Apr 21
Obama’s little more than 2 years in office as President has revealed a multitude of noxious traits, actions and ideologies, a high proportion of which serve to abet his agenda to the detriment of the American public. Many even openly flout the Constitution and other legalities.
Probably the most vile and dangerous of these to the American public are his concerted attempts to consolidate power and control while concurrently thwarting the opposition. Obama acts much like a dictator though an inept one at that. He also has sought to implement ideologies which abrogate many of our rights and freedoms through the use of myriad regulations and Presidential edicts rather than through democratic channels like Congress. This even includes attacks on the right to free speech – including political speech and contributions.
Through Presidential edict, Obama is now seeking to legislate away the rights of supporters of his opponents while at the same time, allowing groups supportive of him and the Democratic machine (such as unions) to keep making their massive political contributions unscathed.
Obama's Executive Order coming to cut off funding to his political opponents?
Ed Lasky April 20, 2011
From the man who said he would bring a gun to a knife fight, the latest ploy to cut his opponents off at their knees. This one is not based on arguments or facts, but on sheer abuse of the powers he has as President.
Kenneth Vogel writes in Politico that President Obama is "considering a number of measures to compel disclosure of the kind of anonymous campaign contributions that helped finance millions of dollars of attack ads against Democrats during the 2010 elections."
These measures appear broad in scope:
The White House last week began circulating a draft executive order that would require companies seeking government contracts to disclose contributions -- including those that otherwise would have been secret -- to groups that air political ads attacking or supporting candidates.
The proposed order follows several actions by regulatory agencies that have a similar intent of making corporate and individual donations more transparent.
Last month the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a decree that could result in shareholders having more say in corporate election spending. Democratic appointees to the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission are pushing measures that could make public currently anonymous contributions to outside groups.
Administration critics, including the powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are seizing on the White House's draft executive order, in particular, as evidence of an attempt to use executive power to punish or silence political adversaries, while rewarding supporters.
Calling the draft executive order "an affront to the separation of powers ... (and) to free speech," chamber spokeswoman Blair Latoff said it "lays the groundwork for a political litmus test for companies that wish to do business with the federal government" and is "less about disclosure than intimidation."
One White House ally, Craig Holman, applauds these plans since the 2010 election brought too many Republicans into Congress to hold out hope that these "reforms" could happen through legislation. So President Obama intends to use brute force to take these measures that would chill free speech and the campaign efforts of his critics. Apparently, a great deal can be achieved administratively through a regulatory approach and by executive order. A draft of the executive order requires disclosures of contributions made by companies' executives and board members to support candidates and third-party groups (such as the very effective American Crossroads and Americans for Prosperity groups).
Tellingly, the draft order would not apply to Democratic-allied groups that receive grants from the federal government (such as Planned Parenthood) or to unions, which bankroll so many Democratic campaigns and which have trumpeted that their spending power helped elect Barack Obama and makes them the king of the (Capitol) hill. Unions are among the biggest campaign spenders in America and they give their money to Democrats. "We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees).
Similar efforts to compel disclosure are being made through the Securities and Exchange Commission, the FCC and through the Federal Election Commission.
While the nation reels from a faltering economy with the lowest labor force participation rate in decades, with a deficit and debt crisis that may merit a S & P downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, with a geopolitical earthquake in the Middle East, Barack Obama finds time to figure out ways to hurt his political opponents (or his "enemies" as he would characterize them).
Public disclosure of campaign contributions can lead to boycotts of companies whose executives give to political campaigns (as happened when Target came under fire for its campaign contributions, when boycotts targeted campaign contributors to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker; similar efforts to punish people for their political views litter the political landscape).
Barack Obama wants to chill political speech to further his chances to win reelection. He made clear his views towards the law as decided by the Supreme Court when he crassly lambasted them last year during the State of the Union address for supporting the First Amendment in their Citizens United decision (a law he basically wants to undercut by using the powers of the Presidency in a particularly underhanded way).
Barack Obama , when he ran his campaign for state senator, had his opponents thrown off the ballots by challenging the signatures on their petitions to run. He cleared the ballot of all opponents.
He does not play fair -- and never has. That is his modus operandi. He learned everything he needed to know about politics in Cook County and he has brought its mores to Washington.
Change, yes, change; but in a wrong direction and in a way that the media would scorn had a Republican tried to derail opposition by these tactics.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/obamas_executive_order_coming.html
Posted in Congress Ideology Legal rights Obama Personal rights with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Feb 23
“Contempt for the people and their just laws are the hallmarks of tyranny.”
What an insightful, succinct statement (from the following article)! And also quite apropos for the present.
Why?
Because this is what we are witnessing in Washington now unlike any time in our past since the founding of our nation. We have had arrogant, unpleasant Presidents and politicians in the past but they all pale to our present perfect storm of the contemptuous and pathologically narcissistic “president” Obama, Congressional Democrats and the complicit news media (which years ago actually defended the people from the wicked, corrupt politicians).
America is turning into a tyranny and honest, hardworking Americans have become the victims.
This needs to stop or the next solution is a Second American Revolution. Like what has been occurring in Egypt. And against the rest of the Arab autocrats in the Middle East.
Short of this, the Tea Parties are our best hope and so are the brave and increasingly resolute Republicans in Congress, particularly the ones supported by the Tea Parties and the more conservative ones like Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Rand Paul.
We must pledge them our support, time and money if we are to save our nation. This will also be for our children, grandchildren and so on.
We must also become politically involved and serve as individual mouthpieces for freedom and small government.
Or we will become slaves by proxy of a corrupt, disdainful and omnipotent Big Brother Central Government.
This must never happen!
Thus Ever Are Tyrants
Jim Mahoney February 19, 2011
Contempt for the people and their just laws are the hallmarks of tyranny. When the tyrant looks out upon the masses he bestrides, he doesn't see people; he sees objects to be manipulated, mulcted and molested. The sacred trust binding the people and their government means nothing to the tyrant. At best, it's merely an obstacle to his objective.
Because he has no kinship with the people, he feels as free to poach and plunder them as any other criminal. Having the power of the state at his disposal there is no limit to his predation.
A free people, recognizing that the tyrant reflects the corrupt state of all men, wisely hem in their governments with rules. Wherever possible they diffuse power away from individuals. Separation of powers, like the rest of our Constitution, reflects a wise suspicion of fallen human nature.
Only people who acknowledge man's inherent corruption as an immutable truth will ever be free. Only people humble enough to recognize their own failings will ever accept restraint. Consequently, these are the only people who will ever voluntarily submit themselves to the rule of law. They are also the only people fit to lead a free society.
A tyrant, on the other hand, is as sure of his own perfection as he is certain that no limits apply to him. No law will ever contain him. If a people are to remain free, their only hope is to keep him away from power.
Perhaps this is why, when Ben Franklin emerged from the constitutional convention in 1787, he famously told the woman that the delegates gave birth to a "republic, if you can keep it." Understanding human nature as well as he did, his wisdom may have given him a glimpse into the future. Sadly, for much of the following two centuries, Americans failed miserably to meet to his challenge.
Today, America's elite culture is a squalid sludge of contempt. It is the perfect media for breeding tyrants. As with other forms of rot, our tyranny grew and developed unnoticed. The sudden rise of the Tea Party is akin to a man awakening to realize he has been feeding the termites threatening to collapse his home.
Stampeded by a series of shocking events, followed by a flurry of dubious laws justified by hazy reasoning, frightened Americans allowed tyranny to grow unchecked at a blistering rate. The freedoms we enjoyed a scant 15 years ago are now a dim memory. Today we meekly submit to laws permitting sneak and peak searches, no knock warrants, and high tech invasions of our persons that would turn any Red commissar green with envy.
Does anyone remember that just 15 years ago Americans were free to travel in their own country without showing identity papers? Does anyone seriously think these intrusions will stop growing on their own?
Sadly they are all transgressions that anyone reading the Constitution can plainly see are forbidden. Yet somehow in the sludge of the elite mind they are justified: destroying our freedom is necessary to protect "freedom". Battered daily with messages of panic and despair, the land of the free and home of the brave has been transformed something different altogether.
Every one of these abuses arises from a fundamental contempt for free people and the rule of law that protects us. They are only a sample from a shamefully long list.
Consider: we have a President who, for whatever reason, defies demonstrating his Constitutional qualification to hold his office. Whether or not he is qualified is practically irrelevant compared to the damage his intransigence has done to our Constitution and rule of law. By tolerating his obstinacy, Americans forever waive their right to demand evidence that a future president be American born. Let your imagination run with the possibilities.
Think it's farfetched?
Consider: the most fearsome power of the Federal government is to make war. The Constitution assigns specific responsibilities to Congress and the Executive to declare and execute war. It is a thorny and arduous process. It's supposed to be. It's intended as a barrier against gratuitous death.
Yet the last constitutionally declared war ended in 1945. Since then, hundreds of thousands of Americans have been killed or maimed and millions slaughtered across the globe at the whim of a single man, defying or, at best finessing, the Constitutional obligation of Congress to declare war.
Protestors may howl about this president or that war. However, no one gives a thought to the brazen assault that undeclared, unconstitutional wars represent to the American people and our Republic. After 65 years of blind submission to this tyranny, why would the thought occur to anyone?
Does anybody seriously think there will ever be another constitutionally declared war? That protection's gone the way of the Whigs.
As bad as destroying our financial lives is, once Americans accepted sacrificing our young in this manner, it was only a matter of time before our emboldened "leaders" came for the rest of the loot.
Here is a documentary film showing the price today's brave young Americans and our Afghan "beneficiaries" are paying for no more reason than our President found himself impaled on his own talking points. As a result, another generation gets to pursue the deadly chimera of "hearts and minds" for no greater purpose than to pull the President's foot from his mouth.
Worse, while such horrors proceed in his name, the greatest pain this man experiences holding office is losing his privacy! Would we expect less compassion from George III?
The rise of the Tea Party is a grass-roots recognition that our liberty is too precious to leave to a dull priesthood of politicians and pundits. The finest Constitution on earth is just a piece of paper if the people it protects aren't prepared to enforce it. The mass rising of the populace embodied in the Tea Parties is an unprecedented threat to our budding dictators. It's no surprise their empire struck back with every lame insult its muddled minds could muster.
In their own way, the transparent calumnies hurled at Americans demanding the government obey our laws are comforting. If that's the best the elites have, perhaps many of the other walls they've built around us are equally flimsy.
Still, we are on the threshold of losing our Republic. As with other life threatening situations, admitting the problem is the first step: America, we have a tyranny! However, judging by the panicked response of the elites, we still have the means to thwart it. Demanding the government and its officials abide by the Constitution they are sworn to uphold and defend is our best hope.
Enforcing the demands is uncomfortable. They tyrant has many minions, conscious and otherwise. It's important to recognize that even those who proclaim themselves our friends can be as dangerous as our adversaries. Whether it's the Panjandrum of Fairness and Balance or the eye of the Peacock that alters all, those who ridicule the just concerns of the public are themselves the forces of darkness and ignorance.
Their conduct reveals their allegiance.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/thus_ever_are_tyrants.html
Posted in Arrogance Democrat Government Control Legal rights Media - Far Left Obama Rep. Paul Ryan Republican Sen. Rand Paul Tea Parties with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Jan 8
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".
Posted in Arrogance Constitution Freedom Ideology Legal rights Obama Political Cartoon with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Jan 1
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.
Your friend and admirer,
D. Mephistopheles, Attorney-at-Law
http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-years-advice-from-your-sponsor.html
Posted in Anti-American Congress Constitution Corruption Far Left Freedom Ideology Legal rights Obama with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Dec 30
The FCC is a supererogatory federal agency that is a constant threat to our rights including as a dangerous political weapon of the left, an impediment to a free market place and innovations, and a waste of taxpayer money. It wantonly issues regulations such as the recently approved net neutrality law even though it doesn’t truly have the legal authority, a problem made worse by the fact that the commissioners are political appointees and not elected officials. In fact, the “president” has used this agency as a way to bypass Congress and attempt to implement ideologically radical policies.
We can protect our rights, save billions of dollars, reduce the size of the government and its debt by terminating this agency run amok.
Kill Off The FCC
Investor’s Business Daily 12/23/2010
Regulatory State: Two days after the FCC voted to take over the Internet, it stands in the way of an agreement between private companies. This is an agency that should be targeted for elimination.
On Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission approved net neutrality, a regulatory framework that has been sold as a means of keeping the Web fair and open. In truth, the rules give government the authority to tell Internet service providers how to organize the traffic that flows over their infrastructure.
That's enough meddling in private affairs for one week for any federal agency. But the FCC wasn't finished.
Chairman Julius Genachowski, who pushed net neutrality despite a court ruling and bipartisan opposition in Congress, set conditions Thursday on Comcast's acquisition of NBC Universal. He wants Comcast to distribute content in a way that he approves of and lets competitors access Comcast's platform.
It's almost amusing that these conditions are being applied in the name of the "public interest."
Genachowski's proposal isn't binding. He still has to present his ideas to the other four commissioners and a vote must be taken. But neither one man nor one group should have the power to marshal private companies' business operations.
Private media companies are not government-owned utilities.
Regulators such as Genachowski say they are merely trying to keep competition healthy and protect consumers.
But their efforts inhibit competition and obstruct innovation.
Cell phones, for instance, were delayed by the FCC for a decade. The cost of this hang-up to the economy, according to the National Economic Research Associates, was $85 billion.
Like generals fighting the last war, regulators make rules based on the way businesses operated yesterday. As they try to keep up with market dynamics, they inflict uncertainty into business decisions and put a boot on the neck of progress. When not held back by regulators, though, companies freely create new technologies and business models that increase competition.
What role, then, is there for regulators, especially those at the FCC, which oversees one of the most dynamic industries in the world? With the intense competition in telecommunications that has benefited consumers and led to wide commercial successes, there's no need for a government referee in this sector.
There's nothing the FCC does that can't be eliminated, streamlined or handed over to another agency or department that has a legitimate function. (Ed Morrissey of hotair.com suggests broadcast licenses "could be handled by the Commerce Department, or by a greatly reduced FCC with binding limitations on jurisdiction." The point is, the FCC as now constituted doesn't have to do it.)
The FCC has been around for a while — it was established by the Communications Act of 1934. So it won't be abolished overnight. But its elimination is a worthy goal.
Republicans, who at one time had a shutdown agenda, will control the House beginning in January. They should make the call and get the process started.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/557805/201012231855/Kill-Off-The-FCC.aspx
Posted in Congress FCC Government Control Legal rights Liberal Republican with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Dec 27
We briefly covered the FCC’s “Net Neutrality” legislation, an unwarranted and ill advised and probably illegal maneuver that won’t stand up to Congressional scrutiny (or legal challenges).
Michelle Malkin, in her editorial below, discusses what would be a predictable and anticipated sequela if this legislation is allowed to remain in force.
A claim by the Left that internet access is an entitlement; that it is another civil right.
Wrong!
Internet Access Is Not a 'Civil Right'
Michelle Malkin 12/22/2010
When bureaucrats talk about increasing our "access" to x, y or z, what they're really talking about is increasing exponentially their control over our lives. As it is with the government health care takeover, so it is with the newly approved government plan to "increase" Internet "access." Call it Webcare.
By a vote of 3-2, the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday adopted a controversial scheme to ensure "net neutrality" by turning unaccountable Democratic appointees into meddling online traffic cops. The panel will devise convoluted rules governing Internet service providers, bandwidth use, content, prices and even disclosure details on Internet speeds. The "neutrality" is brazenly undermined by preferential treatment toward wireless broadband networks. Moreover, the FCC's scheme is widely opposed by Congress -- and has already been rejected once in the courts. Demonized industry critics have warned that the regulations will stifle innovation and result in less access, not more.
Sound familiar? The parallels with health care are striking. The architects of Obamacare promised to provide Americans more access to health insurance -- and cast their agenda as a fundamental universal entitlement.
In fact, it was a pretext for creating a gargantuan federal bureaucracy with the power to tax, redistribute and regulate the private health insurance market to death -- and replace it with a centrally planned government system overseen by politically driven code enforcers dictating everything from annual coverage limits to administrative expenditures to the makeup of the medical workforce. The costly, onerous and selectively applied law has resulted in less access, not more.
Undaunted promoters of Obama FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's "open Internet" plan to expand regulatory authority over the Internet have couched their online power grab in the rhetoric of civil rights. On Monday, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps proclaimed: "Universal access to broadband needs to be seen as a civil right ... (though) not many people have talked about it that way." Opposing the government Internet takeover blueprint, in other words, is tantamount to supporting segregation. Cunning propaganda, that.
"Broadband is becoming a basic necessity," civil rights activist Benjamin Hooks added. And earlier this month, fellow FCC panelist Mignon Clyburn, daughter of Congressional Black Caucus leader and Number Three House Democrat James Clyburn of South Carolina, declared that free (read: taxpayer-subsidized) access to the Internet is not only a civil right for every "nappy-headed child" in America, but is essential to their self-esteem. Every minority child, she said, "deserves to be not only connected, but to be proud of who he or she is."
Calling them "nappy-headed" is a rather questionable way of boosting their pride, but never mind that.
Face it: A high-speed connection is no more an essential civil right than 3G cell phone service or a Netflix account. Increasing competition and restoring academic excellence in abysmal public schools is far more of an imperative to minority children than handing them iPads. Once again, Democrats are using children as human shields to provide useful cover for not so noble political goals.
The "net neutrality" mob -- funded by billionaire George Soros and other left-wing think tanks and nonprofits -- has openly advertised its radical, speech-squelching agenda in its crusade for "media justice." Social justice is the redistribution of wealth and economic "rights." Media justice is the redistribution of free speech and other First Amendment rights.
The meetings of the universal broadband set are littered with Marxist-tinged rants about "disenfranchisement" and "empowerment."
They've targeted conservative opponents on talk radio, cable TV and the Internet as purveyors of "hate" who need to be managed or censored. Democratic FCC panelists have dutifully echoed their concerns about concentration of corporate media power.
As the Ford Foundation-funded Media Justice Fund, which lobbied for universal broadband, put it: This is a movement "grounded in the belief that social and economic justice will not be realized without the equitable redistribution and control of media and communication technologies."
For progressives who cloak their ambitions in the mantle of "fairness," it's all about control. It's always about control.
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2010/12/22/internet_access_is_not_a_civil_right/page/full/
Posted in FCC Ideology Legal rights Michelle Malkin with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Dec 21
In this country, it is usually the criminals which seem to have far more rights than the average honest person. Criminals seem to have far too light sentences, too many chances and often are released either on minor technicalities or because of issues such as "overcrowding", deemed as such by liberal out of touch judges. Most of them are repeat offenders, terrorizing and victimizing the public unnecessarily, a situation that could be easily averted.
The victims of murder and their grieving families never get a second chance or justice. Meanwhile, these murderers can be on death row for 10 or more years with their cases take years to wend through the legal system replete with countless appeals and millions of tax dollars wastefully spent. This is money which could have been used far more productively elsewhere.
The Chinese and other countries seem to have far better solutions when it comes to dealing with criminals. We could adopt some of their solutions.
The following is an example of a simple, cheap and sensible solution:
Kidnapper: 'I have 3 demands or I'll kill the boy!'
Negotiators assess the situation from next door.
Head negotiator is dispatched to the scene
Negotiations begin
Negotiations concluded
Problem solved. Cost of bullets around $0.35 cents.
In our country, we would
- shut the street down for 48 hours,
- take 12 hours to talk him out of it,
- spend $5 million giving him a fair trial, and
- pay for his food and lodging for life.
(No wonder their products are cheaper than ours!)
Posted in Legal rights Liberal with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
21
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.
Then you get a pass.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/556935/201012151857/Holders-Dept-Of-Social-Justice.aspx
Posted in Arrogance Attorney General Eric Holder Constitution Corruption Far Left Ideology Incompetence Legal rights New Black Panther Party Progressives Racism with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Sep 20
Our present day circumstances quite closely parallel America in the pre-Revolutionary times. INterestingly, our present day government which ostensibly was elected to serve us may actually be more oppressive and the taxes more usurious compared to rule under King George.
The debate as framed by our media is the antithesis of what it was during the Revolutionary times. They actually act as an enemy of the American people and their rights and supporters of far-left repressive regimes.
Posted in Arrogance Government Control Ideology Legal rights Media - Far Left Political Cartoon Tea Parties with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments