV:



Russia Today reported:

“As the economic crisis has gotten steeper in the country, it is not surprising that people are opening their minds to other ideas. Words like socialism and communism have been so stigmatized by the educational system that many people are afraid of those words. However, many studies have shown Americans support the redistribution of wealth but if you mention the socialism word they won’t agree with it anymore.”

In modern day America, the specter of communism hangs over the bottom floor of a brick building on the West side of downtown New York City. It’s the Brecht Forum, which started out as the NY Marxist School in 1975. Here, communism is certainly no bogeyman and its poster-philosopher so to speak is revered. “I am a Marxist and I wanted to be around other Marxists and just to talk with other Marxists,” explained Dale. In the US that may sound a little taboo, even unpatriotic to the average Joe. But these days, amid rising poverty and inequality in the country more and more people are joining in the discussion. “I think people certainly since the financial crisis hit home and some people realized there are some systemic problems, we saw a huge influx of traffic,” said Max Uhlenback, development coordinator at the Brecht Forum.

It’s attracting people opening their eyes to a different view. Here, whenever you look you can see a chapter of events not found in history books. Uhlenback gives the example of Haiti, referencing one of the posters on the wall. “People look at Haiti as oh this poor place why can’t they ever get it right but don’t realize Haiti was the first free black republic and has been punished because of it,” he recounted. Choose a door and behind it you may find any number of Leftist social movements left out of mainstream news. “Anti-apartheid carolers” as they called themselves were practicing for a holiday protest urging a boycott of Israel because of its policies towards Palestine.

For the record… Obama often attended the socialist lectures at Cooper Union in New York City during his time at Columbia University.

"

Speaker Pelosi’s Final Insult: “Deficit Reduction Has Been a High Priority” (Video)

from The Gateway Pundit by Jim Hoft


Speaker Pelosi’s Final Insult: “Deficit Reduction Has Been a High Priority” (Video): "

As a final insult to the American people before she hands over the gavel, Speaker Pelosi told reporters today that, “Deficit reduction has been a high priority.”

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

FOX Nation reported:

At her final press conference as House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra, pay-as-you-go.”

The numbers tell a different story.

When the Pelosi Democrats took control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the national debt stood at $8,670,596,242,973.04. The last day of the 111th Congress and Pelosi’s Speakership on December 22, 2010 the national debt was $13,858,529,371,601.09 – a roughly $5.2 trillion increase in just four years. Furthermore, the year over year federal deficit has roughly quadrupled during Pelosi’s four years as speaker, from $342 billion in fiscal year 2007 to an estimated $1.6 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2010.

What a horrible woman.



(The Captain’s Comments)

Thank you, Speaker Pelosi.

Please have your office cleaned out by 5 PM.

Thank you.

"

Holder Uses New York Times to Tamper with New Black Panther Investigation

from Big Journalism by J. Christian Adams


Holder Uses New York Times to Tamper with New Black Panther Investigation: "

Attorney General Eric Holder recently made statements to the New York Times so detached from reality that they could have been written by scheming Republican operatives for fun. In particular, Holder tells the Times that the lawless dismissal of voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panthers is “a made up controversy.” I have written about Holder’s accelerating detachment from reality in the interview, along with Jen Rubin.

Putting aside the fact video exists of the armed uniformed thugs in Philadelphia, Holder did something even worse than flirt with kooky conspiratorial characterizations of the fallout from the Black Panther dismissal. When Holder announced to the New York Times that there “is no there there,” he let the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) know what he believes the outcome of their ongoing investigation into the dismissal should be. In other words, he tampered with their investigation.

Holder’s close friend Deputy Attorney General James Cole will have the power to veto any critical conclusions by OPR.

Multiple attorneys, including me, have testified under oath that the Obama Civil Rights Division will not enforce civil rights laws in a race-neutral fashion. Numerous attorneys still at the Justice Department have confirmed the substance of our testimony to the Washington Post. Numerous other attorneys no longer at the Justice Department have also confirmed our testimony.

Holder’s response to the New York Times? It’s a “made up controversy.”

Holder’s performance to the New York Times is more than simply ludicrous, it is meddlesome. When Holder made these partisan campaign-style attacks, he meddled with two ongoing investigations in a way that previous Attorney Generals would never do.

The DOJ OPR is currently investigating whether or not Steve Rosenbaum, Loretta King, and other DOJ political appointees used improper considerations when they ordered the dismissal of the New Black Panther case. The problem is that Eric Holder sits atop the chain of command for every OPR attorney working on the investigation. Eric Holder, and his newly recess-appointed Deputy Attorney General James Cole, oversee OPR. They have the power to fire, and as was recently exercised, hire the head of OPR. The incoming head of OPR, Robin Ashton, was just named by Holder. Ashton will have the power to tamper with any findings in the New Black Panther investigation, and bring them more in line with Eric Holder’s pronouncements to the New York Times.

When Holder made wild assertions about the dismissal of the New Black Panther case to the New York Times, you can be sure every single person working down the chain of command on the investigation took note. For them to reach a finding contrary to Holder’s statements guarantees a bureaucratic headwind from the highest levels of the DOJ. That’s a career killer inside Justice. Few can be expected to have the courage to confront the falsehoods of an Attorney General from within the bureaucracy. There aren’t many with the courage of DOJ lawyer Christopher Coates.

The DOJ Inspector General is also investigating the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of the New Black Panther case and hostility toward racially equal enforcement of civil rights laws under Eric Holder. I have already given lengthy interviews with the IG about this hostility, as have many others.

Yet Eric Holder has announced his opinion of the investigation in the interview. The IG is just looking into “a made up controversy,” he says.

America might soon long for the good old days of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. When the DOJ OPR and IG were investigating conduct during his tenure, he had the sense and integrity to withhold comment. Instead of telegraphing his views to the investigative authorities as Holder did, Gonzales made it clear it wouldn’t be appropriate to comment while an investigation was ongoing.

Holder doesn’t care even about the appearance of impropriety. He plainly let the investigators inside OPR and the IG know what he thinks they should conclude.

Worse, Holder almost taunts the majority of Americans who believe men wielding weapons at the entrance to a poll and hurling racial slurs is a serious matter, no matter the race of the perpetrators. All “made up,” he shockingly concludes, providing sanctuary to armed thugs from the highest levels of our government.

"