Eric Holder opened his mouth again today. The only thing most real Americans want to hear from Eric Holder is that he is quitting his job. Unfortunately we won’t hear that any time soon. Holder spoke and it raises one very good question.
What did Holder talk about and what is that very good and very important question?
Holder complained today that the New York Police Department was conducting surveillance of Mosques and Muslims in several areas, including New Jersey.
The question is, whose side is this guy on?
Before he came to the Justice Department, his law firm, Covington and Burlington represented a large number of terrorists being held at Guantanamo. These terrorists had appointed attorneys but Covington and Burlington spent a lot of time and money allowing their employees to represent these terrorists pro bono. As Michelle Malkin pointed out in her book “The Culture of Corruption,” Holder was a senior partner at that firm. There is no way Covington and Burlington would have done this without at least his knowledge and probable support.
Holder has wanted to close GITMO. He has wanted criminal trials for enemy combatants in Federal Courts where he knows an open and public trial would reveal many of America’s secrets to our enemies.
Recently the Obama regime appointed a lawyer who had defended a number of Islamic terrorists including John Walker Lindh to be the number three official at Justice.
Does anyone doubt this was done without Holder’s blessing?
Which all brings us back to Holder’s comments today about the NYPD. The Muslims are upset that we are conducting surveillance on them.
Too bad. This is what happens when you are a part of a religion that is not only violent, that is committed to a worldwide theocracy but has engaged in acts of terrorism that have killed thousands of Americans.
New York has seen the World Trade Center attacked twice. It has also seen a number of terrorist attacks thwarted. Do you know what all of those attacks had in common?
The terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 or back in 1993 at the first World Trade Center attack did not come from Our Lady of Sorrows. They did not come from the missionary office of the Southern Baptist Convention.
They came from Mosques, some of which were in New Jersey where the NYPD was conducting surveillance.
While Holder and the Obama regime were kowtowing to groups that are hostile to America and may well support groups and individuals that want to cause harm and terror here in America, the NYPD was stopping at least 14 terrorist attacks since 9/11.
Eric Holder’s sympathies are not with America and real Americans. He despises this nation and wants to see not a great America, but an America that is an insignificant socialist hellhole.
Real Americans have the right to be grateful for the fine work of the NYPD and to be outraged that someone like Eric Holder could ever become the Attorney General of the United States.
It will not die on my watch. Stand and be counted or get plowed under.
The UN-Lone Ranger
We might as well just turn it over to Obama. The Congress is worthless.
DEFEATIST ATTITUDES WILL ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING GOOD. STAND UP, GET MAD, AND FIGHT. i PROMISE YOU WILL NOT STAND ALONE
I am mad. But, people only want to type. I want results.
They are coming believe me. I have multiple communication venues with many people. I travel cross country annually. I am reading it across the board. Hang in there. It won't be pretty but it will come.
Our next government should face a law that states if they mention a party's affiliation or function as such, they will immediately be relieved of their position. All this Democrap, elephant poop, and "My colleagues across the isle" BS should be outlawed. This is the UNITED States of America. Can you imagine the time and money that has been wasted on today's government be it federal, state or local. If they can not function doing the will of those they represent, they need to be immediately replaced. Good, loyal business men can run this country according to the Constitution. Some good lawyers if you can find some would help.
This is just ANOTHER attempt to get rid of a great Commissioner. Holder gets his marching orders
from the State Dept. Duh! I don't understand why Holder is NOT in jail. I am just sick of all these
treasonous politicians and CRY OUT TO ALMIGHTY GOD TO SEND HIS POWER ONCE AGAIN
TO OUR GLORIOUS NATION. We are the greatest nation in the world, next to Israel. What our
Lord did for our founding fathers HE CAN STILL DO THE SAME FOR US NOW. In this Lenten
Season, let us all bow and CRY ALOUD for DIVINE INTERVENTION. This corruption is totally
demonic. Send GREAT AWAKENING TO AMERICA DEAR LORD! AWAKEN YOUR PEOPLE
LORD. WE ARE IN DESPERATE NEED OF YOU DEAR LORD. FORGIVE US AND SEND
This illustrates a problem I have with many self-described "conservatives:" it isn't about principle, it's about control. The only thing that distinguishes these putative conservatives from the liberals they excoriate is which aspect of our lives they want under their thumb.
New York is NOT New Jersey. New York's officers (from ANY of the three branches of government) have NO authority in any other state. There is no such thing as a "good reason" for assuming powers and authorities ANY government hasn't got. We are a nation of laws, and our supreme law has been carefully amended to limit government's power and authority. It doesn't matter that people will die if some government and its agents don't cross the line of delegated powers: people don't have to volunteer to wear a uniform to accept the value that freedom and liberty are more important than life.
Our fifty State constitutions, and our national Constitution, tell us government's duty to us, and our duty to government. These aren't general guidelines. These are solid stone walls that are NOT to be breached, no matter how emergent or dire the circumstance. Not for the sake of public safety or "law and order" any more than for individual mandates to purchase government's notion of health insurance.
Judson's apparent defense of New York's trespass on New Jersey chips a large piece of credibility from his claim to conservative beliefs.
As a retired police officer, I can tell you with certainty that there is no law restricting officers from one jurisdiction from conducting a surveillance in another jurisdiction. The officers from NY do not, however, have the authority to actually enforce any laws in NJ unless it is done in concert with the NJ authorities, which is often the case. They can keep a suspect(s) under surveillance until they enter NY and may then be arrested if they violate a NY law. In some areas, officers are deputized by the Sheriff of an adjoining county in order that they may lawfully assist in that county if needed, but this is usually done within state borders.
Thank you for the additional information. I believe it is still true, however, that a person who is a law enforcement officer in Nebraska (for example) is simply a private citizen in Maine (absent being deputized, as you describe, or a Maine law that expressly grants recognition of "foreign" law enforcement conducting itself as such within its borders). Of course, a private citizen may spend his time in Maine watching birds, fishing boats or criminals - but I would be more than surprised in NY's police in NJ did not employ methods and technologies "watching" Muslims that would have gotten the common citizen arrested.
NY's trespass on NJ is just a superficial harm, however. The greater issue is the dignity due law enforcement these days, overall - very little. Those who enforce our laws are entitled to no more respect than the laws, themselves, deserve, and the State's regard for citizens merely accused of violating them. Today, we have SWAT teams making hard entrances into grocery stores - helmets, body armor, full-auto weapons drawn - that sell whole milk (an Amish man had this delightful experience, that convinced him to stop farming altogether). Spend an evening in any municipal court, and watch prosecutors dicker with defendants for pleas that net maximum fines for minimum prosecutorial effort - and the people submit because they know that, once accused, they're already guilty. That old, American notion of, "innocent until proven guilty," is a complete fiction these days, when a cop's testimony is all the "proof" a court asks for or requires.
You know as well as I do that, if a cop wants charge a citizen with something, there are laws enough on the books that he'll find something to charge him with - and prosecutors have enough discretion to make a horse a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of convicting someone for DUI if he wants to.
To top it off, there's the opposite notion of "police discretion,' which holds that police cannot be compelled to affect an arrest without a warrant being issued. In fact, a 9-1-1 call to police that the rape of 5 year old child is in progress isn't enough to legally compel the police to respond in any way at all. Read the US Supreme Court case, Town of Castle Rock, CO, v. Jessica Gonzales, et al., if you have any doubt: her 3 kids weren't raped, just murdered.
This isn't the American way.
I can't disagree with much of what you say, although I have personally had my truthful testimony disregarded on a number of occasions by some judges, resulting in a dismissal. I was just pointing out the specifics of that particular circumstance regarding surveillance outside of an officer's jurisdiction..
A local sheriff's deputy calls me his uncle, He comes to my farm with his teenage son to target shoot, or just to hang around the wood stove in my shop with me and drink beer. We've become very close over the years. There are good cops out there, and I didn't mean to impugn any one of the thousands of them. There's a difference, though, between the badge and the people who wear it: with each passing year, I have less and less respect for the badge.
When I was much younger, police used their discretion NOT to charge people. They relied on respect for their badges to give their warnings - and sometimes, just good, simple advice - real weight, and a citizen they had spoken to was duly chastened by the knowledge that they received consideration the officer was under no obligation to give them. This was in the day when people didn't consider themselves entitled to anything they hadn't earned, and it was the fact that they hadn't earned the cop's consideration that created a sense of debt in them toward that cop. It was a debt of honor, and stronger because it lived inside them than anything a judge could have imposed.
We've lost that sense of having to earn what we get. People no longer feel obliged to the cop who cuts them a break: they think they're just getting away with something. So the cops have pushed back, trying to recover that sense of respect by greater and greater exercises of their authority - and they're achieving exactly the opposite result.
If I had a child considering a career in law enforcement, I'd tell him he needs professional help if he's willing to volunteer for the contempt he's setting himself up for.