Discussion of Holder bio (Fox news: Eric Holder being Vetted for Obama AG) involves the Bill Clinton Pardons (including Marc Rich), but for some reason I've seen more coverage regarding the Elian Gonzalez situation (all elements can be part of this thread discussion). To start off this discussion I wanted to recap the Gonzalez "situation," but instead I decided I would just bring forth [with little additions/edit] an Article I put together Elian Gonzalez, A Lesson In Freedoms (c) April 2000 and thought we would evolve the conversation from there. Whether focus remains on Holder and involvement with Elian or the issues of the Clinton Pardons, or some other points/concerns you have about Holder (or other points brought up in the original article if you like) is entirely up to the participants...
If you recall the whole Elian situation, you may want to skip down (past the fold) to the more directly about Eric Holder as potential AG section of this Diary.
Created: April 23, 2000
Revised: April 26, 2000
Elian Gonzalez - A Lesson In Freedoms
LAST FEW DAYS EVENTS:
It has been rather interesting, and somewhat surreal to witness the last few months, and especially the last few days (with the INS' abduction/rescue depending on your "side" of this issue and) events. It is time for a long hard look "objectively as possible" at this Emotion based issue and at what is (has been) really transpiring.
CLINTONS, CHILDS RIGHTS, FATHERS RIGTHS, COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM (the 3 sides):
On the one side you have the Clintons, who we've seen on record in the past as the supposed defenders of "Child's rights" and Hillary who has supported the "Right" (another abuse of the term) of a Child to sue his/her Parent(s) for Divorce. Now, we are expected to believe they have discovered the long held Conservative "Parental," or specifically in this case Father's Rights. But, again, the Clintons have apparently just figured this out. Or is this rather a case of, and it is my contention/opinion, that it is their love, admiration, fascination, and willingness to cater/pander to the Communist/Socialist Philosophy (i.e.. Castro/Cuba, in this case [but remember too the Communist China fundraising, etc]).
Side 2 gives us the Federal Government in general, the INS specifically, and how this is all overseen by the Justice Department and Janet Reno [Eric Holder, in the case of who ordered the actual action]. This country has long held the assertion that Children do not have a full set of Rights. This has been upheld time and time again. Who amongst you would argue a Child's Right to the 2nd Amendment guarantee of the Right to Keep and Bear arms? A Child's other Rights are as equally withheld or limited - Substance use (Alcohol) laws, Driving privileges, etc... For them it has been an issue of "The rule of Law," whether one likes or agrees with the Law is another issue (and I'll be touching on this again very shortly). Has the Father been abusive? thereby justifying the taking away of this Fathers Rights? Have the Miami relatives been abusive in their, as quoted in the Press, "parading the child around" and the infamous "I want to stay in America" tape that, again, depending on your EMOTIONAL reaction to it frames your opinion on whether it is abuse or not! [anti-Castro/Cuba indoctrination, frankly I think our NEA run Indoctrination Factories are an abuse of our children - yes, a stretch but you know what I mean]
Lastly, we have those in the "Cuban-American" camp, as the picture has been painted by the media, and further played up by such appearances and attempts at manipulations of Public opinion by Andy Garcia and Gloria Estefan. It appears to be the shear disdain for Communism that fuels their Emotional reaction to the issues at hand. [which is generally my point-of-view, but I said I was trying to be "objective" and removing as much emotion from the issue as possible]
THE CUBAN AMERICAN PROTESTERS CONCERN ABOUT THEIR TREATMENT - THEIR PERCEPTION OF BEING IN THE RIGHT:
It is this that is the point of this article. Not that of whose side is right or wrong, but of what side isn't wrong in some way shape or form. All of a sudden we see a group of individuals taking to the streets to defend the "perceived" Right(s) of this child Elian. It is once again, their ox being gorged. They felt violated and abused by their Government when they came in to take Elian out of Miami and reunite him with his father. How dare they (the US Government) attack them with Pepper spray as they tried to stop the pickup? How dare the Government react against their "Right to Assembly" because THEY perceive themselves to be in the RIGHT (emotionally, and whether or not that coincides with the Law doesn't/didn't seem to matter)! Would they care if this were a Mexican child? What about a Chinese child? Where were they, or read YOU, when the enumerated Rights as granted by the Constitution of the United States were being trampled? Wasn't their concern, they couldn't be bothered (more on this to come).
MALICE GREEN AND RODNEY KING:
Similarly, we have the cases of Green [Michigan case] and King [The "can't we just get along" CA case]. Green a known Drug abuser. King, a known wife abuser (convicted) and Drug user. Yet when these men met with a run-in with the law it was the African-Americans ox being gorged. Never mind the facts, emotions spilled over. Peoples opinions and sides, in many cases, were/are taken based on Race, not the rule of Law and "objective reasoning." Then there are the stories that abound, albeit not on the front pages of our defenders of Freedom the Press, where on a tip from an informant (A CRIMINAL looking to get favorable treatment) tips the BATF to a drug house. The BATF enter and a Man defending his wife and property, unknowing these are BATF agents when they burst in when he and his wife were asleep, uses a firearm and is killed. All because the agents went to the wrong house. Believe the story? I've not received an official confirmation, if you find the news story send it to me, but the fact that you believe it would/could happen is proof enough that the system is out of Control and Criminals are being protected while honest citizens are persecuted.
WACO AND RUBY RIDGE:
Yet again, where were all of these people above when it came to the persecution, Government mishandling, and violation of the Rights to due process of these people? When the Government painted a distorted picture of these groups as "Gun nuts" people turned their backs. When only accusations (no official charges and certainly NO convictions) of Child abuse was levied against the Branch Davidians, not many cared as they were either "Gun nuts," "Cultists or Religious freaks," and/or "Child abusers," as willingly portrayed by the media for our "honest" and "forthright" Government. Where were they? Where were you?
THE DUNG ON THE VIRGIN MARY:
Then, of course, there are those 1st Amendment nuts. Shxx on the Virgin Mary, Piss on the Cross of Jesus Christ, Blood exhibits, Mapplethorpe, and etc... Yes, there is a first Amendment, and frankly I'll defend their Right to this stuff (just not their insistence that I should have to help them pay for it), but would they defend any of my Rights? Once again, whose ox is being gorged? What if you wanted to display anti-gay, anti-whatever, art? Would you get the same commitment to upholding the concept of Freedom of Expression? I think not!
What about the War on Tobacco (a legal substance)? What's going to follow that, you don't honestly think these "Health Zealots" are going to go home and start watching Sitcoms as their next hobby, do you? Next, and we've seen hints of this already, perhaps will be Foods high in Fat? We've already seen Democrats talking about a Fat Tax! In some States staple items (necessities to life) like Food have been Sales Tax free, Junk food (as it is characterized) may soon be Taxed. Who does that hurt the most? And What about Alcohol? Didn't we learn this didn't work before? At least the Prohibition of Alcohol was done CONSTITUTIONALLY through an Amendment, although later repealed. Our Rights today are being eroded without Constitutional Amendments, and further without regard to the Constitution PERIOD!
IF YOU DONT CARE ABOUT OTHERS RIGHTS, WHY SHOULD THEY CARE ABOUT YOURS:
So you see, my friends, we now really get down to the crux of the issue. If you are unwilling to defend your neighbors Rights, why should you expect him/her to give a darn about yours??
THE CONSTITUTION, IF YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO DEFEND THE WHOLE DOCUMENT THEN IT IS AS WORTHLESS AND AS EASILY SHREDDED AS THE PAPER IT IS PRINTED ON:
This country's toying around the edges of Socialism has many confused [and still haven't awakened to this day, obviously]. There are many who don't care and are unwilling to act unless/until it is their ox being gorged. So many are fond of this Socialist program or another because it either gives them a hand out or just makes them "feel good" about doing nothing to help their family, friends, and/or neighbors directly and on their own.
WHO WILL DEFEND YOU IF/WHEN YOUR RIGHTS ARE TRAMPLED?:
Ask yourself that honestly. What side will the Police take when they are driving down your street if the Government trumps up some story about/against you? The Police are supposed to protect and Serve the PEOPLE, yet they seem to protect and serve only the Bureaucrats and those in control of the Government, whether they are Constitutionally, Morally, or Legally correct in their assertions. Or will they just defend their ability to collect a paycheck by following those in charge no matter how morally corrupt and bankrupt they are?
ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION:
Are you really paying attention? If you're reading this article you at least thought you were and I've hopefully struck a cord. Others have blown over this article because they might have to question themselves, their motives, their intentions, their position on the issues, or maybe they're just too busy rushing home to watch the latest Sitcom because it is of such life importance to them and this is America after all. Nothing like any of these things could happen to them, right? WAKE UP!
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ABOUT RENO'S HANDLING OF THE ELIAN RAID:
Now we hear of hearings about Janet Reno [and as we later found, Eric Holder's involvement], the Justice Department, and INS' handling of the raid to took Elian from the Miami residence and re-united him with his father. While I am NO fan of Janet Reno, this smacks of shear politics and a waste of time. It further undermines reasons why anyone should Vote for the Party that these people are members of, in the next election. Why? If Janet Reno was allowed to keep her job following the botched raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas, how or why should ANY action be taken against her for the "perfectly planned and executed" raid in Miami that was held under Legal conditions based on ALL related issues/rulings in this case. The Florida court upheld that Elian should stay in the U.S. but the INS ruling, while restrained, has not been overturned, and the Miami relatives have yet to have any ruling granting them custody of the child. If this were one parent having taken a child from the other childs parent [an across State lines issue], it would (and is similarly in this case) be a case of child-abduction on the part of those who don't have legal custody. Janet Reno should not have her job, and perhaps even be behind bars herself, but for the "negligent-homicide" of innocent people in Waco Texas, not over the Miami raid.
The only good that comes of this side show is that it hopefully reduces the time spent by our Officials from debating what other NEW stupid Laws and/or Taxes they could impose on U.S. citizens.
This authors, and the others on the "Asylum for Elian" sides, disdain for Communism/Socialism makes it understandable how they "emotionally" arrive at their conclusion. Politically I would agree, and if this were a boy of at least 16, he could apply and become an Emancipated minor and ask for asylum. However, he is not near old enough, unless like I've stated earlier Hilary has supported, wants to file on Elians behalf a filing for Divorce from his Father (just plain stupid!) then it remains an issue purely of Parental Rights and not Political Ideology. The Clinton's have it right, but for the WRONG reasons (Communist/Socialist pandering).