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.
Sep 6, 2012 Political
A Democrat at the Democrat convention had the typical Uncle Sam hat with buttons on it and one of those buttons was quite interesting. Evidently one can purchase buttons that read; “Once you vote black you never go back. Obama 2012″.
I imagine that this is not viewed as racist by the left but I find it to be so. The implication is that one needs to vote for Obama because he is black. The button does not tell us that Obama did some kind of wonderful job so he should get our votes. No, the button tells us to vote for Obama because he is black and when we vote for a black once we will never do anything other than that. Why is it that Democrats always point out what people look like?
I have some ideas for more accurate and non racist buttons for the Democrats. Some of the buttons might have to be bigger but they make plenty of sizes.
- Once you vote for welfare you will never get a job.
- Once you vote Democrat you will never be free.
- Once you vote Democrat go vote again (and again).
- Unless you vote Barack you will be black and blue [Sponsored by SEIU].
- Once you vote Barack you will never have recovery.
- Once you smoke crack you will vote for Barack.
I believe that in keeping with the Democrat platform of murdering babies on demand the proper campaign button would be:
We can do that in November.
Never surrender, never submit.
Sep 4, 2012 Political
This has been the rallying cry among the left and its surrogates who oppose any kind of law that requires an ID to vote. Voting is one of the most important civil exercises in which people participate and it is important to ensure only those who are entitled to vote do so. This is not acceptable to the liberal left and the reason is simple. Yes, the left claims that the ID requirement is racist and affects minorities and poor people but the reality is the left opposes ID laws because those laws make it more difficult for people to cheat.
Democrats have a long history of ballot box stuffing, suddenly finding enough ballots to push a Democrat over the edge and allowing the illegal aliens as well as the dead to vote. These are undeniable truths and this is why liberals oppose voter ID laws.
The unions are heavily involved in Democrat vote cheating schemes and the union bosses oppose voter ID requirements. This is ironic because unions require an ID before anyone can vote in union elections. That’s right, whenever unions have a vote on an issue the people who want to vote MUST show an ID.
It is important to unions that people who are not supposed to vote on an issue are kept from doing so. Strangely, unions do not feel the same way when it comes to the integrity of the election process in this country.
The Democrats oppose voter ID BUT the Democrats require a government issued ID be presented to attend the Democrat National Convention. Yep, if you want to attend that event you will have to present a valid ID. Obviously the Democrats want to preserve the sanctity of their convention but have little regard for the integrity of the elections in the country.
Democrats have called the voter ID schemes racist and have made bizarre claims that people will not be able to get IDs and those people will be the poor and minorities who tend to vote Democrat.
The people attending the Democrat Convention tend to vote Democrat and must show an ID to attend. This begs the question; are Democrats racist and are they trying to disenfranchise and exclude minorities and poor people?
One must show an ID to enter a government building, get on a plane, buy alcohol or tobacco, register for school, join the military, register for sports, cast union votes and enter the Democrat Convention but an ID to vote in an election is somehow a burden.
The reason voter ID is opposed is clear. Democrats cheat and they do not want barriers to their illegal voting schemes erected.
The time to reform is now. States need to pass laws requiring an ID to vote and states need to tell the federal courts that they do not intend to follow any ruling that removes a voter ID requirement. States need to reassert their power over the federal government and we the people need to show them who their bosses are.
We are in charge and they work for us.
We need to dictate the rules and they need to mind their own business.
Remember, requiring an ID is like raping someone…
Never surrender, never submit.
Jul 20, 2010 Political
Last week the National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People (NAALCP) passed a resolution condemning racism in the TEA Party and stating that the TEA Party had to disavow its racist elements. The TEA Party, despite claims to the contrary, is not a racist organization and there are no racist elements. George Soros tried to show the racist side by airing an ad that has a supposed TEA Party member proudly claiming to be a racist. The entire video, the one from which Soros chopped the piece, shows TEA Party members condemning the man and telling him he is not part of them and that he does not represent their views. They had to use deceit in order to show a racism that does not exist.
And who is the NAALCP to call out the TEA Party? I did not see any resolution condemning the New Black Panther Party, a group of black men who all happen to be racists. The NAALCP is selective in its approach to shouting racist because it is trying to gain some kind of relevance or meaning. It was once an important player in the fight for civil rights but has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Democrat Party. The NAALCP injects racism into most elections in order to drum up votes for Democrats. It has been reduced to the dealer in a game of race cards.
The ironic thing is that the NAALCP has had plenty of speakers who have uttered racist things. The members routinely call conservative blacks “Uncle Toms” and sell outs and their assessment of white America is nothing but rants about racism.
Even more ironic is that during the very week the NAALCP was passing its anti TEA Party resolution videos were presented that showed a federal appointee under the Obama administration, Shirley Sherrod, telling an audience at an NAALCP event that she engaged in racism. She went into great detail to show how she had neglected helping a farmer because he was white and how she passed him off to a white lawyer, or as she put it, one of his own kind.
Andrew Breitbart once again came through with the video and he posted it on his site, Big Government. The video is damning. Here is what we heard:
“The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he took a long time talking but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing, but he had come to me for help. What he didn’t know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was, I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him,” Sherrod said.
“I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough,” Sherrod said. “So that when he, I assumed the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me, either that or the Georgia Department of Agriculture, and he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him.”
In the video, Sherrod also spoke of referring the white farmer to a white lawyer, thinking the latter would be more sympathetic because of race. “So I took him to a white lawyer that had attended some of training that we had provided because Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farm. So I figured if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him.” WCBSTV
So far the left and the NAALCP (redundant, I know) have struck out. Soros tries to show TEA Party members as racist but the uncut video shows the truth and TEA Party members attack the racist who shows up at their event and the NAALCP condemns the TEA Party racism but can’t show racism and uses a now discredited story (read lie) about black members of Congress being spat upon and called the N word. There is no meat to the story and the resolution is baseless. It was only issued to help Obama and the Democrats by increasing tension among the races.
We do know and have absolute proof of racism from the New Black Panthers and from someone speaking at an NAALCP event. I certainly would not paint the entire black community with the racist brush based upon the New Black Panthers racist views but I would expect the NAALCP to condemn their acts just like TEA Party members condemned the racist shown in the Soros ad. This is what a true civil rights organization would do.
I would also expect the NAALCP to make sure its house is in order before it starts making claims about any other organization and when it does decide to make accusations I would expect it to have some proof.
The NAALCP allowed a racist to speak at its event. It did nothing to condemn the racist and it made no apologies for the racist language used. In short, it failed to do what it resolved for the TEA Party to do and that is to condemn the racist elements of its organization.
Big difference is that we have proof of the racism at the NAALCP but there is none associated with the TEA Party. And if you see a racist sign keep in mind the left has people who made no secret of their plans to infiltrate events and act like racists. You are gonna need more than a few signs. Video proof like Breitbart supplies would be good, if you can find it. But leave the Soros doctored stuff at home.
Another very funny thing about this event is that Sherrod also says that there are jobs at the USDA and that people of color should apply for them because it is impossible to be fired from the federal government.
Today, Shirley Sherrod resigned from the USDA. True, that is not fired but we all know she was allowed to resign in lieu of being fired. The USDA issued a statement and from the words it is clear she could quit or be fired:
“There is zero tolerance for discrimination at USDA, and I strongly condemn any act of discrimination against any person,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a written statement. “We have been working hard through the past 18 months to reverse the checkered civil rights history at the department and take the issue of fairness and equality very seriously.” Big Government
The only entity we have not heard from since the news of Sherrod’s racist rant is the NAALCP. She made her statements at the NAALCP’s event and she has since lost her job but they have not yet issued a statement about the incident. They have not issued a resolution either.
Perhaps they are too busy issuing a resolution condemning America for calling it the White House…
Never surrender, never submit.
According to World Net Daily Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, is a member of the racist group La Raza.
As President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for allegedly being a “racist,” Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that’s promoted driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.
According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR, which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S.
Meaning “the Race,” La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.
I said she was a racist because of her previous statement. I would agree with Ann Coulter who said she did not know if Sotomayor is a racist but the statement was however, the membership in La Raza is a pretty clear indication to me that she is racist. The statement in question is; “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Imagine the uproar if a white male had made a similar statement…