► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Eric Holder’

VOTER FRAUD: THY NAME IS ERIC HOLDER

by huckfunn ( 12 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Censorship, Crime, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Free Speech, government, Marxism, Politics, Polls, Racism, Socialism, Special Report at April 9th, 2012 - 9:44 am

Eric Holder and the Department of Just Us are challenging and blocking state voter ID laws at every opportunity. Holder claims “voter ID fraud doesn’t exist”.  Once again, James O’Keefe provides video evidence that voter ID fraud does exist… it even has Eric Holder’s name on it.

Entire article can be seen here.  Hat tip Breitbart

UPDATE:  Why We Need Voter ID Laws Now. 

Holder’s opposition to ID laws comes in spite of the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in 2008, authored by liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, that upheld the constitutionality of Indiana’s tough ID requirement. When groups sue to block photo-ID laws in court, they can’t seem to produce real-world examples of people who have actually been denied the right to vote. According to opinion polls, over 75 percent of Americans — including majorities of Hispanics and African-Americans — routinely support such laws.

One reason is that people know you can’t function in the modern world without showing ID — you can’t cash a check, travel by plane or even train, or rent a video without being asked for one. In fact, PJ Media recently proved that you can’t even enter the Justice Department in Washington without showing a photo ID. Average voters understand that it’s only common sense to require ID because of how easy it is for people to pretend they are someone else.

The disgraceful Barack Obama: The most divisive and racist President in generations

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 60 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Politics, Progressives at March 27th, 2012 - 8:30 pm

Barack Obama is a disgrace, and has been since he took office in 2009. We were told (although most of here didn’t believe it) by the liberal media that if we just elect our first “blacK” President, it would go a long way toward healing the wounds of America’s past.

Obama himself claimed he was going to reconcile the races, and our differences, and end the labels of a “red” and a “blue” America and reinvigorate our country.

He promised a new era of post-partisanship. But since taking office, he’s played racial politics and further split the country along class and party lines. If this is what he calls “reconciliation”, then his mission has failed, and failed miserably.

I, for one, never, ever, believed his “reconciliation” lie about wanting to bring us all together. All you had to do was read his resume to know that Obama was, always has been, and always will be a divider, and not a uniter.

Of course, what the liberal media failed to see (or chose to ignore), probably due to all the tingles going up their legs from listening to the false Messiah, was that he would be the first “black” President, who would not only not heal any wounds, but would, in fact, inflame them with his words and rhetoric, and divide America as it has not been divided in decades.

Not only has he failed to be the first “post-racial President”, he has been the most polarizing and divisive President any of us have ever seen, and it’s all due to the words he chooses to use, and when and why he chooses to use them.

All you had to do was read his books, which were written before most people even knew who he was, to see that he seems to have a problem with white people, even though his Mom, and his grandmother who raised him, were white, and he is half-white.

In his book, “The Audacity of Hope”, published in 2006, Obama wrote:

“It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere … That’s the world! On which hope sits.”

He referred to the grandmother who had raised him, from the time he was a kid, as a “typical white person who has fears about black men.”

Then there’s his choice for which church to attend. Obama sat, with his wife Michelle, for over twenty years, in the pews of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church.

Wright has consistently preached about his hatred of America, white people, and Jews. He shouted “God damn America” and said that 9/11 happened because of “American terrorism”, during one of his sermons.

Wright also said ““Them Jews aren’t going to let him (Obama) talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck, or in eight years when he’s out of office.”, and “The Jewish vote, the A-I-P-A-C vote, that’s controlling him (Obama)”.

Obama was well aware that Wright has consistently been preaching this hatred for two decades, yet chose to not only continue to attend his church, but had Wright marry him and Michelle, and baptize their children.

You know who also attended this church, until she heard some of the vile words that Wright preached? Oprah Winfrey. But after hearing the hatred that Wright was spewing on an almost weekly basis, she left the church.

Judging by the twenty years Obama attended the church on an almost weekly basis, one can only conclude that Obama not only heard these words of hatred numerous times, but agreed with many of them.

Consider this: Would you attend a church for two weeks, much less two decades, if the preacher continually preached his hatred of black people and other minorities and our country? And then have him marry you and baptize your children? You wouldn’t. Neither would I.

What’s also troubling are the high profile incidents, supposedly involving white on black crimes or prejudice, that have occurred while he has been President, that he has chosen to comment on, and inject himself into, implying the alleged perpetrators, who are always white, are guilty, and the victims, who are always black, are victims of their racism and prejudice, before and without knowing all the facts.

For just one example of this, remember Harvard professor Henry Gates? Gates claimed that the Cambridge, MA, police racially profiled him when he couldn’t get into his house, and he had to break a window to gain entry.

Someone saw Gates break the window and called the police, and when the police arrived, including a black officer, and asked for Gates’ ID, he refused to show it to them and started arguing and accusing them of racism and profiling.

All Gates had to do was show them his ID with his address on it and explain that the door was stuck, and the incident would have been over, a non-story. But Gates chose to make it a racial incident, accusing the police of racially profiling him, which was ludicrous.

Then Obama, again, without knowing all the facts, jumped right in when asked, and without knowing all the facts, condemned the police officers, saying they “acted stupidly”, and that we have a “long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately”.

And in addition to the Gates incident, and now the Travon Martin incident, there was the new black panthers attempting to intimidate white voters in Philadelphia in 2008 that Obama’s Justice department not only refused to prosecute, but also caused the racist Attorney General, Eric Holder, to say he didn’t want to prosecute “our people”, meaning black people.

These incidents should surprise no one, since the former head of the Civil Rights Commission, Mary Frances Berry, who was appointed by Obama, admitted and acknowledged that the Obama administration has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention away from other issues, saying: “the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats…Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.”

Do those sound like the words of a President that wants to “reconcile” the races in America?

The politics of racial guilt and Trayvon Martin

by Mojambo ( 138 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Crime at March 27th, 2012 - 8:00 am

The Knish points the finger at the hypocrisy of Obama, Sharpton, Jackson – and all the other race hustlers who only seem to show outrage when something happens to someone who “looks like my son”.  But then again Sharpton has been rewarded by having a show on MSNBC, Jackson gets treated like royalty,  Eric Holder does not have to answer for the dead people in Mexico that can be laid at his door step, and Obama is on the verge of being reelected.

by Daniel Greenfield

When at the beginning of March, Allen Coon, a thirteen-year-old boy, was set on fireby two black teenagers who told him, “You get what you deserve, white boy,” this did not prove to be an occasion for national soul-searching. But the shooting death of Trayvon Martin by a Hispanic neighborhood watch captain after a scuffle between the two men has led to hysterical media coverage, state and federal investigations, civil rights marches, lynching threats from the Black Panthers and a statement from Obama urging Americans to search their souls for some unspecified reason.

The latter took time out from the trivial business of nominating a World Bank president to interfere in a local law enforcement matter and join his good friend Al Sharpton, who specializes in racist rhetoric, in throwing some racebaiting gasoline on the flames.

To Obama, the significance of the whole event was that Trayvon Martin looked like his hypothetical son, which presumably Allen Coon did not. The insufferable egotism of that statement suggests that shooting victims only matter if they look anything like the head cheese. It’s racial feudalism and personal politics at its ugliest even as it once again confronts us with Obama’s inability to talk about anything without shining it through the narcissistic lens of the self.

Even Trayvon Martin only matters because he is in some hypothetical sense linked to Obama, and every trending topic from Jeremy Lin to the million hoodie march must be commented on by him in some way to demonstrate his own relevance in the mobius strip of fame. There can be no 2012 election without the race card, and so Martin was posthumously drafted into the Obama family portrait that appears on campaign ads to remind the rest of the country that they still need to feel guilty and vote the left’s ticket.

[…….]

If Obama had enough time to spare in between playing golf, campaigning, wasting money and race-baiting, he might have taken a seat by the window, put his famous abbreviated chin on one skinny fist and searched his soul for all the people killed in Mexico by his own Attorney General’s plot to wreck the Second Amendment. But the soul-searching never seems to happen on the right side of the Oval Office window. It is a duty handed down to us from our betters, like schoolmarms urging us to “think about what you’ve done” until eventually you decide that you must have done something.

[…….]

The Trayvon Martin case was far from the worst shooting death this year. Or even the worst shooting death involving an African-American victim. That honor might belong to Delric Waymon Miller IV, a nine-month-old boy killed in Detroit when his house was peppered with an AK-47 assault rifle just last month. The investigation on that one is still ongoing and could presumably benefit from federal assistance, which it won’t receive because there is no political payday from highlighting black on black violence. Or from helping to solve a crime instead of stirring up racial hate.

There is a major payday in playing up white on black violence, and though George Zimmerman proved to be Hispanic with African-American relatives, the media which clings to a racial narrative like a hungry bulldog to a dead rat, is still forging ahead hoping that no one will notice.

[……..]

Like the lynch mobs of old, the facts are already known. All that is needed is a fig leaf of judicial procedure to give them what they want. A lynching.

To read the media is to witness the inerrant and inescapable conviction of George Zimmerman in the press. Every article cries out that he is guilty and strongly suggests that racism is the only possible explanation why he isn’t on death row. From the White House on down, the baying hounds are determined to put him there, not based on the evidence, but on the narrative.

It’s not really about a Hispanic neighborhood watch captain, who may have been overzealous, but whose vigilance had likely saved lives and certainly prevented crimes in the past. It’s about the narrative in which we are all George Zimmerman. We are Zimmerman and he is us. We are all guilty of racism, and the only way to atone for it is with Two Minute Hates by morality mobs that find a deserving victim, drag him out and lynch him to exonerate ourselves of the charges.

The original sin of racism can never be shaken. We can only buy a temporary stay of execution by voting for Obama or indicting George Zimmerman. The consequences of the act don’t really matter, only the abnegation, the temporary easing of the burden of racial conscience with a moment of peace, a brief glow of Hope and Change that promises things will be different, only to point its finger at us again and demand that we search our souls and scourge ourselves to atone for the slave ships and plantations.

Obama knows better than most how the game is played. As a descendant of privileged Africans and American whites, he has no skin in the game; he is an outside observer of the dysfunction of Americans of both colors and an expert at manipulating their tensions for his own benefit. Having played out hope, he has fastened on guilt, a primal emotion that promises nothing, but takes everything. Much as he has done. To complete the great work, he will work the power of guilt and promise once again to lift the sin of racism from us, if we only shut down our minds, forget about our jobs and business, and blindly push the lever once more.

Read the rest – Trayvon Martin and the  politics of racial guilt

President Obama signs Executive Order allowing for control over all US resources

by huckfunn ( 64 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Business, Censorship, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2012, Energy, Free Speech, government, Marxism, Military, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, Socialism, Special Report, taxation, Transportation at March 18th, 2012 - 12:35 am

I’m not sure what this means, but I don’t like it one bit.  It seems to be consistent with Obama’s previous power grabs. Here is one point of view from Examiner:

On March 16th, President Obama signed a new Executive Order which expands upon a prior order issued in 1950 for Disaster Preparedness, and gives the office of the President complete control over all the resources in the United States in times of war or emergency.

The National Defense Resources Preparedness order gives the Executive Branch the power to control and allocate energy, production, transportation, food, and even water resources by decree under the auspices of national defense and national security.  The order is not limited to wartime implementation, as one of the order’s functions includes the command and control of resources in peacetime determinations.

Additionally, each cabinet under the Executive Branch has been given specific powers when the order is executed, and include the absolute control over food, water, and other resource distributions.

Executive Orders created for national defense and national preparedness are not new in American history, but in each instance they brought about a Constitutional crisis that nearly led standing Presidents to hold dictatorial power over the citizenry.  During the Civil War, President Lincoln halted freedom of speech and freedom of the press, while at the same time revoking Habeas Corpus and the right to a fair trial under the sixth amendment.  During World War I, when Congress refused to grant Woodrow Wilson extended power over resources to help the war effort, he invoked an Executive Order which allowed him complete control over businesses, industry, transportation, food, and other economic policies.

In both cases, it was only after the death of each President that full Constitutional powers were restored to the citizens of the United States.

Read the whole article here.  Hat tip CynicalConservative