Jun 7, 2013 Political
Valerie Jarrett, the Communist running the White House (and you thought Obama was doing that?), has stated that Eric Holder will keep his job. She said that he is resilient and has the confidence of Barack Obama so these scandals will not force him out.
“Eric never loses sight of what he’s there for,” said Jarrett. “He’s there to be the chief lawyer for the United States of America and to make sure that all of our rights are protected, and to defend our country, to make sure that he is an advocate for those whose civil rights have been infringed upon–anyone whose rights have been infringed upon. And there are people all around the country who are counting on him to be the attorney general. And so yes he is resistant, and he is tough, and he is strong, and he is perfectly capable of defending himself, and he is an outstanding attorney general, who enjoys the full confidence of the president of the United States.” Weekly Standard
There is no doubt that Holder knows what he is there for. He is there to exact revenge on Obama’s enemies. He is there to ignore the crimes of minorities and to suppress conservatives. Let us not forget that Jarrett was the one who said that once they won the election (the 2012 election) there would be payback and they would be taking revenge on people.
Holder is part of the team doing that. He is trampling on the First Amendment (and several others for that matter) and he is going after conservatives, period.
If he was truly an advocate for civil rights then he would be balls to the walls to get to the bottom of the IRS scandal. The civil rights of many conservative groups (as well as other groups opposed to Obama) were violated by the IRS. Can anyone show me where Holder has gone after anyone involved? Is Holder seeking indictments of those who broke the law?
Jarrett is right in one respect. There are people around the country who count on him. The Obama Regime is counting on him to continue exacting revenge and those who have been wronged by government are counting on him to uphold the law and punish those who broke it.
Guess which group is getting his attention?
Eric Holder is a racist, partisan hack who cares not about the people who have been harmed if they are people who either do not look like him or hold the same political philosophy as he and his cronies in the Regime. We saw it with the New Black Panther Case and we are seeing it now.
Holder is one of the people involved in the criminal activity. How can he be looking out for our civil rights when he is busy violating them?
I think Jarrett is correct that Holder will not go anywhere. He can’t because there are still a bunch of rights he has not trampled on.
Holder leads the Department of Just-Us and that is why Obama supports him….
Never surrender, never submit.
Dec 7, 2010 Political
Don Imus made the mistake of trying to be funny about a female college basketball team and he used the term “Nappy Headed Hos.” As soon as he did the race baiting poverty pimps came out of the closet and none other than the cheif race antagonist Al Sharpton was leading the charge. Sharpton called for Imus to be fired and Obama got in on the act as well. Imus went on Al Sharpton’s radio program and had to grovel. After apologizing a million different ways, Imus was fired. He still went to the college to apologize to the ladies in person.
I am waiting for Sharpton to slither out from under his rock and start raising hell about the latest Nappy Head comment. This comment was made by Mignon Clyburn, daughter of Congressman James Clyburn. Obama FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said that free internet was a civil right for every nappy headed child (around the 2:50 mark).
I will not be holding my breath waiting for Sharpton to demand this woman’s firing because she happens to be black.
That will make all the difference in the world even though Sharpton went after Imus and the entire time preached how this kind of talk was racist and needed to stop. He will ignore Clyburn because she is black. If by some remote chance he says anything you can bet it will not rise to the level of demanding that she be fired.
As an aside, free internet is not a civil right for anyone, nappy headed or otherwise. It is no more a civil right than owning a cell phone, owning a car, owning a house or “free” health care. These are not rights of any kind whatsoever. They are commodities that are purchased by those who desire them and who can afford them. In the absence of the ability to afford them people do without or they work out some method of paying for them (particularly true with health care). However, with health care people often skip out on the bill and leave everyone else to pay for it. Remember, everyone has access to health care. The issue boils down to who pays for it…
But the issue at hand is the use of the words “nappy headed.”
If Sharpton and the rest of the race baiters are truly serious about race relations and stopping the use of such terms then they will be calling for Clyburn to be fired. If they ignore this then they are as worthless as I believe them to be and they should never be taken seriously again (I know, I can’t believe people take them seriously but they do). In other words, the next time they are outraged at something, tar and feather them.
I would not normally call for the firing of Clyburn. I did not think what Imus said and the way he said it warranted his dismissal and I would give Clyburn the benefit of the doubt even though it is quite obvious from what she says that she knew it was wrong. It was not spontaneous like the outburst from Imus. It was planned.
But I would still give her the benefit of the doubt for choosing her words poorly.
I would have. However, Sharpton and the rest of the race baiters set the standard for how this kind of behavior should be treated. It demands nothing less than dismissal because that is what they decided the punishment should be.
So I call on Sharpton to get out in the street and call for Clyburn to be fired and I call on Barack Obama to dismiss her for her insensitivity and use of racially charged language.
While I am at it, I call on the Congressional Black Caucus to get involved and call for Clyburn’s resignation.
It is time to put up or shut up folks. If you do not have the integrity to call for her to be fired then you have no right to complain about any future infraction.
The ball is in your court. What is your next move?
I bet Don Imus is taking gas over this.
Never surrender, never submit.
Aug 29, 2010 Political
The usual post rally numbers game is underway and people are saying that as few as 87,000 and as many as 1 million people attended the Restoring Honor event in DC. The liberal left needs to minimize the numbers because the bigger the numbers are the weaker its position becomes.
I was at the rally and I believe there were closer to a million people than to 87,000. The New Carrollton Metro station had 8000 to 10,000 people in line when I arrived. It took nearly 2 hours to get to the train and when I did get on the train the line down below was longer than when I arrived. The entire Mall was surrounded by people and the crowd extended to the Washington Monument. The open area to the left (when looking at the Lincoln Memorial) was completely full of people and the right had densely packed groups way into the wood line (they cannot be seen from the overhead shots but they were there and they were packed in there).
The crowd was mostly white (as is the population of this country) but there were quite a few people of color in attendance. I saw many, many people who were not white and they appeared to be enjoying themselves. In fact, two women of color were walking next to me on the way to the Mall and one looked to the other and said; “Can you believe he asked me where the Al Sharpton event was? I told him over there where those 10 people are. I am going down here where everyone else is.” She was amused that the person would assume that since she was not white she would be on her way to see Sharpton rather than Beck. She got a huge laugh out of it as did everyone with whom she shared the story.
I understand that the left is upset by all the attention non liberal groups get and it needs to fight it any way it can. This is why everything is labeled racist. But minimizing the crowd at this event and repeating the same tired lines about it being very white is getting old. Whites are a majority of the population and when one considers that 95% of blacks are held captive on the Democrat plantation then it is easy to see why throngs of blacks are not at these types of events. However, rejecting the validity of an event because it has too many people of one color and not enough of another makes no sense and is very dangerous. Those who think that any rally that consists of mostly white people is not valid would have to invalidate the Al Sharpton rally that consisted mostly of black people.
Additionally, this picture of the Martin Luther King “I have a dream” speech shows the crowd to be almost all black. No whites are found in the picture of the crowd. I am sure some were there but since whites made up 60%-70% of the population (probably more like 80% back then) at that time then this crowd is disproportionately black. I find that perfectly acceptable but if we are going to use the diversity of color at an event to give it credibility or validity then MLK’s speech was not credible and not valid. I would also point out that Obama’s inauguration had huge numbers of blacks in the crowd, numbers that were hugely disproportionate to their representation in the country. Does this mean that event lacked validity?
There are plenty of pictures of the crowd and they tell a story that makes it clear more than 87,000 people were there. MLK had 200,000 to 250,000 at his speech and the Restoring Honor pictures show more people than attended King’s speech so it is logical to assume that there were more than 200,000 people there. I think that the number is 600,000 to 1 million but have no way of knowing and no agency does any official counting.
It would be interesting to know how many Metro tickets were sold. That would give a good indication of how many people were there.
Suffice it to say that the event is not well received by liberals who cannot grasp the concept of honor and who cannot see anything but racism in such events. It will drive them nuts for some time to come.
I also add that there were many people opposed to Beck having this rally in the same place where MLK had his speech and on the same date that the speech occurred. Al Sharpton was very upset about this claiming that Beck was against what MLK stood for (which Sharpton erroneously believes to be the removal of state’s rights) and challenged Beck to debate the Ground Zero Mosque issue, which Sharpton supports. This challenge came as Sharpton appeared on Geraldo Rivera’s show. So does anyone else find it ironic that Sharpton complains about the location of Beck’s rally but dismisses this concern (location) from people opposed to the mosque? Thanks to Rick for this insight.
Anyone want to wager that the people offended at Glen Beck’s choice of location for his Restoring Honor rally in DC (where Martin Luther King held his I Have A Dream speech) are the same people defending the location of the mosque at Ground Zero?
We will hear more in the days ahead…
Here are some great pictures and interesting takes on the rally:
Affirmative Action Counting for DC Events
Leftists Could Find No Racism at Restoring Honor Rally
Wrap Up and Whitewash (Plus, who is cleaner and where is the racism)
An enormous and impassioned crowd (and from the New York Times no less)
Washington Compost (the added “mostly black” to the Sharpton crowd report later, probably in response to a comment asking why it was not reported the same way as the RH Rally)
CNN article Note how many comments refer to the WHITE crowd
Why is there this assumption that MLK and his speech were a black only thing?
Never surrender, never submit.
Oct 27, 2008 Political
Barack Obama is reported to have been a Constitutional law professor though every time I hear him speak about the Constitution I wonder which country’s document he knows well enough to teach. An audio from an interview done in 2001 was released over the weekend and in it Obama laments that the Warren Court did not discuss wealth redistribution as part of the civil rights movement. As it was stated in a Fox article, Obama thinks that when dispossessed people appealed to the high court for a place at the lunch counter, they should have appealed to have someone else pay for the meal. This has been Barack Obama’s MO for a long time. People who have more money should have some of it taken away and given to those who have less money. Socialism.
Most people already know that Obama is a Socialist. His followers know it but they want Socialism because they want to get something for nothing. The wealthier ones will say they want to pay more to help people along but in the end they will find a way not to do so. How many of them donate money to the treasury? People can do that so they could give even more than what they pay in taxes but it seems they have no real desire. Obama followers are the people who run around with their hands out (well one hand, the other is holding a cell phone) and love the idea of screwing some rich guy so they can have more of what they did not earn. The Obama campaign sent an email a few minutes ago asking people to take election day off for Obama. As if most of his followers even have jobs. The balance can probably take the day off but the warden won’t release them to help out.
So, in this interview Obama says that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties:
“It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.
“And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way — that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.”
“And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,” Obama said. Fox
I think that this professor is sadly mistaken with regard to the Constitution. Starting with the last thing; it is not the job of government, including the courts, to bring about redistributive change. The courts are well within their power to levy fines and rule in civil cases where money is awarded but they have no power and no authority to decide that one person makes more than another so he has to share. We do not suffer because a court did not rule in favor of Socialism, we suffer because liberals have made entire classes of people dependent on government so much so that many do not know how to take care of themselves, an individual responsibility.
Now, on to this idea about a document of negatives that does not tell you what government should do for you. The Constitution explains right up front the purpose of coming together and what the expected outcome of the established government is:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[sic] promote Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It is pretty clear to me that the reasons we formed the country are well laid out and the things that government will do, as established in “this Constitution” are clearly indicated and are not negatives. The reason we came together and formed this government as established in the Constitution is to form a more perfect union (not a perfect one), establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, and promote liberty. None of these are negatives. They clearly state what government will do for the people because it was formed by the people. One thing it certainly does not say is that we should redistribute wealth.
I am no law professor and I am certainly no Constitutional expert but I think I have a better grasp on this concept than Obama does. What I believe that Obama meant is that the Constitution is a negative document because it does not follow his idea of what government should do. He is upset because the court did not break free of the essential constraints established by the founders. First of all, if the constraints are essential why would we break free of them? Secondly, the founders knew well that government was a problem and not a solution. They were well aware of the problems with governments and what happens when people rule over the lives of others.
Our founders never intended for us to have a government as big as the one we now have. They never intended for government to be the provider of any more than that which is clearly enumerated in the document. Our founders would not recognize this country and would believe that they had failed if they were here to see how out of control it has gotten.
But for a Socialist like Obama, the founders put constraints on the ability of those like him to rule over the lives of others while keeping them oppressed, like Democrats do to their black constituents. So, like all liberals, he expected a court to right a perceived injustice over which the court has no authority.
The idea that the Supreme Court should have given us redistributive change (read wealth redistribution) should scare anyone who cares about personal freedom. Obama’s 2001 interview clearly verifies that he is a socialist and that his response to Joe the Plumber was no mistake.
This interview also gave us insight as to what kind of people he would appoint to the Supreme Court. The court recently ruled in favor of redistributive change in the Kelo decision. That was not popular and it did not settle well with most people because it gave government the right to take property from one group and give it to another. The kind of judges Obama would appoint will make that decision look good in comparison.
We have to stop this now.
Aug 18, 2008 Political
It appears as if the city of Denver has its own formerly secret prison. The city converted a warehouse into a jail to process and house those who get arrested during the Democratic National Convention. There is no doubt the jail was built for the DNC and not because Denver needed a new jail.
Interestingly, the jail was a secret. No one was supposed to know about it and probably would not have until the arrests started but someone found out and exposed it. Civil rights groups are up in arms and claim that this has the potential to lead to abuse of people’s civil rights. I agree that a secret prison would have that potential but since it is no longer a secret it is no different than any other jail.
But let us explore the whole secret jail issue. The Democrats knew about it and it was built especially for their convention. They know that a huge number of protest groups are going to show up and they want them arrested and off the streets quickly so as to avoid coverage of anything that might hurt their chances of winning.
So let’s get this straight. The same Democratic party that howls about Guantanamo Bay and secret CIA prisons in other countries knew about a secret prison right here in America built for their convenience. Some might call that a bit hypocritical. Others, like me, might ask why it is that the Democrats oppose prisons (secret or not) that house terrorists and other enemies of our country but are in favor of a secret prison to house people who show opposition to the Democrats?
I wonder why the liberals think that Bush is Hitler and Gitmo should be closed but that they should have secret prisons to lock up Americans who disagree with them. Such hypocrisy. What do you expect from a group that screams global warming and vows to have a green convention but complains that there are not enough limousines in Denver to cart them around. I know Denver has buses.
Oh yeah, all that stuff is for the rest of the country to follow. Not the do as I say, not as I do Democrats…