Is Eric Holder, the US Attorney General actually the Commander-in-Chief or is Barack Hussein Obama delivering his marching orders?

Mr. Holder released a letter yesterday to Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) defending the Obama administration’s criminal justice system approach to prosecuting the war against al-Qaeda. Defending his administration’s handling of the Flight 253 terrorist, Holder wrote:

“I made the decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab with federal crimes, and to seek his detention in connection with those charges, the knowledge of, and with no objection from, all other relevant departments of the government.”

In sworn testimony by Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair answering a question by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Mr. Blair directly contradicts AG Holder.

Sen. Collins asked Mr. Blair if he had been consulted about how Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated. Mr. Blair responded:

“I was not consulted” and has since said his remarks have been “misconstrued.”

Retractions don’t count for much when you are contradicting previous testimony under oath.

I propose that Holder and Blair meet with Congress, together and under oath, to settle the argument so we may understand what side the Attorney General comes down on. It’s our belief, based on his actions and his work as an attorney in civilian life, that he protects the Jihadists and wishes to convey on them all rights under the US Constitution as provided a real US citizen.

In his letter to Mr. McConnell, Mr. Holder wrote:

“Neither advising Abdulmutallab of his Miranda rights nor granting him access to counsel prevents us from obtaining intelligence from him. On the contrary, history shows that the federal justice system is an extremely effective tool for gathering intelligence.” Holder appears to be arguing that reading suspects their Miranda rights is a great way to get them to talk.

We didn’t know Abdulmutallab, a citizen of Nigeria, had “rights” in the United States. Silly us!

American University law professor Kenneth Anderson notes:

“The point of offering suspects the Miranda warning and associated rights is not in order to persuade them to talk, but in order to make sure they know they don’t have to and, if they have much in the way of brains, won’t.”

Weekly Standard’s Stephen F. Hayes points to this exchange between CNN’s Paula Zahn and Holder about American Taliban John Walker Lindh from January 28, 2002.

Zahn: “How much pressure should they put on this man to get information out of him as they interrogate him?”

Holder replied: “Well, I mean, it’s hard to interrogate him at this point now that he has a lawyer and now that he is here in the United States. But to the extent that we can get information from him, I think we should.”

So Blair contradicts Holder, then himself via a retraction and Holder contradicts himself from a conversation he had in 2002.

Speaking at the Heritage Foundation, Sen. McConnell says: (Full Video below transcript)

“The fact remains that all the intelligence he possessed concerning the locations, training techniques, and communications methods of Al Qaeda in Yemen is perishable. Yemeni forces needed that information on December 25th, not six weeks later. Meanwhile, the American people are left to wonder whether, in place of interrogations, their safety depends on terrorists having families who can persuade them to talk.”

“No one denies that a balance must be struck between preserving civil liberties and protecting the homeland. No one wants to sacrifice one for the other. But in many cases, all that’s involved is a simple question of judgment. And when a judgment call has to be made, our priorities should be clear: keeping Americans safe should always win out, within the law.”

Its Barack Obama’s role to balance national security and civil liberties so we wonder: Did Obama instruct Mr. Holder to provide Miranda rights similar to his order to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan or was Mr. Holder acting alone?

Watching the Obama administration play this out we put our money on the fact that this group of political ilk has an interest in protecting enemy combatants, terrorists, al-Qaeda, Taliban and any other group by any other name with an objective to destroy America. Indeed!

Maybe you don’t know who Lech Walesa is. You should learn and listen to his warning.

From Anne Kane at American Thinker:

From the Gdansk Lenin Shipyards to the city of the Back of the Yards, Lech Walesa, former President of Poland, and preeminent community organizer, attended a fundraiser on Friday, January 29, to endorse Adam Andrzejewski (an gee eff skie) who is one of six Republicans seeking the nomination of his party for Governor of Illinois.

Walesa , who led trade union strikes in Poland in the early 1980s, managed to bring about needed economic and political change for laborers without resorting to violence.

He led the Solidarność or Solidarity, a broad anti-Soviet social movement. Its activities included workers taking to the streets to demand the right to self-govern in a communist country. Eventually, Solidarity claimed victory, and the Polish people elected Walesa as president in 1990.

These were remarkable events, remarkable times and helped contribute to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Mr. Walesa’s name stands with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher from the same era of fighting communism.

Mr. Walesa had this to say about today’s America:

The United States is only one superpower. Today they lead the world. Nobody has doubts about it. Militarily. They also lead economically but they’re getting weak. But they don’t lead morally and politically anymore. The world has no leadership.

The United States was always the last resort and hope for all other nations. There was the hope, whenever something was going wrong, one could count on the United States. Today, we lost that hope.

So much for “Hope” because the change we’re getting in Washington may be similar to what Mr. Walesa fought against to gain freedom for his workers and the Polish people.

In the video below Andrew Breitbart’s “Big Government” interviews Mr. Walesa where he states, “America Is Moving Toward Socialism.”

Change for Solidarity in America, change for Conservatism. Indeed!

The Cold War-era cartoon below uses humor to tout the dangers of Communism and the benefits of capitalism. Spend just over 9-minutes to watch the video and decide who the villain in the cartoon is today and let us know your feelings in the comment section. Thanks!

Make mine freedom, indeed!

The more I try to digest Barack Hussein Obama the more I get acute indigestion. No, I couldn’t listen to his “State of the Union” address this week and turned down the radio when snippets of his voice came over the air waves.

Reading about the speech in the aftermath I came to believe not much was different, it was the same old line read off a teleprompter promising this, promising that, criticizing the past, ensuring he would get what he wants and then………WHAT? Obama verbally attacked the Justices (well at least five while four received collateral damage) for a recent decision upholding the US Constitution in the case Citzens United v. Federal Elections Commission.

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

This was such poor judgment but I’m sure very well planned. What followed was a continuation of the frontal assault with attacks from the sides and rear. Sun Tzu would be proud (THE ART OF WAR) while Democratic senators, congressmen and cabinet officials surrounding the six seated justices in attendance as a courtesy stood, applauded and cheered (or jeered) depending on your point of view.

Certainly, not everyone agrees with the Supreme Court and a whole discourse is available in Mark Levin’s Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America.

The annual address known at the State of the Union is heard around the world by the person occupying the most powerful office in the world to the largest democratic body ever known to the world live at prime time on television, radio and streaming across the Internet.

Singling out Supreme Court justices in front of a huge audience or any audience for that matter is as distasteful and dishonest as anything imaginable. We should expect more but now we have come to expect the worse from Mr. Obama who asks for bi-partisanship, criticizes his predecessor non-stop, lies publicly to the American public and becomes irritable and threatening. He acts more like a playground bully then what is expected from his office and the respect it deserves.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United concerned the right of labor unions and domestic corporations, including nonprofits, to express their views about candidates in media such as books, films and TV within 60 days of an election. In short, it concerned freedom of speech; in particular, an independent film critical of Hillary Clinton funded by a nonprofit corporation.

To hear the state run media one would think the Justices gave the largest companies in the world carte blanche to buy off any politician they want. We call that lobbying and it’s an art form on K-Street in the Beltway.

Certainly, Obama’s address was vetted before being issue only 30-minutes prior to reading it live before a joint session of Congress and the world. Certainly, a graduate of Harvard Law and someone who lectured on Constitutional Law would have some idea on how to research the facts and separate them from ludicrous claims.

No, Mr. Obama knew what he was doing and that was demonstrating his lack of class, humility while ignoring facts, law and Stare Decisis. Sorry, this is a man on a mission and it’s not a good thing for a Democracy. Yes, Obama has said, “words mean something” and when they are spoken with intent of malice in a public forum ambushing six members of the judiciary, and calling upon the legislative branch to deride them publicly. Setting the stage for his outrageous claim Obama began, “with all due respect” and proceeded to behave disrespectfully.

The facts are simple if you know where to look for them and any vetting process worth its salt would know that SCOTUS reversed a 1990 decision allowing a ban on free speech as brought in Citizens United, it left standing current restrictions on foreign nationals and “entities.” Also left untouched was a 100-year-old ban on domestic corporate contributions to political campaigns to which Obama was presumably referring to erroneously. Obama got the whole thing incorrect in only 72 words without reference to the US Constitution or First Amendment, something quite visible in the decision by the court.

Mr. Obama and anyone else may criticize rulings by the Supreme Court; it’s done all the time. However, rudeness and disrespect in public from the occupant of the highest office in the land requires a public apology.

Mr. Obama, it’s time to make that apology but we won’t hold our breath. He lacks the character to stand up and be a man and to be a true leader. Indeed!

See Also: Why the pre-eminent First Amendment expert disagrees with Obama.

Hat Tip: Betty Albright