My Senator's response to my thank you to him for voting against Eric Holder


Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
February 11, 2009, 10:13 AM
There may be language in this response which you guys can utilize somewhere as a succint summary of why Holder stinks. If only every state could have a Jim Inhofe......

Dear Mr. *****:

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the nomination of Eric Holder to serve as the Attorney General of the United States. As your Senator, I appreciate hearing your views.

The position of U.S. Attorney General is very important in the United States government and should only be filled by an exceptionally qualified individual. Although Eric Holder has significant experience within the Department of Justice, I do not believe he is ideologically suited to serve as the chief lawyer of this country, and therefore I was compelled to vote against his nomination. Unfortunately, a majority of my colleagues in the Senate voted to confirm Eric Holder on February 2, 2009, by a margin of 75 to 21.

During his tenure in the Department of Justice, Holder exercised poor judgment and failed to demonstrate political independence. Specifically, he chose to circumvent a standard White House and Department of Justice pardon process when he recommended a pardon for fugitive financier Marc Rich. Rich was indicted on 65 counts of tax evasion, fraud, racketeering, and trading with the enemy. He engaged in dealings with terrorist states and rogue regimes, trading oil with the Khomeini regime during the Iran Hostage Crisis, undermining the U.S. trade embargo. 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. Despite Rich's blatant disrespect for the law and the interests of the United States, Holder ignored the standard process and recommended the pardon for Rich.

Holder also played a significant role in granting clemency to sixteen members of the Puerto Rican Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN) terrorist organization. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, this organization was responsible for more than 120 bombings throughout the United States, killing six people and injuring dozens more. The actions of the sixteen members who were granted clemency included robbery, bomb-making, and sedition. Despite these activities, Holder recommended that President Clinton grant them clemency.

Perhaps most concerning to me, Eric Holder maintains alarming views on the Second Amendment right to bear arms. He has advocated for federal licensing of handgun owners, banning possession of handguns to anyone under the age of 21, and national gun registration. Most distressing, however, is that he was part of an amicus brief in support of the District of Columbia gun ban in the Supreme Court review of D.C. v. Heller, arguing against the individual right to possess a firearm. Although the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment is indeed an individual right, I do not believe the decision has changed Holder's underlying views. I believe his leadership as Attorney General will be a detriment to the gun ownership rights of American citizens. I have always felt strongly that the rights conferred upon us by the Second Amendment guarantee an individual freedom that no government regulation can take away.

Finally, Holder has voiced his support for closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, which could mean moving detainees to the mainland United States. [more nazi stuff on gitmo and torture, which I don't really care for, but....]

Thank you again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future with any other comments or concerns you may have.

If you didn't already know, the dirty deed is now done; he was confirmed as AG over the attempted veto of a few like Inhofe.

If you enjoyed reading about "My Senator's response to my thank you to him for voting against Eric Holder" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
February 11, 2009, 10:24 AM
Is he interested in running for president?

Old Fuff
February 11, 2009, 11:08 AM
I too am confused... :confused:

User names often have nothing to do with the individual's true occupation or background, and it is also a core rule on this forum that it is issues that are open to discussion, and not the poster's personality. Frankly, I don’t give a hoot about the user names people choose to give themselves. In relation to the posted message they are irrelevant.

Frankly, I’m glad the letter was posted. My senator was one that voted for confirmation, and he’s going to hear from me! In the process I will include some quotes from this letter to help make my points.

February 11, 2009, 11:32 AM
I assure you all, I am not a tank. I am a human being. Just an old nickname.

Some of you guys are ri-donk-u-lous.

So, when he was called PremiumSauces, would you have believed he was, in fact, a high-end condiment or entree garnish? :banghead:

DOCTOR Tad, good job with your Senator. He seems like a great guy.

February 11, 2009, 11:54 AM
I received the exact same worded letter from my Senator. I'm in SC.

So now we don't even get a personal response, we get a form letter. I could understand a form letter for the same congress critter. But not from different states!!!!!!!!! :cuss::banghead:

February 11, 2009, 12:28 PM
Thanks for the post Doc, I didn't know about the pardons. A second thanks for getting off your butt for the 2A.

February 11, 2009, 01:30 PM
Maybe the dog peed on edsky's wheaties this morning? Good post Dr. Tad! The heading pulled me in off the main board. I had no idea about the pardons either. I'm shocked at the lopsided vote. I need to check on how my reps voted. Obama adds yet another to his crew that is above the law

February 11, 2009, 01:42 PM
I bet you they have a letter pre-made for the anti's that contact them aswell.:barf:

February 11, 2009, 01:51 PM
Dr. Tad - I am not now nor have I ever been a solvent or technically a maker of solutions (other than incidental biological products).

Thank you for your letter and posted response.:neener:

February 11, 2009, 01:57 PM
I would like to second the thought about new people joining on a daily basis. I have only been here a short while myself and do not proclaim to be up to snuff on every issue. I truly appreciate people posting items like this because I don't have a ton of time to spend on line scanning every little article I come across. Although I am not a newby to guns, (I have fired tens of thousands of rounds thru many different weapons) I am a newby to this site, I yearn for information and need a source such as THR to fulfill this need. It is very disheartening to be made fun of or hushed because a topic has been discussed already. I would hate to be a person sitting on the fence, just before making up my mind about being pro or antigun and be hushed or ridiculed for talking about something that has already been discussed. Now, that being said, What do you guys keep in your BOB's????? (just kidding) We were all newbies at one time.

March 1, 2009, 12:14 PM
By the way, My Senator Tom COburn also opposed the Holder nomination and I received a letter similar to the Inhoff response.
Glad to know some Okies have some backbone......unlike the east coast types.:cool:

March 1, 2009, 05:40 PM
If Deckards a replicant how come Roy and Pris kick his butt so effortlessly and why doesn't Tyrell know about it? Sorry, I just finished watching this about half a hour ago. Great movie and, I know, way off topic.

because each replicant has a specialty.. they are designed differently..

Holder is just trying to make a name for himself, and his 2A views are not shared with the population, nor the SCOTUS.. i really do not feel that an AWB will ever happen.. it's more rhetoric and will ultimately fail due to Heller..

other "restrictions" may happen, but will those be recognized especially with so many states claiming sovereignty??

they cannot "ban" due to RKBA being secured by the 2A and Heller defines that.. but they can "restrict", but will the restrictions be constitutional??

this is nothing more than a waste of tax money, and time.. there are much more pressing issues right now..

makes no sense to "ban" guns if the federal government becomes insolvent.. what use would law be, if there is no one to enforce it, or no funding to accomplish it the "ban"?? and if you have states actually and functionally enforce their sovereignty, the federal government's control would be even less in that situation..

also, an Executive Order without funding is just that.. a useless law.. that can be repealed by Congress and the Senate.. i think it's only happened a couple of times before, but it *could* be repealed..

i'm not really worried about a new AWB.. but i am concerned with what other laws will be pushed by AG Holder that will complicate daily life for the average person..

Defense Minister
March 1, 2009, 06:09 PM
Calm thyself, edSky, calm thyself. Where in the world are you comin' from?

Now, back to the original topic, I wrote my senators urging them not to confirm Holder, and, after they did, I wrote them to express my displeasure. They acted so just like a politician and stated in so many words that they are going to vote the way the want regardless of how I feel. It's the same old thing, tell em' what they want to hear during the campaign, then business as usual when it's over. They did, of course, thank me for taking the time to write them with my concerns, and invited me to do so if I was concerned about any issues in the future.:banghead:

March 1, 2009, 06:36 PM
I assure you all, that I am not a Cook. But I wish my senator gave a crap like yours does

March 1, 2009, 06:37 PM
Senator Inhofe is one of the best. He's also a pilot and flies a plane like mine.

Good guy for sure. :)

March 1, 2009, 06:38 PM
Please do not think that Inhofe is any good just because he voted against confirming Holder. I am an Okie: Inhofe is in the pockets of the liquor distributors, the tobacco companies and the trial lawyers.

BTW: Inhofe voted to confirm Hillary.

March 1, 2009, 07:45 PM
I never have to worry about how my senators from Michigan will vote; it will be against freedom every time, especially if it is for the children.

Levin is up in 2010. If he retires one can only hope our R party will put up someone other than the usual token sacrificial lamb.

It would not surprise me that the D candidate will be our present leftist governor, Jennifer (shudder) Granholm if Levin opts out.

P Rockwell
March 8, 2009, 02:07 PM
I have two republican senators in Utah that are of the most liberal variety in the country. I learned long ago that party makes little difference.

If you enjoyed reading about "My Senator's response to my thank you to him for voting against Eric Holder" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!