If I were president, and Eric Holder was my AG ...

... I'd call him into the Oval Office, tell him to have his resignation on my desk in one hour, and his desk cleaned out in two hours. (Actually, if I were president, I never would have had such an incompetent fool as my Attorney General.) What did he do now? Why am I so steamed about the Attorney General? I'm ticked at him for the same reason why I'm ticked at a lot of critics of Arizona's new immigration law. Like them, he admits he hasn't read the law:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona's new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn't yet read the law and is going by what he's read in newspapers or seen on television.

So, in other words, he's taking the word of newscasters and pundits that, like himself, haven't read the law. He's taking the word of idiots like Keith Olbermann and Chris "Tingles" Matthews, who seem to like espousing their opinions, but present little in the way of facts.

Mr. Holder is conducting a review of the law, at President Obama's request, to see if the federal government should challenge it in court. He said he expects he will read the law by the time his staff briefs him on their conclusions.

I realize that our new law is a tad lighter than what the morons in DC are used to reading (TEN pages as opposed to the 1000 page-plus legislation that Congress, and the administration, don't read), but it isn't that hard, folks. I have it right here in front of me. It's pretty cut and dry, especially with the clarification law that was passed just a couple short days after Governor Jan Brewer signed the initial law.

"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 people are doing the review, exactly what my position is," Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.

This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the Arizona law "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling." He had earlier called the law's passage "unfortunate," and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.

Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could have those opinions if he hadn't yet read the legislation.

"It's hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven't even read the law," the Texas Republican told the attorney general.

The Arizona law's backers argue that it doesn't go beyond what federal law already allows, and they say press reports have distorted the legislation. They point to provisions in the law that specifically rule out racial profiling as proof that it can be implemented without conflicting with civil rights.

But critics said giving police the power to stop those they suspect are in the country illegally is bound to lead to profiling.

Mr. Holder said he expects the Justice and Homeland Security departments will finish their review of the Arizona law soon.

Mr. Holder, you're fired. That's what I'd tell him today. I can find a more competent Attorney General by looking under the nearest rock. Hell, I'd appoint the rock instead because it's probably got more brains than Holder does.

And Andy McCarthy hits the nail on the head -- Eric Holder is basically profiling the state or Arizona, and it's law enforcement officers:
(HT to Captain Ed Morrissey)

He hasn't read the Arizona immigration law, even though reading the law is the basic duty of any lawyer (let alone the U.S. Attorney General) who is called on to assess a legal situation.

Thus, he hasn't got reasonable suspicion that Arizonans are violating the Constitution, even though reasonable suspicion is the basic investigative standard we expect law-enforcement to satisfy before officials harass Americans with stepped up scrutiny.

And we know he has a bias because he told us, unabashedly, that he thinks Americans are "cowards" on matters of race.

[I dug up the link above. It is not included in Mr. McCarthy's comments.]

Think about it this way: If a police officer, without taking elementary investigative steps to inform himself about the facts of a situation, and thus without reasonable suspicion, simply assumed a person must be guilty of wrongdoing based on the police officer's avowed prejudice, what would Eric Holder call it?

Eric Holder is an idiot. He's also a race-baiter, and is inherently racist, himself. How else can we describe a man who basically calls an entire state racist, but lets the New Black Panthers slide on charges of voter intimidation? This administration has been using race politics since being put in office. The president's supporters have accused anyone who doesn't support Barry of being racist, even though I know of no one who has ever even mentioned his race. We have complaints with his policies and agenda, not his race.

Before Eric Holder speaks up next time on an issue like this, it might be smarter for him to actually do the research and footwork on the issue in question. It'd get him a bit farther, and avoid the lambasting that he rightly deserves.

Publius II