Several states are in the process of working on legislation that would require Presidential candidates to provide legal proof of Constitutional eligibility in order to be placed on that particular state’s ballot. Arizona is leading the movement right now, having introduced a bill in the state Senate. Other states working on similar legislation include Texas, Pennsylvania, Montana and Georgia.
Obviously, the precipitating factor for all this legislation is Obama’s unrelenting refusal to release a legal copy of his birth certificate providing more fodder to those who question his true country of origin and birth. Because of Constitutional requirements of American citizenship, there are substantial doubts as to his compliance with this and he has never been mandated to produce the documentation. In fact, some have estimated that he has spent around $2 million to try to avoid “releasing” his birth certificate.
The logical question is if there is nothing to hide why is he trying to hide it?
The answer is also obvious: Obama does have something to hide - like his otherwise Constitutional ineligibility to be President. Maybe this is also why he regularly denigrates and trivializes the Constitution.
If these state bills are passed before the 2012 election, Obama may find it impossible to run for re-election or win just by the sheer loss of potential electoral votes.
The Left has been inexorably denigrated “birthers” who believe that Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirements for President and that he knows that he doesn’t and is hiding this fact. Liberals and Progressives are protecting him because they support his far left ideological positions and want him in power.
Since there has been so much controversy and no definitive answers regarding Obama’s place of birth, is too much to ask to have him produce an authentic copy? In virtually any other walk of life, this would not be such a big issue but for someone who was seeking out the Presidency, it is.
The reason is that the Constitution places strict mandates regarding his country of birth and citizenship.
This enigma persists solely because of Obama’s intransigence in refusing to reveal a legal copy. Obviously, this issue would go away instantaneously and he wouldn’t have to deal with multiple lawsuits, revisit the question frequently or even waste time addressing it in some other fashion if he could produce such a copy.
So why has he not done so (even though he claims he has)?
Well maybe he really has something to hide like not truly being able to meet the Constitutional requirements for becoming/being President. That is, if it is confirmed that he was not born an American citizen (or variants on this), he may have to be removed from office.
We strongly feel that issue should have been legally addressed far before the election. Given the singular importance of this and the attendant mysteries surround his birth (in addition to other inscrutable periods of his life), he should have not been sworn in as President without producing a simple document that virtually every other citizen in this country has to show for a variety of reasons throughout their mundane lives.
Even his outspoken supporter, defender and friend and vehement attacker of “birthers”, the Governor of Hawaii, has been unable to find a legal birth certificate despite his searches.
Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate
Suggests controversy could hurt president's re-election chances
Jerome R. Corsi January 19, 2011
Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.
Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star Advertiser he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because the continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president's chances of re-election in 2012.
Donalyn Dela Cruz, Abercrombie's spokeswoman in Honolulu, ignored again today another in a series of repeated requests made by WND for an interview with the governor.
Toward the end of the interview, the newspaper asked Abercrombie: "You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plan to release more information regarding President Barack Obama's birth certificate. How is that coming?"
In his response, Abercrombie acknowledged the birth certificate issue will have "political implications" for the next presidential election "that we simply cannot have."
Suggesting he was still intent on producing more birth records on Obama from the Hawaii Department of Health vital records vault, Abercrombie told the newspaper there was a recording of the Obama birth in the state archives that he wants to make public.
Abercrombie did not report to the newspaper that he or the Hawaii Department of Health had found Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. The governor only suggested his investigations to date had identified an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives.
"It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down," Abercrombie said.
For seemingly the first time, Abercrombie frankly acknowledged that presidential politics motivated his search for Obama birth records, implying that failure to resolve the questions that remain unanswered about the president's birth and early life may damage his chance for re-election.
"If there is a political agenda (regarding Obama's birth certificate), then there is nothing I can do about that, nor can the president," he said.
So far, the only birth document available on Obama is a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth that first appeared on the Internet during the 2008 presidential campaign. It was posted by two purportedly independent websites that have displayed a strong partisan bias for Obama – Snopes.com released the COLB in June 2008, and FactCheck.org published photographs of the document in August 2008.
WND previously reported the Hawaii Department of Health has refused to authenticate the COLB posted on the Internet by Snopes.com and FactCheck.org.
WND has reported that in 1961, Obama's grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, could have made an in-person report of a Hawaii birth even if the infant Barack Obama Jr. had been foreign-born.
Similarly, the newspaper announcements of Obama's birth do not prove he was born in Hawaii, since they could have been triggered by the grandparents registering the birth as Hawaiian, even if the baby was born elsewhere.
Moreover, WND has documented that the address reported in the newspaper birth announcements was the home of the grandparents.
WND also has reported that Barack Obama Sr. maintained his own separate apartment in Honolulu, even after he was supposedly married to Ann Dunham, Barack Obama's mother, and that Dunham left Hawaii within three weeks of the baby's birth to attend the University of Washington in Seattle.
Dunham did not return to Hawaii until after Barack Obama Sr. left Hawaii in June 1962 to attend graduate school at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.
Conceivably, the yet undisclosed birth record in the state archives that Abercrombie has discovered may have come from the grandparents registering Obama's birth, an event that would have triggered both the newspaper birth announcements and availability of a Certification of Live Birth, even if no long-form birth certificate existed.
WND has also reported that Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008, has maintained that there is no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health and that neither Honolulu hospital – Queens Medical Center or Kapiolani Medical Center – has any record that Obama was born there.
The following is a video of Rep. John Lewis (D- GA) being asked questions regarding if Americans should be required by the government to buy health care insurance. You may want to view it a few times to appreciate the inanity and vacuity of his responses.
You would think that it would be impossible for our Representatives to be this stupid, uninformed, uneducated about basics of the Constitution and unable to make a rational argument about such an important issue as health care – but you just witnessed one example. Unfortunately, there are many others out there who are like sheep or parrots – just repeating what their leaders tell them and not having the intellectual capabilities to formulate conclusions based on their own rational thought.
They are ideological zombies and do not truly deserve to be representing a constituency. However, the irony is that they reflect and are an example of the people who vote them in.
This explains why some of the poorest legislation by the Democrats easily gets passed which ultimately costs the average American in increased taxes, lost rights and freedoms.
The FCC's recently approved "net neutrality" regulation was known by its voting members to truly be outside its jurisdiction, probably unconstitutional and could be easily overturned by Congress yet they were unrelenting in pursuing control over people and businesses. This arrogant and tyrannical attitude is suffused through the Obama Administration with its myriad socialists and communists and other "radicals".
A Massive, Strong and Controlling Central Government is at the core of their ideologies. This new regulation is just one step...
Obama, his Administration and czars must be stopped cold in their attempts to seize further control of our country from us.
The shooting of Arizona Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords by a deranged 22 year old gunman has predictably but despicably precipitated a fusillade of culpatory attacks by liberals and Progressives, including politicians and the news media, who blame this tragedy on everyone important who holds conservative views including especially Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Parties. This assignation is reprehensible, irresponsible (particularly the news media and politicians), incorrect and ironic. We suspect that if the victim instead were a Republican, liberals would be insinuating that the individual had it coming to them because of their "Neanderthal" ideological views.
What we do know is that the perpetrator had clinically evident mental illness, possibly paranoid schizophrenia, was a pot head and heavy drinker of alcohol and a liberal with radical political views. The politician he shot was a Democrat and liberal. Thus, there is no conservative or right wing factor here though the Democratic politicians and the liberal Netroots and news media would have you believe that such was irrefutably the case.
The list of these contemptuous, disgraceful perpetrators is too long to list. Included among these are some of the anticipated suspects: Keith Olberman, Paul Krugman, Wolf Blitzer, Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos, (Hanoi) Jane Fonda, Sen. Dick Durbin, former Sec. of the Defense William Cohen, Rep. James Clayburn (3rd highest ranking Democrat in the House) CNN and MSNBC.
In fact, in his NY Times blog, Paul Krugman wrote:
"You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers."
Where were all these individuals while the Left was relentlessly threatening President Bush and V.P. Cheney in some of the vilest ways and continue to do so particularly against Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh? We didn’t hear them complaining or calling for the cessation of such inflammatory attacks and language. Actually, they were among those who were spewing the Left’s incessant incendiary rhetoric. We also didn’t hear them complain about the film “The Death of a President” which was a depiction of the assassination of President George Bush and which won the International Film Critics Award (as a far left political statement) or even when he was depicted with Nazi symbols. There were no condemnations when John Kerry stated regarding President Bush that “I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.” They also didn’t complain that Obama was inciting violence when he declared at a Philadelphia fundraiser in 2008 regarding Republicans: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”, a statement which he has often repeated.
Such is the irony of their present, unfounded accusations which the American public has been able to easily discern. For several reasons based on their corrupt moral algorithm, they don’t consider these blatant improprieties and transgressions to be as such. However, to rational and neutral observers, this is incontrovertibly a double standard.
Exacerbating the situation are the immediate attempts by the Left’s to use this tragedy in order to gain support for their liberal agenda of gun control and the restriction of free speech - prohibiting what they deem to be provocative (according to their double standards). As Rahm Emanuel famously posited:
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
These are a continuation of relentless attempts to provide the government with ever increasing power over its citizenry while concomitantly abridging and restricting our rights, freedoms and ability to protect ourselves as explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.
We must remain vigilant if we want to remain free.
Over the last several days (1/5 and 1/6), the comics posted ingeniously characterize Obama's disdain for the U.S. Constitution and the rights and will of the American people. This is consistent with his contemptuous actions over the last 2 years whereby he has sought to impose his ideologies and government control over us by whatever means possible and independent of voter sentiment.
Such are the actions of a dictator who must be removed from office. Our country and we, the citizens, will continue to experience greater suffering while relentless losing more rights and freedoms until he is no longer the "president".
The House Republican leadership has a novel and educational idea to open up the next session on Jan 6th, 2011: read the Constitution in its entirety from the floor of the chamber. It has been quite apparent that over the past two years, aided by Pelosi, Reid and Obama, the spirit of the Constitution has been wantonly violated as has specific strictures.
A little re-education regarding this most important document that serves to protect our rights and freedoms may be quite valuable vis-a-vis future proposed legislation.
Then again, the left has shown an utter disdain for the Constitution and would rather pervert it to such an extent so as to render it almost irrelevant. With such an attitude, reading it will accomplish little for those willing to destroy it the most.
Then again, maybe not – that is if it is read again and again as the president of the Roanoke Tea Party, Chip Tarbutton, suggested somewhat tongue in cheek. He stated that, "If it was up to me, they could spend the whole congressional session reading the Constitution and nothing else, and they wouldn't do as much damage as the last Congress did."
Just keep Congress from passing legislation and imposing more regulations and taxes…
A solution that we can all live with!
'We the people' to open next Congress House to read Constitution
Stephen Dinan The Washington Times December 23, 2010
The Constitution frequently gets lip service in Congress, but House Republicans next year will make sure it gets a lot more than that - the new rules the incoming majority party proposed this week call for a full reading of the country's founding document on the floor of the House on Jan. 6.
The goal, backers said, is to underscore the limited-government rules the Founders imposed on Congress - and to try to bring some of those principles back into everyday legislating.
"It stems from the debate that we've had for the last two years about things like the exercise of authority in a whole host of different areas by the EPA, we've had this debate in relation to the health care bill, the cap-and-trade legislation," said Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte, Virginia Republican, who proposed the reading. "This Congress has been very aggressive in expanding the power of the federal government, and there's been a big backlash to that."
Setting aside time at the beginning of the congressional session for the reading is just one of the changes to House rules that Republicans say are designed to open up the legislative process. They say the new rules also will try to bring some restraints to lawmaking after decades in which both Republican and Democratic leaders whittled away opportunities for real legislative give-and-take.
The biggest changes would make it easier to cut spending and harder to create entitlement programs, while imposing restrictions that could keep leaders from jamming massive bills onto the House floor before lawmakers have had a chance to digest them.
"To begin to restore trust with the American people, Republicans have pledged to operate Congress differently: with real transparency, greater accountability and a renewed focus on the Constitution," said Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, who led the GOP's transition team. "The sweeping reforms offered in this package make clear we intend to keep that promise."
The chief criticism from Democrats has been the GOP's decision to exempt some tax cuts from the pay-as-you-go rule, which requires new spending to be offset by corresponding budget cuts. Republicans want to exempt tax cuts of the George W. Bush era and alterations to the alternative minimum tax.
"Their proposal leads us down the same path of fiscal negligence that the GOP took the nation down when [Republicans] got rid of pay-go in 2002," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Maryland Democrat. "We know how that story ends: ballooning deficits and an economic crisis not seen since the Great Depression."
In the Senate, where Democrats will retain a majority by a much smaller margin, returning Democrats are pondering how to rein in repeated Republican filibusters. All returning Senate Democrats have signed a letter, first reported by National Journal, asking Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, to consider taking action to change the chamber's operating rules.
The letter sets the stage for another round of discussions on whether to curtail the practice, though it's unclear how much room there is for major changes, since Republicans are likely to be united against anything that would constrain their rights as the minority party.
Liberal legal scholars on Thursday praised the movement to curtail filibusters.
The House rules changes, meanwhile, have won praise from open-government advocates, who say lawmakers and the public now have better access to legislation and committee proceedings and give them a chance to weigh in on the drafting and voting on the bills.
One key change would require bill sponsors to add statements to the congressional record citing the specific constitutional authority for the actions they are proposing.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration is on the defensive over the new health care law. A federal district judge in Virginia ruled this month that the general welfare and commerce clauses do not give the federal government the authority to require individuals to purchase health coverage, under pain of a financial penalty.
As least as a discussion point, the Constitution has proved to be the "comeback kid" of the past two years.
For example, the word "unconstitutional" was used 408 times in congressional debates during the 111th Congress, according to a search of the Congressional Record. That was up from 283 in the 110th Congress and is the most since the immediate aftermath of the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress.
Even before that, the presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Republican, seemed to tap a nerve with voters looking for more discussion about the founding document, the core of the blossoming "tea party" movements.
"If it was up to me, they could spend the whole congressional session reading the Constitution and nothing else, and they wouldn't do as much damage as the last Congress did," said Chip Tarbutton, president of the Roanoke Tea Party in Roanoke, Va., which is in Mr. Goodlatte's district.
He said the key test for lawmakers such as Mr. Goodlatte is whether they treat the constitutional reading as "window dressing" or whether it sparks the kinds of discussions that could lead to a major re-evaluation of the role of the federal government.
"If they follow through on it, it'll create some very difficult conversations, because what they'll end up doing is finding a lot of things already in place are unconstitutional," Mr. Tarbutton said.
Mr. Goodlatte credited Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, a Republican, with coming up with the idea of a public reading of the Constitution. Mr. Cuccinelli brought suit against the federal health care law and won the judge's ruling that part of the law is unconstitutional.
Mr. Goodlatte said it's too early to tell exactly how the reading will go, though he expects many members to take part.
The following creative factitious letter to “president” Obama from Mephistopheles (the devil or other evil person’s name associated with this letter) sardonically lauds him for his brilliance in implementing his policies in whatever illegal, shady or unconstitutional way possible and doing so by circumventing the electorate and Congress.
For us to successfully reclaim our country we must neutralize, exorcise and remove the “devil” (Obama) from power ... as well as his cronies.
New Year's Advice From Your Sponsor
From the desk of D. Mephistopheles, Attorney-at-Law:
Dear President Obama,
I must say, I am quite impressed. Following the unfortunate turn of events in your country's mid-term elections, many of the lower downs to whom I answer in this Great Firm were fully convinced that we had "bet on the weak horse", so to speak. There was a growing sense that you were out of time and out of ideas. But lo and behold, you had aces up both sleeves! Your mastery at mustering your forces through the "lame duck" session of Congress was simply brilliant to behold. Truly, our side was amazed, having not seen such tactical brilliance since our man from Austria launched his lightning campaign seven decades ago. In just a few short weeks you gained enormous swaths of territory from our common enemy, simultaneously weakening the resolve of your country's fighting forces and legitimizing the previously stigmatized wretches who dare not speak their love's name. Likewise, your ability to convince your own domestic opposition to lie down before the threat of a renewed menace from Comrade Putin was simply brilliant.
What has struck me as even more brilliant, however, is your determination to accomplish our mutual goals without regard to the outcomes of these ever-so-annoying elections. We saw the Republicans manage to block net neutrality, cap and trade, and death panels being enacted into law. Yet you brilliantly retorted "so what" and simply instituted all of these policies through executive direct action, proving once again that you are just the man we've been looking for. Even Bill Clinton didn't have the chutzpah to pull that kind of thing off! Truly, to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat as quickly and deftly as you have these last few weeks is breathtaking.
That being said, I think there are some lessons to be learned here. First of all, don't put too much stock in the outcomes of elections. Let's face it, our people lost the vote big time in November. Yet you simply stood your ground and took it to the enemy! And what did you learn? That you don't need to pay any attention to election outcomes or Congressional votes. You don't have to worry about the petty legalists who want to see policies enacted into law before you put them in place. All you need to do is take direct regulatory action and leave Congress out of it altogether. You did it, and what price have you paid? None at all, that's what. So why not keep it up?
Just think of it. You know the old saying "the devil is in the details"? Well I can tell you for a fact that is absolutely true. And who knows more about details than your vast army of Washington bureaucrats? What you need to do is simply enact every piece of our agenda that you can think of immediately through executive directives and agency regulation. After all, even if the Republicans try to block you, how many hearings can they hold at one time? You have thousands upon thousands of bureaucrats at your command for every Republican Congressman. They may try to take out a few of our initiatives, but there is no way they can even begin to address all of them. Truly our name is Legion!
Now about this "election" business. Here's a thought: You lost the election, but you still enacted your agenda. So why bother with this ridiculous election business to begin with? You know Chavez, Castro, the Royal House of Saud and so many other heroes of yours don't worry about this sort of thing. Are you less of a man than any of them? Certainly not! So why worry about the outcome in 2012? Just take command and cancel the whole thing. I know our mutual friend Bill Ayers has already spoken with you about this. The New York Times is ready to support you on this, along with the rest of your traditional media giants. The people need a Leader, someone who isn't afraid to do what has to be done, regardless of who stands in his way! You can be this Leader! All you have to do is take the full reigns of power. They are yours for the taking, just do it!
Okay, that's enough for now. Tell Michelle I said hi, and give my best to the kids. By the way, I'd really like to talk to you later about a book deal. Something about your goals and how you'll get there, maybe "My Struggle" or something like that. I'll have my people get with your people.
Attorney General Eric Holder has brought the regard, presitge and position that he holds to a new, immeasurably low level. This is an amazing feat given that the honor had been previously held by the abysmally incompetent Janet Reno. In fact, his job performance, or lack thereof, makes her accomplishments and management appear respectable.
Holder shows a total lack of understanding and appreciation of his position, responsibilities and the U.S. Constitution which he is charged with adhering to. In fact, he openly and egregiously flouts the basic principles of this document which he clearly despises and finds it to be an obstacle to his Progressive and racist agenda.
On innumerably occasions, he has displayed a lack of regard for equal rights and treatments. Some, minorities and especially blacks in particular, he feels should be accorded greater rights, privileges and entitlements especially at the expense of others, notably whites. The racist bias that has suffused the Dept. of Justice under his watch and which has been countenanced by him, are well known (see The New Black Panther Party issue as but one example).
He also panders to special interest groups and those that are openly hostile to our country and intolerant of our culture. His actions seem to be intentionally aimed at undermining and weakening America – an agenda that is consistent with a far left Progressive. In his view, rights are not truly equal – the Constitution be damned.
We staunchly and relentlessly continue to call for either his resignation or firing which would be in the best interests of this country and its citizens.
Holder's Dept. Of (Social) Justice
Investor’s Business Daily 12/15/2010
Politics: This Justice Department's social activism knows no bounds. First it meddled in a border state's right to protect itself.
Now it's trying to rewrite school policy to pander to Muslim law.
On Monday, Justice sued an Illinois school district for rejecting a Muslim teacher's request to take a three-week leave of absence to travel to Mecca. The suit claims that the Berkeley School District discriminated against middle-school instructor Safoorah Khan, whose religion "required" her to perform the hajj, and is seeking damages for this so-called victim.
But it's not stopping there. It seeks an order mandating school officials adopt policies accommodating all Muslim customs, no matter how unreasonable.
Attorney General Eric Holder is fulfilling a promise to pander to the special interests of Muslims. In June 2009, he pledged "a new beginning between the United States and the Muslim community" that includes "robust enforcement" of "religious freedoms."
"We are committed to using criminal and civil rights laws to protect Muslim Americans" in the workplace, housing market and schools, he said, adding that he was making it "a top priority."
Earlier this month, Holder spoke in San Francisco at the annual dinner of an anti-FBI group called the Muslim Advocates, whom he described as "partners in our work to promote tolerance."
He told Muslims gathered there that all 94 U.S. attorney's offices were partnering with the department's Civil Rights Division to act as "force multipliers" in helping to protect the Muslim community. He informed them that he'd brought a third of the nation's U.S. attorneys to Washington for an unprecedented meeting to work on being more "sensitive" toward Muslims.
"Last year," moreover, "I established an Arab-American and Muslim Engagement Advisory Group to help identify more effective ways for the Justice Department to foster greater communication and collaboration — as well as a new level of respect and understanding — between law enforcement and Muslim and Arab-American communities," Holder said.
This attorney general's many speeches reveal an agenda more radical than even his mentor Janet Reno's. It's plain that he's an activist, not an impartial enforcer of the nation's laws.
His audiences are a who's who of progressive causes — all sharing a common goal of obtaining "social justice" and "economic justice," as opposed to just plain equal justice under the law. They include activists not just for Muslim and Arab rights, but also black civil rights, gay rights, transgender rights, Indian tribal rights, housing rights, and on and on. It's a multicultural panderfest.
Here's just a sampling of his speaking engagements over the past two years:
• National Indian Nations Conference.
• African Union Summit.
• Metropolitan Black Bar Association Annual Dinner.
• Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month Program.
• American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee 30th Annual National Convention.
• Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) 50th Annual Conference.
• Legal Services Corp.
• Federal Bar Association's Advancement of Social Justice.
• National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.
• Hispanic National Bar Association Annual Conference.
• National Black Prosecutors Association.
• NAACP.
• Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice & Congressional Black Caucus Symposium on Rethinking Federal Sentencing Policy.
Divide-and-pander groupism is the new normal at Justice. At Justice's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month Program last June, Holder announced — in addition to enforcement of special new rights for gays — a new "Diversity Management Plan" that includes the creation of a new department position: Deputy Associate Attorney General for Diversity.
Holder's obsession with race was laid bare in his 2009 Black History Month speech in which he called Americans "cowards" for not doing more to speak out against racism. The disconnect of bad-mouthing America as racist in the wake of its electing a black president (and his own appointment as the first black attorney general) was lost on him.
Still, he slammed "socially segregated" whites who live in "electronically padlocked suburbs" and schools that are "too willing to segregate the study of black history."
"We must endeavor to integrate black history into our culture and into our curriculums in ways in which it has never occurred before," he lectured, giving it equal weight with "so-called 'real' American history."
Such demagoguery explains why, over the past 22 months, Justice has "reinvigorated" its civil rights enforcement activities. When it comes to combating hate crimes, however, it's still a one-way street.
"Our message is simple: If you engage in violence fueled by bigotry — no matter the object or nature of your hate — we will bring you to justice," Holder claims. Unless, of course you're club-wielding New Black Panthers and the object of your hate is white voters.
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments