It's Official! Eric Holder is the Worst Attorney General in the History of the Republic

By Proof

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
From the very beginning, Eric Holder has been a disaster. I was on the record opposing his appointment long before the full measure of his bias and incompetence came to light. From the New Black Panther case, where he refused to pursue punishment in a slam dunk case of voter intimidation, strictly because of the color of the offenders' skin, to Fast and Furious, the ill conceived attempt to erode the Second Amendment, via the botched and clumsy gun running program that his department revived (after the Bush administration had terminated it due to its inherent unworkability) and expanded it, resulting in the deaths of a Border Patrol agent, a Mexican chief of police and hundreds of innocent men, women and children south of our southern border.

The oxymoronically named Obama Justice department even sent community organizers down to Florida to gin up protests and incite feelings against George Zimmerman. This was the use of our tax dollars to fund the expenses of AstroTurf rallies, prejudicial towards a citizen presumed innocent under the law. We expect the justice system to be impartial, not to pick winners and losers based on anything other than the law itself. Eric Holder is a disgrace.

And now, in front of the NAACP, the man who called America a nation of cowards, seeks to impose his own cowardice on the right of free citizens to defend themselves.
"It's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods. (Cheers, applause.) These laws try to fix something that was never broken. There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if -- and the "if" is important -- if no safe retreat is available."
"Senselessly". A man who has the FBI to provide him personal protection thinks that you defending yourself in your own home is "senseless".
These laws try to fix something that was never broken
Not true. People have been prosecuted for defending themselves in their own homes. Stand your ground laws and castle doctrines were formulated to protect the rights of citizens to protect them from weasels who spout things like:
There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if -- and the "if" is important -- if no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common-sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely.

Do you understand what he said? If you are in the comparative safety of your own home, and someone invades your house, perhaps carrying weapons and threatening your life and property, Eric Holder says you have a DUTY to run away. Talk about cowardice!

I personally don't believe I have a duty to retreat from my own home if it is invaded. The invader is the one who has a duty to avoid entering my house uninvited. Besides, the weaselly, cowardly AG does not demonstrate how "outside" is necessarily safer than "inside". What if the invader who breached the four walls of my house decides to pursue me outside? Make my stand standing in the bushes, perhaps?

The aphorism "a man's home is his castle" has been around for far longer than the cowardly, craven Eric Holder has been alive. It is part of that "common sense" that he falsely attributes to retreat. One can make defensible places inside one's home. A safe room, if one is so inclined. Proximity to a phone line to call for help. A weapon secured for just such a circumstance. My back yard, on the other hand, is about as defensible as invoking executive privilege for Fast and Furious, or snooping on AP reporters...there's a clear line of sight from virtually every window and door to the six foot fence I would have to scale to put any real distance between myself and an attacker. But, all that aside, perhaps Mr. Holder would care cite the statute or legal doctrine that imposes upon us the "duty" to flee our own homes when attacked?

Beuller? Beuller??

The Obama administration is rife with malcontents, mountebanks and ne'er do wells. And as such, Eric Holder fits right in. I suspect he will be a part of Obama's Reign of Error until the bitter end.

Elections have consequences.

Cross posted at Proof Positive


  1. I'll drink to that!!! I'll have me a couple of glasses of 'Homemade Sangria!!!

  2. As the choir listens to, and then sings the never ending platitudes and hyperbole emanating from the opposing wingnuttery sides of the aisle.

    1. Eric Holder is the top law enforcement official in the land. He directs the US Dept of Justice, and apparently has the funds and the will to target specific individual citizens capriciously. Therefore, when he speaks, he is unlike your garden variety "wingnut". If you ever decide to take exception specifically, to any actual points I make, I will take pains to keep your own wingnuttery rep intact.


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.