An open disdain for the nature of our Constitutional republic must be a requisite to work in the leadership roles of the Obama Administration. In a recent interview, the nation’s chief extortionist officer (Eric Holder) explained that he’s proud to be considered an “activist” attorney general. In fact, he even suggested that being an “activist” was necessary for his job at the Department of Justice:
"If you want to call me an activist attorney general, I will proudly accept that label.”
What if I want to call him something else? He went on:
"Any attorney general who is not an activist is not doing his or her job. The responsibility of the attorney general is to change things."
Um… I don’t have my copy of his job description, but I’m pretty sure that’s a fairly politically biased interpretation of his official duty. See, I always thought the role of an AG was to implement the laws that Congress created, and uniformly protect the rights enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. I don’t actually remember anything in the official DOJ mission statement about investigating journalists, extorting banks, intimidating businesses and industries, or running guns to Mexican drug cartels.
So, Mr. Holder wants to change the world… Then he has the wrong job. He should be a legislator. (Or an overvalued teenage pop-star with vocal political views.) Heck, he’s already proven to have the ethical vacancy to excel at elected office; and if he ran, at least he’d finally be in a position to make some “changes” that don’t require a bastardization of Constitutional limitations.
Recommended
Of course, this brings us to the big question: What change is Holder fighting for with your tax dollars? I mean, he’s obviously not trying to keep guns out of the hands of drug runners; he’s obviously not trying to hold individuals accountable for manipulating the market (if he was, he’d stop suing banks and start suing Fed Officials); and he’s clearly not trying to “change” the culture of corruption at the IRS. Heck, I suppose by Holder’s definition, Lois Lerner wasn’t actually engaged in any corrupt or criminal behavior when she used the IRS to silence political opponents; she was just being an “activist”.
The Department of Justice is supposed to be the nation’s leading law enforcement authority… Does it bother anyone else that the leader of that department is intent on imposing progressive “change”? Isn’t that kinda like a patrol officer slapping a political bumper sticker on their police cruiser? Shouldn’t some modicum of impartiality be a prerequisite for faithfully implementing and enforcing the nation’s laws? Or, am I living in some foreign fantasy world known as the “old America”?
Eric Holder’s view that activism is beneficial necessary to be attorney general, underscores this administration’s perverse view of our civilian economy. We the people have entrusted in the executive branch the power to implement, and execute, the laws of our nation. And in return, our imperial president, and his administration, has shown that they are more than willing to abuse that power, and subvert the Constitutional form of our republic in an effort to implement their unpopular brand of “change”.
The ends justify the means, apparently. And when the other two branches of American government don’t feel like playing nice, I guess Obama Holder Inc. can affect “change” by acting outside the purview of their constitutional roles.
If Holder just promised us a little “hope”, and started campaigning more than working, he might even become the next Democrat President.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member