Wednesday, October 29, 2014

The Quran "admits" Allah is Satan!

Quran Says Allah is the Best of Deceiver. Quran 3:54; 7:99 ...

Quran Says Allah is the Best of Deceiver. Quran 3:54; 7:99 ...

All they that know thee [Satan] among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a → (((terror))) ← and never shalt thou be any more." (Ezekiel 28:19 KJV)
"Remember when [Allah] revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast → (((terror))) ← into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." (Qur'an 8:12)
SHOCKING! The Quran "admits" Allah is Satan!
Find out what you DON'T know about what you believe. The truth will SHOCK you! You'll never be the same again. ● If the Bible has been changed or has been co...

Planned Parenthood Report: $540 Million in Tax Dollars, 327,000 Abortions

Planned Parenthood Report: $540 Million in Tax Dollars, 327,000 Abortions

by Mallory Quigley | Washington, DC | | 12/11/13 7:45 PM

Today Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) released its 2012-2013 annual report.
In response, the national pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List has released a fact sheet on the information, revealing that while Planned Parenthood’s abortion rate declined by 2 percent, abortions still accounted for 93.8 percent of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy services. Prenatal care services dropped 32 percent in one year, and 52 percent since 2009. Adoption referrals are also down 4.5 percent in one year. For every adoption referral, Planned Parenthood performed 149 abortions.
The fact sheet also details Planned Parenthood’s finances, revealing that:
  • During fiscal year 2012-2013, Planned Parenthood reported receiving $540.6 million in taxpayer funding, or nearly $1.5 million per day.
  • Planned Parenthood reported $58.2 million in excess revenue, and more than $1.3 billion in net assets.
  • In 2012, Planned Parenthood performed 327,166 abortions , a 2% drop from 2011. In 2002, Planned Parenthood performed 227,385 abortions, meaning they perform 100,000 more abortions than they did 10 years ago.
  • Over the past three reported years (2010-2012), Planned Parenthood has performed nearly one million abortions (990,575).
  • In 2012,abortions made up 93.8% of PlannedParenthood’s pregnancy services, while prenatal care and adoption referrals accounted for only 5.6% (19,506) and 0.6% (2,197), respectively. For every adoption referral, Planned Parenthood performed 149 abortions.
  • Prenatal care services have dropped 32% in one year, and 52% since 2009. Adoption referrals are also down 4.5% in one year.
After reviewing the report, Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) President Marjorie Dannenfelser had the following comments:
“Business is booming for America’s largest abortion provider, which receives public funding at a rate of $1.5 million per day. Planned Parenthood’s latest annual report shows that they performed 100,000 more abortions in 2013 than ten years ago. Meanwhile, cancer screenings and prenatal services, including adoption referrals, continue to drop.  Planned Parenthood claims to be a trusted health care provider to women and girls, but their numbers tell a different story. Planned Parenthood is a business whose entire mission is to profit off of abortion.”

US Funds Child Beheading “Freedom Fighters” with Billions in Tax Dollars

US Funds Child Beheading “Freedom Fighters” with Billions in Tax Dollars

It's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys anymore. You've seen it in the news. It has shocked and horrified the civilized world. Christians and Yazidis, by the thousands, are fleeing for their lives in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere as devout followers of the "prophet" Muhammad, aka, the "Islamic State," continue to brutally slaughter these "infidels" on the run, even torturing, dismembering and beheading children as their parents are forced to watch.
As the father of three, it's unfathomable. I can't even let my mind go there. What would I do, what would any of us do, to stop it? If you and I were in place of our Arab-Christian brothers and sisters, would we not give up our very lives so that our precious babes might live?
In a heartbeat.
Now this: It has come to light that, under the Obama administration, the U.S. government has been subsidizing, to the tune of billions, another sect of militant extremists who, likewise, are, with an equally religious zeal, torturing, dismembering and beheading children en masse. The only material difference is that, according to officials within the U.S. government, and as per formal U.S. policy, this second batch of terrorist monsters are somehow considered to be "freedom fighters."
Multiple reports have come in proving conclusively that these fundamentalist fanatics are coaxing families away from relative safety with beguiling talk of freedom and a better life, and then abruptly turning on them like the godless sociopaths they are. It's almost too horrific to describe, but I think I must.
These "freedom fighters" are then callously torturing to death terrified children in the very presence of their parents. Reams of evidence reveal, for example, that these barbarians are, in many instances, brutally sawing off the arms and legs of innocent children as they writhe in excruciating pain, only to finish them off with an unceremonious beheading.
Perhaps the most sickening and unpardonable aspect of it all, however, is that, while reports have established that most members of Congress, governors and even state legislators have been alerted to the fact that the U.S. government is helping to both fund and facilitate these widespread crimes against humanity, only a minority of lawmakers are willing to lift a finger to stop it.
And so, this U.S.-taxpayer-funded genocide continues unabated.
Even as our elected officials, Democrat and Republican alike, look the other way, the Obama administration continues to quietly funnel $540 million per year (that's $1.5 million each day) of taxpayer dollars to arm and equip this murderous band of religious radicals.
Any notable distinction between the child-murdering Islamists in the Middle East and the American government's child-murdering ally at home is, at most, somewhere between superficial and negligible.
Whereas ISIS, the fundamentalist Muslims in Iraq, behead children and, in so doing, consider themselves freedom fighters for Allah, America's fundamentalist allies behead children and, in so doing, consider themselves freedom fighters for Aphrodite.
While the former don black masks, wave black flags and, even as I write, are driving their caravans to Baghdad, the latter don medical scrubs, wave the banner of "reproductive freedom" and, even as I write, are driving their Mercedes' to your local Planned Parenthood.
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.


Death Row Inmate Asks For A Child As His Last Meal, Texas DOC Plan To (Grant Request)

Death Row Inmate Asks For A Child As His Last Meal, Texas DOC Plan To (Grant Request)

ABILENE, TX--Stephen K. Walker, French M. Robertson Unit inmate in Abilene, Texas, is on death row for murder and cannibalism of the 2006 case that sentenced him to death.

When asked what he would want his final meal to be, he said with no hesitation, "A little boy."

The Department of Corrections are supposed to accept all the demands of any kind. So it was initially thought that they were buying a corpse in a morgue to satisfy the desires of Stephen Walker.

But tables turned when it was said that they were trying to find a toddler from a third world country and buy him/her alive within a budget of $25,000.

State representative Michael Rath talked to the media briefly with words that he thought would clear the situation some:

"We live in a country where we have laws in place and morals, and we will look to grant Mr. Walker his request under certain circumstances that we have yet to agree to." He stated.

As far as the 'circumstances,' it is rumored that the child would have to suffer from some type of degenerative disease, with a few years to live. And by honoring Walkers request it saves the child from years of suffering.

We will see how this plays out. Walker will be executed next Saturday.

And just for comparison here are some last meal requests from prior death row inmates:

John Wayne Gacy was executed by the State of Illinois on May 10, 1994 for the rape and murders of 33 young men and boys from 1972 to 1978. The "Killer Clown's" last meal was: a dozen deep-fried shrimp, a bucket of original recipe chicken from KFC, French fries, and a pound of strawberries.

Serial killer Ted Bundy was executed by the State of Florida on January 24, 1989. His last meal was: nothing. He made no special requests and was given the traditional meal of steak and eggs... but he didn't eat it.

Timothy McVeigh was executed on June 11, 2001. His last meal was: two pints of mint chocolate chip ice cream.

Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed June 18 2010 by firing squad in Utah. His last meal was: steak, lobster tail, apple pie, vanilla ice cream and 7-up for his last meal... which he ate while watching the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.
  • do NOT contact me with unsolicited services or offers

Wife of Alan Grayson, named 17th richest member of Congress, receiving food stamps to feed his kids

Wife of Alan Grayson, named 17th richest member of Congress, receiving food stamps to feed his kids

alan grayson
Photo Source Huffington Post
Not that the timing makes it any more egregious, but six days after being named the 17th richest member of Congress, it’s being reported that U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson‘s estranged wife has been issued an EBT card to help feed his children.
Lolita Grayson was approved for public assistance by the state of Florida, and their four minor children — they have five children altogether — are also enrolled in the free lunch program in Orange County schools, according to ABC affiliate WFTV.
The stay-at-home mom was asked if she ever thought she’d be on food stamps.
“No,” Lolita responded. “Never, because my husband, he’s been the sole provider for me for the last 29 years.”
In filing for public assistance,  Lolita said her monthly income consisted of $592 per child.
Grayons’ attorney attributed her actions to politics the week before an election, telling WFTV his client pays about $10,000 a month for the mortgage, utilities and phone bill for the home.
“This is abusing the public,” attorney Mark Nejame said. “She’s going out and asking for support because she can’t support herself on $120,000? That’s outrageous.”
Married to the bombastic congressman for 24 years, she filed for divorce early this year and it didn’t take long for things to get messy. There was a physical altercation at their home a short time later — she accused Grayson of battering her and he countered by saying she hit him. He would later charge his wife with bigamy while filing for an annulment of their 24-year marriage.
The Democratic lawmaker, a former trial lawyer, is not paying spousal support because he says the marriage was never valid because of the bigamy charge, WFTV reported.
The same week Roll Call reported that Grayson enjoyed a $10 million dollar surge in his net worth, Lolita claimed he would not pay for needed repairs at the 5,300-square-foot Orlando house where she is living with the children, according to WFTV.
According to a court filing, the roof leaks and there are broken windows, resulting in a serious mold problem.
“The wife has been a stay-at-home wife and mother and is financially dependent on her husband,” the filing said. “The wife has no financial resources to contribute to the repairs and maintenance of the marital residence.”
Grayson’s attorneys responded by attributing the problem to her being “a poor housekeeper,” but a WFTV reporter saw a septic leak in front of the home and mold in nearly every room.

Pennsylvania Democrats Angry They Can Now be Sued for Passing Illegal Gun Laws

Pennsylvania Democrats Angry They Can Now be Sued for Passing Illegal Gun Laws

"We can't have a crazy quilt of laws"

Pennsylvania Democrats are outraged after a bill was passed that allows gun rights groups like the NRA to sue localities for passing gun control measures that violate state law.
Many such Democrats said a provision forcing localities that lose lawsuits to pay the legal fees of the plaintiffs is particularly objectionable.
“This is a dangerous provision that threatens municipalities’ financial stability,” Rep. Madeleine Dean (D., Montgomery) told the Philadelphia Inquirer.
“If you are a resident of Forest County and you don’t like the Norristown gun law, you could hire Johnnie Cochran and bill a township $100,000 an hour or whatever he charges to win the case,” Sen. Daylin Leach (D., Montgomery) said.
Former Democrat Governor and Mayor of Philadelphia Ed Rendell called the bill “outrageous.”
Pennsylvania state law explicitly states that localities may not create their own gun laws. Section 6120 of the state’s Uniform Firearms Act says “no county, municipality, or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.”
Localities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh have passed gun restrictions despite that language. That’s why backers of the new bill say it is necessary. “This is just clarifying current law,” Senate President Pro Tem Joe Scarnati (R., Jefferson) told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “It’s about consistency of gun laws.”
“We can’t have a crazy quilt of laws,” said Rep. Jeff Pyle (R., Armstrong) said.

Thousands Of Christians Take Up Arms, Make A Crusade, And Slaughter Muslims Who Try To Kill Them

Thousands Of Christians Take Up Arms, Make A Crusade, And Slaughter Muslims Who Try To Kill Them

BY Theodore Shoebat And Walid Shoebat

We don’t want queers,
We don’t want Muslims,
We have no fear
Soon shall Christendom rule 
With the words of Deus Vult!
In time shall the Holy Church have glory
The Crusade will be zealous and holy
Love shall bring us honor
For with the Holy Cross we shall conquer.
True love is never settled by compromise, but through bloodshed. Christ said,  “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.” (John 15:13) And the Christian militias who have risen up to fight the torrent of the Islamic sword that seeks to destroy their friends, their brethren, these are the ones who exemplify this eternal passage in the purest fashion.
These Christians are part of The New Militia, or the militia that foreshadows The New Crusade that is to come, in which Christendom will revive and destroy the enemies of God and the haters of the Cross, and establish the holy light over the wretched shadow of Satan’s darkness.
The Christian militias in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and other lands inflicted by the violent inflictions of Islam, are truly pioneers that cause us to foresee the advent of the most holy Crusade, in which nations of mighty Christendom will revive themselves, pick up the Cross and with Christ as their General, destroy the armies of the Antichrist.
We recently had an opportunity to speak with one of these militant pioneers, named Tony Elias. He is a young man, in his early twenties, filled with zeal and vision for the Christian Faith, and he has joined the Christian militia in Lebanon to combat the Islamic expansion that wants to completely overthrow the government and wipe out all of the Lebanese Christians. The interview can be watched here:
Truly is he a modern day Crusader, even identifying himself as one. Unlike the fake and empty Christians of the modern world, he does not hide in shame of the Crusader history, when Christians were actually militant and fought for orthodox truth. He says:
I am not ashamed to be called a crusader.
The militia sent us a number of photos of themselves, with crosses and guns:
Christian militant with cross and gun
Christian militant with cross and gun
Christian militant before giant Cross
Christian militant before giant Cross
Christian militant before an icon of St. Charbel
Christian militant before an icon of St. Charbel
new mi 2
Elias is part of the Maronite Catholic Church, the oldest Christian order in Lebanon’s history, and they are the first Christians, and only Christians, in Lebanon,who have combated the bloody Islamic tempest since the earliest days of Islam. Elias explained to us that the struggle between Christian and Muslim in Lebanon goes all the way back to Islam’s advent, saying:
Just when Islam started, they [the Muslims] started to attack Christians and other minorities to make them Muslims. The history teaches us that not all Christians were strong enough to handle these battles, some turned into Muslims and some stayed Christians by force. We actually use the reason that our grandfathers used to make us stay here, by asking ourselves that if they didn’t do that, would I now be a Christian? …No! …now in Lebanon Muslims are gaining many numbers and they enforce their political superiority over the Christians
The ancient Maronite Christians fought against the earliest Muslims who tried to conquer their country. Some may object to this, and may use “turn the other cheek” to justify cowardice, and allow the Muslims to invade, but if these ancient Christians did nothing, all of their later generations would have been Muslims, and would have ended up in hell, without salvation. Elias himself told us this:
They do say that you shouldn’t fight, but if my grandfathers did not fight for the Faith, they would have converted to Islam, or their children would have converted to Islam, and by that I would have been Muslim and I would have ended up in hell. People argue and they say that you go to hell for fighting, because it is not Christian to fight, but what sends people to hell is not fighting, because those generations afterwards would end up Muslim and end up in hell.
Truly it is an expression of Christian compassion to fight evildoers who expand their wicked heresies, for to not fight, and thus allow them to deceive whole societies, will send entire generations into everlasting fire.
From the very beginning Islam wanted to destroy the Cross that stood firmly in the earth of Lebanon; from the very first years of their existence did the Muslims slaughter and pillage to uproot the Church in this land, and replace it with their devilish crescent idol. With this in mind it is quite profound that the symbol of the militia is a Cross with a sharp end, declaring that, like a sword, it will be forever posted into the ground of the earth of Lebanon. As Elias explained to us:
We have a cross that is sliced from the bottom so that it becomes like a steak because the Cross will always be a steak chiseled inside the ground of Lebanon, and it will always be there.
Now the devils are returning to rob what does not belong to them, now they come to flood the land and replace the light of God with the darkness of Lucifer. ISIS forces are striving to break into Lebanon and wipe out Christianity, and this is where the pioneering holy militia arises, to defend the Church and the nation. As Elias explained to us:
“Now in this year we have seen the rise of the Islamic State by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and we have seen how it started to get its land in Syria and Iraq, and how Christians there have fled their homes and are suffering. So, based on that, because Lebanon is not so far from Syria and Iraq (and from the Middle East) families here started to think of a way to defend themselves, if something happened to us. … We have our weapons but I want to say that we all agreed to not use them only if a real danger happened to us
The militia functions through scouting, with men each night looking after the borders to see if any approaching jihadists are trying to sneak into any of the villages. As Elias told us:
Every night some men go and just look after the borders of our village … We scout on the border to make sure ISIS is not coming on the border, and if ISIS is coming in the border we let the authorities know, or the Lebanese military know, and we are always prepared and ready to defend ourselves because we think the danger is right around the corner.
Another Christian militant named Abu Tony, a militia member of the town of Qaa, said:
With the Syrian war next door, we have many troubles, many suspicious people come here, we have to be on high alert. We have to defend our land from terrorists, from ISIS and Nusra Front [al-Qaeda branch operating in the area
Abu Georges, a Christian militiaman from Qaa, explained how Muslim terrorists try to enter the border through a certain mountain, and how in one battle the Christians slaughtered most of the jihadists:
Behind this mountain there are militants and they always try to infiltrate here. Last time, just five days ago, we fought with them and killed most of them
Elias actually foresees that the jihadists will overpower the Lebanese military, and that when this happens, they will be ready to fight,
They’re power will vanish, we will be ready and we will not face what Christians in Syria have faced, or in Iraq.
Through combat do these men illustrate their love for God; through fighting do they put their lives on the line for their friends, and through the strength of militancy do they love the Lord their God with all strength. Elias explained to us that the militants partake in the battle against the terrorists to love God with all mind, spirit, heart, soul and strength, saying:
The Christians are always commanded to love God with all of our hearts, with all our might, with all our wills, in every way. …In this case we are working on the strength part
This was truly amazing to hear, for I was hearing the theology of Christian militancy being said by an actual militant, whose soul is rooted in one of the most ancient churches in Christianity. Everything that I have been writing in my articles was being said by someone who actually carries the sword and defends the Faith.
He applied the first commandment of Christ, that “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30) to holy war. This very passage of Christ was applied to warfare in the Scriptures, for after Josiah killed off the pagan priests, destroyed the houses of the sodomites, and purged the land of witchcraft, the Bible says, “Now before him there was no king like him, who turned to the Lord with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses; nor after him did any arise like him.” (2 Kings 23:25)
This is the same application that I have been teaching for quite some time, and it was very enlightening and refreshing to see someone who is actually in a Christian militia, and involved in an actual fight, use the same application. When we asked him what theology is behind the militia, he quoted the passage of Christ from the 15th chapter of the Gospel of John:
There is no bigger love than to give yourself for your friends
This is a most orthodox application, for St. Cyril, when speaking on the Christians defending themselves from the persecutions of the Muslims, said,
Greater love hath no man than this: that a man lay down his life for his friends” [John 15:13]. And we therefore submit to the insults that our enemies cast at us individually, and pray to God for them, but as a group we defend one another and lay down our lives for one another, so that you wouldn’t, by enslaving our brothers, take away their souls along with their bodies and kill them off completely.
Even the body is esteemed as a gift to be used for fighting, seeing that God did not make anything in vain, and it is to be used for holy combat against the devil and his followers. As Elias told us:
God did not give us anything in vain, we have to use it. The Lord gave somebody 5 talents and he multiplied them to 10 talents. We are not suppose to be hiding our talents under the ground, we are suppose to invest our talents.
While there is the “good and faithful servant” who has “gained five more talents besides them”, and who shall be “ruler over many things”, there is the “wicked and lazy servant,” who “hid your talent in the ground.” (Matthew 25:20-24) These are the useless people who call themselves Christians, but do nothing to fight against evil, and not only that, but also assist the enemies of the true Christians. The useless Christian is the first enemy, and the cause of all evils. Elias himself told us this:
I want to say also that the first enemy of us, isn’t Islam, the first enemy for us is the weak Christians that do not have the courage enough to spread the Bible
This militiaman understands that the war between Christian and Muslim is not secular, but one of religion, between those who uphold the Holy Trinity, and those who want to replace it with the antichrist unitarian god. As he himself explained:
We all know that Muslims don’t believe in Jesus as we believe in him. [They] don’t believe in Him as God. They believe in Him as a prophet who accepted that a man would die in His place. Thats not the Christ we believe in. Those Christians who are losing their Christian identity, are our first enemy.
And what of “turn the other cheek”? These militiamen do not follow the superficial and weak interpretations of the modern theologians and the heretics, but the teachings of the orthodox and ancient Church of holy Christendom. Elias told us:
My point of view on turn the other cheek, is not to be weak, but to show him that I am strong enough to take the other slap. … The strength in me is to accept that second slap, and that will may make him ashamed of what he did, and if he doesn’t feel ashamed, then its my turn to act.
He then went on to say a very fascinating explanation, that in the time of Christ the Jews loved fighting for fighting’s sake, and that Jesus, in teaching them to come back to the Law of God, was bringing them to the precept that fighting is not an end unto itself, but a means to an end. That end is victory over evil. As Elias told us:
The Jews attended a point where they fought for the love of fighting. Jesus came and He fixed what they were thinking, telling them that not fighting itself is important, but the reason for fighting is important. Thats what He did; He fought death and He won.
Christians do not kill for the sake of vengeance, or for the pleasure of bloodshed, but for the advancement of justice. In the words of Augustine, Christ told us “‘We are not to resist evil,” lest we take pleasure in vengeance which nourishes the soul on another’s wrong, but we are not to fall short in correcting men.” (Augustine, Letter 47, trans. Parsons)
At times, to correct others is to kill them. This should be the case of those who come to attack churches, rape women and slaughter Christians. To kill such people will not be a wicked or selfish gratification of the flesh, but a selfless act of righteousness vanquishing the attempt of the demonic and the sinister.
To fight is not an evil unto itself, it is to become militant for the want of pillage and plunder that is evil. To use the words of St. Ambrose, “to be in the army is not a crime, but to be in the army for the sake of pillaging is a sin.” (Ambrose, Sermon 7, in Bellarmine, On Laymen or Secular People, ch. 14)
These militias of God — how valiant and worthy of emulation are they! — teach us the Gospel through their actions: they put their lives to the sacrifice to fight the devil, as Christ sacrificed Himself to “destroy the works of the devil.” (1 John 3:8) By fighting, and exerting all of their energies to protect their churches, their priests, their monks, and their people, they put their lives near the gates of death, willing to combat the slaves of the devil till the entrance of life’s end is opened. Upon their their hearts the words of the holy Apostle:
“By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.” (1 John 3:16)
It is because they place themselves in the intensity of battle, the moribund position of holy combat, that these men exemplify the highest point of love: sacrificing themselves. They are amongst those who, in the words of Deborah, “offered themselves willingly with the people” (Judges 5:9) to fight off the pagans who approach them to destroy Christianity, and thus are they amongst those whose love for God is like “the sun when it comes out in full strength.” (Judges 5:31)
These Christian militiamen choose fighting and death over slavery and servitude to a false religion. Christ said, “whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it.” (Luke 9:24) And surely do these Christian militiamen, who put the Holy Cross above the idols and heresies of Islam, have eschewed selfishness, and have chosen to lose their lives for the sake of living everlastingly. In the words of St. Ambrose:
Here, then, is fortitude in war, which bears no light impress of what is virtuous and seemly upon it, for it prefers death to slavery and disgrace. (Ambrose, Duties of the Clergy, 1.41, trans. Romestin)
It is now time for the Christians, in the advancement of Christendom, to rid the land of mosques and all other pagan temples, and establish the Light of Orthodoxy over the tyranny of heresy and paganism.
In the words of Augustine,
the pagan shall not stand against the Christian who has taken away his labors by despoiling or giving away the temples of the idols, but the Christian shall stand against the pagans who took away his labors by laying low the bodies of the martyrs. (Augustine, Letter 41)
As the Christians fight the internal war against the flesh with the spirit, do they fight those who seek to destroy the Church and uproot Christianity. In the words of St. Gregory,
Just as the Lord of victories made your excellence shine brightly against the enemies of war in this life, so it is necessary that the same excellence is shown against the enemies of His Church with all vigor of mind and body (St. Gregory, epistle 74, in Bellarmine, On Laymen and Secular People, ch. 14)
Some may argue that these Christian militias are unbiblical, because they are not government personal, or an army of the state. To clarify, Maronite militias work with the official Lebanese Forces in fighting ISIS, so it is not as though they are some ragtag band of criminals or vagabonds. Moreover, ask yourself, was Abraham a part of an official state when “he armed his three hundred and eighteen trained servants who were born in his own house, and went in pursuit” against the enemy (Genesis 15:14)?
Was he a part of a government when he “divided his forces against them by night, and he and his servants attacked them and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus” (Genesis 15:15)? No. Abraham fought against a government. While he had his own militia, he combated a tyrannical state. When he executed the force of his army, and unsheathed the sword against the wicked, and acted as “an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (Romans 13:4), the Lord did not curse him or reprimand him, but instead fought alongside Abraham, for the priest Melchizedek “met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him” (Hebrews 7:1) and declared to him that God “delivered your enemies into your hand.” (Genesis 15:20)
Therefore, Christian militias who fight for the cause of justice against tyranny, light against darkness, and who fight for God over the wiles and despotisms of the devil, are righteous, and not wicked, just as Abraham was not pernicious when he assembled his militias to fight the pagan tyrants. Christ is “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” (Hebrews 7:17)
Thus, Christians are of the same priesthood of the one who blessed Abraham after he slaughtered through the sword of his militia, and therefore can the Church conduct its own militias to fight off the wolves who prey on the sheep. The emulation of Abraham’s use of a militia did not leave in the advent of Christianity, but continued on in the Church. For, in the words of St. Odo of Cluny, one of the pioneers of Crusader theology,
For some of the Fathers, and of these the most holy and the most patient, when the cause of justice demanded, valiantly took up arms against their adversaries, as Abraham, who destroyed a great multitude of the enemy to rescue his nephew (St. Odo of Cluny, Life of St. Gerald of Aurillac, 1.8, trans. Sitwell)
Some will object that since now we are in the New Testament, that the wars of the Old Testament are no longer worthy of our emulation, but even St. Paul saw the gallant and heroic actions of the Hebrew warriors as great illustrations of faith, when he wrote in his epistle to the Hebrews:
And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. (Hebrews 11:32-25)
When the glorious Apostle speaks of those who “turned to flight the armies of the aliens”, he is speaking of the Hebrews who fought off the pagans, and what are the jihadists of ISIS but aliens trying to invade a Christian land?
St. Clement, of whom St. Paul himself wrote as one of those “who labored with me in the gospel,” (Philippians 4:3) and was called by the Apostles to be the Bishop of Rome, praised the feats of Judith in her beheading of the general of Nebuchadnezzar, Holofernes, in his attempt to conquer Israel, as an example of how one should be charitable,
many women, being strengthened by the grace of God, have done many glorious and manly things on such occasions. The blessed Judith, when her city was besieged, desired the elders that they would suffer her to go into the camp of their enemies, and she went out, exposing herself to danger, for the love she bare to her country and her people that were besieged; and the Lord delivered Holofernes into the hands of a woman. (St. Clement, Epistle to the Corinthians, lv)
Judith was not a member of an official army, but a true militant who, not being a member of any official force, denied herself and took it upon herself to do that which was right to defend her land against the invading Babylonian pagans. St. Ambrose praised the ancient warriors of Israel, Joshua and Judas Maccabees, for their valiancy and determination to take up the sword and defend their brethren:
But how brave was Joshua the son of Nun, who in one battle laid low five kings together with their people! … But the Maccabees thinking that then all the nation would perish, on the Sabbath also, when they were challenged to fight, took vengeance for the death of their innocent brethren. (St. Ambrose, Duties of the Clergy, 1.40)
Militancy never ended with the coming of Christ, it was only continued by the Church, and it is done through “the Mediator of the new covenant” (Hebrews 9:15). Was it not Christ who visited Joshua and told him “See! I have given Jericho into your hand, its king, and the mighty men of valor” (Joshua 6:2)? Elias, a modern day crusader of Lebanon, told us that the Law of God was never gotten rid of, only fulfilled, saying:
“‘Am I going to make null the law? No, I came to complete (fulfill) the Law.’ [Matthew 5:17] That means that Christ Himself was the God of the Old Testament.”
I was quite enthusiastic upon seeing how the Christian militant of the Middle East thinks, as opposed to what we have been hearing for years in the West, and how he still believes in the Law of God in regards to holy war, that it has never ended, and should never be thrown out. Elias was very pleased to see that we, as Americans, and the followers of, are supportive of the cause of the Christian militias. He said:
I was pleased to see Americans that aren’t against Christians who fight for their cause. Because what the media shows us is that Americans or European countries, or maybe Christians outside, do not encourage what we are doing in the Middle East. But actually we are the ones being killed, not them. We are the ones suffering, not them.”
The story of the militias brings my mind to the most glorious story of St. Theodore the Recruit, a great pioneer of Christendom. Years before Constantine came to power, and the Roman Empire became Christian, and years before any Christian army was formed, the pagans slaughtered the Christians if they refused to make libations to the gods and to their idols.
St. Theodore was a soldier in the Roman military, and when he was ordered by a judge to make a pagan sacrifice, this holy warrior exclaimed, “I am a soldier in the service of my God and of his Son Jesus Christ!” The judge, like a Muslim who denies the sonship of Christ, said, “So your god has a son?” To this did the saint firmly respond, “Yes!” The judge asked, “Might we know him?” and Theodore said, “Indeed you can know him and come to him!” Theodore was given one night to think of his decision, to sacrifice or not to sacrifice.
He did not hypocritically say to himself, “I must submit to the government, therefore I will sacrifice.” Nor did he say, “My weapons are not carnal, but spiritual, therefore I will do nothing.” What did he do? He entered the temple of the pagan goddess Cybele by night, and burned it to the ground with fire. He was caught, and before the judge was asked, “Theodore, do you want to be with us or with your Christ?” Theodore declared, “With my Christ I was and I am and I will be!” A fire was set and he died in the flames, yet it is said that his body was not injured through the fire, but that he simply gave up the ghost. (Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend, 165, trans. Ryan)
St. Theodore, amongst the earliest of the Christian militants, taught us through his actions just how militant Christianity is; for so hot are the flames of militancy within the Christian Faith, that he, without any government approval, rose up himself and attacked and destroyed the temple. The temple he set ablaze was the temple of Cybele, a goddess who was worshipped as a meteorite idol.
And so the Christian militias of today fight and defeat the Muslims who, just as the pagans of old, worship a meteorite they call the Baitullah. It is the same war, with different names; the same holy struggle, but with an enemy who continuously changes his titles. The Apostle Paul fought against “the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Zeus” (Acts 19:35), and so the Christians today, through arms and through arguments, combat Allah and his image which fell front the sky.
This holy land of Lebanon was touched by the divine feet of Christ, and was illuminated by the divine presence of the Savior, and from the very beginning did the devils wish to take it, knowing that it would soon be enlightened by “the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.” (John 1:9) It was in this land that a woman once told Christ, “My daughter is severely demon-possessed.” (Matthew 15:22), and it was in this very land that Christ told the wearied mother, “’O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.’ And her daughter was healed from that very hour.” (Matthew 15:28) And great is the faith of these Christian militias who remain in this same land, and cast out the devils through the sword, vanquishing the followers of the demonic and defending their sacred nation.
Awaken, holy Christendom!
Blossom with your beautiful pedals in the spring of the holy fray!
Take your inheritance, O holy Christendom,
From the pagans who stole it away!
Conquer with Cross and Sword!
Fight for Heaven and Your Lord!
Drive out the Muslim!
Drive out the Sodomite!
Drive the devils away with all your might!
With zeal we fight for God
And all the saints of holy martyrdom
For the blood of glorious martyrs
Awaken, O Christendom
Print Friendly

Quarantined Nurse Kaci Hickox Misled Public - Works for CDC – Her Attorney was White House Visitor & Tied to Al Sharpton

Quarantined Nurse Kaci Hickox Misled Public - Works for CDC – Her Attorney was White House Visitor & Tied to Al Sharpton

Kaci Hickox has gotten a lot of mileage out of her emotion-packed description of her ordeal with screening and monitoring of individuals entering or returning to this country from Ebola stricken West Africa, her criticism of forced quarantine and the claim of civil rights violations. But, it might be more mileage than she originally intended. In her article for The Dallas News, Hickox claimed that she worked with Doctors Without Borders caring for Ebola stricken individuals in West Africa. In actuality, Hickox had ties with the Centers for Disease Control by virtue of being an official CDC Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) officer.
According to the Daily Caller, Hickox was listed as an "active" EIS officer as recently as July 18, 2014, per the CDC's own documents.
Hickox retained attorney Norman Siegel to file a lawsuit on her behalf alleging civil rights violations due to the mandatory quarantine issued by the state of New Jersey because of the possibility Hickox could be infected with Ebola. In an interesting coincidence, Siegel happened to be an official guest at the White House State Dinner on February 11, 2014, accompanying none other than Ms. Rachel Robinson, the widow of Jackie Robinson. Siegel, in another coincidence, partnered with none other than race-baiter supreme Al Sharpton in opposition to the New York state proposal to implement a DNA database of felons.
Naturally, the White House, aka Barack Hussein (Ebola) Obama, criticized the state of New Jersey in quarantining Hickox while the CDC was developing guidelines for the states to follow in dealing with health care workers returning from Ebola stricken West African nations. It has been no secret that Ebola-Obama opposes any type of quarantine and the parrots at the CDC, Dr. Tom Frieden and Steven Fauci, mimic his rhetoric. However, the Department of Defense commander of US Army Africa, Maj. Gen. Darryl Williams, has implemented mandatory quarantine for himself and 10 other soldiers upon returning to an Italian Army base after building treatment facilities in Ebola ravaged West Africa.
It appears that Maj. Gen. Williams understands much more about public health safety, personal responsibility and duty than anyone at the CDC or Ms. Hickox – individuals who are supposed to be trained health care professionals.
Ms. Hickox would do well to remember that she practices her profession under her resident state nurse practice act. Since it has been disclosed she resides in Maine, Ms. Hickox has to follow the laws of the state of Maine when functioning as a nurse.
According to the State of Maine Nurse Practice Act, disciplinary action, up to suspension and revocation of the license of the licensee, can be taken when the license holder engages in "(E) Incompetence in the practice for which the licensee is licensed. A licensee is considered incompetent in the practice if the licensee has: (1) engaged in conduct that evidences a lack of ability or fitness to discharge the duty owed by the licensee to a client or patient or general public; …." Since Ms. Hickox was unwilling to discharge her duty to follow the State of New Jersey public health mandate of a quarantine in their state under the guidelines the state was allowed to implement by virtue of abdication of the federal government, she exhibited a level of incompetence to fulfill her duty to the general public.
The State of Maine Nurse Practice Act states that disciplinary action may be taken against a licensee who engages in "unprofessional conduct." According to the law, "a licensee is considered to have engaged in unprofessional conduct if the licensee violates a standard of professional behavior that has been established in the practice for which the license is issued." In the case of Ms. Hickox, the standard of professional behavior would be to follow the state's mandate of quarantine according to their guidelines and at their designated facility in order to "do no harm" to the general public. The standard of professional behavior is to exercise personal responsibility to insist that public health safety come before oneself and follow the World Health Organization (WHO) 42 day incubation period for Ebola with a quarantine. Instead, Ms. Hickox complained about the treatment of health care workers in a news outlet almost demanding preferential treatment for health care workers.
The Maine Nurse Practice Act also allows disciplinary action for "engaging in false, misleading or deceptive advertising." Ms. Hickox failed to disclose her association with the CDC, instead promoting first and foremost her work with Doctors Without Borders. By engaging in this "deception," one could assume Ms. Hickox was a willing participant in a plan to undermine the guidelines for screening, monitoring and quarantining of individuals, mostly health care workers, returning from caring for Ebola stricken individuals in West Africa. Also, Ms. Hickox has basically hired an attorney to file a lawsuit for violation of civil rights concerning a quarantine issued to ensure public health safety, since three health care professionals have refused to exercise personal responsibility based on current medical knowledge regarding Ebola and endangered the general public with infection. Ms. Hickox intentionally hid her association and employment with the CDC in order to "tow the company line" against sound medical intervention. Basically, she mislead the public by failing to fully disclose her close association and employment with the CDC, which would account for her ranting and "special treatment."
This "nurse" needs to have multiple complaints filed against her with the State of Maine Board of Nursing for violation of the State Nurse Practice Act should it be found she is licensed to practice in that state.
Since Ms. Hickox indicated she graduated from the University of Texas Arlington, a search of the State of Texas Board of Nursing produced a result for a Kaci Lynne Hickox, who resides in Grapevine, Texas, according to the Nursing Board record. This license holder has a compact license meaning the license holder may practice in multiple states using the license issued by the State of Texas. However, the license holder is responsible for following the Nurse Practice Act in all states in which the license is valid and the state of residence. The Texas Board of Nursing has similar rules allowing for disciplinary action as Maine for similar offenses. The "ranting" Hickox reportedly returned home to Maine for her quarantine after the White House became involved.
Anyone may file a complaint against a nurse for violation of the Nurse Practice Act. Normally, the complaints are filed by colleagues, other nurses or physicians. However, with the actions of Ms. Hickox out in the open, the general public has every reason to question this nurses' ability to follow any nurse practice act which indicates that the professional registered nurse has a duty to public health safety.
Maybe Ms. Hickox should have thought all of this through before opening her mouth and engaging in making herself a media spectacle. It's possible that Ms. Hickox was willing to sacrifice her career in exchange for fame, millions of dollars or both in order to undermine the public health safety at the behest of the CDC. Should that be the case, Ms. Hickox should be ashamed to call herself a professional nurse.
If anyone would like to lodge a complaint against Ms. Hickox for unprofessional conduct and violations of standard professional conduct, the address for both Texas and Maine Nursing Boards are listed below.
State of Texas Board of Nursing
William P. Hobby Building
233 Guadalupe, Suite 3-460
Austin, TX 78701-3944
Toll-free complaint line: 1-800-821-3205
State of Maine Board of Nursing
161 Capital Street
158 State House Station
Augusta, Maine 04333-0158
Phone: 207-287-1133
Probation and Compliance: 207-287-1144
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.


Many Americans May Soon Resort To Unthinkable Actions To Gain Freedom Back From Liberals

Many Americans May Soon Resort To Unthinkable Actions To Gain Freedom Back From Liberals

Why are record numbers of highly educated and wealthy U.S. residents and citizens heading for the exits?

Obama Nobel
Pages: 1 2
Imagine an oceanfront lot for only $250,000. It sounds unheard of, but it can be had in Mexico. In fact, my friend just jumped ship and landed this sweet deal along the Pacific Ocean.
Another buddy of mine recently took the plunge and decided he’s had enough, too – relocating to a mountain enclave in Panama. He sends me emails about low prices and a quality of living beyond his greatest expectations.

Advertisement-content continues below

They’re not alone, though. This year, record numbers of Americans are set to not only escape the United States, but also renounce their citizenship, too.
While millions struggle to come here, one must ask the question…
Why are record numbers of highly educated and wealthy U.S. residents and citizens heading for the exits?
Hint: It has nothing to do with great real estate deals.

Advertisement-content continues below

Historic America
You see, it’s not the land that’s driving people away… it’s the idea of being tied to what America has become.
Growing up, I was part of a patriotic family. We worshipped the USA almost to the point of idolatry. We welcomed the soldiers back from Vietnam. My Sunday school teacher lost her son in the war, and we students did our best to comfort her.
And when Jimmy Carter failed to stand up to the thugs in Iran, we welcomed the flag-waving, anti-Communist Ronald Reagan into our hearts and our aspirations. He spoke for us and gave us hope. Most importantly, he often called on us to remember and restore the America of the past.
Reagan was famous for saying: “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least, let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”
Yet I wonder… are we still that special place of which Ronald Reagan spoke, or have we already taken our “first step into a thousand years of darkness?”
After all, Reagan was elected President in a distant era, 34 years ago. America has changed so much since then.
A Changed Nation
For starters, 56 million Americans who might have been born were it not for Roe v. Wade will never play a ball game, strike a note in a symphony, or invent a high-tech gadget for Apple (AAPL). What greatness these millions could have brought about will always remain a mystery.
They’ll never watch I Love Lucy, eat at McDonald’s (MCD), or attend our schools and universities. They’ll never listen to rock music, join Boy Scouts, or play little league.
Meanwhile, we continue to allow countless immigrants across our borders – ones who aren’t even forced to learn English, as the immigrants of the 19th century were. Instead, the latest generation of immigrants has been taught a multiculturalism that encourages them to reject what is uniquely American and instead look to “change” America.


Many Americans May Soon Resort To Unthinkable Actions To Gain Freedom Back From Liberals

Why are record numbers of highly educated and wealthy U.S. residents and citizens heading for the exits?

Obama Nobel
Pages: 1 2
Worst of all, the greatest of these “change” agents has been the president, Barack Obama.
As The New York Times reported in 2007, “Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’”

Advertisement-content continues below

As president, he’s been a success. He wanted to change America, and indeed we’ll never be the same again.
In the final analysis: I won’t leave America myself, but I must admit a fondness for a previous time when “change” hadn’t yet come to America. And I yearn for a leader who will rally us to once again embrace the uniquely American values of honesty, hard work, and love of God, which led to our former success.
Instead of leaving, I’ll stand and fight.

Advertisement-content continues below

This editorial originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission. 
Photo credit:






Was originally appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia by President Bill Clinton

  • Vetted the Clinton administration’s 176 last-minute pardons in January 2001
  • Was deeply involved in Clinton's pardons of Marc Rich and the Puerto Rican FALN terrorists
  • Condemned the Guantanamo Bay detention center as an “international embarrassment”
  • Was appointed U.S. Attorney General by President Barack Obama
  • Strong opponent of gun rights
  • Sought to try islamic terrorists in civilian courts rather than in military tribunals
  • Filed suit against several states that had passed laws designed to stem the flow of illegal immigration
  • Opposes efforts to purge voter rolls of ineligible names, or to enact voter-ID laws

Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. was born on January 21, 1951 in the Bronx, New York and was raised in Elmhurst, Queens. His father (1905-1970) hailed from Barbados and worked as a real estate broker; his mother (Miriam) was the American-born daughter of immigrants from Saint Philip, Barbados.

In 1969 Holder enrolled at Columbia University, where he became involved in what he would later describe as the “rise of black consciousness” protests on campus. As a freshman, he took a leadership role with the Student Afro-American Society (SAAS), which demanded that the school's abandoned ROTC (Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps) office be renamed the “Malcolm X Lounge” -- “in honor of a man who recognized the importance of territory as a basis for nationhood.” In 1970, while still a freshman, Holder participated in a five-day occupation of that office; according to some accounts, the occupiers were armed. In addition, Holder and SAAS also occupied the office of Henry Coleman, Dean of Freshmen, until their demands were met.

Holder graduated from Columbia University in 1973 with a degree in American history. Three years later he earned a J.D. from Columbia Law School. During one of the summers between his law-school academic years, Holder worked for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Holder was employed by the U.S. Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section from 1976 to 1988. In 1988 President Ronald Reagan appointed him as a Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Five years later, President Bill Clinton appointed Holder as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. In 1997 Clinton nominated Holder to replace Jamie Gorelick, the retiring Deputy Attorney General in Janet Reno’s Justice Department; Holder was confirmed by the Senate in a unanimous vote.

As Deputy Attorney General, Holder, as The Washington Post explains, “was the gatekeeper for presidential pardons.” Indeed, Holder was a key figure entrusted with the task of vetting the Clinton administration’s 176 last-minute pardons in January 2001. The beneficiaries of those pardons included such notables as former Weather Underground members Susan Rosenberg (who was involved in the deadly 1981 armed robbery of a Brink’s armored car) and Linda Evans (who had used false identification to buy firearms, had harbored a fugitive, and was in possession of 740 pounds of dynamite at the time of her arrest in 1985).

Holder played a particularly significant role in what was perhaps the most infamous of Clinton's 176 pardons—the one granted to the billionaire financier Marc Rich, a fugitive oil broker who had illegally purchased oil from Iran during the American trade embargo, and had then proceeded to hide more than $100 million in profits by using dummy transactions in off-shore corporations. Rich later renounced his American citizenship and fled to Switzerland to avoid prosecution for 51 counts of racketeering, wire fraud, tax fraud, tax evasion, and the illegal oil transactions with Iran.

Over the years, Rich’s ex-wife Denise had funneled at least $1.5 million to Clinton interests. Some $1.2 million went to the Democratic National Committee, $75,000 went to Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, and $450,000 helped finance the Bill Clinton Library in Arkansas.  Mrs. Rich also had given expensive gifts to the Clintons and, according to some rumors, had a very close relationship with the President.

According to The New York Times:
“Mr. Holder had more than a half-dozen contacts with Mr. Rich’s lawyers over 15 months, including phone calls, e-mail and memorandums that helped keep alive Mr. Rich’s prospects for a legal resolution to his case. And Mr. Holder’s final opinion on the matter—a recommendation to the White House on the eve of the pardon that he was ‘neutral, leaning toward’ favorable—helped ensure that Mr. Clinton signed the pardon despite objections from other senior staff members.”
The Times details the sequence of events:
“Holder’s role in the Rich issue actually began … [a]t a corporate dinner in November 1998, [where] Mr. Holder was seated at a table with a public-relations executive named Gershon Kekst, who had been trying to help Mr. Rich resolve his legal troubles. When Mr. Kekst learned that his dinner companion was the deputy attorney general, he proceeded to bring up the case of an unnamed acquaintance who had been ‘improperly indicted by an overzealous prosecutor.’ … A person in that situation, Mr. Holder advised, should ‘hire a lawyer who knows the process, he comes to me, we work it out.’ Mr. Kekst wanted to know if Mr. Holder could suggest a lawyer. Mr. Holder pointed to a former White House counsel sitting nearby. ‘There’s Jack Quinn,’ he said. ‘He’s a perfect example.’ Months later, Mr. Rich’s advisers settled on Mr. Quinn to lead the legal efforts …”
Between October 1999 and January 2001, Holder and Quinn discussed the Rich case on at least six separate occasions. Says The New York Times:
“In February 2000, Mr. Quinn sent Mr. Holder a memorandum entitled ‘Why D.O.J. [Department of Justice] Should Review the Marc Rich Indictment.’ About a month later, Mr. Holder spoke with Mr. Quinn again and told him that ‘we’re all sympathetic’ and that the legal ‘equities’ in the issue were ‘on your side.’ … By the fall of 2000, efforts to re-open the criminal case were dead, and Mr. Rich’s lawyers had moved on to the idea of a pardon. Again, Mr. Quinn turned to Mr. Holder. On Nov. 21, 2000, at the close of a meeting on a separate topic, Mr. Quinn took Mr. Holder aside, told him he was planning on filing a lengthy pardon petition with the White House and asked whether the White House should contact Mr. Holder for his opinion … In a separate e-mail message that Mr. Quinn [had] sent three days before that to other members of the Rich team,… he wrote: ‘Spoke to him last evening. Says to go straight to W.H. [White House]. Also says timing is good.’ …
“For the next months, Mr. Rich’s team pressed ahead with the pardon … On Jan. 19, 2001, Mr. Quinn called Mr. Holder and let him know that the White House would be contacting him for his recommendation on the pardon, which he said was receiving ‘serious consideration.’ Mr. Holder told him that he did not have a personal problem with the pardon, and Mr. Quinn quickly passed on the gist of the conversation to the White House. Minutes later, Mr. Holder received a call from Beth Nolan, the White House counsel, who had opposed the pardon idea and was surprised to hear that Mr. Holder apparently felt differently.
“Mr. Holder, according to Ms. Nolan’s testimony, told her that if the Israelis were in fact pushing for the pardon, he would find that ‘persuasive’ and would be ‘neutral leaning toward’ favorable.”
The next day, President Clinton signed the pardon. Clinton later cited Holder’s assessment as one of the factors that had persuaded him to issue the pardon. And once the pardon was granted, Holder sent his congratulations to Quinn.
Although he clearly had interceded on Rich’s behalf beginning in 1999, Holder in 2001 told the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, that “Mr. Rich’s name was unfamiliar to me” in 1999. Holder then elaborated that he had “gained only a passing familiarity with the underlying facts of the Rich case” during the months that followed.

But Holder's account was entirely untrue. As early as 1995, when Holder was the Clinton-appointed U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, his office had conducted an investigation into Rich and his business interests for tax evasion and other suspicious activity. Also in 1995, Holder's office filed a civil suit against the Swiss trading company Clarendon, Ltd. because that company, in obtaining $45 million in government contracts, had concealed the fact that it was controlled by Rich, whose history of fraud and his status as a fugitive rendered him legally ineligible for government contracts. Ultimately, Holder agreed to dismiss the case in exchange for a payment to the government of $1.2 million.

A March 2002 congressional report concluded that Rich's lawyers had tried to circumvent prosecutors (who they knew would oppose the pardon), and instead had chosen to take their case directly to the White House. Holder’s assistance in this process, coupled with his failure to alert prosecutors of a pending pardon, was crucial, said the report.

In 2009, when President Obama nominated Holder to be Attorney General, Holder, at the nomination hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, was asked by Senator Arlen Specter: “Were you aware of the kind of record this man [Rich] had?” Holder replied:

"No I was not. And that was one of the mistakes that I made. I did not really acquaint myself with his record. I knew that the matter involved — it was a tax-fraud case; it was a substantial tax-fraud case. I knew that he was a fugitive. I did not know a lot of the underlying facts that you have described."
In written follow-up questions, Specter asked: “Did you receive information about the facts of the Rich case from anyone other than Mr. Rich’s attorney, Jack Quinn?” Holder responded, “No.”
Holder was also intimately involved in President Clinton’s August 11, 1999 pardon of 16 members of the FALN, acronym for the Armed Forces of National Liberation—a violent Puerto Rican terrorist organization (as designated by the FBI) that was active in the U.S. from the mid-1970s through the early 1980s.

The FALN was a Marxist-Leninist group whose overriding mission was to secure Puerto Rico’s political independence from the United States. Toward that end, between 1974 and 1983 the group detonated nearly 130 bombs in such strategically selected places as military and government buildings, financial institutions, and corporate headquarters located mainly in Chicago, New York, and Washington DC. These bombings were carried out as acts of protest against America’s political, military, financial, and corporate presence in Puerto Rico. All told, FALN bombs killed six people—including the Chilean ambassador to the United States—and wounded at least 80 others.

On April 4, 1980, eleven FALN members were arrested in Evanston, Illinois. More of their comrades would also be apprehended in Chicago in the early 1980s. All were charged with seditious conspiracy, but they refused to participate in their own trial proceedings—claiming defiantly that the U.S. government was an illegitimate entity and thus had no moral authority by which to sit in judgment of them. All the defendants were found guilty and were sentenced to federal prison terms ranging from 35 to 105 years.

On November 9, 1993, a self-identified “human rights” organization named Ofensiva ’92 filed a petition for executive clemency on behalf of 18 members of the FALN and another violent organization seeking Puerto Rican independence, Los Macheteros (“The Machete-Wielders”). According to a December 12, 1999 report issued by the House Committee on Government Reform, the prisoners themselves “refused to take part in any process that would legitimize the government’s actions against them, therefore they refused to file their own petitions.”

This presented a problem because the Department of Justice (DOJ) traditionally stipulates that clemency will be considered only if a prisoner first files a petition on his or her own behalf, an act which the Department views as a sign of contrition. Nonetheless, DOJ made an exception in this case and accepted Ofensiva ’92’s petition, a document which cast the FALN prisoners as blameless freedom fighters analogous to those Americans who had fought in the Revolutionary War against Britain.

Among the notables who joined Ofensiva ’92’s clemency crusade were Cardinal John O'Connor, Coretta Scott King, Jimmy Carter, and the National Lawyers Guild. Perhaps the most passionate support came from Democrat Representatives Luis Gutierrez (IL), Jose Serrano (NY), and Nydia Velazquez (NY), each of whom echoed Ofensiva ’92’s claim that the FALN members were “political prisoners” who deserved to be released.

The attorneys and advocates who were fighting for the freedom of the FALN prisoners first met with the Justice Department’s Pardon Attorney on July 19, 1994. In October 1996 they met with Jack Quinn, Counsel to the President. They were unsuccessful, however, in their efforts to convey the legitimacy of their cause to the Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA), which in 1996 contacted the Justice Department and recommended against clemency; that recommendation, in turn, was forwarded to the White House.

But the matter was not over; OPA continued to meet with groups and individuals lobbying for clemency on behalf of the FALN terrorists. Then in 1997, Eric Holder—who was President Clinton’s new Deputy Attorney General (in the Justice Department headed by Janet Reno)—became involved in the case.

In this role, Holder was responsible for overseeing clemency investigations and determining which of those requests were ultimately worthy of President Clinton’s attention. As evidenced by a September 1997 memorandum from the Pardon Attorney, the Justice Department was, at this point, receiving numerous inquiries about the FALN and Macheteros—from the White House and from supporters of the prisoners. The aforementioned House Committee on Government Reform report stated: “Throughout the closing months of 1997 it appears that Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder was active in the issue. The privilege log reflects at least two notes regarding his questions on the clemency or his thoughts on the matter.”
On November 5, 1997, Holder met with Representatives Gutierrez, Serrano, and Velazquez to discuss the clemency issue. He advised the legislators that they might greatly increase the likelihood of a presidential pardon if they could convince the prisoners to write letters testifying as to the personal remorse they felt for their past actions. But no such letters would be produced for five months, during which time the clemency issue remained on hold. Meanwhile, in a January 6, 1998 letter a senior Justice Department official expressly referred to the FALN members as “terrorists.”

Then on April 8, 1998, Holder again met with FALN supporters. This time, they finally delivered statements from the prisoners as Holder had advised in November. But all the statements were identical—indicating that not one of the prisoners had made an effort to craft his own personal expression of repentance.

Undeterred, Holder then raised the question of whether the prisoners might at least agree to renounce future violence in exchange for clemency. One of the prisoners’ backers, Reverend Paul Sherry, made it clear that they surely “would not change their beliefs”—presumably about the issue of Puerto Rican independence—but was vague as to whether they were apt to eschew violence altogether.

Over the next few weeks, Holder and the Justice Department continued to meet with numerous advocates of clemency and to review pertinent materials which the latter brought forth on behalf of the prisoners. Holder clearly was the point man for these clemency negotiations. As Brian Blomquist wrote in the New York Post, “A list of FALN documents withheld from Congress shows that many memos on the FALN clemency decision went directly to Holder, while [Janet] Reno’s role was minimal.” Similarly, New York Daily News reporter Edward Lewine wrote that Holder was “the Justice Department official most involved with this issue.”

Throughout the clemency review process, neither Holder nor anyone else in the Justice Department contacted any of the people who had been victimized (or whose loved ones had been victimized) by the FALN. Most were never aware that clemency for the terrorists was even being contemplated. And those few who were aware of the possibility were rebuffed in their efforts to participate in the review process.

On May 19, 1998, the Pardon Attorney sent Eric Holder a 48-page draft memorandum “concerning clemency for Puerto Rican Nationalist prisoners.” Seven weeks later, on July 8, Holder sent President Clinton a “memorandum regarding clemency matter.” Indeed the Deputy Attorney General was methodically spearheading the march toward clemency—despite the fact that the sentencing judges, the U.S. Attorneys, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the FBI were unanimous in their opposition to pardoning the individuals in question.

In late July 1999 an attorney from Holder’s office spoke to White House Counsel Charles Ruff regarding the clemency matter. On August 9, 1999, Holder’s office and OPA held one final meeting to hammer out the details, and two days later the President made his announcement: clemency was granted to sixteen terrorists, most of whom had served only a fraction of their prison terms. Of the sixteen, twelve accepted the offer and were freed, two refused it, and two others, who already were out of prison, never responded.
Congress, for its part, was not pleased—condemning the clemencies by votes of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House.  

In the aftermath of the clemencies, a Justice Department report stated that the FALN posed an “ongoing threat” to America's national security. And in late October 1999 the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report from Attorney General Janet Reno stating that the FALN members’ “impending release from prison” would “increase the present threat” of terrorism.

In an October 20th Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and again with reporters the following day, Eric Holder denied that Reno was referring to the same FALN terrorists whose pardons he had worked so long and hard to secure. Yet when Holder was asked to identify whom Reno was in fact talking about, he responded as follows:

“I don’t know, no, I don’t know that. We might be able to get you some more information on that, but, I mean, you know, there were certain people who are due to be released, or who were at least eligible for parole, had a release date in the next, as I said, three, four years. I don’t know exactly who they were. Maybe—we might be able to get you that information.”
Neither Holder nor the Justice Department ever provided any additional names.
In December 1999, a House Committee on Government Reform report stated:

“The 16 [FALN] terrorists appear to be most unlikely candidates. They did not personally request clemency. They did not admit to wrongdoing and they had not renounced violence before such a renunciation had been made a quid pro quo for their release. They expressed no contrition for their crimes, and were at times openly belligerent about their actions…. Notwithstanding the fact that the 16 did not express enough personal interest in the clemency process to file their own applications, the White House appeared eager to assist throughout the process. Meetings were held with supporters, and some senior staff [i.e., Holder] even suggested ways to improve the likelihood of the President granting the clemency. Overall, the White House appears to have exercised more initiative than the terrorists themselves.”
After the end of the Clinton presidency, Holder left the Justice Department and joined (as a partner) the Washington, DC law firm of Covington & Burling (C&B). In 2004 he met Barack Obama at a dinner party hosted by former White House aide Anne Walker Marchange, a niece of Clinton friend Vernon Jordan.

In the spring of 2007, shortly after launching his White House bid, Obama asked Holder to join his presidential campaign as a legal adviser and strategist. At that time, Holder's firm, C&B, was representing 17 Yemeni detainees (and one Pakistani national) in Guantanamo Bay. A former client of C&B was yet another Guantanamo detainee, from Kuwait, who had contributed to an anthology of detainee poetry compiled and published by Holder’s C&B colleague, Marc Falkoff. Falkoff likened the plight of these “gentle, thoughtful” poets, to that of the Jews who had been held in concentration camps during World War II. The aforementioned Kuwaiti was released from Guantanamo in 2005 and promptly resumed his terrorist activities. In March 2008 he blew himself up with a truck bomb in Mosul, Iraq, killing 13 Iraqi army soldiers and wounding 42 others.

In the summer of 2008, candidate Obama tapped Holder to serve on the vice presidential selection team that ultimately chose Joe Biden to be Obama’s running mate. In November 2008, President-elect Obama, who was slated to take his oath of office two months later, selected Holder to serve as his Attorney General.

At an American Constitution Society gathering in 2004, Holder made the following comments:
  • "Conservatives have been defenders of the status quo, afraid of the future, and content to allow to continue to exist all but the most blatant inequalities."
  • Conservatives have "made a mockery of the rule of law."
  • Conservatives try to "put the environment at risk for the sake of unproven economic theories, to play to the fears of our citizens, and not to their hopes, and to return the nation to a time that in fact never existed."
  • Conservatives are "breathtaking" in their "arrogance," which manifests itself in such things as "attacks on abortion rights," "energy policies that are as shortsighted as they are ineffective," and "tax cuts that disproportionately favor those who are well off and perpetuate many of the inequities in our nation."
  • The hallmarks of the "conservative agenda" include "social division, mindless tax cutting, and a defense posture that does not really make us safer."
  • "The nation must be convinced that it is a progressive future that holds the greatest promise for equality and the continuation of those policies that serve to support the greatest number of our people. In the short term this will not be an easy task. With the mainstream media somewhat cowered by conservative critics, and the conservative media disseminating the news in anything but a fair and balanced manner, and you know what I mean there, the means to reach the greatest number of people is not easily accessible." 


In a 1995 address to the Woman's National Democratic Club, Holder announced the launch of a public campaign to "really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way." "What we need to do," he explained, "is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable, it's not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes." Holder added that he had already asked advertising agencies to produce anti-gun ads rather than commercials "that make me buy things that I don't really need"; that he had urged local newspapers and television stations to devote prime space and time, respectively, to anti-gun themes; and that he had asked the local school board to make the anti-gun message a part of "every day, every school, and every level."

During his tenure as Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration from 1997 to 2001, Holder was a strong supporter of restrictive gun-control legislation. He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners; a three-day waiting period on all handgun sales; limits on handgun sales to no more than one per month; a ban on the possession of handguns and so-called "assault weapons" by anyone younger than 21; a law authorizing the federal government to shut down all gun shows; and a national gun-registration mandate.

Holder also advanced the notion that “Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence”—a statistic that was true only if one classified 18-year-old, gun-wielding gangsters as “children.” In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Holder wrote an opinion piece for The Washington Post calling for a new law that would give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms “a record of every firearm sale.” He also advocated that prospective gun buyers be checked against the secret “watch lists” compiled by the government.

While Holder served in the Clinton Justice Department, he oversaw the “instant” background-check system for prospective firearm purchasers. Under Holder's watch, constant breakdowns of that system halted gun sales for hours or even days at a time. Even by the end of the Clinton administration, from September 1999 to December 2000, the system was down about one hour for every 16.7 hours of operation. The breakdowns often came in big blocks of time; gun shows sometimes were unable to sell guns during the entire weekend that they were open. Notably, the breakdowns were quickly resolved within weeks of President Bush assuming office in 2001, and the problems did not recur.

In 2008, Holder argued that “the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms,” but only protected government militias’ rights to guns. Scholar and political commentator John Lott writes that he “can’t find even one gun control law that Holder has opposed.” “On every gun control regulation [Holder] has discussed,” says Lott, “he has been supportive, including: bans, raising the age that someone can possess a gun, registration and licensing, one-gun-a-month limit on purchases, and mandatory waiting periods.”


In the latter days of the Bush administration, Holder publicly condemned the Guantanamo Bay detention center as an “international embarrassment.” He accused the U.S. government of having “authorized torture and … let fear take precedence over the rule of law.” Further, he demanded an immediate end to warrantless eavesdropping by intelligence and counterterrorism officials.
In April 2009, reporters asked Holder whether he might seek to prosecute CIA agents who had carried out the Bush administration policies to which the Attorney General now objected. He replied: “It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department.” Four months later, however, Holder referred their cases to a special federal prosecutor with broad and independent powers. In making this decision, the Attorney General ignored the bitter opposition of CIA Director Leon Panetta and even attorneys in his (Holder's) own Justice Department.
In 2004 Holder filed an amicus brief on behalf of al Qaeda terrorist Jose Padilla, who had been dispatched to the United States by Osama bin Laden and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to carry out a post-9/11, second wave of terrorist attacks. In the brief, Holder asserted that President Bush lacked the constitutional authority to determine the parameters of the battlefield in the war on terror. Padilla, for example, was arrested in an American airport when returning from a trip to Pakistan, where he had met with Mr. Mohammed to discuss plans for attacking U.S. interests. By Holder’s reckoning, Islamic terrorists had a right to be treated as criminal defendants, not enemy combatants, unless they were captured on a traditional battlefield.

As former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy explains, Holder’s Padilla brief was "a comprehensive attack on Bush counterterrorism, an enthusiastic endorsement of the law-enforcement approach in vogue during the Clinton era (when Holder was deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, who also signed on to the Padilla brief)."

Notably, when the U.S. Senate in early 2009 deliberated vis a vis Holder's nomination for Attorney General, Holder failed to disclose seven legal briefs he had written or signed during the course of his professional career—most notably Amicus briefs on behalf of detained terrorists and enemy combatants like Padilla.

In May 2009, Holder announced that Ahmed Ghailani—who had been indicted by a federal grand jury for the 1998 bombings (which killed 224 people, including 12 Americans) of two U.S. embassies in Africa—would be transferred from the Guantanamo Bay detention center to New York City for trial. This would make Ghailani the first Guantanamo detainee brought to the U.S. and the first to face trial in a civilian criminal court. Said Holder:
"By prosecuting Ahmed Ghailani in federal court, we will ensure that he finally answers for his alleged role in the bombing of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.... This administration is committed to keeping the American people safe and upholding the rule of law, and by closing Guantanamo and bringing terrorists housed there to justice we will make our nation stronger and safer."
On November 13, 2009, Holder announced that his Justice Department would likewise try five Guantanamo Bay detainees with alleged ties to the 9/11 conspiracy, in a civilian court—the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The defendants were Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM).
In response to Holder's announcement, political commentator Mona Charen wrote: “By granting a civil trial to KSM, while Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, will receive a military tribunal, the U.S. telegraphs this message to terrorists: Wherever possible, attack our civilians. You'll get more lawyering and a better deal than if you attack our military. (And by the way, you'll get more rights than a member of our military who commits a crime.)”

After Holder's announcement that Islamic terror suspects would be tried in civilian courts rather than in military tribunals, many Americans began to wonder if U.S. military and law-enforcement personnel would be required to be read Miranda rights—which bar prosecutors from using, as evidence, statements which suspects make before they have been informed of their right to remain silent and to consult an attorney—to newly captured terror suspects. In a November 2009 Justice Department oversight hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) raised this issue in the following contentious exchange with Holder:

The very next month, Holder's Justice Department elected to Mirandize the so-called “Christmas bomber,” al Qaeda operative Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian-born Islamist who had tried to blow up a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines jet with explosives hidden inside his underwear. Informed of his right to remain silent, Abdulmutallab promptly chose to exercise it. Soon thereafter, several FBI agents traveled to Nigeria to plead with the suspect's family for assistance. Ultimately (and fortuitously), the family traveled to the U.S., where they persuaded Abdulmutallab to cooperate.
In May 2010, Holder and the Obama administration abruptly shifted their position regarding the highly controversial and politically radioactive matter of Miranda rights for terror suspects. Specifically, Holder and the administration said that they would thenceforth seek to pass a law allowing investigators to interrogate terrorism suspects without informing them of their Miranda rights. As Holder put it, interrogators needed greater flexibility to question such suspects than was permitted by existing exceptions.

On May 13, 2010, Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee. During that testimony, Rep. Lamar Smith tried to get the Attorney General to acknowledge that radical Islam might have played a role in motivating several recently attempted terrorist attacks against U.S. interests—most notably: (a) Major Nidal Malik Hasan's November 2009 shooting of 13 fellow U.S. soldiers in Fort Hood, Texas; (b) Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab's attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines jet on Christmas Day 2009; and (c) Faisal Shahzad's attempted car bombing in New York's Times Square on May 1, 2010. Holder steadfastly refused to acknowledge Smith's assertion. A video and transcript of Holder's exchange with Smith can be viewed here.

Holder changes course and decides to try 9/11 mastermind in military tribunal
On April 4, 2011, Holder announced that the Justice Department, in an abrupt reversal of its November 2009 decision, would now proceed to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (and 4 co-conspirators) in a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay.

In a February 18, 2009 speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder alleged that Americans on the whole were afraid to confront racial issues in an honest or meaningful way. Among his remarks were the following:

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.... [W]e, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race. It is an issue we have never been at ease with and, given our nation’s history, this is in some ways understandable.... [T]his nation has still not come to grips with its racial past ... [A] black history month is a testament to the problem that has afflicted blacks throughout our stay in this country. Black history is given a separate, and clearly not equal, treatment by our society in general and by our educational institutions in particular."


On April 23, 2010, Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, signed into law a bill deputizing state police to check with federal authorities on the immigration status of any individuals whom they had stopped for some legitimate reason, if the behavior of those individuals—or the circumstances of the stop—led the officers to suspect that they might be in the United States illegally. In the ensuing days and weeks, Holder spoke out forcefully against the bill and indicated that the federal government might challenge it. During the weekend of May 8-9, he participated in a number of television interviews in which he warned that the law could lead to racial profiling and might cause Latinos to stop cooperating with police. But in a May 13 House hearing, Holder admitted that he had not read the statute: "I have not had a chance to. I've glanced at it. I have not read it."

Eventually, Holder's Justice Department filed suit against Arizona in an effort to prevent the immigration law from taking effect. The suit resulted in court rulings that blocked key portions of the law. By November 2011, the Justice Department would file similar suits against three additional states (Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah) that likewise had passed laws designed to stem the flow of illegal immigration.

On Election Day, 2008, two members of the New Black Panther Party—Jerry Jackson and King Samir Shabazz—intimidated white voters with racial slurs and threats of violence at a Philadelphia polling place. Bartle Bull, a former civil rights attorney and campaign aide to the late Robert F. Kennedy, witnessed the Panthers' actions and characterized them as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" he had ever seen. Because Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits intimidation, coercion and threats to voters or those aiding voters, the Bush Justice Department filed a civil-rights lawsuit not only against the aforementioned Jackson and Shabazz, but also against the New Black Panther Party and its national chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz.

In 2009, the Obama administration inherited that lawsuit from the outgoing Bush administration. When the defendants failed to answer the suit, a federal court in Philadelphia entered a default judgment against them. But the Holder Justice Department responded by suddenly dropping the charges against the Panthers and two of the defendants; the third defendant was merely barred from displaying a weapon near a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years.

In June 2010, J. Christian Adams, a five-year Department of Justice (DOJ) veteran, resigned to protest the “corrupt nature” of DOJ's dismissal of the case against the Panthers. “I mean we were told, 'Drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party,'” he told Fox News. In July 2010, Adams gave damning public testimony about how the DOJ believed that “civil rights law should not be enforced in a race-neutral manner, and should never be enforced against blacks or other national minorities.”

Christopher Coates—Voting Section Chief for the DOJ—testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and corroborated Adams' assertion that the Department had routinely ignored civil rights cases involving white victims. For more than a year previously, Holder's DOJ had denied the Commission's requests to hear Coates' testimony and had instructed Coates not to testify. But in September 2010, Coates finally went public with his story and asked for protection under whistleblower laws. For the full text of Coates' testimony, click here.

In testimony he gave on March 1, 2011, Holder assured the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies that politics had played no role whatsoever in DOJ's handling of the New Black Panther Party case: “The decisions made in the New Black Panther Party case were made by career attorneys in the department,” said the Attorney General. But documents obtained in 2012 by Judicial Watch, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, revealed that top political appointees at DOJ were intimately involved in the decision to drop the voter intimidation lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party. DOJ had initially refused to turn over the documents, contending that they didn’t show “any political interference whatsoever.” But Judge Reggie B. Walton in Washington, DC District Court disagreed. Allowing the release of the documents on July 23, 2012, he declared that they “reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case[.]”

In July 2010, Holder's Justice Department released the former Marxist terrorist Marilyn Buck from prison, where she was serving an 80-year sentence that began in the 1980s. Buck had helped the Black Liberation Army (BLA) member and convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur escape from prison in 1979; helped the BLA acquire weapons and ammunition; participated in the deadly 1981 Brink's armored-car robbery; and played a role in a number of bombings—directed against the U.S. Senate, three military installations in the Washington D.C. area, and four sites in New York City. Explaining the rationale for Buck's release, Justice Department officials said that Buck had learned her lesson and had “expressed a dramatic change from her previous political philosophy.” After discovering in early summer 2010 that Buck had contracted uterine cancer and was not expected to live much longer, Holder’s officials released her even earlier than scheduled, on July 15, 2010. She died less than a month later.

In a January 2011 address to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Civil Rights, Holder cited a 2005 report based on EPA data which showed that African Americans were almost 80 percent more likely than whites to live near hazardous industrial pollution sites.
In 2011, Holder's Justice Department pushed to maximize Democratic voter turnout for the 2012 elections by filing “motor voter” suits across the country, complaining that state agencies were not circulating voter-registration forms in social service agencies. By contrast, the Justice Department made no effort to enforce another section of the law requiring states purge voter rolls of dead persons and ineligible felons.

In late May 2012, Holder's DOJ ordered the state of Florida to halt its efforts to identify and purge its voter rolls of non-citizens. The DOJ’s lead civil-rights lawyer said that his Department had not yet determined whether Florida's efforts "neither have the purpose nor will have the effect of discriminating on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group."

Florida did not back down. “We have an obligation to make sure the voter rolls are accurate and we are going to continue forward and do everything that we can legally do to make sure than ineligible voters cannot vote,” said Chris Cate, a spokesman for Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner. “We are firmly committed to doing the right thing and preventing ineligible voters from being able to cast a ballot. We are not going to give up our efforts to make sure the voter rolls are accurate.”

Earlier in 2012 Secretary Detzner had worked with Florida’s Department of Motor Vehicles to identify more than 2,600 people who were registered to vote despite being non-citizens at the time they applied for a driver’s license. Further, Detzner said that earlier efforts by his agency had identified 182,000 voters who were non-citizens by comparing voter rolls and driver’s-license databases. Detzner also revealed that he and his staff had been refused access by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the federal database containing more up-to-date immigration and citizenship information. In other words, the DHS would not assist Florida in its effort to be as non-discriminatory as possible, even as Holder's DOJ insisted that Florida was engaging in discrimination.

Also in Florida, some 53,000 dead registered voters had been discovered when the state compared voter rolls to federal Social Security files for the first time—as a result of the passage of an election law by the GOP-controlled legislature.

When Florida failed to comply with Holder's demand that it stop purging the voter rolls of dead people and non-citizens, the DOJ on June 12, 2012 filed a lawsuit against Florida.

Also as of June 2012, DOJ had already filed suit against both Texas and South Carolina for enacting voter photo ID statutes; yet a 6-3 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in 2008 had already upheld the right of a state (in that case, Indiana) to require such identification for voting. Thus the DOJ suit implied that Holder and company believe each state must file individual suits to achieve the same right.
In a July 2010 column for PJ Media, former DOJ Voting Section attorney J. Christian Adams had written: “In November 2009, the entire Voting Section was invited to a meeting with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes…to discuss Motor Voter enforcement decisions. The room was packed with dozens of Voting Section employees when she made her announcement regarding the provisions related to voter list integrity: ‘We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law. It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it.’”


As U.S. Attorney General, Holder, who contends that nearly one in four black people lack photo identification, has consistently opposed efforts to pass voter-ID laws designed to combat voter fraud. According to Holder, such laws—which either took effect or became pending in 11 states between 2008 and 2012—have the effect of disenfranchising nonwhite minorities. “It is time to ask: What kind of nation and what kind of people do we want to be?” Holder said in a December 2011 speech condemning voter ID. “Are we willing to allow this era—our era—to be remembered as the age when our nation’s proud tradition of expanding the franchise ended?”

In a May 2012 meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus and black church leaders, Holder said that during the preceding two years, the Justice Department had challenged “two dozen state laws and executive orders from more than a dozen states that could make it significantly harder for many eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.″
Further, Holder asserted that conservatives in a number of states were enacting photo-identification requirements at polling places as a pretext for blocking “access” to the voting booth for blacks and other nonwhite minorities. According to the Attorney General, voter fraud was much too rare to warrant such measures.

In the fall of 2011, controversy arose over Holder's role in endorsing “Fast and Furious,” a program which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms (ATF)—an agency of the Justice Department—had administered during 2009-10. In that initiative, the ATF sold some 2,500 guns—including 34 sniper rifles with an effective lethal range of approximately 2,000 meters—to “straw purchasers” in the U.S. who agreed to subsequently smuggle the guns into Mexico and put them in the hands of cartel leaders, who supposedly were to be arrested at some subsequent point.

The entire "Fast and Furious" operation ended with only 20 indictments of straw purchasers—all of whom were already familiar to U.S. authorities from the outset. Moreover, the program was linked directly to two weapons found on the scene where U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered in Arizona in December 2010. By the fall of 2011, the weapons that had been transferred as part of "Fast and Furious" had been used in at least 200 murders in Mexico. They also had been identified at 11 additional crime scenes in the United States.

While being questioned under oath during a Judiciary Committee hearing on May 3, 2011, Holder indicated that he had known nothing about "Fast and Furious" until about April 2011. But soon thereafter, a newly discovered memo (dated July 2010) showed that Michael Walther, director of the National Drug Intelligence Center, had already told Holder that straw buyers in the "Fast and Furious" operation "are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to the Mexican drug trafficking cartels." Other documents also indicated that Holder had begun receiving weekly briefings on the program from the National Drug Intelligence Center no later than July 5, 2010. Moreover, former ATF special agent William Newell testified under oath that “the DHS, IRS, DEA, ATF, ICE and the Obama Justice Department were all involved” in the operation.
In 2011 the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued a subpoena instructing Holder to turn over all internal Justice Department documents related to the "Fast and Furious" program. As of late June, 2012, DOJ had supplied fewer than 8 percent of the 80,000 documents the congressional investigators sought. (Further, DOJ had blocked 48 of the 70 Justice Department officials who were  involved in Fast and Furious, from testifying.) House Republicans continued to pressure the Attorney General to turn over the remaining documents, but Holder refused.

On June 20, 2012, President Obama granted a request by Holder to exert executive privilege over the documents in question. That same day, the House Committee—having exhausted all other means of obtaining the documents from the Justice Department—voted 23 to 17 (in a vote that was split along party lines) to hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress for failing to produce the missing documents.

On June 28, 2012, the full House of Representatives voted 255-67 to uphold the criminal contempt charge against Holder. Most Democrats walked out of the vote in a gesture of protest led by the Congressional Black Caucus, but 17 Democrats sided with the majority Republicans. The vote represented the first time a U.S. Attorney General had ever been held in contempt by a chamber of Congress.

Minutes after the criminal contempt vote, the House voted 258-95 (with 21 Democrats joining the Republican majority) to pursue a civil contempt case against Holder in court.

In response to the contempt charges against him, Holder suggested that Republicans were retaliating against him because he had blocked voter-identification laws in a number of states. “Today’s vote may make for good political theater in the minds of some, but it is, at base, both a crass effort and a grave disservice to the American people,” he said. “They expect—and deserve—far better.”
On September 19, 2012, the Justice Department's inspector general issued a report saying there was no evidence that Holder had known about Fast & Furious. Instead, the report blamed a total of 18 DOJ officials, most notably the high-ranking Jason Weinstein (number two in the Justice Department's Criminal Division) and Kenneth Melson (former head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) for "a series of misguided strategies, tactics, errors in judgement and management failures."


In February 2012 it was reported that radical Muslim groups in the United States had repeatedly met with high-ranking Obama administration officials to complain that the usage of the term “radical Islam” in FBI curricula was both “offensive” and “racist.” In response, Holder and FBI director Robert Mueller issued directives requiring all such language to be purged from FBI training materials. Among the more than 1,000 items destroyed or removed by the FBI and the DOJ were PowerPoints and articles that defined jihad as “holy war,” and presentations that portrayed the Muslim Brotherhood as an organization which seeks to establish Islam's dominion over all the world -- a goal the Brotherhood has candidly and publicly declared for decades.


During a February 2012 forum at Columbia University, Holder voiced his support for affirmative action, saying that he “can’t actually imagine a time in which the need for more diversity would ever cease.” Added Holder: “Affirmative action has been an issue since segregation practices. The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin; when do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?”

In a February 25, 2012 speech to the organization 100 Black Men of Atlanta, Holder lamented the findings of a 2011 study of discipline patterns in Texas schools. Holder said the study showed that “83 percent of African American male students and 74 percent of Hispanic male students ended up in trouble and suspended for some period of time” -- as compared to 59% of white male students. “We’ve often seen that students of color, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and students with special needs are disproportionately likely to be suspended or expelled,” Holder stated. “This is, quite simply, unacceptable.… These unnecessary and destructive policies must be changed.” After citing the Texas study, Holder added that “tellingly, 97 percent of all suspensions were discretionary and reflected the administrator’s discipline philosophy as much as the student’s behavior.” In his speech, Holder ignored data indicating that the different discipline rates were consistent with differences in actual schoolyard behavior.

On April 11, 2012, Holder delivered a speech at the 14th annual convention of Al Sharpton's National Action Network.
On April 23, 2012, Holder's Justice Department sued Jacksonville, Florida, claiming that the city's use of written tests to determine promotions in its fire department had "resulted in a disparate impact upon black candidates," who registered passing grades at significantly lower rates than their white counterparts.

On September 18, 2012, The Daily Caller reported that internal DOJ emails (obtained via the Freedom of Information Act) showed that Holder's communications staff had secretly collaborated with Media Matters For America in an effort to discredit and suppress further news stories about scandals that were plaguing Holder and his agency.
For further details about these and other collaborations between Media Matters and DOJ, click here.


In the wake of the deadly Boston Marathon bombing by two Islamic terrorists on April 15, 2013, the surviving bomber, Dzhokar Tsarnaev -- who had been wounded by law-enforcement officers pursuing him -- was interrogated by FBI agents in a Boston hospital. He was not read his Miranda rights prior to the questioning, due to a 48-hour “public safety exemption” that can be invoked in cases where there is reason to believe that a suspect may be able to provide information that could help authorities prevent additional, imminent acts of terror or destruction. During the first 16 hours of questioning, Tsarnaev revealed a significant amount of highly useful intelligence. But then, on orders from the Justice Department, federal judge Marianne Bowler entered Tsarnaev's hospital room and, in a move that stunned the FBI investigators who were present, read him his Miranda rights. From that point onward, Tsarnaev refused to talk.


Fourteen days after the Boston Marathon bomb attack, Holder declared that the Justice Department would be on the lookout for any acts of violence or discrimination indicative of a backlash against Muslim Americans. Without mentioning the fact that the two perpetrators were Muslims, the Attorney General said:
"[J]ust as we will pursue relentlessly anyone who would target our people or attempt to terrorize our cities -- the Justice Department is firmly committed to protecting innocent people against misguided acts of retaliation. In the dozen years since 9/11, this commitment has led the Department to investigate more than 800 incidents involving threats, assaults, and acts of vandalism and violence targeting Muslims, Arabs, Sikhs, South Asians, and others who are perceived to be members of these groups. As Americans, we must not allow any group to be stigmatized or alienated. We must not tolerate acts of hatred."


In an April 24 speech to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund Awards Gala, Holder said: “The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented – by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows – transcends the issue of immigration status. This is a matter of civil and human rights.”

On May 13, 2013, it was learnedthat the Justice Department had secretly obtained the records oftelephone calls that, in April and May of 2012, had been routedthrough more than 20 separate phone lines assigned to the AssociatedPress (AP); those lines had been used by over 100 AP reporters andeditors.
DOJ claimedthat its actions were part of an investigation into AP's May 7, 2012publication of a story (based on leaked, classified materials)disclosing the CIA's infiltration of an alQaeda plot to detonate a bombaboard an airplane. Notably,the five reporters and an editor who had been assigned to thatparticular AP story were among those who had their phone recordsseized by DOJ.

Accordingto strict DOJ rules, phone records from news organizations can beobtained only with a subpoena that is issued after "allreasonable attempts" have been made to get the same informationfrom other sources (which DOJ electednot to do). Moreover, DOJ rules stipulate that the subpoena must beapproved personally by the Attorney General. But at a May 14, 2013press conference, Eric Holder saidthat he had recused himself from the DOJ investigation of AP, andthat Deputy Attorney General Jim Cole had signed off on the subpoena. Thus,when reporters began asking Holder specific questions about theseizure of AP's phone records, the Attorney General pleadedignorance. “I frankly don’t have knowledge of those facts,” hecontended. When Republican congressman Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsinasked Holder why he had recused himself, the Attorney Generalreplied:"I was interviewed as one of the people who had access to theinfo"—in other words, he was a potential suspect in the leak.
In a subsequent letter sent to Holder, AP president and CEOGary Pruitt stated:"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroadcollection of the telephone communications of The Associated Pressand its reporters. These records potentially reveal communicationswith confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activitiesundertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map toAP's newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP'sactivities and operations that the government has no conceivableright to know."

AP reporters were equally upset. Saidone AP reporter: “We all know that confidential sourcing is thelifeblood of what we do, and people can’t come to us if they thinkthey’re going to be compromised. It’s hard enough gettingsources, now we’re afraid this is going to have a chillingeffect.”

On May16, 2013, the Washington Post broke a major storyexplaining the real motives behind the Justice Department's actions.Specifically, said the Post, AP was prepared to publish itsscoop about the CIA's infiltration of the al Qaeda plot on May 2,2012. But the CIA—particularly its deputy director, Michael J.Morell—told the news service that publishing the story at thatpoint would compromise a “sensitive intelligence operation” withserious national-security implications. Morell said that the agencywould need several more days to protect whatever it had in the works,and that AP could publish its story as soon as that had beenaccomplished.

Then, on May 7, 2012, CIA officials told AP thatnational-security concerns were “no longer an issue,” butnonetheless requested that the news agency delay publication for onemore day. This was because the Obama administration was planning toannounce the CIA's successful counterterrorism operation thefollowing morning—May 8, 2012, when the president’s topcounterterrorism adviser, JohnBrennan, was slated to appear on Good Morning America.Given the fact that national security was no longer an issue,however, AP disregarded the CIA's request and published the story onMay 7. That is what prompted Eric Holder's Justice Department toillegally procure AP's telephone records.

On May 20, 2013, it was revealed that DOJ's efforts to intimidate the media went beyond targeting reporters and editors at the Associated Press. The Washington Post reported that DOJ had not only seized the phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen, but had used his security badge to access records tracking his movements at the State Department, traced the timing of his calls with a Department security advisor suspected of giving him classified information, and obtained a search warrant to access his personal emails.

That same day (May 20), it was reported that two more Fox News staffers -- reporter William La Jeunesse and producer Mike Levine -- ha