Eric Holder: "most right-wing attorney general in US history" - World Socialist Web Site


Holder’s real legacy includes, without making a complete list: providing pseudo-legal sanction for assassination of US citizens, military commissions, and incommunicado detention; shielding war criminals, corporate criminals, and Bush-era officials from prosecution; persecuting whistleblowers and journalists; targeting protesters and antiwar activists under antiterror laws; asserting unlimited executive powers; justifying government secrecy; deporting immigrants en masse; abetting the expansion of illegal domestic spying; slashing wages and benefits for workers; and infiltrating authoritarian and fascistic legal doctrines into American jurisprudence.
... He should be remembered as the most right-wing attorney general in US history thus far, a crusader for dictatorship and an enemy of the working class. For his role in the numerous conspiracies to subvert democratic rights, including with respect to the illegal assassinations of civilians, he deserves to be arrested, indicted and prosecuted.

Source: The legacy of US Attorney General Eric Holder - World Socialist Web Site.

Shielding the George W. Bush administration leadership was the worst offense followed closely by shielding the banksters.

Within my lifetime, I believe Alberto Gonzales was more right-wing, but Eric Holder got away with it more (so far).

In addition to many of the things mentioned above, the libertarians have a long list of complaints, not the least of which is "Fast and Furious."


Tom Usher

Of course, there are anarchist libertarians versus more socially-conservative libertarians. The latter simply hate the fact that as AG, Holder simply would pick and choose which laws to enforce. I must admit that I don't remember any AG (or President) before openly stating that he would not enforce a federal law (regardless of whether the law happened to be in the courts a great deal, such as homosexual "marriage"). It was always my understanding that law enforcement had to follow the Supreme Court, not be out in front of it whether right or wrong. To pick and choose on issues that are undecided at the time, even being decided differently by different federal courts, is to make law rather than execute it (as the executive branch). He took an oath to faithfully execute....

Honestly, the types of things that federal office holders have been getting away with beginning with George W. Bush is amazing when compared to Watergate, where Republicans were often as disgusted as Democrats in many ways, sometimes more effectively.

Today, the Democrats, even the so-called liberal ones, almost always turn a blind eye.

The fact is, the US has shown a great deal of deep-seated corruption in so-called high places. I consider it lawless.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Elaboration on Theologian Ian Paul & Handling Homosexuality

I blogged several days ago about a post by Ian Paul, on his Psephizo blog: Excellent but: "The Bible and the Gay Debate | Psephizo"

I also posted it on a Facebook thread by theologian Robert Gagnon:

Rob added that concerning Ian Paul's post I commented about: "Good essay (which, incidentally, is from last year) till the end. (Btw, I recommend Ian Paul's blog at Psephizo; he is a godly person with a good head on his shoulders; overall an excellent commentator on NT and church matters.)"

That prompted me to comment further and as follows:

I agree wholeheartedly with your statement about Ian Paul and his blog, Rob. In fact, in writing about his blog post and how he wrapped it up, I pondered whether he was simply stating an open-ended question that he actually answers elsewhere, which I believe he does and with the answer that the Church should neither accept nor affirm homosexuality in the common way that expression is used by so-called "accepting and affirming" denominations/churches. He is quite simply more politic than am I.

I freely admit that I am blunt and that the opposition finds me harsh. They have referred to my way of handling the issue as "bashing," though I've lessened the use of what is generally referred to as "hellfire and brimstone" language and they use that term "bashing" extremely loosely.

In reference to the main point in my earlier comment and using another (more recent) post from Ian's blog, which post is nothing short of excellent (he's highly intelligent, educated, and motivated), we see Ian zeroing in on the issue of homosexuals pushing the Church to completely accept homosexuality and homosexual "marriage" both as on par with heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage.

He writes as follows: [indented in this post, not in the Facebook comment]

"The key phrase here is ‘we are not prepared to wait’; nothing is more important than changing the Church’s teaching on this question—not the reputation of the Church, not relationship with bishops, not any consideration of those who hold a different view, not the Pilling process of facilitated conversations. There are no grounds for conversation or negotiation.

"Jeremy must have known in April that the new post was coming up. He was also well aware of the challenge to the bishops of his living in one diocese (whose bishop was likely unwilling to take disciplinary action) and working in another (whose bishop was more likely to). In the timing of his marriage, it is quite hard to see Jeremy as the hapless victim rather than as a well-planned campaigner.


"Perhaps the one good thing coming out of the dispute about same-sex marriage is the challenge to the Church of England: what, in fact, is the shared theological basis of our life together? The Church has been happy to duck this question, since answering it will have some painful consequences. But we are now at the stage when not answering it will be even more painful."

You'll note how Ian ends the post without emphatically stating what the Church should pronounce but that the body of the article and his other posts make clear where he comes down on the issue. I will remain a little more blunt than Ian, as I think that using that device so often will leave many people hanging or misbelieving that these things really are properly debatable, so to speak. In authentic Christianity, as far as I'm concerned, there is no debate. Only inauthentic, misled "Christians" want the debate and for the reasons suggested in Ian's post and my comment here.

Of course, the authentic theology must be presented and represented as often as necessary. We must stand for the truth even at the cost of our lives, as that will save our lives and the lives of those Christians who need to see Christians standing up together.

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it." (Luke 9:24 KJV) [red added]

"...I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6 KJV)


Tom Usher

To my point though is that I believe the homosexuals will fail to win the theological arguments and that people such as Canon Jeremy Pemberton will simply have to give up calling themselves Christians altogether or create a religion calling itself Christian but that is the result of a complete schism much deeper than that between Catholic (Roman and Anglo), Orthodox, Protestant, Radical Reformationist, etc.

[image added] My belief is that even if the homosexuals do form their self-styled "branch," it won't last. They will continue attempting to win the theological arguments but will always fail. That will simply see people leaving off calling themselves Christians.

It's all part of a great falling away.

"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:14 KJV)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

On: "Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says - Telegraph"

Two of the [incestuous] couple’s children are disabled, and it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities.

But the Ethics Council dismissed that argument, on the basis that other genetically affected couples are not banned from having children.

Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says - Telegraph.

There's the issue according to that "Ethics Council." How do you address that? That Council is saying:

“Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the German Ethics Council said in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.”

The council commits many errors in both logic and ethics.

The problem of incest producing serious genetic and other problems is deemed a "social taboo" rather than proven harm.

They say "sexual self-determination" is more important than protecting offspring from huge risks, including getting the wrong idea that such self-determination is more important than avoiding inbreeding generation after generation after generation, which inbreeding leads to absolutely nothing good for humanity, only degradation, damage, harm, suffering.

 The higher the development of the brain, the more important it is to avoid offspring the result of incest. It is clearly demonstrated by research. It is not an unknown. It is not speculation or unsubstantiated belief.

What of the seeming hypocrisy "that other genetically affected couples are not banned from having children"?

The issue is a variant of forced eugenics. Eugenics is the improvement of the breed; however, the ban on incest can be seen as the prevention of the degradation of the species.

What collective rules do we want to live by? What is the guide. Should there be a coercive state?

These are serious questions for humanity.

Do we head for secular anarchy, as the Council appears to want, or do we head toward something else?


Tom Usher

Secular anarchy is actually ruleless. Appeals to anarchists to conform to any level of care concerning others would be met with the Councils ultimate so-called ethical standard: "self-determination." It's Aleister Crowley's motto: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." If one wants to murder others, then that's that person's law; and no one else has any right above that. Of course, someone else's law might be to kill the murderers. Someone else's law might be to banned together under rules and form a state for the protection of the innocent from Crowley Satanic-types. So we come full circle.

In contrast, there is no coercion in authentic Christianity. The state is the state of mind and heart following the dictates (rules) laid down by Jesus as given us in the Gospels. It is not the secular anarchy proposed by the logical conclusion of the false premises of the German "Ethics Council."

It is for this reason that I choose Christianity over any secular state. It is for this reason that I'm outside secular states even though I comment on their policies and practices and do say what they ought to do (turn to Christianity). It is for this reason that I do not vote for secular office holders, as voting for such always runs contrary to Christianity (the lesser of evils is never Christian) and will never result in the right system, as the right system already exists: authentic Christianity (the ethics of Jesus).

Posted in Libertarian Capitalism | Leave a comment