Profiles in Politics: Attorney General Eric Holder, Part II


G-Miller-Thompson-2 – By G. Miller Thompson –

Last week I wrote about Attorney General Eric Holder’s involvement in American voting rights and in Operation Fast and Furious. Additionally, we took a brief look at the contempt of Congress charge levied against Mr. Holder. This week we will look at one more issue our bold and fearless Attorney General has taken on and examine the truth (or perhaps untruth) behind the statements he made prior to being confirmed.

It seems every few months the gun control debate arises as a result of a public shooting or international conflict. Over the last few years, the debate has become as cyclical as elections. Earlier this month, Holder appeared before a House appropriations committee where he presented a request for $382.1 million in increased spending for so-called “gun safety” measures. (After 6 months of writing this column, we are finally tackling gun control!)

You will never guess what kind of outlandish proposal the AG in his infinite wisdom is offering. He wants “explore” the possibility of developing technology that uses fingerprint identification in order to fire a weapon. How exactly? Well, the AG says “the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear.” That’s right, Holder seems to think all gun users ought to wear a bracelet that communicate with the gun that you have permission to shoot it.

This comes in addition to the already ridiculous number of hoops prospective gun owners must jump through in order to legally purchase a gun. Folks, the Second Amendment states clear as day that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” President Obama has a law degree from Harvard and has taught Constitutional law at the collegiate level. Mr. Holder has a law degree from Columbia Law School. Both men, on paper, seem to be qualified to understand and interpret the Constitution, right? So the question must be asked, why are they so intent on such stringent gun control measures? “Shall not be infringed” is quickly becoming “Should not be infringed, but that is merely a suggestion.” The proof? Holder wants $382.1 million to see just how close he can get to infringing upon our Constitutional rights.

You may remember this quote from Holder in last week’s piece: “The Department of Justice will serve justice, not the fleeting interests of any political party.” Now, a quick search for the Democrats’ stance on gun control yields this result: “We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.”

I am certain that Mr. Holder would challenge my assertion that his obsession with expanding gun control in America is a “fleeting interest” of his party. Think about it, what exactly did Holder mean when he made such a bold statement five years ago? Has the Department of Justice become another arm of the Democratic Party with which it seeks to strangle American freedoms and enslave the populace to an overreaching and irresponsible government? The answer to that question may be quite frightening.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Edgefield Advertiser.
Have something to say? Please leave your comments below.

One Response to "Profiles in Politics: Attorney General Eric Holder, Part II"

  1. Bob Trent   April 23, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    Fast & Furious was a DoJ sanctioned operation under the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) program. OCDETF is a major component of DoJ and is located within Main Justice. The top OCDETF manager is a “senior executive service” level position, the highest rank in federal civil service.
    The process for obtaining OCDETF approval and funding is quite rigorous, requiring a very detailed written proposal. In the case of F&F, the proposal was written by special agent(s) in the ATF Phoenix, AZ field office (this document is one of the many sought by the Issa Committee).
    Once the document is written, it goes through an ATF in-house approval process, which includes approval signatures from the group supervisor for the originating agent(s), the assistant special agent in charge, the deputy special agent in charge, and finally the Special Agent in charge (SAC), William Newell, in the case of F&F.
    Once the SAC signed his approval, the document moves to the Office of the U.S. Attorney for Arizona, Dennis Burke for F&F. All U.S. Attorney offices have in-house panels of career prosecutors that study the proposals to see if they meet with the OCDETF guidelines. Once this panel was satisfied, they referred it to Burke for his approval and signature.
    The next step in the process is for the document to be sent to the regional OCDETF office, which is supervised by career, supervisory prosecutors. They convene a meeting of all of the OCDETF member federal law enforcement agencies, of which there are nine. The designated OCDETF regional coordinators are senior career special agents, with extensive law enforcement experience. They vetted the proposal through their individual agencies to ensure there aren’t any conflicts. Once this is accomplished, the document moves to OCDETF Main Justice, where yet another panel will review the proposal in detail. It isn’t unusual for the proposing special agent(s) to be summoned before the panel for in person explanations.
    We know in the case of F&F it was approved and funded, because it ran for some eighteen months.
    How could it have been approved, if they had written about the actual tactics they implemented – letting guns walk? So they either lied in the proposal or ALL of the reviewing and approving never happened, which I seriously doubt.
    The same Mr. Burke is currently a partner in a security consulting firm (GSIS360), with the former national chief of the U.S. Border Patrol and the former director of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), David Aguilar. They don’t mention in Burke’s corporate bios he was the former U.S. Attorney for Arizona and I think we all know why. They simply say Burke is a former high ranking advisor to DHS.

    Think they might be getting some nice, juicy, federal contracts!