Eric Holder, US Attorney General, has justifiably solidified his reputation as a lightning rod of controversy for the Obama Administration, based no less on his troubling decisions and unexplainable denial of facts pertaining to the War on Terror.

His metaphysical aversion to the term, Jihadists Islamic Terrorists, is at once slightly amusing, astonishingly arrogant and confusing. Despite empirical evidence of the origin of the current batch of attempted acts of terrorism, as Islamic Jihadists, Mr. Holder refuses to apply that label to them on the grounds of indictment of Islam itself. One can only imagine the outrage that would have occurred during WWII, if a government official refused references to Hitler's régime as, German Fascists, or Nazis, in fear of offending all Germans?

Mr. Holder is still unwilling to commit to holding the trial of KSM in a venue other than New York City, when it is all but certain that it will not take place there. We continue to be baffled by his insistence on the classification of these recent attempted acts of terrorism, as subject to Miranda, when the Supreme Court Sanitized use of the principles of Enemy Combatants is available. All of these behavioral traits are troubling enough and cause for the question of competence of the AG. However, the recent revelation during Thursdays hearings on Capitol Hill, that Holder had not actually read the Arizona SB 1070, of which he expressed such public outrage, is cause to examine his seriousness and commitment to the job, other than carry the Presidents political agenda burdens. That is simply not good enough for the role of an Attorney General.

Watching Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard, while appearing on a recent Fox Cable News show, Special Report with Bret Baier, quietly shaking his head in disbelief while a clip was played of the AG admitting he had not actually read the 16 page bill, spoke volumes. After appearing on the Sunday morning talk shows during which Mr. Holder severely criticized the legislation and suggested a law suit was likely in order to overturn it, one would hope that the AG would have taken the time to read the bill. Had the AG read the short and coherent language of the act, he may not have been so dismissive and cavalier about its intent and application by Arizona law enforcement.

Actual language of intent: