Just because a person has the right credentials and experience in his field does not automatically mean that he is “qualified”. Past comments and judicial philosophy should also determine whether a person is “suitable” to become the Attorney General of these United States. Eric Holder is not!

From Newsmax.com January 29, 2009

Inhofe: I’m Voting No on Holder for Rights, Justice
Wednesday, January 28, 2009 3:39 PM

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., cites the right to bear arms, his preference for justice over patronage, and the war on terror as reasons he plans to vote against confirming Eric Holder as attorney general.

Inhofe issued his statement in a news release, as well as on his blog and a YouTube video. The statement:

“I wanted you to be the first to know I am going to vote against to the appointment of Eric Holder to be the next attorney general of the United States.

“I believe I am speaking on behalf of Americans who value their Second Amendment personal right to own their own firearms. I also believe I am speaking on behalf of Americans who favor justice over political patronage. Finally, I believe I am speaking on behalf of Americans who realize we are in a War on Terror and want to continue the strong efforts to bring terrorists to justice. I am opposed to the appointment of Eric Holder . . .

“I take particular interest in this nomination, because I, as well as the voters of the state of Oklahoma, feel strongly that the rights conferred upon us by the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantee an individual freedom that no government regulation can take away. Eric Holder’s record and his true beliefs about the Second Amendment are clear. In a brief filed in the Heller case, Holder joined other past Department of Justice officials by saying, “The Second Amendment Does Not Protect Firearms Possession or Use That Is Unrelated To Participation In a Well-Regulated Militia” and that “recognition of an expansive individual right to keep and bear arms for private purposes will make it more difficult for the government to defend present and future firearms laws.”

“That he is opposed to the right to keep and bear arms is bad enough, but I am also very uncomfortable with Mr. Holder’s judgment and record on pardons and clemency during the Clinton administration. He apparently chose to circumvent the standard process by which all pardons are considered and granted, and clouded this process with the appearance of impropriety. If the pardon of Marc Rich was not impropriety, and I believe it was, then it was at the very least extreme negligence, and such negligence has no place in any level of government. Marc Rich, whom many label a tax evader, is in fact even more than that. Rich was indicted in 1983 on 65 counts of not only tax evasion, but also fraud, racketeering, and trading with the enemy. Rich fled to Switzerland before he could stand trial, which is perhaps the most egregious element of this case — he was a fugitive and a regular fixture on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List. And Holder recommended a pardon, bypassed the Department of Justice and the hundreds of individuals who worked to bring Marc Rich to justice, when the man who was being pardoned was not even willing to face the same justice system to which every other American must answer. In fact, Holder admitted during his confirmation hearing that he did not adequately acquaint himself with the facts of the case. The United States Senate should not allow such injustice to go unanswered.

“Equally egregious, Holder was deputy attorney general in an administration which granted clemency to 16 members of the Armed Forces of National Liberation, the terrorist organization FALN. This is a group that carried out violent protests, set off bombs several times in New York City and Chicago and was convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition. The Clinton Administration granted clemency despite opposition from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, FBI, and most importantly, the victims of FALN terrorist activities. This was Holder’s recommendation.

“For at least these reasons, I oppose the nomination of an individual who just doesn’t agree with Americans that I know. I will be voting a definitive no on the Holder nomination.

“I hope that if you feel as strongly as I do about this that you will let your feelings be known — just take the time to let your voices be heard in Washington. Start by leaving a comment on my YouTube page. The Senate needs to hear your voice.”

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 29th, 2009 at 8:29 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.