Censoring Holder is about accountability, not politics
Re: "Dems say charges against Holder are 'purely political'," June 22
Charging Attorney General Eric Holder for contempt of Congress is not about suppressing votes, but holding the government accountable. It doesn't matter if the Bush or the Obama administration started Operation Fast and Furious; it ended with American guns being used to kill innocent people.
Letting this go without consequence will send the message that the executive branch can do whatever it likes and then cover it up.
Congress and the American people deserve to know why and how this operation came about. Someone needs to be held responsible, and it's pretty obvious Holder was the one giving the green light. To make this about Republicans trying to suppress votes ignores the issue of justice, especially for the American citizen killed as a result of the operation.
Holder should recognize the grievous error made under his direction, an error that went far beyond the constitutional limits on government power, and resign.
Executive privilege is not in the Constitution
Re: "Executive privilege invoked by Obama," June 21
"Executive privilege" is a bad joke being inflicted on the American public.There is no basis for it in the Constitution.
The Constitution mandates the separation of powers, but that does not in any way imply that one branch of government is granted the privilege of editing the truth.
Any employee, branch or agent of the government must base any valid decision on facts, not some fictional version. In the case of Operation Fast and Furious, the truth is an embarrassment to Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama.
It's time for Holder to tell the truth and take responsibility for his actions.
Obamacare comparison doesn't hold up
Re: "Obamacare taxes those freeloading on the rest of us," From Readers, June 18
It amazes me that there are still people who will pull out the old, debunked comparison of auto insurance with Obamacare's individual mandate. But now Ron Lowe would add driver's licenses (and taxes) to the mix.
Lowe informs us that the government mandates auto insurance and driver's licenses.That's a surprise to me. I'm 57 years old, and I don't have either.I've lived my adult life without driving, and no government agency at any level has required me to have that license (or even the nondriver ID card), much less the insurance.
If (and only if) I choose to drive a car, the government has rules to insure that I can do so reasonably safely and that I have a way to cover any liability I might incur.If I do not drive, then it's not the government's concern.
As for the idea that having to pay taxes somehow compares with being legally required to buy a commercial product, Lowe should just let that argument stand on its merits -- if there are any.