Politicians love to spend huge amounts of time saying nothing. Their lips are moving, and words are coming out, but there is no content. Eric Holder exemplified this last week when asked about the motives of the last 3 FAILED terrorist plots. The exchange went like this:
CONGRESSMAN POE: concepts that you haven’t read the law. So can you help me out there a little bit, how you can make a judgment call on that but you haven’t read the law and determined whether it’s constitutional or not? (Poe is questioning Holder on his stance on the Arizona immigration bill which Holder admits that he has not read. If it bothers you that he can be so adimatly against legislation he hasn’t read, I must come to his defense. Most of the politicians aren’t even reading the bills they support so at least they are consistant.)
HOLDER: Well, what I’ve said is I’ve not made up my mine. I’ve only made the comments that I’ve made on the basis of things that I’ve been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talk to the people who are on the review panel. (Lesson learned? Do not speak on things you do not know about.)
HOLDER: Or on the review team that are looking at the law. But I’ve not reached any conclusions as yet with regard to it. I’ve just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the law. But I’m not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with the people who are doing the review exactly what my position is. (Here is the meat of this post begins. He has made statements condemning the law, and now here he is saying he has not yet formed an opinion or position. This is what the politicians hide behind. This allows him in the future to go either way, and say this has been my stance from the beguinning.)
HOLDER: It’s certainly one of the concerns that I have that you will end up in a situation where people are racially profiled and that could lead to a wedge drawn between certain communities and law enforcement. (Politically, the left has worked to make profiling a bad evil tool of racists. In reality, if used properly, and intelligently it can be a powerful tool to prevent crime. Advertisers use profiling to sell to their target audience. No not all 20-40 year old middle eastern males are terrorists, but a sad FACT is that most terrorists are 20-40 year old middle eastern males. A company that sells feminine hygene products does not spend money on advertising in Sports Illistrated. Profiling can be the most intelligent use of your limited resources. Taking away this tool is in essence telling law enforcement official to suspend common sense. Yes, it does have the potential to be abused, but that does not outweigh the potential it has as a tool for good.)
CONGRESSMAN POE: And in the case of all three attempts in the last year, the terrorist attempts, one of which was successful, those individuals have had ties to radical Islam. Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?
HOLDER: Because of? (Here is another interseting tactic. Holder knows that the Congressman has a limited amount of time to question him. Here he plays stupid. He gets the Congressman to burn up his valuable time by getting him to repeat himself, or clarify, or restate the question. If you are ever being grilled by Congress it is a good tactic to use.)
CONGRESSMAN POE: Radical Islam?
HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions.(Duh, waste time stating the obvious.) It’s — one, I think you have to look at each individual case. I mean, we are in the process now of talking to Mr. Shahzad to try to understand what it is that drove him to take the action.(Seriously? You have proof he went to Pakistan 13 times, and had extensive contact with the Pakistani Taliban who took responsibility for the attempt before the wick to the firecrackers had stopped smoking. 2+2=? is a harder question.)
CONGRESSMAN POE: But radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?
HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why —
CONGRESSMAN POE: But is radical Islam one of them?
HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious —(OK if this guy worked as hard at stopping terrorism as he does at evading questions, we would be the safest country on the planet)
CONGRESSMAN POE: I’m asking why you think among those variety of reasons radical Islam might have been one of the reasons that the individuals took the steps that they did.
HOLDER: Well, you say radical Islam. I mean, I think those people who espouse a version of Islam that…
HOLDER: I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion. (GRRRRR All he has to say is yes. If he is worried about political correctness I would answer like this, “Yes these men subscribe to a perversion of a good religion of peace. Their motivation was to kill innocent Americans in the name of a perverse cult loosely based on the peaceful precepts of Islam.” )
CONGRESSMAN POE: I’m not talking about a religion. I’m talking about radical Islam. I’m not talking about the general religion.
HOLDER: Right. And I’m saying that a person like Anwar Awlaki, for instance, who has a version of Islam that is not consistent with the teachings — (These guys are making at least 6 figures for this song and dance. What a waste of time. This exchange was the verbal equivinlant of Dancing with the Stars)
Now here is another example of political double speak. I will break in () with my comments.
Senators Unveil New 1,000-Page Gas Tax By Steve Everley – American Solutions – May 12, 2010
After months of intense preparation and behind-closed-doors deal making, Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) finally unveiled new global warming legislation this afternoon. The bill, which runs 987 pages (at 987 pages, I highly doubt that is all that is in it. I would bet dollars to doughnuts there are little tidbits in it to expand government powers here and there) and is entitled the “American Power Act,” includes a new gasoline tax on American motorists and a controversial cap and trade system for electric utilities. (This bill failed to pass previously, but they are using another political tactic Rename, repackage, and try again) The goal of the legislation is to reduce global warming emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and more than 80% by 2050. In the lead up to today’s release, Senator Kerry repeatedly denied that the bill would include a new gas tax. But the bill establishes a new carbon fee that oil companies, referred to as “refined product providers,” must pay to the federal government for the right to emit carbon dioxide.(no there is no gasoline tax, just a tax on everything with Carbon in it. Huh gasoline has Carbon in it? Oh we did not know that. I guess it is a gasoline and everything else with carbon tax. That is clearly not a gasoline tax.) The fee, which is linked to the price that electric utilities will pay for emissions under a separate cap and trade program, will ultimately increase the price of gasoline. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who helped craft the new gas tax, admitted that the fee “will be passed on” to consumers in the form of higher prices at the pump. (duh) President Obama immediately endorsed the legislation, (The quicker Obama endorses, enacts, backs, or signs, the worse it is for the economy and the American people) saying APA “will put America on the path to a clean energy economy” and create new green jobs. (how?)But in March the Obama administration said it did not support increasing gasoline taxes, a point echoed last month when the White House issued a firm statement that it does not support a new gas tax. (That way he can later say he has always been against gasoline taxes) How large the new gas tax will be is uncertain, although earlier this year Harvard’s Belfer Center determined that President Obama’s ideal energy policy could translate to $7 per gallon gasoline. (Golly, that sounds great for the economy!!!!) According to an American Solutions poll, 71% of Americans oppose a new gas tax, (cause people have common sense) and more than 60% of Independents would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports such a tax. In addition to the new gasoline tax, Americans will see higher electricity prices under APA due to a cap and trade program for utilities. On the campaign trail, President Obama famously said that electricity prices would “necessarily skyrocket” under cap and trade, and the Heritage Foundation determined that cap and trade would raise the average American family’s energy costs by more than $800 per year. Last week the Congressional Budget Office released its own analysis of cap and trade, based upon several professional reports, and determined it would decrease employment and reduce America’s economic productivity. Even more troubling is that the environmental benefits of the legislation are minimal at best. According to a new analysis, Kerry-Lieberman would reduce global temperatures by only 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. (Golly gee 0.2 degree reduction? That sounds like it could save the world!) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said yesterday that he wants to move the Kerry-Lieberman bill after the Memorial Day recess. Such timing may prove difficult, as Senators will have to try to impose a new gasoline tax on motorists entering the year’s busiest driving season.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/world/14awlaki.html?hp hypocracy? Isn’t this what they were scared of Bush for? I would oppose this no matter who the president is. He is also looking into altering Miranda. If you are Liberal and support this expansion of Presidential power let me just remind you to think about the future. If you give Obama that power the next president could be another Bush, and you would have given the next Bush those powers. I understand if you trust Obama, I am just asking that you don’t trust the next president. Do you want Sarah Palin to be able to selectively suspend Miranda? Think about it…
I prefer that my politicians speak more like this.