K00k congress critter wants critic prosecuted by AG Holder
Pneuma
to go after his critics.
My, my, my. Florida Rep. Alan Grayson wants to see one of his critics
go directly to jail -- all over her use of the word "my."
In an effort to raise money against the outspoken freshman Democrat, a
Republican activist named Angie Langley has launched
"mycongressmanisnuts.com" -- a Web site that parodies Grayson's
re-election site, "congressmanwithguts.com."
Langley criticizes Grayson on her Web site for his "inappropriate
behavior" and "childish approach" toward governing, and claims he "does
not represent the values of central Florida." �She said in an interview
with Fox News on Tuesday that she launched the site in an effort "to
expose him (Grayson) for what he is." �
Click here to see video.
But Grayson is not amused, and he is asking U.S. Attorney General Eric
Holder to conduct an investigation into the Web site and Langley,
according to a report in the Orlando Sentinel.
In a four-page letter sent to Holder, Grayson accuses Langley of lying
to federal elections and requests that she be fined and imprisoned for
five years.
Her lie, according to Grayson, is that she claims to be one of his
constituents. Langley, Grayson says, is misrepresenting herself by
using the term "my" in the Web site's name.�
Langley is a resident of Clermont, Fla., which is outside Grayson's 8th
District. Oh, my.
"Ms. Langley has deliberately masqueraded as a constituent of mine, in
order to try to create the false appearance that she speaks for
constituents who don't support me," Grayson writes in his complaint.
"[She] has chosen a name for her committee that is utterly tasteless
and juvenile."
Langley defended herself Tuesday, saying that she was "born and raised"
in Grayson's district and is "embarrassed to be represented" by him in
Washington. �
"This is the United States of America. A member of Congress represents
all of us -- no matter where we live," she said. �
Grayson has been high on the headline list for the last few months. He
received national attention in September for saying on the House floor
during the debate over health care reform that Republicans want sick
people to "die quickly." He apologized in October for calling a female
adviser to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke a "whore."
The congressman, who is Jewish, was also reprimanded by the
Anti-Defamation League for calling the current health care system a
"holocaust in America."
Click here to read more from the Orlando Sentinel.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2009/12/grayson-wants-to-
send-critic-to-jail-for-five-years.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/y9uraqb
Click here to read Grayson's complaint. �
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/GraysonComplaint.pdf
--
Pneuma
The true story of Cap & Trade http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA6FSy6EKrM
'Don't think we're not keeping score, brother' ~Obama
M
> send-critic-to-jail-for-five-years.html
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/y9uraqb
>
> Click here to read Grayson's complaint. http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/GraysonComplaint.pdf
>
Graysons big thing is a web page that lists people who have died
because they d=id not have adequite health care coverage. If you
start using real facts liek that, you will make enemies.
I imagine all the corporate guys that are making billions on the
insurance profit scam really resent him.
As far as his claim: that Ms langley falsely represents herself as
one of his constituents? It is accurate yes? He is not her
congressman.
Don't doubt for second that corporate toadies will bring out all kinds
of dishonesty to try to keep profiting from the current inadequite
health care system. Do you know what the executives of insurance
compaanies get for bonuses?
Mick
Deadrat
frank...@gmail.com:
> Yes it seems the congressman from Florida is attempting to use the law
> to go after his critics.
>
>
> My, my, my. Florida Rep. Alan Grayson wants to see one of his critics
> go directly to jail -- all over her use of the word "my."
<snip/>
My, my, my. A Republican lying about her status to pretend she's
conducting a grass roots campaign against a Democrat. Who would imagine
that?
Poe
I think you're missing the main point. Grayson is trying to make a big
deal of someone's registered domain name, which quite often have not
basis in reality. If they did, freecreditreport.com would be sued up the
wazoo for not offering anything like free credit reports, and on and on.
Same thing happened when Glenn Beck tried to sue over a domain name that
indicated he raped and killed a girl. He lost, and Grayson should too.
M
He's making a deal of it because she is presenting herself as one of
his constituants. She's not. If it is only the domain name? Then
you are right, he'll lose and, indeed, deserves to lose.
Dead Rat has it right - a Republican lying to pretend they are a grass
roots movement.
It is not uncommon.
Deadrat
news:c6e76f37-0f6e-4393...@u37g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
I should hasten to add that I think Grayson will and should lose. (After
all, he's a United States Representative from Florida and not a
Representative for Florida.) And I expect that Grayson doesn't expect to
win this one. He's probably just playing hardball with a carpetbagger.
Nobama
Imagine a leftist kook like Alan Grayson winning a seat.
How America has fallen.
Poe
Masquerading as something in order to attack the enemy is not an
uncommon tactic from any camp.
Deadrat
september.org:
Sucks to be you, doesn't it?
> How America has fallen.
Yearning for the days of the WPE? Lying us into wars, a wrecked economy,
torture, politicizing the Justice department, incompetence everwhere else.
Ah, the good ol' days.
Nobama
How's dat hope n change working for ya punk?
Obama quotes:
"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in
an ugly
direction."
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the
world.
I hope you'll join me as we try to change it."
"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of twelve or
thirteen,
when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to
whites."
"I found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and
animosity
against my mother's race."
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends
carefully. The
more politically active black students. The foreign students. The
Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
"I learned to slip back and forth between my black and white worlds.
One
of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you
were
courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than
satisfied; they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a
well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."
"I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering
those
years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could
afford
it. Not smack, though. ..."
"...I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going
to
teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a
mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
"I can no more disown (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown the black
community." --UPDATE: Barack Obama decides to "disown" him on
Tuesday,
April 29th after he realized his campaign was in severe turmoil due to
his
association with Mr. Wright.
"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial
animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person..."
"That's just how white folks will do you."
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a
lot of
small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years
and
nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton
administration,
and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has
said
that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And
it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or
religion or
antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment
or
anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize
what it's
like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's
like to
be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old - and that's the
criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."
Call to Islamic prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at
sunset."
Deadrat
news:7pddb4...@mid.individual.net:
>>>>> yson-wants-to- send-critic-to-jail-for-five-years.html
You may be unfamiliar with our culture. In the United States, we prefer
to think of those with whom we disagree politically as "the opposition
party." Not the enemy. "Masquerading" in this case means "lying."
YMMV, especially if you are a rightard.
Deadrat
news:4b318037...@news.datemas.de:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:24:43 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>jack@yomomma. (Nobama) wrote in news:4b317d52...@news.eternal-
>>september.org:
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:47:01 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Pneuma <frank...@gmail.com> wrote in news:221220091547438325%
>>>>frank...@gmail.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes it seems the congressman from Florida is attempting to use the
>>>>> law to go after his critics.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My, my, my. Florida Rep. Alan Grayson wants to see one of his
>>>>> critics go directly to jail -- all over her use of the word "my."
>>>><snip/>
>>>>
>>>>My, my, my. A Republican lying about her status to pretend she's
>>>>conducting a grass roots campaign against a Democrat. Who would
>>>>imagine that?
>>>
>>> Imagine a leftist kook like Alan Grayson winning a seat.
>>
>>Sucks to be you, doesn't it?
>>
>>> How America has fallen.
>>
>>Yearning for the days of the WPE? Lying us into wars, a wrecked
>>economy, torture, politicizing the Justice department, incompetence
>>everwhere else.
>>
>>Ah, the good ol' days.
>
> How's dat hope n change working for ya punk?
Let's see.
Torture and rendition no longer US policies. Check.
Fewer officials from the Arabian Horse Breeders' Association in charge.
Check.
Alberto Gonzalies no longer AG.
Check.
Financial system back from the brink.
Check.
Abstinence-only sex education defunded.
Check.
A Nobel Prize winning physicist in charge at the DOE.
Check.
> Obama quotes:
Is there any bullshit you won't swallow? These quotes are either
manufactured, taken out of context, or are completely unsurprising. As
I've documented. Can you even think for yourself anymore?
What a pathetic wanker you are.
> "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in
> an ugly direction."
Here's the real quote:
<quote src="_The Audacity of Hope_">
they [American citizens of Arabic and Pakistani descent] need specific
assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America
has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World
War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift
in an ugly direction. </quote>
He's talking about Americans who might be stigmatized by their religion.
You've been punk'd.
> "My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the
> world. I hope you'll join me as we try to change it."
This is not a quote from Obama. It appeared as a joke in National
Review Online blog called "The Corner" by Mark Steyn on 01/28/08. It
was actually directed at *Republican* candidates in New Hampshire, all
claiming to be "change agents."
You've been punk'd. Again.
> "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of twelve or
> thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating
> myself to whites."
Full quote:
<quote src="_Dreams of my Father_">
When people who don't know me well, black or white, discover my
background (and it is usually a discovery, for I ceased to advertise my
mother's race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect
that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites), I see the
split-second adjustments they have to make, the searching of my eyes for
some telltale sign. They no longer know who I am. Privately, they guess
at my troubled heart, I suppose - the mixed blood, the divided soul, the
ghostly image of the tragic mulatto trapped between two worlds. And if I
were to explain that no, the tragedy is not mine, or at least not mine
alone, it is yours, ....
</quote>
Obama is talking about people's reactions to his mixed parentage.
You've been punk'd. Again.
> "I found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and
> animosity against my mother's race."
This is attributed to Obama, but does not appear in his writing. It is
from a review of _Dreams from My Father_ by Steve Sailer, published in
the March 2007 issue of _The American Conservative_. They are Sailer's
words about a sentiment he (Sailer) attributes to Obama.
You've been punk'd. Again.
> "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends
> carefully. The more politically active black students. The
> foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and
> structural feminists."
This is from _Dreams of my Father_ in which Obama describes his reaction to
the alienation he felt as a biracial teenager. Do you have some inside
information that he didn't feel that way?
> "I learned to slip back and forth between my black and white worlds.
> One of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as
> you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were
> more than satisfied; they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to
> find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the
> time."
This is Obama writing in _Dreams of my Father_about his experience as a
minority teenager in Hawaii. Do you have some inside information that
this isn't how he felt?
>
> "I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering
> those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you
> could afford it. Not smack, though. ..."
Oh, horrors! Obama blew some dope when he was young!
> "...I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going
> to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make
> a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
If you don't think teenage pregnancy can be a punishment to the mother,
then you need to talk to some teenage mothers.
> "I can no more disown (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown the black
> community." --UPDATE: Barack Obama decides to "disown" him on
> Tuesday, April 29th after he realized his campaign was in severe
> turmoil due to his association with Mr. Wright.
He decided to distance himself from Wright after one of Wright's more
egotistical public performances. They're not joined at the hip because
they're both black, you know.
> "The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial
> animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person..."
Do you have any information that Obama's grandmother didn't have
main-stream opinions about race?
> "That's just how white folks will do you."
Full quote:
<quote src="_Dreams from My Father_">
"That's just how white folks will do you. It wasn't merely the cruelty
involved; I was learning that black people could be mean and then some.
It was a particular brand of arrogance, an obtuseness in otherwise sane
people that brought forth our bitter laughter. It was as if whites
didn't know they were being cruel in the first place. Or at least
thought you deserved of their scorn." <quote/>
And you have some inside information that his personal experience is
other than what he wrote?
> "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a
> lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25
> years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton
> administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive
> administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna
> regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get
> bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who
> aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment
> as a way to explain their frustrations."
Are you saying that folks who've been lied to for "25 years" don't
harbor some resentments? Or are you saying that they haven't been lied
to?
> "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize
> what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand
> what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or
> old - and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."
Oh, yeah. Sonia Sotomayor. Check.
> Call to Islamic prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at
> sunset."
Something wrong with a call to worship God?
ObaMao
Rent-a-Radical keeps falling in the polls.
The President Who Hates His Country
In the last century, the impassioned words and actions of patriots
like Winston Churchill � along with America�s heroic help and
sacrifice � saved Europe. The eloquence and actions of �I�ve been to
the mountaintop� Martin Luther King Jr. brought America to an
unprecedented level of social justice.
The peerless oratory and tireless diplomacy of the man who would
become Israel�s Foreign Minister, Abba Eban convinced the entire world
that after the wanton murder of six-million Jews in the Holocaust its
straggling survivors deserved their own state of Israel. The inspiring
words and decisive actions of President Ronald Reagan ended the Cold
War, tore down the Berlin Wall, and restored economic prosperity to
America. The efforts of these towering figures resulted in a more
highly-evolved world.
We have also seen the opposite in totalitarian leaders like Hitler,
Mussolini, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, and Saddam Hussein, among
others, who exploited their masses, destroyed their economies, brought
havoc, turbulence, grief and massive death within and outside of their
countries, and made the world a more dangerous and threatening place.
The one thing all of these virtuous and evil men had in common was
love for their respective countries, in fact a burning passion that
superseded all else. The virtuous believed in freedom and democracy.
The evil believed in subjugation of their peoples and lifetime tenures
for themselves in order to actualize their goals of conquering their
eternal enemies � Americans and Jews.
Today, we have a new crop of inveterate America- and Jew-haters, among
them the Marxist leader of Venezuela Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua�s
president Daniel Ortega, Iran�s �death-to-America-and-Israel�
study-in-abnormal-psychology Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the
ever-sabotage-America and anti-Semitic �leaders� of the 22-Arab states
that surround Israel.
I have either read about or observed firsthand all of these people.
Yet in my decades of commenting on the political scene, I cannot
recall a single leader of any country or regime who has ever spoken
negatively of his country or tolerated others speaking ill of the land
or the people he represented
Until now
Bizarre and, yes, repugnant as it is to our essentially centrist
country, America now has a president who has broken that time-honored
tradition. Barack Obama, on the campaign trail and as the leader of
the free world is the first U.S. president to proclaim to anyone
within earshot that he, like his wife, is not proud of his country,
and is all-too-willing to offer serial apologies � for America! � to
Americans and foreigners alike.
As Ed Lasky writes: �We know that during the campaign [Obama] warned
that criticism of his wife was `off-limits�. But criticism of America
� well, that is fine.�
We also know that during his run for the presidency, Obama expressed
sneering condescension towards all those bible-clasping, gun-owning
yahoos who �cling� to those silly things, and that in Europe he
consistently gave voice to America�s supposed �sins.� But all that
pales in comparison to the clear contempt � looks more like hatred to
me � that Obama feels for the United States of America and for its
most revered founding document, the U.S. Constitution.
In just the first 100-days of his tenure, Obama�s words and actions
have demonstrated that he is no friend of the country he leads. This
is only a smattering of what happened on his recent three-continent
trip abroad and to Mexico:
In France, Obama told his audience that America �has shown arrogance
and been dismissive, even derisive� toward Europe.
In Prague, Obama � in true utopian-kindergarten fashion � pledged
�with conviction� that America will �seek the peace and security of a
world without nuclear weapons.� In other words, destroy big bad
America�s ability to defend itself!
In London, Obama made clear that the world�s financial wealth was no
longer made by those inferior leaders Roosevelt and Churchill,
effectively ceding America�s leading role in creating and sharing
wealth to nations that have never measured up to our country�s
bountiful generosity or spirit of free-market entrepreneurship.
In Venezuela, Obama sat passively while the Marxist Chavez handed him
an American-bashing book and delivered another revile-America speech,
while never once rising to defend our country.
In Nicaragua, Obama again sat passively while the Marxist Ortega
blamed the United States for a century of what he called terroristic
U.S. aggression in Central America, again emitting not a whisper of
defense on our country�s behalf.
In Turkey, Obama said � incredibly and inaccurately � that America was
not a Christian nation.
And in his recent trip to Mexico, Obama said that the escalating
border violence was essentially America�s fault.
Scan you memory. Can you think of any other leader in world history
who so consistently badmouths his own country, or fails to defend it?
I can�t.
Wall St. Journal writer Dorothy Rabinowitz notes that Obama �had gone
to Europe not as the voice of his nation, but as a missionary with a
message of atonement for its errors. No sitting American president had
ever delivered indictments of this kind while abroad, or for that
matter at home. When [our allies] see Obama�s moral equivalence, they
realize they are on their own and must cut their own deals to survive
� understanding that multicultural trendiness is now a cynical cover
for moral laxity and �can�t we all get along?�
Historian Victor Davis Hanson also noticed something odd about Obama�s
apology tour. �Despite this fresh climate of atonement, there was a
complete absence of a single apology from any other foreign leader�not
a word came from Britain about colonialism�nothing from Germany on the
Holocaust�not a peep from France about Algeria or Vietnam. Turkey was
mum on the Armenian killings�Russia said nothing about the 30 million
murdered by Stalin�Nothing came from China about the 70 million who
perished under Mao�Mr. Medvedev said nothing about Putin�s brutish
rule�We saw no concrete evidence of any help � or hope and change �
from any foreign leader. Zilch.�
In addition, Hanson continues, �We hear nothing about our Gettysburg,
or our entry into World War I. Iwo Jima and the Bulge are never
alluded to. Drawing the line in Korea and forcing the end of the
Soviet monstrosity are taboo subjects. That we pledged the life of New
York for Berlin in the Cold War is unknown. Liberating Afghanistan and
Iraq from the diabolical Taliban and Saddam Hussein is left unsaid.
The Civil Rights movement, the Great Society, affirmative action, and
present billion-dollar foreign-aid programs apparently never existed.
Millions of Africans have been saved by George Bush�s efforts at
extending life-saving medicines to AIDS patients � but again, this is
never referenced.�
Blogger James Lewis says that Obama�s �obsessive need to put down his
own country shows a stunningly ignorant man who has evidently never
spoken to a concentration camp survivor, a Cuban refugee, a boat
person from Vietnam, a Soviet dissident, or a survivor of Mao�s
purges.�
And Media Research Center�s Brent Bozell adds, �Obama `gets� the
America-haters.�
Abandoning allies, Embracing enemies
�If you are a longtime enemy of the United States, count on a grand
reception from the Obama administration. All is forgiven and, worse,
forgotten,� write Dick Morris and Eileen McGann. �But if you have a
track record as an ally or friend, you won�t get the right time of
day.�
Of course apologists for Obama & Co. point to �progress� in our
foreign policy, ignoring, as Caroline Glick points out, that
�America�s betrayal of its democratic allies makes each of them more
vulnerable to aggression at the hands of their enemies � enemies the
Obama administration is now actively attempting to appease.� Glick
lays out the cold hard facts:
Obama abrogated America�s strategic commitment to the defense of our
ally Japan when his administration reacted to North Korea�s ballistic
missile test by saying the U.S. would only shoot the missile down if
it targeted U.S. territory.
Obama slapped our ally India when he refused to make ending Pakistan�s
support for jihadist terror groups attacking India a central component
of its strategy for contending with Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Obama failed to assure our ally Iraq that democracy and freedom will
be secured before U.S. forces are withdrawn next year.
Obama de facto abandoned our allies in Eastern Europe when he
announced his intention to forge a new alliance with Russia. �The
Czech, Polish, Georgian and Ukrainian governments,� Glick says, �were
quick to recognize that Obama�s strong desire to curry favor with the
Kremlin and weaken his own country will imperil their ability to
withstand Russian aggression.�
Obama �is sacrificing the U.S.�s alliance with our ally Israel �in a
bid to appease the Arabs and Iran by supporting the immediate
establishment of a Palestinian state,� which, Glick warns, �requires
Israel to commit national suicide in exchange for `peace.�� Obama also
made clear �that from the administration�s perspective, an Israeli
strike that prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear power is less
acceptable than a nuclear-armed Iran.� In addition, Obama sent Hamas
$900 million of foreign aid, �channeled through the UNRWA, a United
Nations front filled with Hamas operatives�
Obama slapped our ally England when he returned the bust of Winston
Churchill to Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Obama slapped our ally Colombia and its president Alvaro Uribe when he
refused to submit the free trade deal with Bogota to the Senate.
�What a great time to be our enemy!� Glick exclaims. �What a terrible
time to be our friend!�
And speaking about appeasing Iran, the Obama administration recently
asked a federal judge to throw out a $6.6-billion class-action lawsuit
against Iran filed by 52 American diplomats and military officials
held hostage for more than a year at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran 30
years ago. Nothing like selling out Americans to make brownie points
with a bloodthirsty dictator!
Barry Rubin explains: �Friends, especially in Europe, are pleased,
applaud, but then add that they don�t have to give this guy anything
because he is all apologies and no toughness. They like the fact that
he is all carrots and no sticks. If, however, they are states more at
risk�they worry that they cannot rely on the United States to help and
defend them. Enemies or potential rivals�say that this guy is weak and
defeated. He apologizes, offers unconditional engagements, and
promises concessions�they�ll eat the carrots and, if possible, their
neighbors as well.�
NY Post writer Ralph Peters, a former military intelligence officer,
sums up the hate-America core tenets of the �Obama Doctrine� as
follows:
(1) We�re to blame,
(2) Problems can be negotiated away,
(3) Problems that can�t be talked out can be bought off,
(4) Islamist terrorism doesn�t exist,
(5) It�s all our fault,
(6) Israel�s the obstacle to Middle East peace,
(7) Our nukes threaten world peace and we need to get rid of them,
(8) Our military is dangerous,
(9) Our intelligence services are even more dangerous than our
military,
(10) It�s only torture if we do it, and
(11) Blame President George W. Bush.
Obama is clearly not satisfied with threatening the safety of our
tried-and-true allies abroad. He is also determined to undermine the
bedrock foundation of America�s security � our military and
intelligence agencies. By disclosing interrogation memos � and
planning to release photographs associated with military probes into
prisoner abuse � he has betrayed every heroic person who risks his or
her life for our country, and unforgivably given aid-and-comfort to
enemies who seethe with virulent anti-Americanism and lust for our
demise. And in the Department of Homeland Security�s infamous memo, he
has called members of our military, among others, potential domestic
terrorists!
�After September 1th, the general outcry was, �Why don�t we have
better overseas capabilities?�� said Porter Goss, director of the CIA
from September 2004 to May 2006. �I fear that in the years to come,
this refrain will be heard again. It is certainly not trust that is
fostered when intelligence officers are told one day �I have your
back,� only to learn a day later that a knife is being held to it.�
How horrifying to contemplate that it is the President of the United
States himself who is wielding that back-stabbing knife!
Questioning Obama�s patriotism
Before the November election, legal scholar Henry Mark Holzer wrote �
and scrupulously documented � a stunning indictment of Obama in which
he stated that Obama�s repeatedly professed claim to be a patriot is
�a fraud on the American people � and an insult to the countless true
patriots who, for over two hundred years, have loved and loyally and
zealously supported the United States of America.�
�Patriots,� Holzer concluded, �don�t associate with and derive
sustenance from terrorists, America-haters and anti-Semites; they
don�t countenance fixed elections; they don�t keep secrets from
voters; they don�t intimidate their enemies; they don�t denigrate and
degrade our military; they don�t gratuitously interfere with their
government�s efforts to protect our country; and they don�t disdain
the symbol of this great nation, which for over two centuries men and
women have fought and died: the American flag. Whatever Barack Obama
is, we can be certain that he is no patriot!�
The events that have followed Obama�s election, Holzer says, �have
compounded the proof of the president�s lack of patriotism,� which he
has recently spelled out in a follow-up article. A few of the many
examples he provides of what �a patriotic American president does not
do include:
Bankrupt this country and court massive inflation in order to
implement his vision of a fascist/socialist nation.
Sit on his hands with a straight face while a South American thug
insults his country.
Appoint America-haters to his cabinet.
Cozy up to a soon-to-be-nuclear-armed Iranian madman.
Impotently watch the probably-already-nuclear-armed North Korean
Stalinists lob a ballistic missile across the Pacific.
Fail to stanch the flow of illegal aliens across the Mexican-United
States border.
Cut the defense budget.
Strangle innovation during a serious recession by raising taxes.
Close Guantanamo Bay without a clue of how to handle the enemy
combatants incarcerated there.
Publicly announce what measures military and CIA interrogators can use
to extract information from terrorists.
Apologize to the world for what has made America great and grovel to
persons, nations. and institutions unfit to shine our shoes!
Cede American sovereignty to the American-hating United Nations.
Defy the Second Amendment and a Supreme Court decision by making an
end run that substantially reduces the supply of certain ammunition.
Repudiate the policy and practice of missile shield installation.�
Some dare call it treason
It is one thing to question a president�s patriotism, but even more
serious to accuse him of treason. In an open letter to Obama on
Treason, Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (U.S. Naval Academy, Class of
1975) minces no words in accusing the president of sending Army forces
to Samson, Alabama, and Boston in violation of the Constitution. Here
are excerpts of his letter:
�I have observed and extensively recorded invidious attacks by
military-political aristocrats against the Constitution for twenty
years. Now you have broken in and entered the White House by force of
contrivance, concealment, conceit, and deceit. Posing as an imposter
president and commander in chief, you have stripped civilian command
and control over the military establishment�
�We come now to the reckoning. I accuse you and your
military-political criminal assistants of TREASON. I name you and your
military criminal associates as traitors. Your criminal ascension
manifests a clear and present danger. You fundamentally changed our
form of government. The Constitution no longer works�.
�I identify you as a foreign-born domestic enemy. You are not my
president. You are not my commander in chief.
Fitzpatrick is not alone. John Smith � a blogger on Townhall.com,
titled a recent article �Obama Is a Traitor.� Commenting on the
president�s release of the �torture� memos, Smith says:
�Given the actions of Barack Obama in recent days, one has to wonder
how many soon-to-be released State secrets have been gathered by
radical left-wing traitors and hidden in the dark recesses of
Washington, awaiting the Manchurian Candidate�s command to publish
them�
�The motivation for Obama�s recent intentional disclosure of Top
Secret CIA memoranda�was an act committed solely to increase his own
political power through appeasement of the radical left�or was it
�guided by the twisted moral imperative uniquely embraced by the Left,
which dictates that only those actions that serve to limit individual
liberty, punish patriotism, and destroy the traditions and culture of
the United States of America are good?�
�Were Obama�s actions motivated by a deeply rooted desire to harm this
Nation?�
�Article III of the Constitution defines Treason against the United
States as �� levying War against them or in adhering to their Enemies,
giving them Aid and Comfort��.
�Top Secret information is the highest level of classification that we
have on a national level. By definition, such material, if made
public, will cause �exceptionally grave damage� to national security�
�The willful disclosure of Top Secret information is an act of Treason
against the United States�.A sitting President of The United States of
America has committed Treason.�
Fitzpatrick and Smith are among a rising tide of voices � in and
outside of the military � who have observed with growing horror
Obama�s proclivity to destroy our capitalist economic system, subvert
the U.S. Constitution, endanger our military and intelligence
services, and obsequiously embrace America�s sworn enemies.
Dr. Jack Wheeler, a consummate Washington insider, goes one step
further. �The evidence that the President of the United States is a
traitor is mounting. The evidence that the President of the United
states is a mortal danger to America�s national security is mounting.
The evidence that the President of the United States will not defend
America from threats and insults from every two-bit fascist dictator
in the world �is not only mounting, it is overwhelming.�
Writer Amy L. Geiger-Hammer states: �I do wonder if Obama should be
called a traitor or just incompetent�does he ever talk about what a
great country America is?�
And UK journalist Gerald Warner echoes that rising tide: �If al-Qaeda,
the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick
America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of
the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the
history of the United States has a president worked so actively
against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.
Obama�s problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the
enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic
weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead,
it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US
Constitution. �
Is America Lost?
Multiple lawsuits to find proof that Obama is Constitutionally
ineligible to be president are ongoing and will ultimately determine
if he is an American or Kenyan or Indonesian or UK �natural-born�
citizen. To this date, he has spent over a million dollars blocking
the suits about his still-missing birth certificate, and there is
increasing evidence that the birth certificate attested to by
FactCheck.org, FightTheSmears.org, and DailyKos.com are forgeries. And
of course we still have not seen Obama�s Selective Service record,
medical records, multiple visas, college transcripts, et al.
If Obama is proven to be the fraud and interloper many suspect, every
one of his edicts, bills, laws, dictates, Supreme Court selections, et
al, will be overturned , leaving America to cope with serious problems
� under the leadership of the incomprehensible Joe Biden � but nothing
approaching this hate-America president�s far-left socialist domestic
programs and appease-our-enemies foreign policy.
The huge national turnouts at the Tea Parties of April 15 were only
the beginning of a movement that was spurred by ordinary Americans
waking up to Obama�s destruction of our economy, his attempts to
reshape America into a banana republic, the grave damage he�s
inflicted on our military and intelligence services, and his unsavory
predilection for embracing our enemies and apologizing non-stop for
the most magnificent nation on earth.
In short, they are waking up to the president who hates his country.
Editor Charlotte Baker predicts that �the Tea Parties and other, more
aggressive, protests will grow exponentially, and that the Obama
juggernaut can and will be stopped.� It�s crucial, she says, �for all
Americans to recall the history they learned in school � at least
before the Left hijacked what used to be known as `education.� The
Europeans, Japanese and Russians were all taken over by one form or
another of totalitarianism because their combined history was one of
absolute rulers � kings, czars and `divine� emperors. They were
totally conditioned to tyranny.
�But the monstrous anti-American gang that rigged the voting system on
November 4, 2008� as they do routinely in Obama�s Chicago Machine
politics � to push Obama into We-the-People�s White House, have shown
� even before his inauguration � the kind of overreaching that
arrogant tyrants always demonstrate. Hitler, Mao, Tojo and Stalin all
got away with overreaching, but they weren�t brutalizing Americans.
�Tolerating totalitarianism is simply not in the genetic code � the
DNA � of Americans!� Baker adds. �Freedom and Liberty run in our
blood!�
Indeed!
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10784
Deadrat
> Keep drinking that Kool-Aid Obama swooner, while George Soros'
> Rent-a-Radical keeps falling in the polls.
So no substantive response to Nobama getting called out on the lies, eh?
Big surprise.
<snip/>
> But all that
> pales in comparison to the clear contempt � looks more like hatred to
> me � that Obama feels for the United States of America and for its
> most revered founding document, the U.S. Constitution.
The WPE and the Bushies wiped their asses with the Constitution. I didn't
hear you complaining aboutit then.
<snip/>
> No sitting American president had
> ever delivered indictments of this kind while abroad, or for that
> matter at home.
No sitting American president has ever had to follow the Doofus-in-Chief,
George W. Bush.
> When [our allies] see Obama�s moral equivalence, they
> realize they are on their own and must cut their own deals to survive
> � understanding that multicultural trendiness is now a cynical cover
> for moral laxity and �can�t we all get along?�
You realize that this makes no sense at all, right?
>
> Historian Victor Davis Hanson also noticed something odd about Obama�s
> apology tour. �Despite this fresh climate of atonement, there was a
> complete absence of a single apology from any other foreign leader
This isn't about them. It's about us. Apologizing for eight years of
venality and incompetence isn't weakness. Only the pathetic and the
frightened are afraid of the truth..
> In addition, Hanson continues, �We hear nothing about our Gettysburg,
> or our entry into World War I. Iwo Jima and the Bulge are never
> alluded to. Drawing the line in Korea and forcing the end of the
> Soviet monstrosity are taboo subjects. That we pledged the life of New
> York for Berlin in the Cold War is unknown. Liberating Afghanistan and
> Iraq from the diabolical Taliban and Saddam Hussein is left unsaid.
> The Civil Rights movement, the Great Society, affirmative action, and
> present billion-dollar foreign-aid programs apparently never existed.
> Millions of Africans have been saved by George Bush�s efforts at
> extending life-saving medicines to AIDS patients � but again, this is
> never referenced.�
None of these things happened on the watch of the WPE. Employing
interrogation practices that we ourselves prosecuted as torture after World
Wat II. That did.
> Blogger James Lewis says that Obama�s �obsessive need to put down his
> own country shows a stunningly ignorant man who has evidently never
> spoken to a concentration camp survivor, a Cuban refugee, a boat
> person from Vietnam, a Soviet dissident, or a survivor of Mao�s
> purges.�
Only the weak never apologize. W's mistakes are independent of the virtues
of his predecessors or the sins of foreigners.
<snip/>
> Obama abrogated America�s strategic commitment to the defense of our
> ally Japan when his administration reacted to North Korea�s ballistic
> missile test by saying the U.S. would only shoot the missile down if
> it targeted U.S. territory.
You do realize that we have no capacity to "shoot down" ballistic missiles,
right? Certainly not one that go from Korea to Japan.
<snip/>
Why don't you try thinking for yourself?
<snipped: the rest of your copyright violation/>
No comments on these lies?
Noted.
Nobama
Fascinating Comparison of Obama and Hitler
This was recommended by my Ravelry friend, Vereteno and can be found
here at FaithFreedom.org.
The Hitler Factor: Is It Fair To Compare?
By Roberts, Matthew Edward
Since World War II there have been many political candidates who have
been compared to the likeness of Adolph Hitler. This was the case for
George Bush, Al Gore, and both Bill and Hillary Clinton; to name a
few. Try as we might to modify graphic images to resemble the physical
appearance of Hitler, any attempt to make a genuine comparison using
these pictures crumbles when we face the ugly truth about Adolph
Hitler�s personality and actions.
Some have attempted to make the comparison of Barack Obama to Adolph
Hitler. This kind of thing has been done so many times before that
people no longer think it credible. The shock value is gone and people
almost expect such comparisons to be made during the election
campaigns. The smear attempt which aims to anger supporters hardly
gives them cause to raise an eyebrow.
This situation of being resistant to the �Hitler Factor� could
eventually become a dangerous thing for the voting public of any
country. How would citizens recognize another Hitler-type politician
in the future if they have become resistant to the idea of making the
comparison? If citizens are accustomed to instantly rejecting any
comparison of a candidate to Hitler, will they be able to apply the
lessons of history in order to prevent electing another one like him
in the future?
What is it about Hitler we should remember so as to prevent electing
another similar candidate who appears to be following in his
footsteps? Many believe Adolph Hitler had Narcissistic Personality
Disorder (NPD), which is a documented mental disorder. People who have
NPD have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for
admiration. They believe that they're superior to others and have
little regard for other people's feelings.1 It is not hard to see
these traits when we view images or videos of Adolph Hitler.
In the general population only 0.5-1% of people are thought to have
NPD2, although many will remain undiagnosed and untreated for their
entire lives. People may interpret lower levels of expressed
narcissism as mere conceitedness, selfishness, or arrogance.
Given narcissism is centered around the idea of self-importance and
the need for adoration from others, it should be no surprise to find
narcissists are often attracted to those things which feed their
emotional needs for recognition and adoration. They may, for example,
pursue careers as movie stars or politicians in order to gain elevated
social status and popularity. Nothing screams �elite� and �fame� like
celebrities and politicians attending red carpet events.
Rarely do the minor expression of narcissism cause any real damage to
anyone, but in a position of influence things can go awry very quickly
for someone with a severe case of NPD. Adolph Hitler showed us just
how bad things can get under that kind of leadership.
What exactly causes NPD? One expert and author by the name of Dr.
Shmuel Vaknin offers the following explanation, �The onset of
pathological narcissism is in infancy, childhood and early
adolescence. It is commonly attributed to childhood abuse and trauma
inflicted by parents, authority figures, or even peers. Pathological
narcissism is a defense mechanism intended to deflect hurt and trauma
from the victim's "True Self" into a �False Self� which is omnipotent,
invulnerable, and omniscient.�3
It must be said here nearly all children are born with narcissist
traits and Sigmund Freud believed that to be normal.4 However, the
development of NPD as a pathological disorder is thought to be rooted
in childhood neglect and abuse. Adolph Hitler certainly had a
qualifying childhood which would have contributed to the development
of NPD.
Adolph Hitler was born to a communist father who worked as a
government employee who had several other children with multiple
women. His father was considerably older than his mother and they
conceived their famous son prior to getting married. His father was
not interested in child-rearing, abused alcohol, and the future German
leader would reside in several different residences in his early
years. The young boy felt alienated from his father. He would attend
several different schools, including a catholic school run by strict
priests and nuns.
A teacher would later describe Adolph using these words, �... reacted
with ill-concealed hostility to advice or reproof; at the same time,
he demanded of his fellow pupils their unqualified subservience,
fancying himself in the role of leader, at the same time indulging in
many a less innocuous prank of a kind not uncommon among immature
youths."5
If there were no bias against the name �Adolph Hitler� one might
actually feel sorry for this young boy who grew up in such a
dysfunctional family and knew so much instability, turmoil, and
sorrow. It should come as no surprise how someone like Adolph could
develop pathological NPD as a means of deflecting years of emotional
trauma. He clearly had a childhood which could have contributed to the
development of NPD. Given the comment of his teacher in later years it
is clear Adolph was exhibiting signs of having NPD (see definition in
the last paragraph of page one).
As a self-defense mechanism, Adolph imagined himself to be
all-powerful and invincible, but that was contrary to his true
personality as �nervous and awkward�.6 The fantasy aspect of his
invincible �False Self� was becoming deeply rooted in his mind and
even overshadowing the personality traits of Hitler�s �True Self�.
Eventually, Hitler wouldn�t be able to separate fantasy from reality
and Hitler�s �False Self� would totally convince him that he could
conquer the world.
So, in getting back to the comparison of Barack Obama to Adolph
Hitler, one could say there are some similarities. However, there are
perhaps hundreds of thousands of children who share some of these
similarities. Having a childhood similar to Hitler does
not mean a person will grow up to develop NPD, as only 1% of the
general population would do so.
Like Adolph Hitler, Barack Obama was born to a communist father who
worked as a government employee who had several other children with
multiple women. His father was considerably older than his mother and
they conceived their famous son prior to getting married. His father
was not interested in child-rearing, abused alcohol, and the future
leader would reside in several different residences in his early
years. The young boy felt alienated from his father. He would attend
several different schools, including a catholic school run by strict
priests and nuns.
He was described by peers who would later say, �He used to be a
naughty boy particularly among his female seniors. Once he destroyed
the school�s fence which made from bamboos.� �In a creative writing
lesson, other students said that they wanted to be a doctor or pilot,
but Barry claimed that he wanted to be a president.�7 His childhood
friend, Keith Kakugawa said, "He is such a people person now, it's
really amazing because he was a very, very shy -- I wouldn't say
introverted -- but he was just a very shy, cautious kid".8
Unlike Hitler, Obama did not experience the death of his father at the
age of thirteen. However, Barack Obama did see his father alive for
the final time at the young age of only ten. It does seem many things
about Obama�s early years are quite similar to those found in Hitler�s
childhood. Barack Obama had no control over these matters so there is
not a single person who would dare hold these things against him.
However, we must also understand that Obama was affected by these
experiences. It is, therefore, possible that Barack Obama, like 1% of
the general population, could have dealt with those emotional issues
by developing NPD. According to the comment of his teacher and
childhood friend, it appears he was expressing signs which are
associated with NPD. Both Hitler and Obama were considered to be
shy/awkward while also desiring power.
However, it must be clarified at this point that neither Hitler nor
Obama were officially diagnosed as having NPD. Suspicions can arise as
a result of observing their behavior, but conclusions would
nevertheless remain inconclusive. The best we can do is to compare the
history, behavior, and interests of Hitler to see if a political
candidate followed a similar path. Merely having a childhood which is
similar to that of Hitler is not sufficient to make a comparison. We
all know how Hitler turned out, so we should be wary of someone who
had similar childhood experiences, seems to show signs of having NPD,
has similar interests and ideas, and appears to be retracing Hitler�s
footsteps.
So what are Adolph Hitler�s historical footsteps?
At the age of 35 Adolph Hitler would write a book called, �Mein Kampf�
(translated as �My Struggle�). It would be an autobiography containing
insights pertaining to his early years, political ideas, and thoughts
on race.
At the age of 34 Barack Obama would write a book called, �Dreams of my
Father�, also an autobiography highlighting his early years, political
ideas, and thoughts on race.
Hitler�s �Zweites Buch� (translated as �Second Book�) contains a
deeper understanding of his political ideas. The same can also be said
about Obama�s second book, �The Audacity of Hope�.
Both Hitler and Obama used their books as a springboard to further
their political careers. The title of Obama�s second book was based on
a sermon of Reverend Wright and was the foundational basis of the
speech he gave at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. It was
that speech which caught the attention of the media and the public,
both of whom propelled him to political stardom. He further expounded
on those ideas to publish his second book in 2006, just before
announcing his run for the Presidency. The book was on the New York
Times best-seller list for 30 weeks.
Ok, so they have a similar childhood and they both wrote two books
around similar themes. So what? Well, we suspected both might have had
NPD too. Let�s talk a little more about NPD to see if there is really
a connection to be concerned about here.
Criteria for narcissistic personality disorder to be diagnosed
include9:
Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power or beauty
Believing that you are special and can associate only with equally
special people
Requiring constant admiration
Having a sense of entitlement
Taking advantage of others
Inability to recognize needs and feelings of others
Being envious of others
Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner
I would be willing to speculate that a person who feels the need to
write an autobiography in their mid-thirties might be entertaining an
exaggerated sense of self-importance. Both Hitler and Obama felt their
life was worth documenting for the public even before either had
started their political careers.
As mentioned earlier, both Hitler and Obama were described by others
as being shy or awkward children with dreams of being in powerful
positions of leadership. Both followed that dream, perhaps because
they were preoccupied with fantasies about success and power?
As I go down the list of nine NPD criteria I can see a number of them
which could be applied to both Obama and Hitler. This should be a
concern because we know the outcome in Hitler�s case, but we don�t
really know all that much about Barack Obama. He hasn�t released the
vault copy of his birth certificate, records of his activity logs
while in the Illinois State Senate, SAT scores, college transcripts,
thesis paper, medical records, tax returns, list of clients he worked
for as a lawyer, etc. Like Hitler, Obama has distanced himself even
from childhood friends10 (see below right), not to mention other
controversial associates such as William Ayers, Reverend Wright, Tony
Rezko, Frank Marshall Davis, etc.
Without full transparency people must look at documented history and
recorded actions to learn what this man is all about. Does Obama hold
the same or similar convictions and/or associations as Hitler?
Abortion (Infanticide)...Yes
(http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59702)
Universal Health Care...Yes
(http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070125-the_time_has_co/)
Gun Control...Yes
(http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm)
Anti-Semitism...Yes
(Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Samantha Powers, Robert Malley,
William Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, El-Hady)
Left-Wing Radicalism...Yes
(http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/13/updated-a-dangerous-mixture-of-lies-and-omissions-obama-ayers-wright-and-farrakhan/)
Communism...Yes
(http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/chicago-obama.pdf)
(http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/hawaii-obama.pdf)
Socialism...Yes
(http://www.military-money-matters.com/barack-obamas-stealth-socialism.html)
Ok, so they have a similar childhood, show some signs of having NPD,
wrote similar books at the same age, pursued a career in politics,
respect many of the same radical political ideas, have similar
associations in their relationships; but we are talking about two
totally different time periods in history. Yes, that is true, but you
may be surprised to know the signs of the times today are very similar
to those in Hitler�s era.
At the time Hitler was rising to power after WWI, Germany had a bad
reputation in the eyes of the world. The actions of the country were
seen as an act of dishonesty, betrayal, treachery and a war crime.
Hitler promised to correct this. Americans are also seen in similar
ways for the way we justified and proceeded with an invasion of Iraq.
Barack Obama has promised to correct this.
The Germans felt deceived and humiliated after WWI and had just
entered into the Great Depression. Hitler capitalized on this feeling
by offering hope and change. Americans also feel deceived and
humiliated by their own government which allowed the current financial
crisis to happen, followed by their passage of a $700 billion bailout
plan. Americans have just experienced the worst financial crisis since
the Great Depression and Obama is also capitalizing on this feeling by
offering hope and change.
There was weakness in the ineffective German Constitution which
angered many German citizens while few freedom-fighters remained to
resist change. Hitler was seen as one who would resolve Constitutional
issues while being capable of dealing with resistance. Many Americans
have a few problems with the U.S. Constitution, namely the Second
Amendment. Obama offers a solution which claims to respect tradition
while also allowing for gun-control laws. He will have to deal with
those who resist infringement on Second Amendment rights.
The financial contributions of private supporters enabled Hitler to
fund his campaign. The same can be said of Obama, for he has collected
record-breaking funds from private donors.
Hitler promised something to everyone, just as Obama is doing today.
The Nazi propaganda machine convinced people Hitler was their last
hope. In a similar way, the media is supporting the idea Obama
represents the only hope for change from the policies of President
Bush.
Hitler was an excellent orator, community organizer, and politician
who could motivate and inspire huge crowds. His self-confidence was
instrumental in convincing voters to elect him. The public viewed him
as their savior. The same can be said of Obama11.
Hitler realized there was strength to be found in the young. Hitler
Youth were extremely dedicated and instrumental to his success. I am
sure we have all heard about the Obama Kids singing songs of praise to
their leader. Obama�s own website offers the following encouragement
for youngsters to get involved in his campaign:
�Do you feel like you want to get involved in the political process
but you don�t know how? Do you feel like there�s something important
coming up in the Presidential elections? Get involved in KIDS FOR
OBAMA! Studies have shown that kids can affect their parents and their
siblings� opinions and even change the opinions of older family
members . . . including those of voting age. Are you still with me?
Great, Let�s get started!�
(http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/kidskit)
Beyond children, Obama is receiving an incredible amount of support
from college students and young adults.
Hitler held extremely leftist ideals. Barack Obama has been called one
of the most liberal Senators in Congress12.
Obama and Hitler can even be compared on having similar preferences,
such as their desire to give their major speeches against a backdrop
of Greek-style temples.
Where Hitler gave a speech in Vienna, Austria, March 1938 (above left)
Hitler giving a speech, date unknown (above right)
Where Obama accepted the nomination in Denver, Colorado, August 2008
(below left)
Where Obama announced Biden as his running mate in Springfield, IL
(below right)
�Obama is the hope of the entire world.� - Louis Farrakhan
�Hitler was a very great man.� - Louis Farrakhan
Barack Obama is fully aware the nation�s problems are helping pave the
way for him to be President. His poll ratings went through the roof
during the bailout mess, so he obviously wants to talk more about the
economy to make even more political gains. On October 22, 2008, Obama
gave a speech in Virginia which included the statement, �I feel like
we got a righteous wind at our backs here.� He may not be able to
fully explain why he is having such great success in his campaign, but
I�m not entirely convinced �righteous� was the appropriate word to use
since it taps into religious overtones. Like Obama, Hitler claimed to
be a Christian too, but I doubt anyone would believe his election
success was a result of divine influence or intervention. The fact of
the matter is both Obama and Hitler have the right qualities and
message which influenced the right people in just the right way at
just the right time. The question is: What will they do when elected?
We need to be cautious when we see historical experiences, thought
processes, behavior patterns, courses of action, belief structures,
personality traits, and career goals in a candidate which are found to
be strikingly similar to those of Hitler. Combined with lack of
transparency we have a serious red flag waving before us. We
absolutely cannot afford to be wrong about this. With 12 million total
deaths, the holocaust was simply too tragic for anyone to allow it to
happen again. It might hurt our pride to vote for another candidate,
any other candidate, when we want to pull that lever for our beloved
candidate so badly. He seems so promising! Yet, so did Hitler. We
would suffer much worse if that candidate proved to be something we
never anticipated. I can only imagine how many Germans eventually came
to regret casting a vote for Hitler.
This article was written as a reminder we need to continue being wise
in judgment and unafraid to make comparisons when necessary. Turning a
blind eye and responding with anger in defense of our preferred
candidate can be quite dangerous. Some might choose to insist Obama
would not be one who would take us through another holocaust. Indeed,
they may be right, but few can deny the many similarities between
Obama and Hitler. I would rather not take the chance of being proven
wrong later on in life. I, for one, will always consider �The Hitler
Factor� when choosing which candidate will receive my vote and hope
others will do the same so we may always learn from our past mistakes.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652
"Narcissistic Personality Disorder". Personality Disorders -
Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Armenian Medical Network (2006).
http://samvak.tripod.com/npdglance.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_(psychology)
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/father.htm
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/father.htm
http://hubpages.com/hub/barrack-obama-indonesia
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=2989722&page=1
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=tests-and-diagnosis
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=2989722&page=1
http://redstaterusa.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-messiah-has-spoken.html
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
Sunday, November 02, 2008 | Permalink
ObaMao
>noway@noway. (ObaMao) wrote in news:4b3193fd...@free.teranews.com:
>
>> Keep drinking that Kool-Aid Obama swooner, while George Soros'
>> Rent-a-Radical keeps falling in the polls.
>
>So no substantive response to Nobama getting called out on the lies, eh?
Nobama? Oh, you mean Obama.
But hey, I dig where you're coming from. Leftist totalitarinaism is
cool as long as the underclass's welfare checks are bumped up. Keeps
'em less dangerous, eh.
Me, I did well during Bush's term. Maybe if you had worked harder in
school instead of dedicating yourself to being the best whigger in the
neighborhood, you'd've done well too.
ObaMao
Lack of any substantive response followed by major snippage duly
noted.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:16:57 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
ObaMao
Whites not protected by Hate Crime Law
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3943
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:24:43 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
ObaMao
More racism from Obama:
Updated December 20, 2009
Civil Rights Panel Subpoenas Justice Department in New Black Panthers
Case
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:47:01 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
ObaMao
In Obama we have an inexperienced underqualified affirmative action
prince who happens to be a share-the-wealth Marxist; a man whose
ideologues were communists Frank Marshall Davis and Saul Alinsky; a
man who sat for 20 years shouting "Rahhht on" to the racist rantings
of Rev. Wright and who nominated a racist cunt to SCOTUS, not to
mention racists Eric Holder, Van Jones, and Mark Lloyd; and let us not
forget the pro-pedophile Kevin Jennings; a man who inherited an
economic fire -- caused in part by his own Party -- and is throwing
gasoline on it; a man who hates his country and travels around the
world on apology tours; a man who has achieved nothing in foreign
policy, as both the Euro twits and those south of the border have
rejected his wishes; a man who plans to tax the drawers off of
everybody except the welfare set .....
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:24:43 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
ObaMao
Man, am I about to sound like an uncool, homophobic, bigoted zealot
who should be on a terror watch list (according to the paranormal
progressives). Why is that, you ask? Well, I think Obama�s G-boy,
Kevin Jennings, should not be the Safe Schools Czar for many egregious
reasons. Here are just a few.
I believe anyone who thinks it�s okay to teach 14-year-old boys how
they can jam their fist up another 14-year-old boy�s tailpipe, or
provides �fisting� kits for the kiddos, or thinks it�s neat-o to
urinate on one another during teen sex, or passes out literature to
your young ones on how they can find old pedophiles to hook up with at
�gay leather bars,� or talks to your teen about the tricky pros and
cons of spitting versus swallowing should not be the Safe Schools
Czar.
Maybe Kevin Jennings could be the �Adam Lambert Eye Liner Czar� or
Cher�s �Do You Believe in Life After Love Czar,� but not the Safe
Schools Czar. But then again, there I go being extreme. Shame on me
for not being a hip parent who�s totally cool with adult flamers
filling our fifth grade kids� heads with filth. I am truly an
ignorant, puritanical, buckle-shoed killjoy, ain�t I? By the way, what
the heck is up with liberals? They have their hands in our pockets,
their noses in our business, and now they want their arms up our
backsides.
How crazy of me that I would have the audacity to go public with the
notion that someone who headed up an organization (GLSEN) that
proselytizes confused kids on how they can insert their knuckles up
someone else�s anus should not be the determiner of what is �safe� at
school, eh? Hello!
Hey, Kev� last time I checked, trying to make your mate a hand puppet
didn�t fall within the city limits of SafetyTown. Sounds kinda
dangerous to me. Oh and here�s an aside for the butt pirates: Our
rectums are an exit, not an entrance.
In addition, Mr. Jennings, apart from the �arm in arse� thing, from
what I remember during 9th grade health class many moons ago, it�s
also not wise to place one�s reproductive organ in the end of
another�s digestive system.
A fist up a rectum? Are you kidding me? You guys sound like you have
way too much time on your hands. If you�re in need of an idea
regarding what to do with your fist, here�s one: Why don�t take your
fist and smack yourself in the face with it for poisoning America�s
kids with your perverted crap?
For those not in the know, Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings, who was
cherry picked by Obama, is not having a good week as whistleblowers
are righteously shouting this guy down and trying to get him removed
from calling the shots regarding what is nontoxic in your kids�
scholastic lives.
Why are watchdogs barking this dude down? Well, it�s not because he�s
mildly gay but because he�s wildly militant in his homosexuality, and
both he and his hombres at GLSEN have had no problemo whatsoever
filling your kids� heads and bodies with weirdness galore. For the
unbelievable full list of what this man and his organization have
advocated and continue to advocate, check out the fantastic work Jim
Holt has done on �FistGate� at BigGovernment.com. Also, don�t miss
Jennings/GLSEN�s �Little Black Book� for your sons! Hellish.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:22:26 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
ObaMao
>Let's see.
>
>Torture and rendition no longer US policies. Check.
Replaced by bending over and spreading cheek for those who are
tryingto eat our bones.
>Fewer officials from the Arabian Horse Breeders' Association in charge.
>Check.
Anti-Constitution racist cunt placed on Supreme Court
>Alberto Gonzalies no longer AG.
>Check.
Replaced by racist Eric Holder.
>Financial system back from the brink.
>Check.
Capitalism flushed down the toilet.
>Abstinence-only sex education defunded.
>Check.
Pro-pedophile named safe schools czar.
>A Nobel Prize winning physicist in charge at the DOE.
>Check.
An enviromental extremist to go along with the other bizarros.
>> Obama quotes:
Spin 'em anyway ya like, cunt.
If a white candidate had made such racist statements, you''d be
outraged.
ObaMao
>the Bushies wiped their asses with the Constitution. I didn't
>hear you complaining aboutit then.
Did they tap ya phone?
And here's a clue: Bush is gone.
Time to hold your boy accountable.
So typical for a cheek-spreading "guilty" white liberal to place the
blame on a white guy while making excuses for the black guy's
shortcomings. Sorta tantamount to blaming today's black anti-social
behavior on slavery that ended decades ago, replaced by preferential
treatment. George Soros' Rent-a-Radical and his thugs have ruined
America ... took 'em 12 months to do it.
Deadrat
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:16:57 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>noway@noway. (ObaMao) wrote in news:4b3193fd...@free.teranews.com:
>>
>>> Keep drinking that Kool-Aid Obama swooner, while George Soros'
>>> Rent-a-Radical keeps falling in the polls.
>>
>>So no substantive response to Nobama getting called out on the lies, eh?
>
> Nobama? Oh, you mean Obama.
>
> But hey, I dig where you're coming from. Leftist totalitarinaism is
> cool as long as the underclass's welfare checks are bumped up. Keeps
> 'em less dangerous, eh.
>
> Me, I did well during Bush's term.
Anyone can play a plutocrat in cyberspace.
> Maybe if you had worked harder in
> school instead of dedicating yourself to being the best whigger in the
> neighborhood, you'd've done well too.
How could you tell how well I've done from anything I posted?
Deadrat
> Lack of any substantive response followed by major snippage duly
> noted.
Look, the most I can do is the research that you should have done for
yourself. For example, I've noted that the quotes are fabricated, taken
out of context, or not pejorative in the first place. If you either
won't read what I've posted, or can't understand what I've posted, then
it isn't my fault.
Deadrat
> Whites not protected by Hate Crime Law
>
> http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3943
This url does not link to the actual law, which states in part that
"[w]hoever, ... willfully causes bodily injury to any person ... because of
the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any
person" has committed a particular crime.
Note that the statute is race-neutral. It would have to be or it wouldn't
survive strict scrutiny.
<snip/>
Deadrat
>
>
> More racism from Obama:
>
> Updated December 20, 2009
> Civil Rights Panel Subpoenas Justice Department in New Black Panthers
> Case
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/20/civil-rights-panel-subpoenas
> -justice-department-new-black-panthers-case/
Ya gotta stop getting all your information from Fox, Sparky.
No matter the facts here, your complaint (or actually the complaint that
Fox "News" wants you to have) is with the DOJ. The President isn't
involved in decisions at this level.
Try thinking for yourself.
It might hurt at first. You'll get used to it in time.
Deadrat
>
>
> In Obama we have an inexperienced underqualified affirmative action
> prince who happens to be a share-the-wealth Marxist; a man whose
> ideologues were communists Frank Marshall Davis and Saul Alinsky; a
> man who sat for 20 years shouting "Rahhht on" to the racist rantings
> of Rev. Wright and who nominated a racist cunt to SCOTUS, not to
> mention racists Eric Holder, Van Jones, and Mark Lloyd; and let us not
> forget the pro-pedophile Kevin Jennings; a man who inherited an
> economic fire -- caused in part by his own Party --
Uh, Sparky? The WPE was in charge 1/2001 - 1/2009. His party controlled
both houses of Congress for six of those years.
> and is throwing
> gasoline on it; a man who hates his country and travels around the
> world on apology tours; a man who has achieved nothing in foreign
> policy, as both the Euro twits and those south of the border have
> rejected his wishes; a man who plans to tax the drawers off of
> everybody except the welfare set .....
Sucks to be you, doesn't it?
Deadrat
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:22:26 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Let's see.
>>
>>Torture and rendition no longer US policies. Check.
>
> Replaced by bending over and spreading cheek for those who are
> tryingto eat our bones.
Bwahahahaha! Didja ask the Somali pirates about that?
Oh, wait! They're dead.
>
>>Fewer officials from the Arabian Horse Breeders' Association in
>>charge. Check.
>
> Anti-Constitution racist cunt placed on Supreme Court
Your worthless opinion is noted.
>>Alberto Gonzalies no longer AG.
>>Check.
>
> Replaced by racist Eric Holder.
He's a racist because you say so? Your worthless opinion is noted.
>
>>Financial system back from the brink.
>>Check.
>
> Capitalism flushed down the toilet.
Blame the WPE.
>
>>Abstinence-only sex education defunded.
>>Check.
>
> Pro-pedophile named safe schools czar.
He wasn't in favor of pedophilia. The incident he mentions in his
biography was about counseling someone, not having sex with them. And
the person was over the age of consent at the time.
>
>>A Nobel Prize winning physicist in charge at the DOE.
>>Check.
>
> An enviromental extremist to go along with the other bizarros.
Oh, well. We'll just take your word over a Nobel Prize winner's, then.
>
>>> Obama quotes:
>
> Spin 'em anyway ya like, cunt.
Yeah. Spin. Didja see the part where some of the quotes are fabricated?
> If a white candidate had made such racist statements, you''d be
> outraged.
I don't let ignoramuses like you tell me what I'd do.
So no substantive response to the information I posted?
Deadrat
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:16:57 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>the Bushies wiped their asses with the Constitution. I didn't
>>hear you complaining aboutit then.
>
> Did they tap ya phone?
How would I know?
>
> And here's a clue: Bush is gone.
His legacy lives on.
>
> Time to hold your boy accountable.
The WPE screws things up for eight years solid, and Obama hasn't fixed
things to your satisfaction in less than a year.
Wow, it must suck to be you.
>
> So typical for a cheek-spreading "guilty" white liberal to place the
> blame on a white guy while making excuses for the black guy's
> shortcomings. Sorta tantamount to blaming today's black anti-social
> behavior on slavery that ended decades ago, replaced by preferential
> treatment. George Soros' Rent-a-Radical and his thugs have ruined
> America ... took 'em 12 months to do it.
You don't like two lost wars and an economy in ruins? Blame the WPE,
loser.
You seem to have a penchant for "cheek-spreading." Why is that?
Nobama
You wouldn't be whining for Obammy's socialism if you'd done well.
Nobama
The quotes were verbalized as well as written.
Your spin to soften them and make excuses don't wash.
Nobama
So tell me how many of your acquaintances had their phones tapped by
Bush.
Your Bush Derangement Syndrome wears thin.
Time for ya to start taking the Radical-in-Chief to task.
Obie voted for the bank rescue plan in September 2008 and praised it
during the
campaign. Yet on Dec. 8 at the Brookings Institution, Mr. Obama called
it
"flawed" and blamed "the last administration" for launching it
"hastily."
Really? Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman
Ben
Bernanke and New York Fed President Timothy Geithner designed it. If
it was
"flawed," why did Mr. Obama later nominate Mr. Bernanke to a second
term as
Fed chairman and make Mr. Geithner his Treasury secretary?
Mr. Obama also claimed at Brookings that he prevented "a second Great
Depression" by confronting the financial crisis "largely without the
help" of
Republicans. Yet his own Treasury secretary suggests otherwise. In a
Dec. 9
letter, Mr. Geithner admitted that since taking office, the Obama
administration had "committed about $7 billion to banks, much of which
went to
small institutions." That compares to $240 billion the Bush
administration
lent banks. Does Mr. Obama really believe his additional $7 billion
forestalled "the potential collapse of our financial system"?
Mr. Obama continued distorting the record in his "60 Minutes"
interview Sunday
when he blamed bankers for the financial crisis. They "caused the
problem," he
insisted before complaining, "I haven't seen a lot of shame on their
part" and
pledging to put "a regulatory system in place that prevents them from
putting
us in this kind of pickle again."
But as a freshman senator, Mr. Obama supported a threatened 2005
filibuster of
a bill regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He doesn't show "a lot
of shame"
that he and other Fannie and Freddie defenders blocked "a regulatory
system"
that might have kept America from getting in such a bad pickle in the
first
place.
The president's rhetorical tricks don't end there. Mr. Obama also
claimed his
$787 billion stimulus package "helped us [stem] the panic and get the
economy
growing again." But 1.5 million more people are unemployed than he
said there
would be if nothing were done.
And as of yesterday, only $244 billion of the stimulus had been spent.
Why was
$787 billion needed when less than a third of that figure supposedly
got the
job done?
Mr. Obama also alleged on "60 Minutes" that health-care reform "will
actually
bring down the deficit" (which people clearly know it will not). He
said his
reform reduces "costs and premiums for American families and
businesses"
(though they will be higher than they would otherwise be). And he
claimed 30
million more people will get coverage through "an exchange that allows
individuals and small businesses" to purchase insurance (though 15
million of
them are covered by being dumped into Medicaid and don't get private
insurance).
Mr. Obama may actually believe it when he says, "I think that's a
pretty
darned good outcome" and congratulates himself that he could succeed
where
"seven presidents have tried . . . [and] seven presidents have
failed."
But voters seem to have a different definition of success. And they
are tiring
of the president's blame shifting and distortions.
Mr. Obama may believe, as he told Oprah Winfrey in a recent interview,
that he
deserves a "solid B+" for his first year in office, but the American
people
beg to differ. A presidency that started with so much promise is
receiving
unprecedentedly low grades from the country that elected him. He's
earned
them.
Nobama
Somali pirated were killed by Seals, the group that Obama is
prosecuting.
Holder's the racist who let the Black Panthers skate away from charges
that DOJ had been building for 5 months.
He also decreed that straight white males are not protected by the new
hate law.
Nobama
Nope. Only those who have been "historically oppressed" are
protected, ignoring the reality that the overwhelming majority of
interracial hate crimes are black-on-white.
Nobama
Whatever Bush did in eight years did not approach the damage that
Obama's thugs have done in one, e.g., the national debt.
Nobama
The naivete of the starry-eyed liberal....
Obie could lift the phone and whisper a word to Holder and Holder
would say Thy will be done."
But the bigger point is the trash whom Obie has placed in his cabinet
and courts: Holder, Holdren, Jennings, Lloyd, Sotomayor, the cunt who
idolizes Chaiman Mao, etc. .... They're all Obie's boyz-and-girls
groomed in teh Frank Marshall Davis mold.
Deadrat
news:4b328b9f...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>
>
> You wouldn't be whining for Obammy's socialism if you'd done well.
You wouldn't be whining at all if you actually knew what socialism was.
Obama is still President.
Which means that you're still a loser.
Own it.
Deadrat
september.org:
>
>
> The quotes were verbalized as well as written.
Of course, they were verbalized, you ignoramus, they're words.
Oh, you mean some were spoken? No, sorry.
> Your spin to soften them and make excuses don't wash.
You haven't read any of the sources; you've just regurgitated what you've
been told. Good doggy!
Some of the quotes were made up and attributed to Obama.
That makes you a loser. Again.
Still.
Deadrat
september.org:
> So tell me how many of your acquaintances had their phones tapped by
> Bush.
How would any of us know?
> Your Bush Derangement Syndrome wears thin.
>
> Time for ya to start taking the Radical-in-Chief to task.
>
> Obie voted for the bank rescue plan in September 2008 and praised it
> during the
> campaign. Yet on Dec. 8 at the Brookings Institution, Mr. Obama called
> it
> "flawed" and blamed "the last administration" for launching it
> "hastily."
Don't yet know how laws are made in this country, eh? Sometimes your
reps vote for things they think are imperfect. And Obama's criticism is
mostly of the WPE's *execution* of the law, not the law.
>
> Really? Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman
> Ben
> Bernanke and New York Fed President Timothy Geithner designed it. If
> it was
> "flawed," why did Mr. Obama later nominate Mr. Bernanke to a second
> term as
> Fed chairman and make Mr. Geithner his Treasury secretary?
Geithner and Bernake don't write or pass laws.
> Mr. Obama also claimed at Brookings that he prevented "a second Great
> Depression" by confronting the financial crisis "largely without the
> help" of
> Republicans. Yet his own Treasury secretary suggests otherwise. In a
> Dec. 9
> letter, Mr. Geithner admitted that since taking office, the Obama
> administration had "committed about $7 billion to banks, much of which
> went to
> small institutions." That compares to $240 billion the Bush
> administration
> lent banks. Does Mr. Obama really believe his additional $7 billion
> forestalled "the potential collapse of our financial system"?
Squirm all you want. The financial system by all accounts was circling
the drain on the watch of the WPE. Why didn't you whine about him?
>
<snipped: the rest of your whiny opinions/>
Look, I don't like everything Obama has done, and I don't approve of
every appointment he's made. But guess what? He didn't have to ask me
for permission. And that means I don't have to defend every thing he's
done or every appointment he's made.
You don't like him personally or any of his policies? Fine. Then I
guess it just sucks to be you.
I've just called you out on various lies, including manufactured quotes.
Deadrat
september.org:
> Somali pirated were killed by Seals, the group that Obama is
> prosecuting.
That's right, under the command of the Commander-in-Chief.
And Obama isn't prosecuting any Seals. Stop lying. It makes the Baby
Jesus cry.
> Holder's the racist who let the Black Panthers skate away from charges
> that DOJ had been building for 5 months.
Given the fact that you are an ignoramus who can't think for himself, I'll
withhold judgment on this one. I don't know the law or the circumstances.
And you sure as hell don't either. But your complaint is possibly with
Holder or possibly with a Deputy AG. Not Obama.
>
> He also decreed that straight white males are not protected by the new
> hate law.
But they are. I've quoted the law to you. It's race-neutral, as it has to
be to pass Constitutional muster. Give me a cite where Holder said
otherwise. You can't, loser.
I'll wait for you to try, but I won't hold my breath.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:4b328bb6...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>
>
> Nope. Only those who have been "historically oppressed" are
> protected, ignoring the reality that the overwhelming majority of
> interracial hate crimes are black-on-white.
I've read the law. It says nothing about "historically oppressed." You're
lying or simply repeating lies you've been told.
Deadrat
news:4b328bba...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>
>
> Whatever Bush did in eight years did not approach the damage that
> Obama's thugs have done in one, e.g., the national debt.
Hey, Sparky. The current national debt is the fault of the WPE.
I didn't hear you whining when he ran it up. Why was that?
<snip/>
Nobama
Unconstitutional?
You want unconstitutional?
How 'bout making people buy health insurance.
And don't give me that auto insurance argument, given that people are
not required to buy same. Furthermore, auto ins. is primarily to
protect you against suits from the party you injure.
As for the economy, your boy criticizes the other guy even tho he
supported the policies that he now condemns.
Time for him to take responsibility and stop blaming the other guy.
Time for you to stop making 'scuses for the asswipe.
Nobama
Verbalized as well as written.
Imagine if some white conservative candidate had made such remarks.
Imagine if a white conservative candidate had attended for 20 years
some hillbilly church with a racist pastor like a David Duke.
Imagine the outrage; imagine the ostracism.
But for Obama, you cheek spreaders bury ya heads in the sand.
Nobama
I see socialism everyday with the crowd currently in power.
Hey, the boy has aligned himself with Davis, Alinsky, Ayres; they your
idea of free mkt. inspirationalists?
Taking over banks, the auto industry, health care ... also kinda
reminds ya of a fascist named Adolf.
And he's intentionally trying to destroy the small business people
with his taxes on them, card check, cap-and-trade "green"
requirements.
The sooner they're destroyed, the sooner he can install 1984 Big
Brother.
Tell me cupcake, what's that black unemployment rate again?
Heh.
Nobama
Holder repeatedly claimed that hate crime laws are designed to protect
only groups that were targeted for violence on a "historic basis,"
such as African-Americans, Hispanics, Jews, and gays. (Holder's
testimony can be viewed in its entirety by clicking the 'webcast' link
here. He lists the groups he considers to be protected between 73:30
and 74 minutes).
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3943
Nobama
The Commissar-in-Chief had his head up his ass and when they were
killed, he went on his world apology tour.
And now he wants to punish Seals.
While failing to ever utter the words "Islamic terrorism."
Holder's DOJ had a strong case developed over 5 months. Hell, even
the pro-affirmative action EEOC wants him to respons. It ain't just
Frank Wolf.
As for hate crimes:
Holder repeatedly claimed that hate crime laws are designed to protect
only groups that were targeted for violence on a "historic basis,"
such as African-Americans, Hispanics, Jews, and gays. (Holder's
testimony can be viewed in its entirety by clicking the 'webcast' link
here. He lists the groups he considers to be protected between 73:30
and 74 minutes).
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3943
Nobama
Obama-lovers don't seem informed. When they compare Bush's debt with
Dear Leaders, they ignore the fact that in less than one year, Obama
has quadrupled the debt Bush accrued in eight years.
It seems implausible that a President of the United States could
actually be doing harm to the economy by design, but that appears to
be the case. Despite what the media lapdogs, Obama apologists say, the
economy is �contracting�. It just contracted less than the previous
quarter. If you listen to the media however, things are rosy and we
can see light at the end of the tunnel. WHAT? When Bush was President
the economy was growing every quarter until the Democrats seized
control of Congress. The media was predicting doom every day, the
economy is terrible, it grew at a slower rate than expected, Bush
sucks, the Republicans suck, their policies don�t work,
blah,blah,blah. But now that there is a Democrat in the White House
and a Democratic Congress, all is right with the economy. So what if
people are losing jobs at an alarming rate and they are spending less
money, which will cause more people to lose their jobs. And just what
is a jobless recovery anyway? And while we are at it, what exactly
does adding or �saving� jobs mean? This administration has more
�doublespeak� terms than any I have ever heard.
Here�s the deal. The President does not believe in free market
capitalism. He learned his economics from Maynard Keynes, and Obamas�
own father, who was a Communist Economist in Kenya. He believes in
taxing the rich and spreading the wealth just like Karl Marx. He says
it almost everyday, and he said it to Joe the plumber when he thought
no one could hear.
Let me make economic theory easy for you Obama drones out there.
If a business is taxed more, will the business have more money or less
money? The answer is less money. If this business has less money,are
they going to hire more people or less people? The answer is less
people. Will that mean more people will have jobs or less people will
have jobs. The answer is less people will have jobs. If less people
have jobs, will they have more money to spend at the business you work
at or less money to spend at the business you work for? The answer is
less money to spend at the business you work. Then what happens? YOU
get laid off and so on and so on and so on.
If Taxes are cut, will the business have more money or less money? The
answer is more money. If the business has more money are they going to
hire more people ar less people? The answer is more people. If the
business has more money are they more apt or less apt to give you a
raise. The answer is, if they have more money they might give you a
raise, especially if there are other business out ther hiring more
people and you might go to work for their competitor if you can get
paid more. Competition is good.
Now, if you cut taxes and there are more and more businesses who have
more and more money, hiring people and maybe giving them raises due to
increased competition, are these people who are now working going to
have more money or less money? The answer is more money. If their are
more people who have more money are they more likely to buy your goods
and services or less likely? The answer is more likely. If this
happens are you more likely to have more money or less likely?.The
answer is YOU will have more money!
Where Obamas� theory of economics fail is he believes that if you tax
people more the government will have more money. I just proved that to
be false. To make a point, would you rather have 20% of 1 million
dollars(200,000) or only 10% of 3 million dollars(300,000)? Of course
the answer is you want the SMALLER portion of the BIGGER pie. If you
cut taxes and expand the economy(the Pie) everyone wins. If you take
larger and larger percentages of the pie it will contract just like
the economy and everyone loses. Just ask the state budget directors
who can�t print money like our esteemed hero, the mighty, the all
powerful, OBAMA!
Speaking of printing money, I hope that all you economic illiterates
out there(Obama supporters) realize that the Government has no money
of its own right? Let me explain that to you also.
The government gets money 3 ways. They can tax you and business, which
is actually another tax on you because a business operates to make
money. If they don�t make enough they close. Now whenever they get
taxed they just pass the costs of the higher taxes to you, and then
YOU pay their tax. So taxing business is crazy. You end up paying
their tax. Now these taxes that are imposed on you by government come
from money that would otherwise be left in the private sector(which
Obama is out to destroy as much as possible i.e. car companies, banks,
insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, etc.). If this money is left
in the private sector then expansion of the pie continues. If it
doesn�t, the pie gets smaller(exactly what Obama is doing, on
purpose).
The second way government can get money is to print it. This is what
Obama is doing also(and is an impeachable offence). He swore to uphold
the Constitution which includes keeping this country sovereign and
keeping the currency strong. If you just print money our currency will
be worth less and less. There will be too many dollars chasing too few
goods which will cause inflation. Prices will rise, you will need more
and more of these dollars to purchase fewer and fewer goods. This is a
bad thing.
The third way the government can get money is by borrowing it at ever
increasing interest rates.(ask China how much of the U.S. debt they
own). Do you Obama morons out there know that in six months Obama has
got us into more debt than all other presidents combined in the
history of the country. HE IS DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY ON PURPOSE! HE
IS EVIL. There, now I feel better. Not as good as I�ll feel in 2010
and 2012, but better. Obama does not love this country. He only sees
its faults(in his eyes). He is out to change it fundamentally. I say
no. The only thing wrong with this country is there are too many
leftist who seek government office. Normal people are going to have
to start running for office or we are in trouble. Of course, I like to
fight. Maybe we need to thin the ranks out a little? We can start with
the anti-capitalist democrats. They can form their own country
somewhere else. It ain�t gonna happen here. I promise you that!!!
Deadrat
september.org:
>
>
>
> Unconstitutional?
>
> You want unconstitutional?
>
> How 'bout making people buy health insurance.
Ah, finally. An actual statement of purported fact. Wrong, of course,
but still better than calling the President "Obammy" or posting
manufactured quotes.
OK, I can be convinced by an argument from law. Please tell me how the
mandate is unconstitutional. I'm not interested in whether you dislike
it, and I'm not interested in whether you think it's bad public policy.
I'll stipulate to both of those.
Please demonstrate that the mandate is unconstitutional under the current
interpretation of the commerce clause. You'll have to reference Wickard
v Filburn and Gonzales v Raich.
Give details; show your work. I'll wait.
I just won't hold my breath.
> And don't give me that auto insurance argument, given that people are
> not required to buy same. Furthermore, auto ins. is primarily to
> protect you against suits from the party you injure.
>
> As for the economy, your boy criticizes the other guy even tho he
> supported the policies that he now condemns.
>
> Time for him to take responsibility and stop blaming the other guy.
>
> Time for you to stop making 'scuses for the asswipe.
It took the WPE eight full years to put this country where it is. I
don't expect anybody to right things in less than a year. YMMV.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:4b32abdf...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>
>
> Verbalized as well as written.
Verbalized means "in words," ignoramus.
>
> Imagine if some white conservative candidate had made such remarks.
I don't have to imagine. They make them all the time.
>
> Imagine if a white conservative candidate had attended for 20 years
> some hillbilly church with a racist pastor like a David Duke.
I don't have to imagine. They do this all the time.
>
> Imagine the outrage; imagine the ostracism.
This I have to imagine.
>
> But for Obama, you cheek spreaders bury ya heads in the sand.
It's worth noting that you know nothing about Wright except a few short
sound bites (and of course the directions of the people who manipulate
you).
During the last Presidential campaign, there was an Op-Ed piece in the
Chicago Tribune by a white man married to a black woman. They both
attended the Trinity United Church of Christ, where Wright was pastor.
The man related that when he first proposed, the woman turned him down on
the grounds that marrying a white man represented a betrayal of her race.
Wright talked to her and convinced her that love was more important than
race, and if she loved the man who proposed to her, then she should marry
him. And she did.
Some racist pastor, eh?
When you think of judging Wright on the little you know about him, think
about this: how would you like to be judged solely on the garbage you
spew in newsroups?
<snip/>
Deadrat
september.org:
>
>
>
> I see socialism everyday with the crowd currently in power.
And yet you have no idea what socialism is.
Do you realize that we have a socialist military and socialist fire
departments?
> Hey, the boy has aligned himself with Davis, Alinsky, Ayres; they your
> idea of free mkt. inspirationalists?
Saul Alinksy was a labor and community organizer. He died when Obama was
barely 20 years old.
By the time Obama knew William Ayres, he was a college professor at the
University of Illinois at Chicago. They served on a couple of charitable
boards together.
> Taking over banks, the auto industry, health care ... also kinda
> reminds ya of a fascist named Adolf.
The only banks "taken over," have been taken over by the FDIC, which
reorganizes and sells them. Like always. I think all the major banks
have paid back their TARP money. No government officials sit on the
boards of these banks.
No government officials sit on the boards of the auto companies.
> And he's intentionally trying to destroy the small business people
> with his taxes on them, card check, cap-and-trade "green"
> requirements.
You're just whining about policies you don't like, or more accurately,
polices that you've been told not to like by the people who are
manipulating you. None of these programs is any more or less
"socialist" than any other government programs.
> The sooner they're destroyed, the sooner he can install 1984 Big
> Brother.
If you had complained when the WPE claimed unitary executive power,
unilaterally aborgated the right of habeas corpus for an Amerian citizen,
and used the DOJ for political ends, then I might take you seriously.
>
> Tell me cupcake, what's that black unemployment rate again?
>
> Heh.
>
Which means what? That Obama is preferentially making jobs available for
white people?
Deadrat
news:4b32af2b...@news.datemas.de:
>
>
>
>
>
> Holder repeatedly claimed that hate crime laws are designed to protect
> only groups that were targeted for violence on a "historic basis,"
> such as African-Americans, Hispanics, Jews, and gays. (Holder's
> testimony can be viewed in its entirety by clicking the 'webcast' link
> here. He lists the groups he considers to be protected between 73:30
> and 74 minutes).
You're lying. And that makes the Baby Jesus cry.
Between 73:30 and 74 minutes into his testimony, Holder talks about the
*motivation* for expanding the hate crimes statutes. And he mentions the
problems of groups historically targeted for violence. Nowhere in his
testimony does Holder claim that the law covers *only* such groups. And in
fact, in his submitted statement he wites in general about the categories
of race, religion, ethnic background, etc.
Not only are you a liar, you're an ignoramus. Holder is an attorney, so he
knows that any law that discriminates on the basis of race (e.g.,
restricting hate crimes to those committed by whites against blacks) would
have to survive a strict scrutiny test before any federal court. And it
couldn't possibly. Which is why the law as written is race neutral.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:4b32af30...@news.datemas.de:
>
>
>
> The Commissar-in-Chief had his head up his ass and when they were
> killed, he went on his world apology tour.
>
> And now he wants to punish Seals.
Please provide a cite. I know of no SEALs who are being court martialed.
You're lying again, aren't you? What did I tell you about the effect of
that on the Baby Jesus?
>
> While failing to ever utter the words "Islamic terrorism."
Why don't you volunteer to be Obama's speech writer? Here's a quote from
Obama's Cairo speech:
<quote>
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of
its forms.
In Ankara, I made clear that America is not - and never will be - at war
with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists
who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing
that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and
children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American
people.
</quote>
If that's not good enough for you, then I guess it just sucks to be you.
> Holder's DOJ had a strong case developed over 5 months. Hell, even
> the pro-affirmative action EEOC wants him to respons. It ain't just
> Frank Wolf.
Please detail this strong case. Given the lying and ignorance in your
previous posts, you'll have to forgive me for not believing you on your
word.
I could be convinced by evidence. I'll wait for such.
But I won't hold my breath.
(You don't know a thing about the legal issues invovled, now do you?)
> As for hate crimes:
>
> Holder repeatedly claimed that hate crime laws are designed to protect
> only groups that were targeted for violence on a "historic basis,"
> such as African-Americans, Hispanics, Jews, and gays. (Holder's
> testimony can be viewed in its entirety by clicking the 'webcast' link
> here. He lists the groups he considers to be protected between 73:30
> and 74 minutes).
This is a lie. I've listened to that sound bite, and Holder doesn't say
what you claim.
> http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3943
<snip/>
Deadrat
> Obama-lovers don't seem informed. When they compare Bush's debt with
> Dear Leaders, they ignore the fact that in less than one year, Obama
> has quadrupled the debt Bush accrued in eight years.
Tbis is a lie. The last projection of the WPE was for a $1.2T deficit in
2009. The projection is now for $1.4T.
>
>
<snipped: ignorant rant/>
Wow, it really does suck to be you, doesn't it?
Nobama
Obama, we�re told, was a community organizer. What the media failed to
tell voters was that he had ties to the radical Association of
Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
Saul Olinsky, a staunch communist teacher, was Obama�s mentor.
Olinsky�s son wrote, �Obama has learned his lessons well.� His lesson
was how to destroy your opponent by any means possible.
Those who believe that President Bush caused the current economic mess
should look at who was formerly in charge of troubled mortgage giant
Fannie Mae: Two top Obama economic advisers, Franklin Raines and Jim
Johnson.
Obama began campaigning at the home of Chicago professor Bill Ayres,
who was part of the former Weather Underground anti-war group in the
1960s and �70s. This group set off bombs in the U.S. Capitol, Pentagon
and other government buildings.
How A Clinton-Era Rule Rewrite Made Subprime Crisis Inevitable
By TERRY JONES
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:30
PM PT
One of the most frequently asked questions about the subprime market
meltdown and housing crisis is: How did the government get so deeply
involved in the housing market?
The answer is: President Clinton wanted it that way.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even into the early 1990s, weren't the
juggernauts they'd later be.
While President Carter in 1977 signed the Community Reinvestment Act,
which pushed Fannie and Freddie to aggressively lend to minority
communities, it was Clinton who supercharged the process. After
entering office in 1993, he extensively rewrote Fannie's and Freddie's
rules.
In so doing, he turned the two quasi-private, mortgage-funding firms
into a semi-nationalized monopoly that dispensed cash to markets, made
loans to large Democratic voting blocs and handed favors, jobs and
money to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to
corruption and the Fannie-Freddie collapse.
Despite warnings of trouble at Fannie and Freddie, in 1994 Clinton
unveiled his National Homeownership Strategy, which broadened the CRA
in ways Congress never intended.
Addressing the National Association of Realtors that year, Clinton
bluntly told the group that "more Americans should own their own
homes." He meant it.
Clinton saw homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and
other minorities to enter the middle class.
Though well-intended, the problem was that Congress was about to
change hands, from the Democrats to the Republicans. Rather than
submit legislation that the GOP-led Congress was almost sure to
reject, Clinton ordered Robert Rubin's Treasury Department to rewrite
the rules in 1995.
The rewrite, as City Journal noted back in 2000, "made getting a
satisfactory CRA rating harder." Banks were given strict new numerical
quotas and measures for the level of "diversity" in their loan
portfolios. Getting a good CRA rating was key for a bank that wanted
to expand or merge with another.
Loans started being made on the basis of race, and often little else.
"Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by
neighborhood, income group and race, to rate banks on performance,"
wrote Howard Husock, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute.
But those rules weren't enough.
Clinton got the Department of Housing and Urban Development to
double-team the issue. That would later prove disastrous.
Clinton's HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo, "made a series of decisions
between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current
crisis," the liberal Village Voice noted. Among those decisions were
changes that let Fannie and Freddie get into subprime loan markets in
a big way.
Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage,
allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments,
vs. 10% for banks.
Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks due to implicit
government guarantees for their debt, the government-sponsored
enterprises boomed.
With incentives in place, banks poured billions of dollars of loans
into poor communities, often "no doc" and "no income" loans that
required no money down and no verification of income.
By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12
trillion U.S. mortgage market � a staggering exposure.
Worse still was the cronyism.
Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of-work politicians, mostly
Clinton Democrats. An informal survey of their top officials shows a
roughly 2-to-1 dominance of Democrats over Republicans.
Then there were the campaign donations. From 1989 to 2008, some 384
politicians got their tip jars filled by Fannie and Freddie.
Over that time, the two GSEs spent $200 million on lobbying and
political activities. Their charitable foundations dropped millions
more on think tanks and radical community groups.
Did it work? Well, if measured by the goal of putting more poor people
into homes, the answer would have to be yes.
From 1995 to 2005, a Harvard study shows, minorities made up 49% of
the 12.5 million new homeowners.
The problem is that many of those loans have now gone bad, and
minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.
Fannie and Freddie, with their massive loan portfolios stuffed with
securitized mortgage-backed paper created from subprime loans, are a
failed legacy of the Clinton era.
_________
http://beltwaysnark.com/2008/09/16/john-mccain-supported-a-proposal-for-
an-agency-to-oversee-fannie-and-freddiein-2005/
In Sept. 2003 President Bush proposed a new agency to oversee
regulatory
reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Here is an excerpt form the
above
linked article from Sept. 11, 2003.
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new
agency
would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision
of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that
are
the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with
Congress,
to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies.
It
would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would
determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their
ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac � which together have issued more than $1.5
trillion in outstanding debt � is broken. A report by outside
investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its
accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does
not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
Then in 2005 John McCain co-sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise
Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.
The Bill was never passed. John McCain addressed the floor on May
26th,
2006. Here is an excerpt:
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory
Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage
of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act,
American
taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial
system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform
legislation.
This bill was shot down by the Democrats and some Republicans in
Congress.
John McCain fought two years ago to shield the American people from
the
crisis some of us are facing.
What was Barack�s vote??
Nobama
Pastor Jeremiah Wright insulted, in a vile, sexist and racist manner,
the Secretary of State. From ABC News� The Blotter:
In April 2003, Rev. Wright told his congregation that "the United
States government has failed the vast majority of our citizens of
African descent."
"For every one Oprah, a billionaire, you've got five million blacks
who are out of work," he said. "For every one Colin Powell, a
millionaire, you've got 10 million blacks who cannot read. For every
one Condoskeeza [sic] Rice, you've got one million in prison. For
every one Tiger Woods, who needs to get beat, at the Masters, with his
cap-blazing hips, playing on a course that discriminates against
women. For every one Tiger Woods, we got 10,000 black kids who will
never see a golf course."
Do you know what that means? Our friends at Urban Dictionary do:
whore, slut..
Dr. Rice is has achieved the highest position yet for an
African-American woman in government, yet Barack Obama�s uncle-like
mentor calls her a whore, a slut.
What happened to hope?
...
That is a pretty cynical and audacious statement to go unchallenged by
someone who wants to promote unity. Wright is quick to fall back on
insults when he has a weak argument. You have to really question why
TCU would be willing to honor him.
Nobama
Punishing Seals, failing to recognize raghead terrorism, and then
there's this:
Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the No. 3 official in
the Obama Justice Department, was consulted and ultimately approved a
decision in May to reverse course and drop a civil complaint accusing
three members of the New Black Panther Party of intimidating voters in
Philadelphia during November's election, according to interviews.
The department's career lawyers in the Voting Section of the Civil
Rights Division who pursued the complaint for five months had
recommended that Justice seek sanctions against the party and three of
its members after the government had already won a default judgment in
federal court against the men.
Front-line lawyers were in the final stages of completing that work
when they were unexpectedly told by their superiors in late April to
seek a delay after a meeting between political appointees and career
supervisors, according to federal records and interviews.
The delay was ordered by then-acting Assistant Attorney General
Loretta King after she discussed with Mr. Perrelli concerns about the
case during one of their regular review meetings, according to the
interviews.
Ms. King, a career senior executive service official, had been named
by President Obama in January to temporarily fill the vacant political
position of assistant attorney general for civil rights while a
permanent choice could be made.
She and other career supervisors ultimately recommended dropping the
case against two of the men and the party and seeking a restraining
order against the one man who wielded a nightstick at the Philadelphia
polling place. Mr. Perrelli approved that plan, officials said.
Questions about how high inside the department the decision to drop
the case went have persisted in Congress and in the media for weeks.
Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler told The Washington
Times that the department has an "ongoing obligation" to be sure the
claims it makes are supported by the facts and the law. She said that
after a "thorough review" of the complaint, top career attorneys in
the Civil Rights Division determined the "facts and the law did not
support pursuing the claims against three of the defendants."
"As a result, the department dismissed those claims," she said. "We
are committed to vigorous enforcement of the laws protecting anyone
exercising his or her right to vote."
While the Obama administration has vowed a new era of openness,
department officials have refused to answer questions from Republican
members of Congress on why the case was dismissed, claiming the
information was "privileged," according to congressional
correspondence with the department.
Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican and a senior member of the
House Appropriations Committee who has raised questions about the
case, said he also was prevented from interviewing the front-line
lawyers who brought the charges.
"Why am I being prevented from meeting with the trial team on this
case?" Mr. Wolf asked. "There are many questions that need to be
answered. This whole thing just stinks to high heaven."
Ms. Schmaler said the department has tried to cooperate with Congress.
"The Department responded to an earlier letter from Congressman Wolf
in an effort to address his questions. Following that letter, the
Department agreed to a meeting with Congressman Wolf and career
attorneys, in which they made a good-faith effort to respond to his
inquiries about this case. We will continue to try to clear up any
confusion Congressman Wolf has about this case."
Ms. King and a deputy are expected to travel to Capitol Hill on
Thursday to meet behind closed doors with House Judiciary Committee
Chairman John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, and Rep. Lamar Smith of
Texas, the top Republican on the panel, to discuss continuing concerns
about the case.
The department also has yet to provide any records sought by The Times
under a Freedom of Information Act request filed in May seeking
documents detailing the decision process. Department officials also
declined to answer whether any outside groups had raised concerns
about the case or pressured the department to drop it.
Kristen Clarke, director of political participation at the NAACP Legal
Defense Fund in Washington, however, confirmed to The Times that she
talked about the case with lawyers at the Justice Department and
shared copies of the complaint with several persons. She said,
however, her organization was "not involved in the decision to dismiss
the civil complaint."
She said the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People has consistently argued that the department should bring more
voter intimidation cases, adding that it was "disconcerting" that it
did not do so.
Mr. Perrelli, a prominent private practice attorney, served previously
as a counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton
administration and was an Obama supporter who raised more than
$500,000 for the Democrat candidate in the 2008 elections. He
authorized a delay to give department officials more time to decide
what to do, said officials familiar with the case but not authorized
to discuss it publicly. He eventually approved the decision to drop
charges against three of the four defendants, they said.
At issue was what, if any, punishment to seek against the New Black
Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPP) and three of its members accused
in a Jan. 7 civil complaint filed in U.S. District Court in
Philadelphia.
Two NBPP members, wearing black berets, black combat boots, black
dress shirts and black jackets with military-style markings, were
charged in a civil complaint with intimidating voters at a
Philadelphia polling place, including brandishing a 2-foot-long
nightstick and issuing racial threats and racial insults. Authorities
said a third NBPP member "managed, directed and endorsed the
behavior."
The election-day incident gained national attention when it was
captured by a voter-fraud citizen activist group on videotape and
distributed on YouTube (below).
None of the NBPP members responded to the charges or made any
appearance in court.
"Intimidation outside of a polling place is contrary to the democratic
process," said Grace Chung Becker, a Bush administration political
appointee who was the acting assistant attorney general for civil
rights at the time the case was filed. "The Voting Rights Act of 1965
was passed to protect the fundamental right to vote and the department
takes allegations of voter intimidation seriously."
Mrs. Becker, now on a leave of absence from government work, said she
personally reviewed the NBPP complaint and approved its filing in
federal court. She said the complaint had been the subject of numerous
reviews and discussions with the career lawyers.
Mrs. Becker said Ms. King was overseeing other cases at the time and
was not involved in the decision to file the original complaint.
A Justice Department memo shows that career lawyers in the case
decided as early as Dec. 22 to seek a complaint against the NBPP; its
chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, a lawyer and D.C. resident; Minister
King Samir Shabazz, a resident of Philadelphia and head of the
Philadelphia NBPP chapter who was accused of wielding the nightstick;
and Jerry Jackson, a resident of Philadelphia and a NBPP member.
"We believe the deployment of uniformed members of a well-known group
with an extremely hostile racial agenda, combined with the brandishing
of a weapon at the entrance to a polling place, constitutes a
violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act which prohibits
types of intimidation, threats and coercion," the memo said.
The memo, sent to Mrs. Becker, was signed by Christopher Coates, chief
of the Voting Section; Robert Popper, deputy chief of the section; J.
Christian Adams, trial attorney and lead lawyer in the case; and
Spencer R. Fisher, law clerk. None of the four has made themselves
available for comment.
Members of Congress continue to ask questions about the case.
"If showing a weapon, making threatening statements and wearing
paramilitary uniforms in front of polling station doors does not
constitute voter intimidation, at what threshold of activity would
these laws be enforceable?" Mr. Wolf asked.
Mr. Smith also complained that a July 13 response by Assistant
Attorney General Ronald Weich to concerns the congressman had about
the Philadelphia incident did not alleviate his concerns.
"The administration still has failed to explain why it did not pursue
an obvious case of voter intimidation. Refusal to address these
concerns only confirms politicization of the issue and does not
reflect well on the Justice Department," Mr. Smith said.
Mr. Smith asked the department's Office on Inspector General to
investigate the matter, and the request was referred to the
department's Office of Professional Responsibility.
Lawmakers aren't alone in the concerns.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said in a June 16 letter to
Justice that the decision to drop the case caused it "great
confusion," since the NBPP members were "caught on video blocking
access to the polls, and physically threatening and verbally harassing
voters during the Nov. 4, 2008, general election."
"Though it had basically won the case, the [Civil Rights Division]
took the unusual move of voluntarily dismissing the charges , " the
letter said. "The division's public rationale would send the wrong
message entirely � that attempts at voter suppression will be
tolerated and will not be vigorously prosecuted so long as the groups
or individuals who engage in them fail to respond to the charges
leveled against them."
The dispute over the case and the reversal of career line attorneys
highlights sensitivities that have remained inside the department
since Bush administration political appointees ignored or reversed
their career counterparts on some issues and some U.S. attorneys were
fired for what Congress concluded were political reasons.
Mr. Weich, in his letter to the congressman, sought to dispel any
notion that politics was involved. He argued that the department
dropped charges against three of the four defendants "because the
facts and the law did not support pursuing" them. He said the decision
was made after a "careful and through review of the matter " by Ms.
King. He said:
� While the NBPP made statements and posted notice that more than 300
of its members would be deployed at polling places throughout the
United States during the Nov. 4 elections, the statement and posting
did not say any of them would display a weapon or otherwise break the
law.
� While the complaint charged that the NBPP and Mr. Zulu Shabazz
endorsed the activities at the polling places, the evidence was
"equivocal" since both later disavowed what happened in Philadelphia
and suspended that city's chapter after the incident.
� The charges against Mr. Jackson were dropped because police who
responded to the polling place ordered Mr. Samir Shabazz to leave but
allowed Mr. Jackson to stay. He also noted that the department
approved "appropriately tailored injunctive relief" against Mr. Samir
Shabazz for his use of the nightstick.
The injunction prohibits Mr. Samir Shabazz from brandishing a weapon
outside a polling place through Nov. 15, 2012, and Ms. Schmaler said
the department "will fully enforce the terms of that injunction."
On its Web page, the NBPP said the Philadelphia chapter was suspended
from operations and would not be recognized until further notice. It
said the organization did not condone or promote the carrying of
nightsticks or any kind of weapon at any polling place.
"We are intelligent enough to understand that a polling place is a
sensitive site and all actions must be carried out in a civilized and
lawful manner," it said.
Witnesses who supported the Justice Department case said they were
surprised by the reversal.
Stephen R. Morse, a blogger hired by Republicans to be at the polls
and who videotaped the confrontation, said the NBPP members blatantly
used racial insults on would-be voters and other poll watchers,
telling one man, "Cracker, you about to be ruled by a black man."
Mr. Morse, a University of Pennsylvania alumnus, said he was
"outraged" that the complaint was dismissed, saying he hoped Democrats
would join Mr. Smith and Mr. Wolf in attempting to ensure that the
incident "doesn't become a partisan issue, but rather an issue of
right vs. wrong."
Chris Hill, national director of operations for a Gathering of Eagles,
an organization dedicated to the support of U.S. troops, said the NBPP
members visibly intimidated voters with racial slurs as they tried to
enter the building.
Mr. Hill, a U.S. Army veteran who also served as a Philadelphia poll
watcher for Republicans, said several voters at the location said they
were afraid. He said the NBPP members tried to deny him access to the
poll although he was a certified poll watcher, telling him, "White
power don't rule here."
A Justice Department memo also says that a black couple, Larry and
Angela Counts, both Republican poll watchers, told authorities they
were scared, worried about their safety and concerned about leaving
the polling place at the end of the day because of the actions of the
NBPP members. Mrs. Counts said she wondered whether someone might
"bomb the place" and Mr. Counts said the NBPP members called him a
"race traitor," the memo said.
U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell in Philadelphia entered default
judgments against the NBPP members April 2 after ordering them to
plead or otherwise defend themselves. They refused to appear in court
or file motions in answer to the government's complaint. Two weeks
later, the judge ordered the Justice Department to file its motions
for default judgments by May 1 � a ruling that showed the government
had won its case.
The men also have not returned calls from The Times seeking comment.
On May 1, Justice sought an extension of time and during the
tumultuous two weeks that followed the career front-line lawyers tried
to persuade their bosses to proceed with the case.
The matter was even referred to the Appellate Division for a second
opinion, an unusual event for a case that hadn't even reached the
appeals process.
Appellate Chief Diana K. Flynn said in a May 13 memo obtained by The
Times that the appropriate action was to pursue the default judgment
unless the department had evidence the court ruling was based on
unethical conduct by the government.
She said the complaint was aimed at preventing the "paramilitary style
intimidation of voters" at polling places elsewhere and Justice could
make a "reasonable argument in favor of default relief against all
defendants and probably should." She noted that the complaint's
purpose was to "prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters"
while leaving open "ample opportunity for political expression."
An accompanying memo by Appellate Section lawyer Marie K. McElderry
said the charges not only included bringing the weapon to the polling
place, but creating an intimidating atmosphere by the uniforms, the
military-type stance and the threatening language used. She said the
complaint appeared to be "sufficient to support" the injunctions
sought by the career lawyers.
"The government's predominant interest � is preventing intimidation,
threats and coercion against voters or persons urging or aiding
persons to vote or attempt to vote," she said.
The front-line lawyers, however, lost the argument and were ordered to
drop the case.
Bartle Bull, a civil rights activist who also was a poll watcher in
Philadelphia, said after the complaint was dropped, he called Mr.
Adams to find out why. He said he was told the decision "came as a
surprise to all of us" and that the career lawyers working on the case
feared that the failure to enforce the Voting Rights Act "would
embolden other abuses in the future."
Nobama
How Unconstitutional is Barack Obama? Let me count the ways
How unconstitutional is Barack Obama? I�ve begun to count ways.
1) Bailouts
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to spend the taxpayer�s
money. Without the consent of Congress, the President cannot legally
spend taxpayer money.
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of
appropriations made by law.
Two Presidents had a hand in the auto industry bailout: 1) President
G. W. Bush by using TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) money
authorized by Congress and 2) President Barack Obama, not using TARP
funds, but declaring that he would use monies from somewhere, and do
so with the authority and power of the Executive Branch. At the time,
CNSNews.com correspondent Fred Lucas asked Press Secretary Robert
Gibbs where President Obama derived his authority to use taxpayer
funds to bail out GM and Chrysler.
I think the determination has been made both by the previous
administration and the current administration that this assistance is
legal, and our goal is to ensure that the taxpayers in any instance
when this is used feel confident that it�s being done in a transparent
and accountable way,� Gibbs said.
President Bush�s use of congressionally approved TARP funds is suspect
also, although the money was �legislated� by Congress. The bug in the
ointment is that the TARP funds were authorized only for use by the
Treasury to purchase �troubled assets� from �financial institutions.�
The auto industry does not qualify as a �financial institution.�
CNSNews.com once again seeks an answer, this time from House Majority
Leader Steny Hoyer:
The administration clearly believes it does have the authority to use
some of the remaining TARP funds for the automobile industry,� Hoyer
told Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com.
I don�t know, technically. I would be kidding you to mouth some words
on that, because I don�t know technically where that authority would
be,� said Hoyer. �But my own view is that if it is perceived they
don�t have that authority and it is perceived by the Congress they
need to have that authority, the Congress would probably be willing to
give that authority. But I don�t know technically the answer to that
question.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) introduced a Bill in the House to give the
President Constitutional authority for the bailouts. Sixty Senators
were required to vote for the legislation to overcome a Senate
filibuster. Those votes were not there and the legislation was dead.
Then comes the Time of Obama. There was no attempt to get the Senate
Banking Committee to introduce the needed legislation.
Rep. Barney Frank washed his hands of all responsibility of the
administration�s trampling the Constitution. Again, when CNSNews.com
asked Frank about Obama�s intentions to do the bailout without
Congressional approval, Frank allegedly said:
It�s an administration situation so I�m not very well informed on it,�
Frank told Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com
Then the correspondent asked Frank if Obama�s promised guarantee of
the auto warranties for GM and Chrysler needed �legislative
authority,� Frank was even clearer in his answer:
Do the words �I�m not very well informed on it� have any meaning to
you? Am I speaking a language you don�t understand?�
It�s not something I�m focused on,� said Frank. �The committee, which
I chair, keeps me busy. I have not had a chance to look at that. I do
not have an informed opinion on it. It�s not my understanding that
Congress is going to get to vote on it. So I tend to focus on things
that are under the jurisdiction of the committee and that we�ll have
to vote on. When things are neither, I don�t have a very well-informed
opinion.
So much for constitutionally-mandated Congressional oversight.
Back in October 2008, the CATO Institute looks at the
constitutionality of the auto bailouts. After exploring the fact that
the government �created this crisis with everything from artificially
low interest rates to political pressures for affordable housing,
quick loans for bad credit risks, and the subsidization of agencies
such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Nevertheless, CATO Institute�s chairman, Robert A. Levy, says, no, the
bailout is not constitutional.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to spend
taxpayers� money to buy distressed assets, much less to take an
ownership position in private financial institutions. And Con�gress
has no constitutional authority to delegate nearly plenary legislative
power to the Treasury secretary, an executive branch official.Congress
can proceed only from legitimate authority, not from good intentions
alone. That means we must find a constitutional pedigree for each
proposed law.
Levy then discusses the rationale of using the commerce clause to
legitimize the spending, but he clearly decides that any reasoning for
this position is a misinterpretation.
Moreover, it is not a commerce clause argument to say that Congress
created the mess and, therefore, Congress can do whatever it wants to
fix the mess. Legislators� misdeeds do not ipso facto justify the
socialization of private banks, brokers, mortgage companies, and
insurance companies-and who knows where it stops.
Even if Congress could defend the bailout as a means of preventing
interstate impediments to commerce, that would not legitimize any and
all means.
Under the sub-heading No Intelligible Principle, Levy says (snippets):
Indeed, the bailout quite clearly violates the Constitution�s
separation-of-powers principle-in particular, what has become known as
the nondelegation doctrine, which states that Congress may not
delegate its legislative power to any other entity, including the
Cabinet departments of the executive branch�.A plain reading of that
text shows that lawmaking is for the legislative branch, which does
not include the Treasury Department. Yet when Congress authorized the
bailout package, it gave Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. unprecedented
power to act as a super-legislature.
But Congress itself, not an executive official, must be accountable
for the consequences of laws that Congress puts in place. That tenet
has been a cornerstone of our Constitution for more than two
centuries. John Locke got it right in his Second Treatise of Civil
Government (1690): The separation-of-powers principle means that �the
legislative [branch] cannot transfer the power of making laws to any
other hands.� The legislative power, wrote Locke, is �to make laws,
and not to make legislators.�
Despite that sound advice, the Treasury secretary is now the one
calling the shots as he partially nationalizes a significant sector of
our economy.
Here�s the link again to Mr. Levy�s article.
2) Supreme Court
President Obama has expressed his desire to see his Supreme Court
nominees embrace �empathy� in their decisions and opinions. Nevermind
the the oath that a Justice swears to:
I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer
justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and
to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and
perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the
Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.�
There is no room for empathy when justice is blind and the poor and
the rich have equal rights in the sight of the law of the land. While
the U.S. Constitution does not provide the oath for a Supreme Court
Justice, it does state that others �shall be bound by an oath or
affirmation to support this constitution.�
Additionally, if the President keeps his oath of office, he will not
require a Justice who uses �empathy� to decide a case, because empathy
is unconstitutional and unfit for the U.S. Supreme Court:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States.�
Appointing activist Judges to the Supreme Court is an avenue to
interpreting the Constitution as a �living, breathing� document�an
avenue for a Judge to insert personal opinion, maybe �empathy,� which
is unlawful. The only way for the Constitution to take a breath is
through an amendment. There is no other way. Outside of amendments,
the Constitution is ageless, and it awaits it�s use as a service to
all Americans, but not at the whim of an activist Judge.
Interpreting the Constitution as a �living, breathing document without
amendments, renders it practically impotent, because it no longer has
the power to protect our rights. Eminent domain is an excellent
example.
3) The Czars
The appointment of the many �czars� by the Obama administration are
unconstitutional. There�s the Car Czar, The Pay Czar, The Great Lakes
Czar, a Cyber Czar, a Drug Czar, an Energy Czar, a Health Reform Czar,
an Intelligence Czar, and a Tech Czar. The Czar Czar, of course, is
Barack Obama. What is Obama�s Cabinet members doing these days?
They�ve all been demoted and they know it and there�s not a thing they
can do about it.
Here�s the problem with Czars. They report to no one but Barack Obama.
They have far reaching powers and Congress cannot stop a single
decision they make. What has happened to our egotistic Congress who
has been so willingly hypnotised into giving up their grasp on
EVERYTHING? Maybe it�s something in the water. So much for checks and
balances. Barack Obama reigns.
Even Senator Robert Byrd, the longest-serving senator in history,
hates the idea of Czar appointments. It�s dangerous he says. It gives
the president too much power.
In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd, a Democrat, said that the
czar system �can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and
balances,� Politico reported. Byrd added that oversight of federal
agencies is the responsibility of officials approved by the Senate.
As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers
are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet
officials, or to virtually anyone but the president,� Byrd wrote.
�They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield
the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of
executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have
been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce
accountability.
The wildly liberal CBS News, at the end of the article on Byrd, says:
These days, however, Byrd�s comments have less force as he is no
longer the chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee.
What does Byrd�s chairmanship or the lack of it have to do with the
fact that it is unconstitutional to have presidential appointees
making decisions about taxpayer monies without congressional
oversight?
4) Government ownership in private business
The seizure of ownership of private business is unconstitutional. The
government ownership of GM is unconstitutional. We�ve beat this horse
to the ground. No need to say more.
5) Redistribution of Wealth
Engineering the redistribution of wealth in the GM stock debacle is
unconstitutional. I�m not sure I have the latest figures, but
nevertheless, it�s not good for shareholders who I believe end up with
10 percent of their investment or five cents on the dollar. The
government gets 50 percent of the stock, about 87 cents on the dollar.
The Unions get 40 percent ownership, plus $10 billion in cash � about
76 cents on the dollar. Doesn�t this make you want to throw-up and
then find a quiet spot and grieve for our country?
6) Health Care
Obama�s health care plan is unconstitutional. The first thing that
comes to mind is his plan to pay for his health care plan by taxing
the wealthy to pay for it. Redistribution of wealth is
unconstitutional in America. Then there�s the fact that he plans to
put private business out of business to achieve his goal, which is
simply power over all of us.
In the fall of 2008, Obama told Tom Brokaw that health care �should be
a right for every American.� The Constitution says nothing about
guaranteeing health care. BUT, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. has introduced
H.J. Res. 30 which calls for a Constitutional Amendment to establish
�the right of citizens of the U.S. to health care of equal high
quality.�
7) Interpreting the Constitution as a �living, breathing� document
The only way to make the Constitution take a breath occasionally is to
amend it. The Constitution limits government, and to expand
government, that expansion must be appropriate under the document,
That�s my six obviously unconstitutional steps taken by President
Obama.
We live among idiots, and I guess, we are idiots because if we had the
proper sense of outrage, we would sit on the steps of Congress until
all of the above are overturned, or Barack Obama is impeached,
whichever comes first.
Where are our Defending Fathers in Congress? They should be on the
floor railing about these issues every single day, over and over. Are
we�are they, really so willing to devalue our prized Constitution.
From Thomas Paine:
A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people
constituting a government, and a government without a constitution is
power without right.� �A constitution is a thing antecedent to a
government; and a government is only the creature of a constitution.�
Think about that:
��operating the government without the Constitution �is a power
without right.�
I as a �people� didn�t grant that power, neither did you, neither did
Congress.
I ask this question: Who will limit the expansion of government?
President Obama and the Executive Branch? Speaker Pelosi or Senate
Majority Leader Reid? The Supreme Court? For the moment, The Supreme
Court is the only chance we have. Once Sonia Sotomayor, an activist
judge is confirmed, Ruth Bader Ginsberg will resign and then we have
not one branch of government to stop the wild ride to Socialism. By
the way, Socialism whether Americans want it or not, and I believe a
huge majority do not want it, is unconstitutional. The preamble to the
Constitution makes it clear:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America
(guarantees a republican form of governance)
I know there are other unconstitutional acts to add to this list,
including: the budget an earmarks, the stimulus expenditures that do
not create jobs, eminent domain, snatching rights designated only to
states, and other unlawful federal rights granted that are clearly
unconstitutional � such as �special interest� legislation. If you have
thoughts about this or other additions, please leave them in comments.
I�ll continue updating this list and give you credit, unless you
prefer that I not. Help me compile a complete list. While the U.S.
Constitution is not a living, breathing document, this post will
Nobama
Holder repeatedly claimed that hate crime laws are designed to protect
only groups that were targeted for violence on a "historic basis,"
such as African-Americans, Hispanics, Jews, and gays. (Holder's
testimony can be viewed in its entirety by clicking the 'webcast' link
here. He lists the groups he considers to be protected between 73:30
and 74 minutes).
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3943
Nobama
Obama-lovers don't seem informed. When they compare Bush's debt with
Dear Leaders, they ignore the fact that in less than one year, Obama
has quadrupled the debt Bush accrued in eight years.
Deadrat
news:4b32c6f9...@news.datemas.de:
>
>
> Pastor Jeremiah Wright insulted, in a vile, sexist and racist manner,
> the Secretary of State. From ABC News� The Blotter:
>
>
>
>
> In April 2003, Rev. Wright told his congregation that "the United
> States government has failed the vast majority of our citizens of
> African descent."
> "For every one Oprah, a billionaire, you've got five million blacks
> who are out of work," he said. "For every one Colin Powell, a
> millionaire, you've got 10 million blacks who cannot read. For every
> one Condoskeeza [sic] Rice, you've got one million in prison. For
> every one Tiger Woods, who needs to get beat, at the Masters, with his
> cap-blazing hips, playing on a course that discriminates against
> women. For every one Tiger Woods, we got 10,000 black kids who will
> never see a golf course."
>
>
> Do you know what that means? Our friends at Urban Dictionary do:
>
>
> whore, slut..
>
>
> Dr. Rice is has achieved the highest position yet for an
> African-American woman in government, yet Barack Obama�s uncle-like
> mentor calls her a whore, a slut.
>
> What happened to hope?
>
> ...
>
> That is a pretty cynical and audacious statement to go unchallenged by
> someone who wants to promote unity. Wright is quick to fall back on
> insults when he has a weak argument. You have to really question why
> TCU would be willing to honor him.
>
<snip/>
Oh, boo hoo. Head for the fainting couch. I hope you feel better soon.
Deadrat
news:4b32c6fc...@news.datemas.de:
> How Unconstitutional is Barack Obama? Let me count the ways
>
> How unconstitutional is Barack Obama? I�ve begun to count ways.
>
> 1) Bailouts
> The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to spend the taxpayer�s
> money. Without the consent of Congress, the President cannot legally
> spend taxpayer money.
Of course. And the so-called bailouts were all approved by Congress when
the WPE was still President.
<snipped: cut and paste you don't understand/>
>
> 2) Supreme Court
>
> President Obama has expressed his desire to see his Supreme Court
> nominees embrace �empathy� in their decisions and opinions. Nevermind
> the the oath that a Justice swears to:
>
Any President may nominate anyone he wants to be a Justice of the Supreme
Court. If the Senates agrees, the person becomes a Justice. You don't
like Obama's choice? Sucks to be you, doesn't it.
>
> 3) The Czars
>
> The appointment of the many �czars� by the Obama administration are
> unconstitutional.
No they aren't.
> Here�s the problem with Czars. They report to no one but Barack Obama.
That's another lie. Some do; some report to cabinet heads.
> They have far reaching powers and Congress cannot stop a single
> decision they make.
Yet another lie. "Czars" aren't really czars; they have no power
independent of the cabinet and theh President.
<snip/>
>
> 4) Government ownership in private business
>
> The seizure of ownership of private business is unconstitutional. The
> government ownership of GM is unconstitutional. We�ve beat this horse
> to the ground. No need to say more.
The seizure of private businesses is done all the time with civil
forfeiture procedures and eminent domain. You don't know what you're
talking about.
> 5) Redistribution of Wealth
>
> Engineering the redistribution of wealth in the GM stock debacle is
> unconstitutional.
Please detail how that redistribution happened and point to case law that
makes it unconstitutional. This is an issue independent of how "good" it
is for stockholders. As usual, you're talking through your ass.
<snip/>
>
> 6) Health Care
>
> Obama�s health care plan is unconstitutional.
You'll need cites to case law on the commerce clause. You got nothin'.
>
> 7) Interpreting the Constitution as a �living, breathing� document
>
> The only way to make the Constitution take a breath occasionally is to
> amend it. The Constitution limits government, and to expand
> government, that expansion must be appropriate under the document,
The courts interpret the Constitution all the time. Where does it say in
the Constitution that a federal jury must be 12 persons who cannot
convict unless they come to a unanimous decision? Hint: it's not in the
Constitution, but it's still the supreme law of the land. No amendments
needed.
You got nothin'.
Except your ignorance.
> That�s my six obviously unconstitutional steps taken by President
> Obama.
Bwaahahahahaha! You haven't got the slightest (correct) notion about
Constitutional law. Go ahead and try to meet my challenges. You can't.
You got nothin', loser.
I'll wait until you can cite some case law in support of your "obvious"
conclusions.
But I won't hold my breath, because all you can do is repeat what others
have told you.
<snipped: rant/>
Deadrat
news:4b32c706...@news.datemas.de:
> Holder repeatedly claimed that hate crime laws are designed to protect
> only groups that were targeted for violence on a "historic basis,"
> such as African-Americans, Hispanics, Jews, and gays. (Holder's
> testimony can be viewed in its entirety by clicking the 'webcast' link
> here. He lists the groups he considers to be protected between 73:30
> and 74 minutes).
>
>
>
> http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3943
Holder says nothing close to that, liar.
<snip/>
Nobama
>But isn't it true that black-on-white hate crimes are often
>downplayed into "crimes of convenience"?
Absolutely. The 1989 HCSA is not applied evenly.
Witness, e.g., when James Byrd of Jasper Texas was dragged by
rednecks, the big media ran with it for weeks. The perps were
convicted of a hate crime.
In that same Jasper Texas, blacks dragged to death white, penniless
hitchhiker Ken Tillery. In Alexandria VA, 8-year-old Kevin Shiflett
had his throat slashed by black Gregory Murphy who shouted racial
hatred while performing the act. Murphy even left a note in his room:
"Kill them raceass whyte kids anyway." In SC, 17 blacks beat
bicyclist Troy Knapp into a vegetable. At UVA Charlottesville, roving
packs of blacks targetted and beat white and Asian kids. Some of the
perps frankly admitted targetting them because of race. In Alton,
Illinois, a white male, Richard Skelton was attacked and stomped to
death by a group of 25 blacks while black onlookers yelled, "Kill the
cracker". In Cleveland, 14 animals beat a white girl on "Beat A
White" day.
No hate crime charges were filed in these cases AND the major media
ignored these incidents. Imagine if the races had been reversed.
In Idaho, a Mr. Manley, a black football referee, ripped the camera
from the neck of a white woman who photographed him as he left the
field, injuring her in the process. Her husband, Lonnie Rae, ran from
the stands and called the man "nigger." Rae was charged with a hate
crime, which carried a max of 5 years and $5,000 fine. Manley who
committed a battery was charged with nothing!
And of course when the Carr Bros. denigrated, raped, tortured, and
executed the five white divinity school students in Wichita, it was
called a "crime of convenience."
After a black man in Pittsburgh opened fire on a group of white
strangers, Dan Rather said, "Just because he opened fire on a group of
strangers while shouting racial epithets, we musn't jump to the
conclusion that this was a hate crime."
Oh well, at least one of the big media outlets reported that one.
But Holder has taken it to a new level, in effect declaring open
season on whites. He has raped the Equal Protection clause of the
14th Amendment.
Nobama
"I am concerned for the security of our great nation, not so much
because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious
forces working from within." General Douglas MacArthur
Americans have been shell shocked at the number of so-called "czars"
the usurper in the White House has been appointing. Not only the
numbers, but the backgrounds and political ideology has begun to scare
people into action.
Van Jones has resigned amid an avalanche of calls for his head.
Imagine a Czar calling Republicans "assholes" and being stupid enough
to allow it on film! Then came the next shock to American
sensibilities discovered from other film of Van Jones: this "liberal
progressive" is a Red! How could Obama/Soetoro have selected a
communist and who vetted him? Well, no one vetted Obama/Soetoro and
since these czars are not cabinet nominees, why should the FBI bother?
They didn't bother with Obama/Soetoro and we know he is a devout
Marxist through and through. Oh, relax. I don't see a "red under every
bed", but the history Obama/Soetoro can't cover up or hide is there
for anyone who takes the time to find out who that guy is and what he
stands for. Americans didn't want to hear anything negative about
Obama/Soetoro during the phony presidential race because any criticism
turned into a race issue and Obama/Soetoro plays it like a master
violinist.
Willliam Z. Foster said there would someday be a communist in the
White House. That day arrived on January 20, 2009. In his book, Toward
Soviet America, on page 271, Foster writes, "The American Soviet
Government will be organized along the broad lines of the Russian
Soviets." He goes on to give the blue print and how it will be done.
As he outlined, it has been done to America right under everyone's
nose. You can read the forward to the book as I have scanned it here.
Written by Francis E. Walter, Chairman, Committee on un-American
Activities, House of Representatives. Never mind the screeching and
squalling from the Hollyweird "progressives" or university
intelligenzia. Get the facts and let the useful fools spew their
bombastic gas.
Oh, but, who cares what some old dead guy said in a dusty old book
years ago? Well, try: 'The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage
and America's Traitors,' for some light reading. This book is fully
foot noted with sources and copies of documents. It should shake
denial right out of your vocabulary.
When you finished with those, read The Communist International, of the
three tomes, read this one first: 1919-1943 Documents.
The author acknowledges her work would not have been possible without
the "generosity" of the Rockefeller Foundation. These three volumes
(at a cost of about $135.00 each when you can find one), go step by
step how the countries on the globe will first be colonized, who will
get destroyed in war and the relentless march towards world communism.
You can see history laid out right before your eyes. The quest for
global domination under communism isn't dead, folks.
Kevin Hornbuckle was elected to the city council in Eugene, Oregon, in
1992, as a registered Democrat and then came out of the closet to
proudly announce in an interview: "I'd simply point out that
Communists in the United States are fighting for health care, housing
and jobs as a human right. I'm proud to be a communist."
How many more Communists are in the closet undermining and subverting
our Constitution and sovereignty? Not only are they being elected to
public office under false pretenses, these America haters are teaching
in high end colleges and universities throughout the country. Your son
or daughter is being taught the toxic and destructive doctrine called
communitarianism (communist morality); see here.
Comrade Obama's "czars"
Global warming hoax czar-ette is Carol Browning, the former
Clinton-era director of the unconstitutional Environmental Protection
Agency (1993-2000). Browner is a "liberal progressive." She is a
socialist right down to her red knickers.
Obama Regulation Czar Advocated Removing People's Organs Without
Explicit Consent
September 04, 2009
"Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama�s nominee to head the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has advocated a policy
under which the government would �presume� someone has consented to
having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else
when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or
her organs should not be taken. Under such a policy, hospitals would
harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be
done."
The list goes on. Yesterday (Labor Day), the usurper announced his
selection for Manufacturing Czar. I give credit to Glenn Beck,
actually his staff, for their meticulous research of all
Obama/Soetoro's anti-American czars. The entire list is here. Please
note how many have 'unknown' next to salary. The American people are
being raped in taxes to pay for all these comrades, yet we are not
allowed to know what these dangerous individuals are being paid?
The whole crew is part of Obama/Soetoro's agenda to restructure our
constitutional republic into a modern day Soviet Union. Okay, scoff
all you want at such a statement. I know otherwise because I have
studied this for almost 20 years while boobs out there who huff and
puff and say it ain't so have been glued to the great programmer (TV)
watching nonsense. If you want to know how Americans have been seduced
over time to accept what once was the unacceptable, read these when
you have time:
Nobama
Disillusioning the budding socialist:
Obama is an angry black who believes that US exceptionalism was built
on the backs of the poor and oppressed, and by gawd, he's gonna
redistribute the wealth from the achievers, earners to the underclass.
Socialism, baby.
ObamaCare is another example. It will destroy the ins. cos. and thus
require socialized medicine. Then this is what we'll have to look
forward to:
NHS 'failings' over elderly falls: 3/25/2009 [BBC]
Learning disabled 'failed by NHS': 3/24/2009 [BBC]
Cancer survivor confronts the health secretary on 62-day wait:
3/21/2009 [The Scotsman]
Culture of targets prevents nurses from tending to patients: Patients
Association, 3/21/2009 [Telegraph UK]
Children being failed by health system, says head of watchdog: Sarah
Boseley, 3/21/2009 [Guardian Unlimited]
Our cancer shame: Survival rates still lag behind EU despite spending
billions: 3/20/2009 [Daily Mail(UK)]
Failing hospital 'caused deaths': 3/17/2009 [BBC]
Health gap drive 'wasted money': 3/14/2009 [BBC]
Longer GP opening hours branded wasteful 'PR exercise' by doctors:
3/13/2009 [The Scotsman]
"Political meddling" threatens general practice, warns GP leader:
3/13/2009 [Management in Practice (UK)]
Children at risk through lack of training for doctors and nurses,
report warns: 3/13/2009 [Telegraph UK]
Chocolate should be taxed to control obesity epidemic, doctors are
told: 3/13/2009 [Telegraph UK]
1,000 wait for a dentist after just one NHS practice opens: 3/10/2009
[Daily Mail(UK)]
Study proves the folly of NHS Alzheimer's drug ban: 3/7/2009 [Daily
Mail(UK)]
NHS charges to rise in England: 3/5/2009 [BBC]
Disabled children wait up to two years for wheelchairs: 3/4/2009
[Guardian Unlimited]
NHS under fire over waiting times: 2/25/2009 [The Scotsman]
Specialist nurses 'vastly overworked': 2/20/2009 [Harwich &
Manningtree Standard]
Hundreds of operations cancelled at Lothian hospitals: 2/19/2009 [The
Scotsman]
Stop asking for antibiotics to cure coughs and colds, Government tells
patients: 2/17/2009 [Daily Mail(UK)]
Stroke services are 'UK's worst' : 2/17/2009 [BBC]
Hospitals curb caesarean births: 2/15/2009 [The Times]
Only five out of 51 hospital trusts pass hygiene test, say inspectors:
11/24/2008 [Guardian Unlimited]
Top doctors slam NHS drug rationing: 8/24/2008 [The Times]
Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report: Sarah
Boseley, June 8/2008 [Guardian Unlimited]
NHS dentistry loses almost a million patients after new dentists'
contract: David Rose, 6/6/2008 [The Times]
Private healthcare managers could be sent to turn round failing NHS
hospitals: 6/4/2008 [The Times]
Cancer patients �betrayed� by NHS: Sarah-Kate Templeton, 6/1/2008 [The
Times]
NHS scandal: dying cancer victim was forced to pay: Sarah-Kate
Templeton, June 1/2008 [The Times]
Pensioner, 76, forced to pull out own teeth after 12 NHS dentists
refuse to treat her: 3/26/2008 [Daily Mail(UK)]
Dental patients face care lottery: 3/26/2008 [Metro(UK)]
Lung patients 'condemned to death as NHS withdraws their too expensive
drugs': 3/24/2008 [Daily Mail(UK)]
Women in labour turned away by maternity units: 3/21/2008 [Guardian
Unlimited]
Health inequality has got worse under Labour, says government report:
3/13/2008 [Guardian Unlimited]
Angry GPs reluctantly accept plan for weekend and evening surgeries:
John Carvel, 3/7/2008 [Guardian Unlimited]
NHS chiefs tell grandmother, 61, she's 'too old' for �5,000
life-saving heart surgery: 2/28/2008 [Daily Mail(UK)]
Patient 'removed' from waiting list to meet target: 1/31/2008 [The
Scotsman]
NHS patients told to treat themselves: James Kirkup, 1/4/2008
[Telegraph UK]
NHS is 'failing patients' despite record funding: 10/4/2007 [Telegraph
UK]
NHS rationing rife, say doctors: 9/24/2007 [BBC]
One in eight patients waiting over a year for treatment, admits
minister: 6/8/2007 [Guardian Unlimited]
Audit Office asked to investigate record �500m NHS underspend: John
Carvel, 5/30/2007 [Guardian Unlimited]
The drugs the NHS won't give you: 5/11/2007 [Telegraph UK]
UK lagging behind on cancer drug access, study finds: 5/10/2007
[Guardian Unlimited]
One in six trusts is still putting patients on mixed-sex wards: Daniel
Martin, 5/10/2007 [Daily Mail(UK)]
Specialist stroke care 'lottery': 5/9/2007 [BBC News]
Smokers and the obese banned from UK hospitals: 5/2/2007 [Healthcare
News]
Cancer patients told life-prolonging treatment is too expensive for
NHS: Lyndsay Moss, 2/13/2007 [The Scotsman]
UK health service "harms 10 percent of patients": 7/7/2006 [Reuters]
5,000 elderly 'killed each year' by lack of care beds: 6/26/2006
[Telegraph UK]
Pay for nurses and surgeons doubles NHS overspend: 4/23/2006
[Telegraph UK]
The money addicts: it's your cash they are gambling with: 4/23/2006
[Telegraph UK]
NHS chiefs get luxury car deals: 4/9/2006 [The Times]
Secret NHS plan to ration patient care: 4/7/2006 [The Times]
British Healthcare To Be Rationed: 4/7/2006 [UPI]
British body rejects EPO drugs for cancer patients: 3/17/2006
[Reuters]
National Health Service - Grappling with Deficits: 3/9/2006
[Economist.com]
Hundreds wait to register as another dentist quits the NHS: 9/23/2005
[The Herald (Scotland)]
Life-saving cancer drugs 'kept from NHS patients by red tape':
9/20/2005 [The Times]
NHS slides into the red despite record increases in health care
spending: 9/20/2005 [Telegraph UK]
Alzheimer's sufferers hit by further delay in NHS approval for vital
drugs: 9/18/2005 [Telegraph UK]
We all pay a price for our 'free' NHS: John Smith, 8/19/2005 [The
Scotsman]
2,000 British doctors out of work: 8/14/2005 [The Washington Times]
UK health 'unsustainable': 8/14/2005 [Finance24]
NHS faces rising bill for negligence claims: 8/8/2005 [Financial
Times]
British boy to go to India for operation: 8/5/2005 [United Press
International]
NHS failed to stop doctor raping scores of women: 7/31/2005 [The
Times]
Top crimewriter funds drugs for cancer victim refused by NHS: 7/8/2005
[Telegraph UK]
Report says NHS is mired in huge debts: David Simms, 6/25/2005 [ABC
Money (UK)]
U.K. set to restrict smoking: 6/21/2005 [The Associated Press]
NHS �fund bias� against men cost 2,500 lives a year: 6/19/2005 [The
Times]
Doubts on funding NHS 'monuments': Nicholas Timmins, 6/10/2005
[Financial Times]
17 million reasons why we must improve hospital meals: 6/7/2005
[Cambridge Evening News]
Figures show more patients waiting for operations: 6/3/2005 [Guardian
UK]
Scarcity of NHS dental treatment is revealed: Celia Hall, 5/19/2005
[telegraph.co.uk]
Why NHS Opposes 'Treatment by Demand' for the Dying: 5/18/2005
[Scotsman]
800 queue for NHS dentists: 5/5/2005 [telegraph.co.uk]
Hundreds more heroin addicts to be given a fix on the NHS: Nic
Fleming, 4/25/2005 [telegraph.co.uk]
British health service facing nurse exodus: 4/25/2005 [United Press
International]
About 400 patients a year in Scotland succumb to MRSA: 4/25/2005
[Scotsman]
NHS debts soar to over �1bn: Karyn Miller, 4/24/2005 [telegraph.co.uk]
British taxpayers foot $26.5 million bill for abortion tourists:
4/18/2005 [Catholic World News]
U.K. Liberal Democrats Would Raise Taxes to Pay for Health Care: Reed
Landberg, 4/14/2005 [Bloomberg]
Number of NHS Bureaucrats 'Rising Faster Than Health Staff': 3/22/2005
[Scotsman]
'�500m hole' in hospital budgets: 3/21/2005 [telegraph.co.uk]
1,000 Scots desert NHS every week: 3/5/2005 [Scotsman]
British NHS facing financial crisis: 3/3/2005 [Washington Times]
NHS drugs regulator to withdraw approval of Alzheimer's treatment:
Nicholas Timmins, 3/2/2005 [FT.com]
NHS waiting list rises: 2/11/2005 [Guardian UK]
Tumour patients hit by NHS shortages: 2/6/2005 [Guardian UK]
NHS financial crises set to outlast winter: 2/4/2005 [Yorkshire Post]
NHS 24 'priority' callers wait four hours for advice: 1/14/2005
[Evening Times (UK)]
'No strategy' on NHS waiting time: 1/14/2005 [BBC]
Output figures show NHS decline: John Carvel, 10/19/2004 [Guardian UK]
Heart patients die on waiting lists: 10/18/2004 [Manchester Online]
�25bn overspend feared for NHS computer network: 10/12/2004
[telegraph.co.uk]
Gaps in care cost �7bn, says charity: 10/4/2004 [Guardian UK]
NHS excluding poor people, UK: 9/15/2004 [Medical News Today]
Smokers 'should not get NHS care': 9/6/2004 [BBC News]
Waiting list row blights Brighton: 9/4/2004 [Guardian UK]
Patients are denied the last rites under data protection law:
7/25/2004 [telegraph.co.uk]
Shortage of dentists to double by 2011: 7/24/2004 [Guardian UK]
Britain's stiff upper lip gives way to a snarl: Sarah Lyall, 7/18/2004
[The New York Times]
Hospital Overcrowding A Cause of Superbug Infections: John von
Radowitz, 7/1/2004 [Scotsman.com]
Hospital Crisis: Fallen Angels: Lindsay Mcgarvie, 5/23/2004 [Glasgow
Sunday Mail]
Deadrat
september.org:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:10:32 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>But isn't it true that black-on-white hate crimes are often
>>downplayed into "crimes of convenience"?
>
> Absolutely. The 1989 HCSA is not applied evenly.
Of course, you have no evidence of that. And your anecdotes won't make
your case. Even assuming the HCSA is applied unevenly, this isn't a
problem with the Constitutionality of the law.
>
> Witness, e.g., when James Byrd of Jasper Texas was dragged by
> rednecks, the big media ran with it for weeks. The perps were
> convicted of a hate crime.
>
> In that same Jasper Texas, blacks dragged to death white, penniless
> hitchhiker Ken Tillery.
The men got into an argument about money, and (according to the Sheriff)
drugs. Tillery was in the car at the time and jumped out, which resulted
in his being dragged to death under the car. All three black men are
serving prison sentences, one of them 70 years for murder.
> In Alexandria VA, 8-year-old Kevin Shiflett
> had his throat slashed by black Gregory Murphy who shouted racial
> hatred while performing the act. Murphy even left a note in his room:
> "Kill them raceass whyte kids anyway."
Google finds nothing on this. Give me a cite.
> In SC, 17 blacks beat bicyclist Troy Knapp into a vegetable.
Google finds only ax-grinders on this one. Give me a real cite.
> At UVA Charlottesville, roving
> packs of blacks targetted and beat white and Asian kids. Some of the
> perps frankly admitted targetting them because of race.
Give me a cite. Dates and names would be nice.
> In Alton,
> Illinois, a white male, Richard Skelton was attacked and stomped to
> death by a group of 25 blacks while black onlookers yelled, "Kill the
> cracker". In Cleveland, 14 animals beat a white girl on "Beat A
> White" day.
>
> No hate crime charges were filed in these cases AND the major media
> ignored these incidents.
How convenient for you.
Imagine if the races had been reversed.
>
> In Idaho, a Mr. Manley, a black football referee, ripped the camera
> from the neck of a white woman who photographed him as he left the
> field, injuring her in the process. Her husband, Lonnie Rae, ran from
> the stands and called the man "nigger." Rae was charged with a hate
> crime, which carried a max of 5 years and $5,000 fine. Manley who
> committed a battery was charged with nothing!
Perhaps Manley should have been charged, but he doesn't seem to have
committed a hate crime. The claim is that the camera strap gave the
woman a "burn." Rae was actually charged with malicious mischief and
acquitted. He was convicted of a misdemeanor, which was not a hate
crime.
> And of course when the Carr Bros. denigrated, raped, tortured, and
> executed the five white divinity school students in Wichita, it was
> called a "crime of convenience."
It isn't enough that the races of the criminal and victim differ.
> After a black man in Pittsburgh opened fire on a group of white
> strangers, Dan Rather said, "Just because he opened fire on a group of
> strangers while shouting racial epithets, we musn't jump to the
> conclusion that this was a hate crime."
Cite please.
> Oh well, at least one of the big media outlets reported that one.
>
> But Holder has taken it to a new level, in effect declaring open
> season on whites. He has raped the Equal Protection clause of the
> 14th Amendment.
>
> Holder repeatedly claimed that hate crime laws are designed to protect
> only groups that were targeted for violence on a "historic basis,"
> such as African-Americans, Hispanics, Jews, and gays. (Holder's
> testimony can be viewed in its entirety by clicking the 'webcast' link
> here. He lists the groups he considers to be protected between 73:30
> and 74 minutes).
>
>
> http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3943
>
As long as you post this, I'm gonna call you out as a liar. Holder's
testimony was about the motive for expanding federal hate crime
legislation. He does *not* say that hate crime laws protect only
minorities.
Stop lying about this.
Nobama
This post will focus on Kevin and Charlottesville:
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/default-2000713214818.htm
July 13, 2000
Boy's Stabbing Draws Attention About Race
By Ellen Sorokin and John Drake
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Local and federal authorities have not labeled the fatal stabbing of a
white
boy by a black man a hate crime, but the Justice Department is
monitoring
the investigation by Alexandria, Va., police.
Recently revealed evidence indicates the attacker, who was black,
targeted
8-year-old Kevin Shifflett because he was white.
Witnesses have told police the killer made comments about hating white
people during the attack, law enforcement sources say.
"We are certainly aware of the situation, and we are aware of the
recent
media reports that this could be racially motivated," said Kara
Peterman, a
spokeswoman with the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. "At
this
time, we are monitoring the situation."
Ms. Peterman refused to elaborate on what the department's involvement
has
been, or could be, in the high profile case. A Justice Department
source
said that authorities are waiting for more information about the case
before
any action is taken.
The source also said authorities would look at violations of civil
rights
laws if they pursued the case.
Amy Bertsch, a spokeswoman for the Alexandria Police Department, would
not
discuss whether police are considering the homicide as a hate crime or
any
other details of the case.
Despite a report in The Washington Times yesterday that investigators
withheld racially sensitive information from their fellow officers -
which
may have hindered the 13-week-old investigation, law enforcement
officials
said - Alexandria officials praised the efforts of the city's police.
"What they did was proper," said council member Joyce Woodson, a
Democrat.
"We already live in a racially charged world. I don't think knowing
that
would have had any impact on the way they investigated the case. It
could
have colored their approach [to the case] in ways that would have been
inappropriate."
Mayor Kerry Donley said police and city officials have been focused on
finding Kevin's killer and bringing that person to justice. "Efforts
to
sensationalize this investigation will only hurt this investigation,"
said
Mr. Donley, a Democrat.
Council member William Euille, a Democrat, said based on what he
heard, he
thinks the police have done a "thorough" job in investigating the
case.
"I don't know if that information [about keeping secret the racially
sensitive details] is factual," said Mr. Euille. "It would be
unfortunate if
it were a fact, but I'm presuming that it's not. My faith and
confidence
rests with our police department."
But some residents in the Del Ray neighborhood where Kevin was killed
expressed disappointment with police yesterday after learning that
investigators kept secret racially sensitive details of the fatal
attack.
"I don't like the truth to be held from me," said Loretta Trout, a Del
Ray
resident whose grandson Timmy played with Kevin minutes before the
attack
occurred.
"I want to know what I'm dealing with. I'm more frightened of the
unknown
than the known. I can handle the known. But being so secretive, it
makes you
think [about] what's really going on," Mrs. Trout said.
Carol Jones, a Del Ray resident, also expressed anger with the police.
"I'd
like to have known the entire picture if the police knew that from the
beginning. This is a case where a child was murdered. They should not
have
hidden that kind of information."
Others, however, supported the police.
"I don't know if [knowing racially sensitive details] would have
helped
any," said Norman Bragg, a Del Ray resident. "Although I would have
liked to
have seen an arrest happen sooner, but something like this takes
time."
A Del Ray resident who did not want to be identified said, "If [the
police]
knew that kind of information they might have lost their sense of
direction
in this case.
"Without any solid evidence to support that they could have focused in
the
wrong direction and wouldn't have caught the killer or found the
cabdriver
or found the knife."
Kevin was playing in the front yard of his great-grandparents' home in
Alexandria's Del Ray neighborhood April 19 when a man attacked him
with a
knife without provocation, police said.
A man roughly fitting the attacker's description, in custody in
Fairfax
County on unrelated charges, has been connected by DNA evidence to a
taxi
the killer took after the slaying, law enforcement sources said.
That man, Gregory Devon Murphy, 29, who lived a few blocks from where
Kevin
was killed, served five years in prison for a charge of malicious
wounding
for attacking a white man with a hammer in 1993 - apparently without
provocation.
Police last week found a note with the phrase, "Kill them racist white
kids"
in broken and misspelled English in a hotel room where Mr. Murphy
stayed two
days before Kevin's slaying.
Police have not named Mr. Murphy as a suspect or charged him in
connection
______
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39fd879627b0.htm
Party of Fear, Politics of Hate
By David Horowitz
October 30, 2000
(...)
Moreover, the most horrendous crime motivated by racial hatred in
recent memory was certainly not Byrd�s dragging, which took place two
years ago, but the murder of an 8-year-old white boy named Kevin
Shiflett last April, in the very shadow of the nation�s capital. Kevin
Shiflett was murdered by a 29-year-old African American, who screamed
racial epithets at the youngster and slit his throat, while Kevin was
playing on the sidewalk. In contrast to the killing of Byrd, which was
the subject of presidential hand-wringing, Capitol Hill grand-standing
and national editorial outrage, Kevin�s murder was not even reported
as a racial crime. To this day, it has been systematically and
consciously kept out of the public eye. Collaborators in this
suppression include local authorities, the media and every
hypocritical organization - the Democratic Party and the NAACP
foremost among them - that claims to oppose racial violence and stand
up for civil rights.
For four months following the atrocity, the local police in Alexandria
Virginia, where the crime took place, actively suppressed the racial
identities of Kevin and his attacker. Now that the racial identity of
perpetrator and victim are known, and the racist motive of the
attacker is clear (he previously tried to strangle a white person and
left racist notes in his hotel room), the crime has still not been
declared a �hate crime,� and the nation still could care less about
Kevin Shiflett and his fate.
Far from regarding Kevin�s slashing as a �hate crime,� Democrats
involved in the case, are on record praising the police gag and
anxious to keep the racial aspects of the crime hidden. Alexandria
Democrat and city council member Joyce Woodson said of the police
suppression: �What they did was proper. We already live in a racially
charged world. I don�t think knowing that would have any impact on the
way they investigated the case. It could have colored their approach
in ways that would have been inappropriate.� Democratic Mayor Kerry
Donley and Democrat council member William Euille agreed.**
Representatives Barney Frank and Maxine Waters, the most vocal
congressional advocates of hate crime legislation, have maintained a
silence about Kevin Shiflett�s fate that speaks louder than words.
Evidently, hate crimes against eight-year-olds, if they are white, are
ok with liberals. (...)
________
http://www.discriminations.us/2003/03/hate_crimes_and_double_standar.html
Hate Crimes And Double Standards In Charlottesville
Earlier this week Daisy Lundy, a 19 year old biracial second year
student -- described in the Charlottesville Daily Progress yesterday
as "of black and Korean background" -- was assaulted in Poe Alley,
just off the University's historic Lawn, after leaving a friend's room
at 2:00AM, by someone she described as an 18-20 year old white male.
Ms. Lundy, a candidate for president of the Student Council, told
police that her assailant said "no one wants a nigger to be
president." According to the Vice President of Student Affairs,
Patricia Lampkin, Ms. Lundy was sent to the emergency room and was
released with "what were diagnosed as minor injuries." The Washington
Post reported this event today.
The University's response was swift, massive, and impressive. In less
than a day a "Voices of Diversity" web page had been added just off
the main page, with links to powerful and heart-felt statements by
University President John Casteen, offering a $1,000 reward for
information leading to an arrest and conviction; the Vice President of
Student Affairs; the Law School; the Arts and Sciences chairmen; and
the Alumni Board of Managers. Less than a day later the reward was
doubled, to $2,000. By the second day after the attack the Council on
African American Affairs, a Washington research institute in which
many UVa alumni are active and that is closely affiliated with the Ron
Brown Scholar program in Charlottesville, announced that it is
offering a $20,000 reward.
Inevitably, I suppose, some of the University's response was somewhat
less charitable and more institutionally self-interested.
An attack on a biracial student early Wednesday could cost the
University of Virginia both donations and potential minority
applicants, the dean of UVa's Office of African-American Affairs
warned Thursday.
The dean, M. Rick Turner, said he has received many phone calls from
worried black parents this year. Hearing about the assault on
sophomore Daisy Lundy and last fall's controversy over three white
students dressing in blackface for a party, "they might say, 'We're
going to William and Mary. We're going to Virginia Tech,'" Turner
said.
"'Why should I let my daughter go there? She might get attacked,'" he
asked. "Parents read those kinds of things. There's no question why
we've had a lower yield."
Dean Turner's fears notwithstanding, I think the University's and the
community's response to this nasty incident has been commendable.
Still, I can't help being struck by their marked contrast to their
responses to a series of highly publicized racially motivated attacks
against University students a little over a year ago.
In February 2002 ten black Charlottesville High School students were
arrested for a series of six separate attacks on primarily white UVa
students (there were two Asian victims) that occurred between
September 2001 and January 2002. In addition to various minor injuries
one student suffered a concussion and another a badly broken cheekbone
that required surgery. Several of the arrested students told police
that they selected their victims because they were (or they thought
they were) white. The Charlottesville Commonwealth Attorney's decision
not to prosecute these assaults as hate crimes stirred up a good deal
of controversy, including complaints from David Duke's
European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO). (See this
article in the Washington Post and, generally, this web site, put
together by a public-spirited Charlottesville family that includes in
one place many of the articles from the Charlottesville and UVa papers
from which my account is drawn.)
In fairness to University and town officials, the victims in the
earlier attacks did not report racist slurs, and it was not until the
assailants had been arrested and confessed to selecting their victims
on the basis of their race that the nature of these crimes was
confirmed. Nevertheless, after two or three or four, much less six,
episodes of black teenagers attacking white UVa students, clearly
someone had a clue what was going on. No matter, for even after the
admission the racial dimension of these assaults was minimized and
even denied. After an initial look the FBI refused to get involved (it
is actively investigating the current incident as a hate crime), and
the students were not charged under federal or state hate crime laws.
There were no university or alumni rewards for information about the
perpetrators, no anguished presidential or deanly speeches or revised
web pages. Indeed, the University's main concern seems to have been to
ask what it had done wrong to provoke such attacks and to improve its
"bridges" to the community. More on that in a moment.
I am not claiming that the attackers should have been tried under hate
crime statutes. I don't like hate crime laws, and I am sure there are
technical matters of evidence, etc., that may have made such
prosecutions difficult in these cases. The Charlottesville
Commonwealth's Attorney explained that he had been "unable to find
sufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt to prosecute the assailants
for hate crimes." Although that sounds like an unusually high standard
for a prosecutor (not the jury, after all) to meet, perhaps he was
right.
What I am claiming is that the response of town and gown to these two
episodes (rolling the previous six assaults into one for purposes of
comparison) reveals a troubling, deep-seated double standard. I have
less than no sympathy for David Duke and his white rights organization
(all Americans deserve equal rights, not white rights or black rights
or brown rights), and in fact one of the things I find most detestable
about double standards is that their adherents often make people like
David Duke appear reasonable. (This is the thrust of Carol Swain's
marvelous book, THE NEW WHITE NATIONALISM IN AMERICA, which I
discussed here.) For example, Ron Doggett, Virginia state president of
EURO, sounded quite reasonable to a number of people who are not
bigots when he wrote, in a letter to the Cavalier Daily:
It's truly amazing to witness the racial double standards and
hypocrisy that exist in America today. But what is taking place in
Charlottesville is going way beyond the anti-white norm. A group of
black youths admit to attacking people who were white or they thought
were white and the mayor, police chief, Commonwealth's attorney and
media can't figure out if it's a racially motivated hate crime. If the
races were reversed, would they have so much trouble figuring it out?
With the recent attack on Daisy Lundy the races were reversed, and
there was a virtual riot of town and gown rushing to see who could
most convincingly prove Doggett correct. The University response has
already been noted. The attack occurred early on the morning of Feb.
26. On Feb. 28 the main Charlottesville paper, the Daily Progress,
featured a long editorial (alas, not online) under a headline
announcing that the city was "United Against a Hate Crime."
When will we ever learn?" [it began]. Oh, when will we ever learn?
The hate crime attack again stings this community into a mix of shame
and anger.
Shame, that one among us could, in this day and age, express such
bigotry, venom and cruelty. Anger, that one among us has been
attacked, injured in body and spirit, by bigotry, venom and cruelty."
These sentiments, even if they are a bit self-congratulatory (Oh, what
a sensitive community we are!), are noble, and I agree with them. But
announced as they were before an arrest, even before an investigation,
their certainty stands in marked contrast to the paper's response to
the previous series of serious racial attacks. For example, after the
police revealed that several of the arrested assailants had admitted
that they had selected their victims based on race, the Daily Progress
commented in an astonishing editorial:
Whether mass attacks on students were motivated by racism perhaps has
yet to be determined....
In other words, the attacks might have been racially motivated, in
that skin color determined the victims, but they might not have been
racistly motivated - deliberately intended to do harm to persons
because of their race.
A student columnist in the Cavalier Daily tried to tackle this subtle
distinction, but it easily escaped him.
The issue of motive versus intent is an often-overlooked distinction,
and one that is difficult to prove in court. However, this is the
criterion we should apply when examining such criminal acts.
While motive and intent practically are synonyms, there is a
significant difference, one that becomes all the more important when
looking at purported hate crimes. With the incident in
Charlottesville, the motive of the alleged assailants is clear, but
the intent still is unknown.
According to local officials, this was a crime of racism....
In the Charlottesville case, valid arguments can be made on either
side, but this is for the police and prosecutors to delve into in
deciding whether or not to press charges. But racial targeting, of
whites or of blacks, does not necessarily amount to a hate crime.
Defined simply, motive is the reason behind any crime. A motive may be
greed, love, hatred, revenge or racism. While motive may be the "why"
behind a crime, it does not affect the act itself. A crime is a crime,
regardless of why it is done.
But distinctions between motives are meaningless unless they affect
the crimes themselves. Intent, on the other hand, is the larger goal
of the criminal....
Again, my point here is not that this argument is legally wrong
(although if hate crime prosecutions in fact depend on distinctions
like this they are even harder to defend that I have thought). My
point is that both University and community grasped at whatever straw
they could find to avoid regarding the five-month series of
black-on-white attacks as hate crimes, but those hesitations and
restraints and legalistic niceties (if that's what they were) were
non-existent in the case of a single white-on-black attack.
It gets worse. There was a good deal of guilty, soul-searching
self-flagellation at the University. Although the individual victims
were never blamed for "asking for it," the University itself was.
"This is not an attempt to justify the beatings in any way," went one
such student column,
however, it is to suggest that the University community from which the
victims came must address factors that may contribute to such
incidents, specifically apathy toward racial and economic issues.
University executive vice president Leonard Sandbridge was quoted in
the Washington Post saying, "We want to know why this occurred for the
sole purpose of addressing anything that might have been the catalyst
that caused these crimes to occur." Mea UVa Culpa. "Race and
everything else aside, these are our kids, on both sides, victims and
suspects," said Charlottesville police chief Timothy Longo.
Charlottesville mayor Blake Caravati, was quoted expressing the same
sentiments, said "the city is approaching the incidents as 'a
teachable moment.'"
'Sure, they did wrong, but they're our young men and women who are
going to live in the community a long time,' Caravati said. 'We need
to be supportive of them. This is an opportunity to talk about the
situation, use it to learn and change our community in a positive
way.'"
Although there is reasonable speculation that the perpetrator of the
Daisy Lundy assault is actually a UVa student (who else would care
about who's president of the Student Council, and recognize a
candidate at 2:00AM?), there is no concern being expressed that he's
one of "our kids" who needs to be understood and supported.
In the community the all too predictable "midnight basketball" and
"increase diversity" proposals were put forward.
A community group formed in response to a series of assaults and
robberies near the University of Virginia and dedicated to discussing
problems faced by Charlottesville teenagers suggested Sunday that a
youth-oriented coffee shop or roller-skating night could help keep
city teens busy and out of trouble.
[....]
In addition to the coffee shop and skate-night ideas, Robert Jordan, a
representative of the youth committee, said students have discussed
forming a diversity council to attend School Board and City Council
meetings.
(Didn't anyone consider that having high school kids sit through
school board and city council meetings might incite them to more
violence?) And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it
does: there was actually a good deal of sympathy and support in the
community ... for the assailants. Rev. Alvin Edwards, pastor of the
Mt. Zion African Baptist Church who is also a former mayor of
Charlottesville, led a prominent and noisy faction that was much more
solicitous of the attackers than the attacked. He denied that the
attacks had anything to do with race, claiming that "many local
teenagers, particularly African Americans, resent the university
because they consider it largely inaccessible to them."
Committees Rev. Edwards set up had bake sales and raised over $3000,
all of which was going to be donated to the legal defense of the
assailants until criticism caused 30% to be donated for the victims'
medical expenses.
This was perfectly consistent with Rev. Edwards' outspoken belief that
these were not hate crimes because it is not possible for blacks to
commit hate crimes against whites. In a revealing interview with The
Hook, a weekly Charlottesville paper, Edwards said, among other
things:
�[If a crime is basically] against African-Americans, Jews and so
forth, there should be stiffer penalties.
It is a hate crime if it's against these [historically-persecuted
groups].
�Q. Do you feel the same way whether it's a member of a majority or
minority group doing the violation?
A. You don't have [the same] history of hate crimes against whites -
if there's a problem it is because of what was done to [blacks] -
going back to slavery, and since.
Caucasians are not really in a position to draw conclusions about
racism, they really can't understand it [the way African Americans
can]. Whites have lived with it so long that it's acceptable and
normal behavior [to them]. (Note: the brackets are in the online
version. I don't know if they were in the original or put there by the
person who put the article online on his site - jsr.)
Double standards, based as they are on rejection of the principle that
individuals of different races and ethnicities and religions must be
treated according to the same standard, lead not only to "hard"
preferences of differential treatment (in admissions, hiring, etc.)
but also to what might be termed the "soft" preferences of
differential sensitivity and compassion. Thus if black students attack
whites, such attacks must be understood, if not justified, as
expressing frustration and resentment based on real grievances. Those
students deserve a compassionate and caring community's sympathy and
support. But if a white student attacks blacks, his attack can be
understood only as expressing what the Daily Progress editorial quoted
above called "bigotry, venom, and cruelty."
Bigotry, venom, and cruelty should be condemned wherever they are
found, but on a colorblind basis, for continuing double standards
guarantee only that we will have continuing seething resentments.
Charlottesville should have learned that by now.
Deadrat
news:4b339642...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Educating whiggers:
>
<snipped: copyright violations/>
<yawn/>
ObaMao
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Run, whigger, run
Nobama
You can't run away now; your edumacayshun ain't complete:
The Silent Crime
by John Rohan
(reference links to articles on original page)
http://shieldofachilles.blogspot.com/2007/05/silent-crime.html
One good thing about writing my own weblog is that I get to choose
what I write about. And that means I can write about things that are
1) important, and 2) underreported elsewhere. I don't have a boss that
tells me to write about the current media darling of the week or about
subjects that have oversaturated the media everywhere else. This story
is a perfect case in point about what's wrong with the media today in
the US, and much of the rest of the world. Here is one of the worst,
if not the worst, criminal case you will ever read, but the wierd
thing is, the national media are ignoring it. Why is that?
Caution: very graphic details follow.
Hugh Christopher Newsom, Jr., 23, and Channon Gail Christian, 21,
lived in Knoxville, Tennessee. The couple was out on a date after
midnight on January 7, 2007, when they were carjacked and kidnapped at
gunpoint by four men, and later a woman as well. They were then driven
to another neighborhood, where over the next few days they were both
tortured, gang raped, and murdered. By some accounts they were
mutilated as well.
In front of Channon, Christopher was first tortured, beaten and gang-
raped by the men in turn. Then he was shot, body burned to conceal
evidence, wrapped in a blanket, and later dumped behind some railroad
tracks. Some accounts claim that his genitals were also cut off,
perhaps while he was still alive.
But believe it or not, Channon's fate was even worse. She was kept
alive for three more days, and repeatedly raped and tortured during
that time. The torture included beatings, forcing her to drink
cleaning fluid, urinating on her, and cutting off at least one of her
breasts. She was eventually murdered, and her body chopped up and
placed in five different garbage bags.
Fortunately, the perpetrators were caught relatively quickly. One left
his fingerprints inside Christian's vehicle, and when officers arrived
to question him, her body parts were found.
These grisly details are emerging now because the prosecutors have
completed their investigation and the defendants are awaiting trial.
So why has this received only local news coverage?
1) The victims are white while the four men and one woman accused in
the crime are all black
2) Because it doesn't involve any celebrities
Instead, during this period of time we have been inundated by the Duke
Rape Case fraud, Anna Nicole Smith death, and of course, the notorious
Paris Hilton DWI. Stories like these make it very clear what types of
crimes the media are interested in. There are also shades of the
Wichita murders of 2000, another horrific case that was totally
ignored by the media. Nicholas Stix at American Renaissance describes
this whole unfortunate situation perfectly. Charlie Daniels also
mentions it on his Soapbox, and there is a huge commentary at La Shawn
Barber's Corner.
All the above sites mention the racial angle, and they are correct. If
this was a white on black crime, you can bet every media outlet around
the country would have descended on the town. But they don't mention
the celebrity or notoriety angle. If these victims were the slightest
bit well-known, ie if they were wealthy or had ever appeared on
television, the media frenzy would also be in full swing.
On the other side of the coin, you have the despicable Svengalimedia,
a blatant white-hating web site with headlines like "I hope Prince
Harry dies in Iraq" or of one murdered white girl: "snooty slave
heiress deserves to be murdered by slave descendants". I refuse to
link to such an atrocious web site, but if you want to find it,
there's always Google or Yahoo. About this crime, their claim is that
Newsom and Christian actually wandered into a black area to buy drugs,
which is a common claim they make about almost all murdered whites.
But even if that were true (and no evidence for it anyway), how would
it justify a crime like this?
In any case, the media is not the only story here. Let's not forget
that two people were tortured and brutally murdered, and we are
fortunate that the perpetrators were found very quickly. My thoughts
and prayers go out to the Christian and Newsom families.
__________
Deadrat
I've challenged you on your lies. You don't respond except to repeat them.
I've asked you to back up your claims. You can't.
Apparently all you can do is cut-and-paste the words of others.
Get back to me when you have something to say for yourself.
Deadrat
september.org:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:31:21 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>jack@yomomma. (Nobama) wrote in
>>news:4b339642...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> Educating whiggers:
>>>
>><snipped: copyright violations/>
>>
>><yawn/>
<snipped: another copyright violation/>
Get back to me when you've got something original.
Nobama
Don't you DARE run away; your edumacayshun is faaaaarrrrrr from over:
Invoked the name of Martin Luther King and screamed "Black Power" as
they
taunted girls as "white crackers" then beat them.
Cops say this is NOT a "Bias Crime." New York giant news media (ABC,
NBC,
CBS, FOX, NY Daily News, NY Post, NY Times etc.) totally silent about
this
attack. Not a peep from the "main stream media." Let me ask you, if
the
situation were reversed with white attackers and black victims, do you
think you'd hear about it? Darn right you would! It would make
national
headlines and the cops would definitely view it as a Bias Crime.
By Marianna Hernandez
Invoking the name ?Martin Luther King? and screaming ?Black Power!? a
gang
of up to 30 black teens attacked four white girls in Marine Park in
what
police are saying is not a bias crime.
The March 30 attack was a hot topic at state Senator Marty Golden?s
recent
public safety forum.
According to witnesses and parents of the victims, four young girls
from St.
Edmund?s had the day off from school due to Easter recess. They were
playing basketball during dismissal from nearby Marine Park Junior
High
School, when several Marine Park students demanded to use the court.
After adults intervened and asked them to wait their turn, the teens
left -
but returned in a pack of up to 30, both boys and girls, and stormed
into
the park.
Witnesses say the attackers were all black and called their victims
?white
crackers? during the bloody melee, which raged for almost 20 minutes.
?This is not being looked at as a bias crime,? NYPD Deputy Inspector
Kevin
McGinn said at the meeting.
?When I pulled my car up to the park, I witnessed a pandemonium I?ve
never
seen in my life,? said Debbie, a mother of one victim who asked to
remain
anonymous for safety reasons.
Her daughter ran to the car, screaming, ?They?re going to kill us,?
Debbie
recalled. My daughter was so scared and kids were running around like
crazy.
Pursued by dozens of teens, some of the girls were ?literally running
into
traffic to save their lives,? she said.
One girl made it as far as a nearby house, but was dragged by her hair
back
into the playground by a ?wolf pack of children,? Debbie said.
The St. Edmund girls were bleeding and beaten to the point where they
had
cuts, scrapes, footprints and dirt all over them - and the attackers
surrounded her car and started pounding on the windows as Debbie tried
to
herd the terrified children into her vehicle.
Two girls were hospitalized - one with a broken nose and one with a
head
injury, according to Edith, the mother of another girl.
According to Lt. Mark Molinari, from the 63rd Precinct, five of the
assailants, who attend Marine Park Junior High School, were arrested
and
charged with misdemeanor assault. But since the attackers are all
under the
age of 16, they are facing charges in Family Court, and were arraigned
last
Friday.
?I always felt safe in the area and after hearing about such an
incident,
you start thinking what else could happen. These situations should not
be
happening, not in Marine Park, or anywhere else, and the safety of our
kids
should be of most importance,? said Denise Williams, a parent from
Gerritsen Beach.
?It?s getting progressively worse in the community - these types of
gangs
are not only taking away our parks, they?re ruining our
neighborhoods,?
said parent Cathy Miller.
?Nobody expects their child to go to a park and get beaten, with
footprints
on her head and arm, everyone just wants their child to be safe,? said
Edith. ?Everyone should have the right to be safe from teens, to small
kids, to seniors, to mothers with strollers, no one should fear of
being
beaten while enjoying a day in the park.
http://www.brooklynskyline.com/news_article.asp?c=ne&na=1486
--
In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary
act. -
George Orwell, 1984
____________
But Holder has taken it to a new level, in effect declaring open
season on whites. He has raped the Equal Protection clause of the
14th Amendment.
Holder repeatedly claimed that hate crime laws are designed to protect
only groups that were targeted for violence on a "historic basis,"
such as African-Americans, Hispanics, Jews, and gays. (Holder's
testimony can be viewed in its entirety by clicking the 'webcast' link
here. He lists the groups he considers to be protected between 73:30
and 74 minutes).
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3943
Nobama
Despite the 1989 HCSA:
In its last complete National Criminal Victimization Survey (1994),
the Justice Department revealed blacks to have committed 1,600,951
violent crimes against whites. Only 15 percent of these had robbery as
a motive. We can safely infer that most of the rest had race as at
least a partial motive. Eighty-five percent of the attacks were
assaults and rapes. While blacks were committing these 1.6 million
crimes against whites, whites were reciprocating with 165,345 violent
offenses against blacks. Blacks, representing thirteen percent of the
nation, committed more than 90 percent of the violent interracial
crime. Fifty-seven percent of the violent crime committed by blacks
had white victims. Less than 3 percent of violence committed by whites
had black victims. In 1994, a black was 64 times more likely to attack
a white than vice versa. This is the real story of hate in America. It
is the media's well-kept secret.
______________
And Holder has taken it to a new level, in effect declaring open
season on whites. He has raped the Equal Protection clause of the
14th Amendment.
Holder repeatedly claimed that hate crime laws are designed to protect
only groups that were targeted for violence on a "historic basis,"
such as African-Americans, Hispanics, Jews, and gays. (Holder's
testimony can be viewed in its entirety by clicking the 'webcast' link
here. He lists the groups he considers to be protected between 73:30
and 74 minutes).
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3943