That time was long, long ago.
Paul Ryan earlier today sent this e-mail to Romney supporters, calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to resign, and urging voters to replace both he and President Obama in November.
It’s time for Attorney General Holder to step aside.
He’s misled Congress, and entirely botched the investigation of the Operation Fast and Furious debacle — yet he still leads our nation’s Justice Department.
It’s just another example of the Obama Administration’s transparent hypocrisy that despite the tragic and very human toll of this scandal, Attorney General Holder refuses to resign — and President Obama refuses to remove him.
It’s up to the American people to replace both of them on November 6. Let’s call it “The Clear Choice.”
Donate now to vote Barack Obama and Attorney General Holder out of office on Election Day — so that Mitt Romney and I can restore justice to the Justice Department.
Meanwhile, as we all wonder why Holder hasn’t already resigned as a show of respect to the lives his department have permanently destroyed, Univision is continuing to report on guns from Fast and Furious being used in other murders, possibly as late as the summer of 2011.
Via the Daily Caller:
When Mexican authorities took Juarez drug cartel carnage king Jose Antonio Acosta Hernandez — better known as “El Diego” — into custody, he had weapons from Operation Fast and Furious on his person, the English-language transcript of the Spanish-language television network Univision’s special investigation into the scandal shows.
“According to investigations, ‘El Diego’ forms the link between this massacre and Fast and Furious,” an anchor read on air in Spanish Sunday evening, referring to two different mass killings drug cartel operatives used Fast and Furious weapons to conduct as Univision reported.
“When he [El Diego] was captured in Chihuahua in the summer of 2011, he was found with weapons that the American government had allowed to enter Mexico,” the anchor added.
El Diego was, until he was taken into custody, the leader of the Juarez drug cartel’s La Linea — or “enforcement arm.” According to the El Paso Times, El Diego told Mexican authorities after his capture that La Linea’s mission was, among other things, to “eliminate the members of the Sinaloa cartel in Ciudad Juárez.”
Holder should indeed step aside.
This hardly seems like actions befitting somebody serving as a State Attorney General.
The West Virginia Attorney’s General race has been hit by controversy after incumbent Democrat Darrell McGraw was captured on video intimidating a young member of his opponent Patrick Morrisey’s staff.
In the video, McGraw, 75, approaches and begins to bully 24-year-old Morrisey staffer and tracker Justin Lafferty, asking him how he “got into the filming business.” Unrelenting, he asks, “Are you a stalker? Is this guy a stalker?” A woman joins in the fray, saying, “I don’t know but we don’t do that down here.”
The state’s chief law enforcement officer then mumbles, “Well let me tell you — look –” before he reaches for McGraw’s camera; the video then ends abruptly.
It’s hard to tell, but whatever happens in the end is swift and pretty jolting when watching the video. It appears as if McGraw engages Lafferty in conversation as a way to sneak in and either take or hit the camera.
What do you think?
Some call it a backing of affirmative action policies, while others call it a full-throated endorsement of discrimination. Regardless, 13 attorneys general, led by New York’s own Eric Schneiderman, have filed a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold racial preferences in college admissions.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, on behalf of 14 states, is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold racial preferences in college admissions.
The court is scheduled to hear arguments Oct. 10 in a lawsuit by Abigail Fisher, a white student who was not admitted to the University of Texas in 2008. Fisher is challenging the university’s admissions policy as a violation of her civil and constitutional rights.
The court’s ruling will be its first on affirmative action in higher education since 2003.
“The states all share a strong interest in preserving the flexibility of their varied institutions to pursue a range of strategies to achieve the educational benefits of diversity in higher education,” Schneiderman and state Solicitor General Barbara Underwood said in a brief filed late Monday. They noted that public schools like the State University of New York, ranging from community colleges to research universities, enroll about 72 percent of post-secondary students nationally and play an especially important role for students with modest means.
Other states joining the brief were Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia, plus the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The Justice Department has argued that a diverse college population is not only in the best interest of the university, but also the government’s. But the tactics in which a college attains that diversity is what is in question, as the University of Texas had shifted from accepting students based on class rank, to finding other ways to diversify the student population. In other words, some students who may have been accepted based on academic performance would now compete with others who may have been chosen based on better personal essays or on their extracurricular merits – and with race in mind.
The brief (provided below) is very similar to one filed in 2010 with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, also supporting the University of Texas’ use of racial preferences in their undergraduate admissions process. The brief had been filed by then solicitor general and current Justice, Elena Kagan, and stems from the same battle begun in the 2003 ruling that narrowly permitted race-conscious policies in public higher education.
Such blatant support for the exploitation of race in education was panned by the National Review’s Roger Clegg, when he described the brief as “a full-throated endorsement of such discrimination.”
The Supreme Court’s review of this affirmative action case may have political ramifications as well. The review is expected to occur in October—placing it squarely in the minds of voters just weeks prior to the presidential election.
“The Congressional inquiry into Operation Fast and Furious, and the cover-up by Justice Department officials of wrongdoing, has been a fair and fact based investigation. False and partisan allegations by the White House and some congressional Democrats about the Oversight Committee’s efforts were undermined by the votes of 17 Democrats. These Members resisted the pressure of their own leadership and the Obama Administration to support this investigation on the House floor.
“Claims by the Justice Department that it has fully cooperated with this investigation fall at odds with its conduct: issuing false denials to Congress when senior officials clearly knew about gunwalking, directing witnesses not to answer entire categories of questions, retaliating against whistleblowers, and producing only 7,600 documents while withholding over 100,000.
“I greatly appreciate the ongoing efforts of Senator Chuck Grassley, his staff, and other Senators on the Judiciary Committee who have pressed the Obama Administration for the full truth. Senator Grassley began this investigation and has been a full partner throughout it. I must also recognize the hard work done by many of my colleagues here in the House – without their efforts the Justice Department’s stonewalling would have succeeded.
“My message to my colleagues and others who have fought for answers: We are still fighting for the truth and accountability – for the family of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, for whistleblowers who have faced retaliation, and for countless victims of Operation Fast and Furious in Mexico. Unless President Obama relents to this bipartisan call for transparency and an end to the cover-up, our fight will move to the courts where we will prevail in getting the documents that the Justice Department and President Obama’s flawed assertion of executive privilege have denied the American people.”
As if yesterday’s report on the massive ballot fraud case in upstate New York wasn’t disconcerting enough, here is a video provided by James O’Keefe and the Daily Caller, showing ballots being handed out in New Hampshire in the names of dead people. Shockingly enough, one of the election workers specifically says they can get away with this because in New Hampshire, “no ID (is) needed”.
Aren’t the Democrats the ones vehemently trying to fight voter ID requirements on the grounds that it’s racist?
In an op-ed yesterday, Newt Gingrich explains why requiring identification, something the Obama administration and Eric Holder have fought tooth and nail, is imperative for the integrity of one of our most important civic duties: voting.
But requiring a photo ID to vote is a common-sense security measure that helps ensure those without legal citizenship don’t vote, those with multiple homes or properties only vote once and that no one votes in place of another. Voters are harmed when illegal or fraudulent votes are cast, as they dilute or discount legitimate votes cast by honest Americans.