Meet The Monster Responsible For The Giant Rise In Violence And Crime In America

Barack Obama is the monster who breathed life into the “Black Lives Matter (White Lives DON’T)” bowel movement.

Barack Obama has been demonizing and delegitimizing police departments his entire cancerous presidency.

We have a MASSIVE and SHOCKING surge in violent crime:

Sudden Spike in Violent Crime Across US Raises Alarm
By Melanie Batley   |    Thursday, 04 Jun 2015 12:28 PM

Major cities across the United States are seeing their crime rates skyrocket, sparking alarm about the causes, particularly given that there had been a two-decade drop in crime.

A city-by-city look shows:

• In Baltimore, shootings are up 82.5 percent, or nearly double from last year, the Baltimore Brew reported.
• In Chicago, there have been over 900 shootings this year, a 40 percent increase, and a 29 percent increase in homicides in the first three months of the year, USA Today reported.
• In New York City, murders have increased 20 percent and the mayor has already announced that he will put an additional 330 cops on the street by Monday in response to the spike in homicides and shootings.
• In Los Angeles, violent crime rates increased by more than 25 percent and the city is also deploying more officers to areas where crime is on the rise, The Los Angeles Times reported.

And according to Townhall.com:

• In St. Louis, there have been 55 murders this year
• In Dallas, violent crime is up 10 percent
• In Atlanta, homicides are up 32 percent
• In Milwaukee, homicides have increased by 180 percent

Some attribute the rise in crime to a “Ferguson” effect, or a rise in anti-police sentiment born out of the protests and clashes around the country that followed the deaths of unarmed black men at the hands of police, The Week reported.

A dynamic may have emerged in which criminals are more brazen and police are more cautious in fighting crime.

“There’s a war on cops. Not bad cops, not bad apples, but all cops and the police know it. The conduct of the suspects is never in question — they’re always right, it’s usually drawn on racial lines. It’s a complete, toxic formula to actually do police work,” said former Los Angeles Police Department Homicide Detective Mark Fuhrman, according to Townhall.com.

“The police are simply scaling back, exactly what everybody’s chanting for in all of these protests. ‘Don’t be so aggressive. Don’t stop and frisk. Don’t stop and ask where people are going. Don’t make traffic stops.’ So, they are,” Fuhrman said, and now crime’s skyrocketing.

Oh, that’s just some right-wing rag, Democrats who worship their Fuehrer say.  Okay, let’s try another one, then:

Murder Rates Rising Sharply in Many U.S. Cities
By MONICA DAVEY and MITCH SMITHAUG. 31, 2015
The New York Times

MILWAUKEE — Cities across the nation are seeing a startling rise in murders after years of declines, and few places have witnessed a shift as precipitous as this city. With the summer not yet over, 104 people have been killed this year — after 86 homicides in all of 2014.

More than 30 other cities have also reported increases in violence from a year ago. In New Orleans, 120 people had been killed by late August, compared with 98 during the same period a year earlier. In Baltimore, homicides had hit 215, up from 138 at the same point in 2014. In Washington, the toll was 105, compared with 73 people a year ago. And in St. Louis, 136 people had been killed this year, a 60 percent rise from the 85 murders the city had by the same time last year. […]

Well, but that’s just New York or it’s just regional, Democrats say.  Because Democrats are WRONG:

L.A. Has Bloody Weekend as Murders Soar in 2015
by William Bigelow30 Sep 2015528

19 people were shot last weekend in Los Angeles, and five were killed, as the city’s homicide rate continues to rise, despite a program instituted and championed by L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti to reduce crime in the city.

The Los Angeles Times reported that LAPD Chief Charlie Beck acknowledged that it had been a “very, very tough weekend” and that homicides had risen almost 11% in 2015. He added that gang-related crime was up roughly 15.6% from 2014.

Beck informed the weekly meeting of the Police Commission’s board that the majority of the shootings were triggered by gang violence.

Beck insisted that programs have been implemented to reduce violence: “This is not Dodge City. And unfortunately it looked a little too much like Dodge City this weekend.”

39 people were killed in Los Angeles in August, more than any month in six years.

Now, we can also consider Proposition 47 – the morally idiotic law passed entirely by stupid, evil Democrats to basically let criminals run out of our prisons and go hog-wild on our streets.  Democrats sowed the wind for us and now we get to all reap the whirlwind of their moral idiocy.  But Prop 47 isn’t to blame for everywhere else:

The nation’s two-decades-long crime decline may be over. Gun violence in particular is spiraling upward in cities across America. In Baltimore, the most pressing question every morning is how many people were shot the previous night. Gun violence is up more than 60% compared with this time last year, according to Baltimore police, with 32 shootings over Memorial Day weekend. May has been the most violent month the city has seen in 15 years.

In Milwaukee, homicides were up 180% by May 17 over the same period the previous year. Through April, shootings in St. Louis were up 39%, robberies 43%, and homicides 25%. “Crime is the worst I’ve ever seen it,” said St. Louis Alderman Joe Vacarro at a May 7 City Hall hearing.

Murders in Atlanta were up 32% as of mid-May. Shootings in Chicago had increased 24% and homicides 17%. Shootings and other violent felonies in Los Angeles had spiked by 25%; in New York, murder was up nearly 13%, and gun violence 7%.

Those citywide statistics from law-enforcement officials mask even more startling neighborhood-level increases. Shooting incidents are up 500% in an East Harlem precinct compared with last year; in a South Central Los Angeles police division, shooting victims are up 100%.

America is suffering an explosion of Democrat Party- and Obama-viciousness.

Now I would like to show you HOW Obama has created this surge in violence in an article that appeared today in the Los Angeles Times under the print headline “A ‘hammer’ for policing the police” and with the subtitle “Under Obama, the Justice Department veered from memos about abuse and headed for court“:

In the previous four years under President George W. Bush, the Justice Department had stopped taking police departments to court over allegations of misconduct or violations of civil rights. But Thomas Perez, a liberal former Justice Department lawyer, had just been nominated to take over the civil rights division by President Obama, and he was determined to play hardball with rogue cops and departments.

In the nearly seven years since Obama came to office, his Justice Department has investigated 21 police departments — big departments, including New Orleans and Detroit, and small ones, such as East Haven and Ferguson, Mo.

But rather than reach informal agreements to correct misconduct, as the Bush administration often preferred, most of the cases under Obama ended up in court, either in settlements approved and monitored by a judge, or, in a few examples, with lawsuits filed by the federal government against police departments and officers.

“Under Bush, the Department of Justice took the view that they could not force, or did not want to force, police departments into court,” said Stephen Rushin, a professor at the University of Alabama Law School and an expert on federal enforcement of police reform. “Under the Obama administration, they take the view that if a city isn’t willing to play ball, that the DOJ will go to court and force that city to comply.”

The department’s civil rights division has relied heavily on a 20-year-old enforcement law, passed in the wake of the 1991 Rodney King beating in Los Angeles, using it as a legal “hammer” to pressure police departments into signing court-enforced settlement agreements and do extensive monitoring to measure their progress, said Joshua Chanin, a professor at San Diego State University. “The Obama administration is using it more actively than past presidents have,” he said.

Many on the left applaud the new, tougher approach, saying it has sent a strong message to local law enforcement agencies that misconduct, abuse and overzealous or racist behavior will not be tolerated.

But others question whether the department, with only about 18 lawyers to oversee roughly 16,000 police departments, is making a dent in the problem.

The Obama administration is also facing a backlash over its tactics. Heather Mac Donald, author and fellow at the Manhattan Institute, said the Justice Department has effectively “declared open season” on police departments.

Obama declared “open-season” on police departments.  And he did it in the most underhanded, snotty way imaginable.

After detailing examples of how the Obama Justice Department just came in and demonized and slandered good police and good policing, one official said this:

“The Department of Justice is engaging community after community in what seems like an oppressive bargaining process where you know they are going to sue and get you [into a] very, very, costly back-and-forth from which you will certainly lose,” said Ron Hosko, a former assistant FBI director and president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, which provides legal support to police accused of misconduct.

It’s called “the jackbooted-fascist-THUG” approach.  And Obama has used it over and over again to impose his dictatorship.

It comes down to this little factoid: Bush brought crime DOWN.  Obama has caused crime to SKYROCKET.  Somebody has MASSIVELY screwed up the engines of society.

The Director of the FBI had this to say just a couple of days ago:

F.B.I. Chief Links Scrutiny of Police With Rise in Violent Crime
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and MATT APUZZOOCT. 23, 2015

CHICAGO — The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said on Friday that the additional scrutiny and criticism of police officers in the wake of highly publicized episodes of police brutality may have led to an increase in violent crime in some cities as officers have become less aggressive.

With his remarks, Mr. Comey lent the prestige of the F.B.I., the nation’s most prominent law enforcement agency, to a theory that is far from settled: that the increased attention on the police has made officers less aggressive and emboldened criminals. But he acknowledged that there is so far no data to back up his assertion and that it may be just one of many factors that are contributing to the rise in crime, like cheaper drugs and an increase in criminals who are being released from prison.

“I don’t know whether that explains it entirely, but I do have a strong sense that some part of the explanation is a chill wind that has blown through American law enforcement over the last year,” Mr. Comey said in a speech at the University of Chicago Law School.

Mr. Comey’s remarks caught officials by surprise at the Justice Department, where his views are not shared at the top levels. Holding the police accountable for civil rights violations has been a top priority at the department in recent years, and some senior officials do not believe that scrutiny of police officers has led to an increase in crime. While the department had no immediate comment on Friday, several officials privately fumed at Mr. Comey’s suggestion.

You know, the same officials who privately cheered when their incredibly cynical “Justice” Department managed to decide not to prosecute Lois Lerner or ANY IRS official for clearly targeting conservative groups as Obama weaponized the IRS into his own “Internal Revenge Service.”  It doesn’t matter whether the woman scrubbed her emails, it doesn’t matter that the emails we were able to find showed a CLEAR rabid bias – such as when she literally called conservatives “terrorists” and “crazies” and “a**holes” – Obama said his IRS was pure as the driven snow, and pure as the driven snow his Justice Department therefore claimed Obama’s IRS was.

The Black Lives Matter bowel movement came right out of the toxic, wicked soul of Barack Obama.  It was born because all of Obama’s slanderous Communist show-trial investigations kept publicly delegitimizing police and undermining trust in law enforcement.  In short, Obama provided the Black Lives Matter movement everything they needed to demonize the police.

And it is therefore because of Obama that we have Democrats chanting:

“WHAT DO WE WANT?” “DEAD COPS!” “WHEN DO WE WANT IT?” “NOW!!!”

I want you to understand, the same Al Sharpton who organized that march and is responsible for that chant is Obama’s point-thug for race-pimping.

And:

PIGS IN A BLANKET, FRY ‘EM LIKE BACON!

Allen West summed it up well: “Black Lies Matter.”  Police officers have literally repeatedly been ASSASSINATED across America as a result of these wicked Obama lies.

Police have been intimidated by Obama and his lawsuits and his armies of demon-possessed thug-mobs out of doing their jobs.  And society is suffering as a result.

You’ve got to ask the question: what do Obama and his liberal roach army want?  I mean, why would they be de-legitimizing the police at every single turn across the nation?  And the answer is actually quite simple (and quite terrifying): because liberals worship mega-government; they worship totalitarianism.  What they want – and what they will keep agitating for as they exploit the liberal maxim, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste” – is a Soviet Union-style “People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs.”

In short, what the left wants is a true nakedly politicized “law enforcement agency” that will essentially be the Obama (and then the Clinton, and so on ad nauseam) Police Force.  They want to do to our police what they’ve already pulled off with the IRS.  No Christian, no conservative, need ever run for any office again when Democrats get their way, because there will inevitably be an “investigation” that will surely find that Christian or that conservative guilty.

It won’t ever find a Hillary Clinton guilty, even though she’s about fifty-thousand times more guilty of the crime they destroyed our greatest war hero over.

You want another current example of what I’m talking about?  I just recently threw up over this one:

L.A. leaders struggle with disruptive ‘Black Lives Matter’ protests
Kate Mather, Peter Jamison and Angel Jennings
October 20, 2015, 8:36 PM

Today, the big crowds have faded. But a cadre of activists under the Black Lives Matter banner have kept the movement alive in the city with smaller but decidedly aggressive protests targeting top L.A. police officials and the mayor.

The disruptive tactics pose a political challenge for city leaders who are still struggling to effectively engage the activists about issues that have prompted heated debate across the country.

Protesters have camped outside police headquarters and regularly disrupted the city Police Commission’s weekly meetings, turning normally dry public hearings into hours-long confrontations that frequently devolve into officers clearing demonstrators from the room.

The group has also set its sights on Mayor Eric Garcetti. A summer protest outside his Windsor Square home turned into an embarrassing episode, captured on video and spread on the Internet, when he left through a back gate for a trip to Washington, D.C.

On Monday, about 50 of the group’s supporters confronted the mayor at a town hall meeting in South Los Angeles, forcing Garcetti to make a hasty retreat to his car, surrounded by police and shouting audience members.

[… WARNING: VOMIT ALERT.  HERE IT COMES …]

After Monday’s clash, city leaders took great pains to support the rights of the protesters and the thrust of their message.

Garcetti, speaking to reporters Tuesday morning, pointedly declined to criticize the protesters’ conduct the night before.

“As mayor, that’s part of the job. Sometimes people scream. Sometimes people shout,” he said. “Any person who talks about their frustrations … you know, those are real problems with jobs, with housing, with policing. But I just keep doing the work.”

Imagine instead of “Black Lives Matter” the group that shut down city hall was called “Aryan Brotherhood.”  The same city leadership that did NOTHING and REFUSED TO EVEN CRITICIZE the mob would have ordered the police to use the most vicious attics in the arsenal to put down the demonstration.

How many white organizations have had the mayor of the city they were rioting in say, “We gave them space to destroy?”

Or take Obama’s refusal to do ANYTHING to enforce our illegal immigration LAWS or do anything to enforce cities whose “sanctuary” policies flout those laws?  Just take a moment to ponder how Obama would be dealing with this issue if three-quarters of Hispanics voted REPUBLICAN.  He would use every jackbooted tactic in his book to break them, crush them, destroy them.

This is the most blatantly politicized and ideologized “Justice” the world has ever seen outside a communist dictatorship.   Which is precise what Obama is trying to achieve.

Bottom line, in Obama’s “AmeriKKKa” Obama ripped off the blindfold of Lady Justice and all his new version of “JustiSS” sees race and political ideology such that he WILL use his lawthugs to attack ANY group or ANY organization that doesn’t see the world the way Obama wants the world to be seen.

It’s a rather massive act of blindness that neither Obama nor his Black Lives Matter mob give one flying DAMN about the fact that more than 93% of black people are murdered by other black people.  Obama cynically and brutally exploits every death at every opportunity to demonize the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution and the fundamental right to ear arms that it enshrines.  He doesn’t give one flying DAMN that black thugs are using guns to murder other black people because he is a truly wicked man who can cynically demagogue the violence as he uses it to advance his true target of seizing guns from law-abiding WHITE people.  THAT’S the goal, THAT’S the agenda.

So basically, what I described above is a Hitler-style Führer-thug who like a parasite sucks up all the blood his policies have generated and uses that blood to nourish even MORE wicked policies.

 

Obama Thug ‘Justice Department’ COLLABORATED With Lois Lerner To Target And Attack Conservative Groups

This is just downright sinister.  Not that Obama or Eric Holder will do anything about it (other than continue to exploit the system to protect themselves as they also continue to reward their friends and punish their enemies).

We have it documented that this scandal goes DIRECTLY to the White House.  We know that “the Chief Counsel’s office of the IRS, headed by Obama appointee William Wilkins, was instrumental in the agency’s campaign of harassment and discrimination against conservative and certain pro-Israel groups.”

We know that Obama has already pronounced that the investigation – which was ostensibly still going on – was over and that as long as he was president there was no possibility that “a smidgeon of corruption” would ever be allowed to be discovered.

For the longest time, the “authorities” refused to even bother to INTERVIEW the victims in the IRS targeting case.  And sure enough, they closed the case having basically refused to interview any of the victims.  Pretty neat trick, isn’t it?

How can you trust Obama to investigate Obama?  You blindly trust his law thug, Eric Holder who runs the Department of Justice, of course.

And now we’ve got something even more explosive: the Obama IRS and the Obama Justice Department actually COLLABORATED to attack groups based on their political ideology:

BREAKING: New Emails Show Lois Lerner Was in Contact With DOJ About Prosecuting Tax Exempt Groups
Katie Pavlich | Apr 16, 2014

According to new IRS emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from Judicial Watch, former head of tax exempt groups at the IRS Lois Lerner was in contact with the Department of Justice in May 2013 about whether tax exempt groups could be criminally prosecuted for “lying” about political activity.

“I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s –saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS,” Lerner wrote in a May 8, 2013 email to former Nikole C. Flax, who was former-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller’s chief of staff.

“I think we should do it – also need to include CI [Criminal Investigation Division], which we can help coordinate. Also, we need to reach out to FEC. Does it make sense to consider including them in this or keep it separate?” Flax responded on May 9, 2013.

After this email exchange, Lerner handed things off to Senior Technical Adviser and Attorney Nancy Marks, who was in charge of setting up a meeting with DOJ.

Just a few short days later on May 10, 2013, Lerner admitted and apologized for the inappropriate targeting of conservative tea party groups during an American Bar Association Conference after answering a planted question. Further according to Judicial Watch, “In an email to an aide responding to a request for information from a Washington Post reporter, Lerner admits that she “can’t confirm that there was anyone on the other side of the political spectrum” who had been targeted by the IRS. She then adds that “The one with the names used were only know [sic] because they have been very loud in the press.”

In other words, only conservative groups were being looked at for criminal prosecution.

Last week news broke that Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings’ staff was in contact with Lerner about the conservative group True the Vote, despite denying any contact occurred. In this specific instance of Lerner discussing possible criminal prosecution of tax-exempt groups through DOJ, Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse seems to have been the person to get the ball rolling.

On April 9, 2013 during a Senate Judiciary Hearing, just one month before the targeting scandal broke, Whitehouse asked witnesses from DOJ and the IRS why groups that had possibly “made false statements” about their political activities had not been prosecuted. On March 27, 2013, just days before the hearing took place, Lerner described the purpose for the hearing to IRS staff in an email.

“As I mentioned yesterday — there are several groups of folks from the FEC world that are pushing tax fraud prosecution for c4s who report they are not conducting political activity when they are (or these folks think they are). One is my ex-boss Larry Noble (former General Counsel at the FEC), who is now president of Americans for Campaign Reform. This is their latest push to shut these down. One IRS prosecution would make an impact and they wouldn’t feel so comfortable doing the stuff,” she wrote. “So, don’t be fooled about how this is being articulated – it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.”

Lerner later acknowledged pursuing prosecutions of these groups would not fit well with the law.

“These new emails show that the day before she broke the news of the IRS scandal, Lois Lerner was talking to a top Obama Justice Department official about whether the DOJ could prosecute the very same organizations that the IRS had already improperly targeted,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The IRS emails show Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is now implicated and conflicted in the IRS scandal. No wonder we had to sue in federal court to get these documents.”

This post has been updated.

Justice and the IRS collaborating to go after Obama’s enemies.  That’s what we’ve got here.

We have it on record from Lois Lerner herself that this wasn’t about “the law” and that Obama’s thugs were basically hell-bent on just doing whatever they had to do to punish who they wanted to punish.  In Lois Lerner’s own words:

Emails show that Lerner had previously concluded that the feds were unlikely to be able to prosecute the non-profit groups.

“Whether there was a false statement or fraud regarding an [sic] description of an alleged political expenditure that doesn’t say vote for or vote against is not realistic under current law,” she wrote on March 27, 2013. “Everyone is looking for a magic bullet or scapegoat — there isn’t one. The law in this area is just hard.”

So none of this was about “the law.”  This was IN SPITE of “the law.”

If you have any doubt of that, Lois Lerner BROKE the law.  She provided confidential tax information to a third party group.  There is no question but that SHE did that.  She belongs in prison – and if it wasn’t for the fact that THE most corrupt and dishonest president in history and THE most corrupt and dishonest AG in history are obstructing justice, she would BE in prison.

We’ve also got IRS employees all over the place nailed like bugs to the wall for violating the Hatch Act.  That’s just another cold, hard fact.

“Not a smidgeon of corruption” Obama’s skinny, weak, pathetic little ass.  Barack Obama is already worse than Nixon EVER was or ever would have been if honest Republicans hadn’t forced him to resign or be prosecuted.

It’s like ObamaCare.  If the law doesn’t work out the way liberals like, they will just ignore it, or illegally change it, or abrogate it, or waive the parts they don’t like while enforcing the parts they just invented, and so on and so forth.

This targeting campaign has been way beyond “Stalinist.”  Stalin didn’t have the modern tools that Obama has.  It is Orwellian:

“We now know that the IRS targeted not only right-leaning applicants, but also right-leaning groups that were already operating as 501(c)(4)s,” Mr. Camp said in a statement. “At Washington, DC’s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501(c)(4)s were flagged for IRS surveillance, including monitoring of the groups’ activities, websites and any other publicly available information. Of these groups, 83% were right-leaning. And of the groups the IRS selected for audit, 100% were right-leaning.”

We now KNOW that NO liberal groups were targeted and that ONLY conservative groups were targeted.  This is a naked fact revealed by the Treasury Department’s own Inpsector General:

Liberal groups seeking tax-exempt status faced less IRS scrutiny than Tea Party groups, according to the Treasury Department’s inspector general.

J. Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, told Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) in a letter dated Wednesday that the IRS did not use inappropriate criteria to scrutinize groups with “progressives” in their name seeking tax-exempt status.

“Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the ‘progressives’ identifier as selection criteria for potential political cases between May 2010 and May 2012,” George wrote in the letter obtained by The Hill.

The inspector general stressed that 100 percent of the groups with “Tea Party,” “patriots” and “9/12” in their name were flagged for extra attention, while only 30 percent of the groups with “progress” or “progressive” were highlighted as potentially political. George’s letter does not say why the progressive groups were given extra scrutiny.

“While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of Tea Party and other related criteria we described in our report, including employee interviews, e-mails and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that ‘progressives’ was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention,” George wrote to Levin, the top Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

So the Justice Department – let’s face it, the INjustice Department – and the IRS were going after groups that turned their messiah’s smile into a frown and nobody else.  It was a  naked totalitarian fascist campaign by Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Barack Hussein.

Democrats (pronounced  as “Nazis”) who say anything ELSE are liars, LIARS, LIARS:

REMEMBER: When Democrats say some variation of “liberal groups were targeted too” by the IRS – They’re lying.

The IRS Conservative Targeting Scandal involved:

• Hundreds of conservative groups were targeted
• At least 5 pro-Israel groups
• Constitutional groups
• Groups that criticized Obama administration
• At least two pro-life groups
• An 83 year-old Nazi concentration camp survivor
• A 180 year-old Baptist paper
• A Texas voting-rights group
• A Hollywood conservative group was targeted and harassed
• Conservative activists and businesses
• At least one conservative Hispanic group
• IRS continued to target groups even after the scandal was exposed
• And… 100% of the 501(c)(4) Groups Audited by IRS Were Conservative

There is NO EVIDENCE that a single liberal group was given the same scrutiny as conservative groups.

In fact liberal and Progressive groups were fast-tracked through the system.
Eliana Johnson reported at National Review last year:

Acting IRS commissioner Danny Werfel on Monday told reporters that the now-infamous “Be On The Lookout” list was far broader than was originally disclosed in the Treasury Department inspector general’s report. Reports from outlets including the Associated Press, which I cited in my original report, and now Bloomberg News, confirmed Werfel’s account, indicating that various versions of the list not only included terms like “tea party,” but also “progressive,” “Occupy,” and “Israel.”

A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off IRS higher-ups for further scrutiny.

That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not.

And, then there’s this… Even the far left website Raw Story admitted that progressive groups did not face the same scrutiny as conservative groups.

An IRS letter (PDF) published by Progress Texas online Thursday showed the liberal group was given 22 days to respond to a list of 21 questions. Some of the questions included up to nine sub-questions.

The questions resembled the list of 35 questions (PDF) sent to the Liberty Township Tea Party, which has complained of IRS harassment.

Though the line of questioning was generally the same, there were some key differences between the lists of questions.

The Liberty Township Tea Party was asked to provide copies of all its activity on Facebook and Twitter, while the Progress Texas was not. The Liberty Township Tea Party was asked for more specific information about the employment background of its officials, including copies of resumes, while Progress Texas was asked for more general information. The tea party group was also asked whether any of its officials had served on the board of another organization or planned to run for office.

Remember this when you hear some far left commentator claim the IRS targeted liberal groups, too.

We either need to install a rabid Republican president who will appoint a thug to put every Democrat in America in prison or we need to get to the bottom of this while we still have at least a few shreds of a constitutional republic left after Obama has very nearly completely destroyed America from within the system.

If this doesn’t prove beyond the wildest shred of doubt that this nation needs a special prosecutor who is independent of Obama and his law thug Holder, let’s just wipe our collective anuses with the Constitution and flush it down the toilet.

We’re living in the last days and America is NOT in Bible prophecy.  The Bible called it 2,000 years ago: the beast is coming.  He will be the ULTIMATE big government liberal who will take over the entire global economy such that “no man may buy or sell” without his mark on them.

Get ready to either vote Republican or to burn in hell.  Because that’s basically your alternatives.

Obama And Holder Again Attacking Jesus Christ And Any Young People Who Might Believe In Him (Worship The State Instead, Kids!)

Poor troubled kids have a problem according to Barack Obama and Eric Holder.  They are worshiping the wrong god.

Here’s how Obama wants these kids to act:

But, sadly, troubled kids in Louisiana who would otherwise turn to crime are being taught to consider the God of the Bible.  Which means Obama and his lawthug Holder must persecute them:

Louisiana Young Marines Program Loses Federal Funding Over ‘Religious Activities’
July 2, 2013 |  Filed under: Law & Government,Life & Society,Top Stories |  By: Garrett Haley

BOSSIER CITY, Lou. – The sheriff of a Louisiana parish is stunned after Department of Justice funds were cut from a local Young Marines chapter, simply because some of the organization’s activities were deemed to be “religious.”

According to reports, the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement (LCLE) stripped $30,000 in allotted DOJ funding from the Bossier Parish’s Young Marines unit, which is a character-building program designed to encourage healthy lifestyles for members. An official for the DOJ told reporters that the cuts were due to voluntary student-led prayers and a mention of “church” in a Young Marine oath.

“[DOJ regulations prohibit] funding on inherently religious activities, such as prayer, religious instruction and proselytization,” he told columnist Todd Starnes. “And any religious activities must be kept separate in time or location from DOJ-funded activities.”

Julian Whittington, sheriff of Bossier Parish and a coordinator of the Young Marines program, is thoroughly disgusted by the DOJ and LCLE’s decision, saying it was “aggression and infringement of our religious freedoms.” After the funds were cut, DOJ officials told Whittington he would have to write a letter, promising not to pray or use the word “God” in Young Marines meetings, or else the money would never be restored.

“I flat said, ‘It’s not going to happen,’” he told reporters. “Enough is enough. This is the United States of America—and the idea that the mere mention of God or voluntary prayer is prohibited is ridiculous.”

Whittington further emphasized that he’s more concerned about the censorship than he is the lost funds.

“The money is not the issue,” he stated. “It’s the principle of the matter. What is going on here? Who is dictating what can or can’t be said in Bossier Parish?”

For over ten years, the Bossier sheriff’s office has facilitated the local Young Marines program, graduating over 1,000 participants since the chapter’s inception. According to the Young Marines’ national website, the organization “promotes the mental, moral, and physical development of its members,” and also “focuses on character building, leadership, and promotes a healthy, drug-free lifestyle.”

Participants in the Young Marines program are asked to recite the following oath:

“From this day forward, I sincerely promise, I will set an example for all other youth to follow and I shall never do anything that would bring disgrace or dishonor upon God, my country and its flag, my parents, myself or the Young Marines. These I will honor and respect in a manner that will reflect credit upon them and myself. Semper Fidelis.”

Government officials took issue with the first sentence’s mention of God, saying any federally-funded institution should not include religious overtones. However, Starnes recently pointed out that both the U.S. military’s commissioning oath and enlistment oath include the phrase, “So help me God.” And Whittington further asserted the inconsistency of the decision when he mentioned to local TV station KTBS that both the Pledge of Allegiance and the dollar bill include references to God.

Despite the funding controversy, Bossier Parrish’s Young Marines unit appears to be going strong, receiving an outpouring of financial support in response to the ordeal, according to the Shreveport Times. Just last week, another 15 young people were graduated from the program. At the ceremony, Whittington stated that the DOJ had overstepped its rightful authority.

“It’s more about the principle of the issue that Department of Justice can come down here in Bossier City, in our building and tell us what these young people just recited—a voluntary prayer,” he explained to reporters. “We don’t believe that’s offensive. We’ve never had a complaint, and we’re going to keep it in our program as long as we’re doing it here at the Bossier Sheriff’s Office.”

Photo: Bossier Sheriff’s Office

Under the “fundamental transformation” of Obama’s God damn America, it’s a crime to worship Jesus.  Unless you worship “Black Jesus” Obama.

In Obama’s God Damn America, America now teaches Palestinian kids that “Jews are wolves.”  Because Judeo-Christianity doesn’t worship Obama.

In Obama’s God Damn America, the Bible (which condemns homosexuality as an “abomination” [Leviticus 18] that will result in the full wrath of God on any culture that embraces it [Romans 1]) is out and homosexual perversion is in.

Barack Obama Needs To Resign NOW: U.S. Government Gunwalking Scandal Blowing Sky High

This scandal makes Watergate and Iran-Contra look like nothing.  Innocent Americans are DEAD because of this scandal.  A great many Mexican civilians are DEAD because of this scandal, including the tortured and murdered brother of a Mexican state attorney general.

And the end to American deaths from this Obama administration scandal is nowhere near at an end.  Guns from this incredibly stupid program are turning up in U.S. cities.  They are being found in the hands of murderous Mexican gangs operating in the U.S.

This is a DEADLY serious matter.  People need to go to jail.  People need to be impeached.  Gory severed human heads of U.S. government officials need to be put on pikes as a reminder to anyone else who would try something this utterly stupid.

And Obama has been basically acting like, “How DARE you question your god?”  Because at this point it’s becoming readily apparent he’s got some kind of Goa‘uld snake-thingy controlling him.

The [Obama] Justice Department blocked senior ATF leaders from cooperating with Congress in its investigation of the “Fast and Furious” weapons operation, ordering them not to respond to questions and taking full control of replying to briefing and document requests, the agency’s top boss told congressional investigators.

More accurately and specifically:

The Obama Administration has denied, obfuscated and is refusing to cooperate with the Congressional inquiry into the Project Gunrunner/Operation Fast and Furious scandal where the US Government facilitated the sale of over 2,500 firearms and ‘countless hundreds of thousands of rounds of rounds of ammunition’ to Mexican narcotics cartels.

Here’s the result:  Republican House Committee Chairman Darrell Issa asked the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives [ATF], “Who authorized this program that was so felony stupid it got people killed?”:

Chairman Issa started off the interrogation of Weich by holding up one of the pages that the ATF had provided his committee. It was completely blackened, one of hundreds that had been totally redacted by the agency. Issa told Weich that this was unacceptable and that he was tired of the lack of cooperation at the Department of Justice.

Issa also caught Weich in a lie by pointing to a letter in which he denied any knowledge of Fast and Furious, when we now know that Weich did know about the program

I don’t know what they call that on your planet, but where I come from they call this “stonewalling.”  We also use terms like “cover-up.”  It’s bad here.  We’ve actually impeached people for pulling crap like this.

When Mexico found out about this operation of lethal weapons coming into their country, they asked the Obama administration about it.  And the administration denied that there was any such operation:

[Mexican deputy assistant attorney general Jorge Alberto Lara Rivera] “Lara said Friday that as soon as Mexico heard of reports regarding operation Fast and Furious, U.S. officials contacted their counterparts in Phoenix to ask them about it and that they denied that the operation included the movement of weapons.”

It’s time to impeach Barack Obama.  He is a fool, a failure and a fraud.  That’s the only way we’re going to be able to spray the big giant can of Raid into the cockroach nest Obama has planted in the Department of Justice.

Let’s go back to the Obama administration demonizing America for trafficking guns to Mexico:

EXCLUSIVE: You’ve heard this shocking “fact” before — on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

– Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it to reporters on a flight to Mexico City.

– CBS newsman Bob Schieffer referred to it while interviewing President Obama.

– California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a Senate hearing: “It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors … come from the United States.”

I pointed out in the article in which I cited the immediately preceding that Obama and his top officials shared a common agenda to abolish our 2nd Amendment rights and were actively trying to undermine our right to bear arms.

And now we find out that WHILE THEY WERE DEMONIZING GUN DEALERS FOR TRAFFICKING GUNS TO MEXICO THEY WERE THE VERY ONES WHO WERE ACTUALLY TRAFFICKING GUNS TO MEXICO.

Communist revolutionaries and Islamic terrorists share a common feature with the “Chicago Thug” Obama administration: what they do is attack the very institution that they intend to replace in order to undermine confidence in it and thus seize absolute power as the people lose confidence in their institutions.

They create a crisis, and then use that crisis to get what they want.  Or as former Obama chief of staff Emanuel put it, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.”  Particularly when your the one who started it in the first place.

Send thousands of guns illegally to Mexico, and then crack down on American gun rights because, My God, THERE ARE U.S. GUNS IN MEXICO!!!

That’s what this rat bastard sonofabitch Obama did, and he needs to seriously burn for it.

So far, the only one Obama has gone after is the righteous ATF agent who blew the whistle on this demonic program.

Obama has denied any knowledge, as has his attorney general, as has his Homeland Security Director.

But somehow this MASSIVE operation that was going on without ANYBODY knowing about it included the FBI and the DEA as well as the ATF and the Justice Department.  Sssshhhh, it’s a secret!

Reporting from Washington—The embattled head of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has told congressional investigators that the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration kept his agency “in the dark” about their dealings with Mexican drug cartel figures linked to a controversial gun-trafficking investigation.Kenneth Melson, the ATF’s acting director, has been under pressure to resign over the agency’s handling of the gun-trafficking operation, known as Fast and Furious. But in two days of meetings with investigators, Melson disclosed that other law enforcement agencies had a connection to the operation. His statements sharply ratcheted up the affair, and strongly suggested that House and Senate investigations, as well as an internal review by
the Justice Department, will widen.

“Our investigation has clearly expanded,” one source close to the investigation said Wednesday. “We know now it was not something limited to just a small group of ATF agents in Arizona.”

The only possible reason NOT to believe that some senior White House figure – who would necessarily have been briefing the president – did not know about this is because THIS administration is actually incompetent and irresponsible and stupid and naive enough to be so utterly and completely clueless as to what was obviously going on all around them.

And, I mean, how was the Obama Department of “Justice” supposed to know about anything when they were actually far too busy looking at child porn at work instead of doing their jobs???

And guess what?  It’s not blatant enough yet, because it’s ACTUALLY EVEN MORE BLATANT THAN THAT: we’re finding out now that there was a SIMILAR federal gunwalking operation going on in Tampa (that’s more than 2,000 miles apart from Phoenix, fwiw). This one was sending guns to criminals in Honduras.

But noooooooobody was directing this fiasco.  It all just happened.  It was just like a couple of chemicals evolving into Albert Einstein, or, you know, a thousand monkeys randomly typing until they’d written the complete works of Shakespeare including all the thees and the thous.

I look around at America with the same appalled outrage of jailed journalist Stephan Laurent who looked at Nazi Germany:

“I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing. Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

One day people are going to wake up and see the ruins of their once-great nation, and wonder what the hell happened.  And I write this blog to keep a record of the hell that is Barack Hussein Obama and his demonic cockroach minions.

Barack Obama is destroying this country gigantic chunks of meat at a time, like some kind of ruthless socialist tyrannosaurus attacking a listless brontosaurus.  And most Americans are completely ignorant and apathetic about it.

Obama REPEATEDLY IGNORED GENERALS As He Pursued His Political Policy Of First Surge Then Cut-And-Run In Afghanistan

Is Obama succeeding in Afghanistan?  Consider this little factoid: There are 280 provinces in Afghanistan; AND ONLY 29 OF THEM ARE UNDER U.S. OR AFGHAN CONTROL!!!

That’s what I call “failure.”  Obama is a failed president on every single front, both domestically and internationally.  More on that below.

What we have immediately below is documented proof that not only did Barack Hussein ignore his generals’ (and even both the senior Pentagon and Justice Department lawyers!!!) regarding military policy and strategy, but he that HE LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE about it.

At what point do we demand the impeachment of this lying, corrupt dishonest fraud???

General Reveals that Obama Ignored Military’s Advice on Afghanistan
5:21 PM, Jun 28, 2011 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES

Lieutenant General John Allen told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that the Afghanistan decision President Obama announced last week was not among the range of options the military provided to the commander in chief. Allen’s testimony directly contradicts claims from senior Obama administration officials from a background briefing before the president’s announcement.

In response to questioning from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Allen testified that Obama’s decision on the pace and size of Afghanistan withdrawals was “a more aggressive option than that which was presented.”

Graham pressed him. “My question is: Was that a option?”

Allen: “It was not.”

Allen’s claim, which came under oath, contradicts the line the White House had been providing reporters over the past week—that Obama simply chose one option among several presented by General David Petraeus. In a conference call last Wednesday, June 22, a reporter asked senior Obama administration officials about those options. “Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president?”

The senior administration official twice claimed that the Obama decision was within the range of options the military presented to Obama. “In terms of General Petraeus, I think that, consistent with our approach to this, General Petraeus presented the president with a range of options for pursuing this drawdown. There were certainly options that went beyond what the president settled on in terms of the length of time that it would take to recover the surge and the pace that troops would come out – so there were options that would have kept troops in Afghanistan longer at a higher number. That said, the president’s decision was fully within the range of options that were presented to him and he has the full support of his national security team.”

The official later came back to the question and reiterated his claim. “So to your first question I would certainly – I would certainly characterize it that way. There were a range. Some of those options would not have removed troops as fast as the president chose to do, but the president’s decision was fully in the range of options the president considered.”

(The full transcript of the exchange is below; the full transcript of the call is at the link.)

So the new top commander in Afghanistan says Obama went outside the military’s range of options to devise his policy, and the White House says the president’s policy was within that range of options. Who is right?

We know that Petraeus and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have both testified that the administration’s decision was “more aggressive” than their preferred option. And there has been considerable grumbling privately from senior military leaders about the policy. Among their greatest concerns: the White House’s insistence that the 2012 drawdown of the remaining 23,000 surge troops be completed by September. That means that drawdown will have to begin in late spring or early summer—a timeline for which there exists no serious military rationale. Afghanistan’s “fighting season” typically lasts from April through November. (Last year, it continued into December because of warmer than usual temperatures.) So if the White House were to go forward with its policy as presented, the largest contingent of surge troops would be withdrawn during the heart of next year’s fighting season.

Would Petraeus have made such a recommendation? No. He wants to win the war. When he was pressed last week to explain the peculiar timeframe, Petraeus said that it wasn’t military considerations that produced such a timeline but “risks having to do with other considerations.”

Which ones? Petraeus declined to say. But in a happy coincidence for the White house, the troops will be home in time for the presidential debates of 2012 and the November election.

Q    Hi, everyone.  Thanks for doing the call.  I’ve got a couple, but I’ll be quick.  Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president?  And as a follow-up, did Gates, Panetta and Clinton all endorse it?  Finally, will the president say about how many troops will remain past 2014?  And of the 33,000 coming home by next summer, how many are coming home and how many are going to be reassigned somewhere else?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Okay, I’ll take part of that.  In terms of General Petraeus, I think that, consistent with our approach to this, General Petraeus presented the president with a range of options for pursuing this drawdown.  There were certainly options that went beyond what the President settled on in terms of the length of time that it would take to recover the surge and the pace that troops would come out — so there were options that would have kept troops in Afghanistan longer at a higher number.

That said, the president’s decision was fully within the range of options that were presented to him and has the full support of his national security team. I think there’s a broad understanding among the national security team that there’s an imperative to both consolidate the gains that have been made and continue our efforts to train Afghan security forces and partner with them in going after the Taliban, while also being very serious about the process of transition and the drawdown of our forces.

So, to your first question, I would certainly — I would characterize it that way. There were a range.  Some of those options would not have removed troops as fast as the President chose to do, but the president’s decision was fully in the range of options the president considered.

There is no question which side is lying and which side is telling the truth.  BARACK OBAMA IS A LIAR AND A FOOL.

Let’s go back and contemplate how cynical and dishonest the Obama administration has been all along in its political game plan played with the lives of American servicemen:

Charles Krauthammer pointed out the sheer cynical depravity of Barack Obama and the  Democrat Party as regards Iraq and Afghanistan by pointing to what  the Democrats themselves said:

Bob Shrum, who was a high  political operative who worked on the Kerry campaign in ’04, wrote a very interesting article in December of last year in which he talked  about that campaign, and he said, at the time, the Democrats  raised the issue of Afghanistan — and they made it into “the right war”  and “the good war” as a way to attack Bush on Iraq.  In  retrospect, he writes, that it was, perhaps, he said, misleading.  Certainly it was not very wise.

What he really meant to say — or at least I would interpret it — it  was utterly cynical. In other words, he’s confessing, in a  way, that the Democrats never really supported the Afghan war.  It was simply a club with which to bash the [Bush] administration on the  Iraq war and pretend that Democrats aren’t anti-war in general, just  against the wrong war.

Well, now they are in power, and they are trapped in a box as  a result of that, pretending [when] in opposition that Afghanistan is  the good war, the war you have to win, the central war in the war on  terror. And obviously [they are] now not terribly interested in it, but  stuck.

And that’s why Obama has this dilemma. He said explicitly on ABC a  few weeks ago that he wouldn’t even use the word “victory” in  conjunction with Afghanistan.

And Democrats in Congress have said: If you don’t  win this in one year, we’re out of here. He can’t win the war in  a year. Everybody knows that, which means he [Obama] has no  way out.

More on this utterly hypocritical and cynical chutzpah here.  Which is even more maddening given the fact that the liberals who screamed about the two wars Bush got us in are almnost completely mum about the FIVE WARS Obama has us in.

And these same total pieces of cockroach scum who cynically pitched Afghanistan as “the good war” and Iraq as “the bad war” as a political ploy for Obama Democrats to demonize Bush and our American troops while pretending to remain pro-American security are now both taking credit for what they called “the bad war” in Iraq –

On Larry King Live last night, Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq “could  be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going  to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the  summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually  moving toward a representative government.”

– while cutting and running in defeat from what they claimed was “the good war.”

By the way, Obama has NEVER bothered to listen to his generals in Afghanistan.  Which is why he is the clearest and most present threat to our national security.

Let’s consider what Obama did: after demonizing Bush – who was successful in Iraq where he chose to fight – Obama dragged us into the quagmire of Afghanistan.  He wanted a “political” surge.  Germany’s leftist Der Speigel rightly said Obama’s “new strategy for Afghanistan” “seemed like a campaign speech.”  And then they said:

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into  Afghanistan — and then they will march right back out again.

Which reminds us that conservatives SAID the policy of “timetables” would never work and would fail.  And here we are now proving that assessment was 100% correct as we begin to cut-and-run having accomplished NOTHING but a “surge” of dead Americans and a “surge” in American bankruptcy.

What did I say back in December of 2009?  My title: “Obama’s Message To Taliban Re: Afghanistan: ‘Just Keep Fighting And Wait Us Out And It’ll Be All Yours’” should say it all.

Obama refused to listen to his generals when he refused to give them enough troops to begin with.  He compounded that stupid error by ignoring his generals and mandating a timetable for pullout that FURTHER guaranteed failure.  And now he’s AGAIN refusing to listen to his generals as he cuts-and-runs far faster than they can accommodate.

And the only thing more stupid that Obama can do is to export this policy of stupidly refusing to listen to his military experts.  Which is exactly what he did in Libya when he got us in there under utterly false pretenses:

“It was reported in March that Gates, along with Counterterrorism Chief John  Brennan and National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon, privately advised the  president to avoid military involvement in Libya — but they were overruled…”

Now we face an unmitigated debacle in Afghanistan as Obama cuts-and-runs.  We will be pulling troops out exactly when we most need them in the height of the fighting season.  And why?  Because Obama cynically wants to bring the troops home in time to bolster his pathetic campaign for a second term.

As a final comment about the Democrats’ fundamental hypocrisy, here’s a piece from 2004 Democrat presidential nominee John Kerry demanding that Bush “listen to his generals.”  Bush DID listen to his generals – which was why HE TURNED IRAQ AROUND INTO WHAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION NOW SAYS IS “ONE OF THE GREAT ACHIEVEMENTS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION.”

Here’s my question: where are you NOW, Kerry, you hypocrite coward???

Obama and Democrats have owed George Bush and Dick Cheney abject apologies for their lies and demagoguery of these two men for years.

Democrats are VERMIN.  They have been vermin for most of the last 50 years.  They have been documented vermin on American foreign policy all over the world.  And we need to keep reminding Americans as to what verminous rat bastards they have been and continue to be.

Obama will be an abject disaster for American foreign policy for decades to come.  And fighting under Obama’s foreign policy is exactly like Vietnam (or shall we call it “echoes of Vietnam”?).

Just like conservatives warned all along.

The moment I saw the “Jeremiah Wright” videos I realized that Barack Obama was a truly evil human being who would lead America to ruin.  It was like an apocalyptic vision of warning.  And it has turned out to be even worse than I feared…

Obama Rejected His OWN LAWYERS When He Waged His ‘Not-War’ With Libya And Ignored Congress

When Bush – during the tense crisis-aftermath of having just been horribly attacked by terrorists and having no idea if we’d be attacked again – asked his lawyers what he could do and what he could not do, HE LISTENED TO THEM.

Obama, the self-righteous hypocrite, denounced Bush for listening to the conclusions of his top laywers.  Obama and his legal puppet Eric Holder actually wanted to criminalize the men who did what they had to do during an incredibly dangerous time for our nation.  They actually sought to politicize the war and hold the previous administration criminally responsible basically for not being as foolish as the Obama Administration and it’s “man-caused disasters” instead of “terrorism” and it’s “overseas contingency operation” instead of “war on terror.”

But now we Obama is greater than his lawyers, and certainly far greater than the Constitution, in his own diseased mind.

Obama rejects top lawyers’ views on war power in Libya
Key figures in administration’s legal team questioned continuation of air war without Congress’ OK
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
June 17, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, said there had been “a full airing of views within the administration and a robust process” that led Mr. Obama to his view that the Libya campaign was not covered by a provision of the War Powers Resolution that requires presidents to halt unauthorized hostilities after 60 days.

“It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict,” Mr. Schultz said. “Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy.”

Still, the disclosure that key figures on the administration’s legal team disagreed with Mr. Obama’s legal view could fuel restiveness in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties this week strongly criticized the White House’s contention that the president could continue the Libya campaign without their authorization because the campaign was not “hostilities.”

The White House unveiled its interpretation of the War Powers Resolution in a package about Libya it sent to Congress late Wednesday. On Thursday, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, demanded to know whether the Office of Legal Counsel had agreed.

“The administration gave its opinion on the War Powers Resolution, but it didn’t answer the questions in my letter as to whether the Office of Legal Counsel agrees with them,” he said. “The White House says there are no hostilities taking place. Yet we’ve got drone attacks under way. We’re spending $10 million a day. We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Qaddafi’s compounds. It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.”

A sticking point for some skeptics was whether any mission that included firing missiles from drone aircraft could be portrayed as not amounting to hostilities.

As the May 20 deadline approached, Mr. Johnsen advocated stopping the drone strikes as a way to bolster the view that the remaining activities in support of NATO allies were not subject to the deadline, officials said. But Mr. Obama ultimately decided that there was no legal requirement to change anything about the military mission.

The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.

In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.

A senior White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about the internal deliberations, said the process was “legitimate” because “everyone knew at the end of the day this was a decision the president had to make” and the competing views were given a full airing before Mr. Obama.

The theory Mr. Obama embraced holds that American forces have not been in “hostilities” as envisioned by the War Powers Resolution at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to a supporting role providing refueling assistance and surveillance — although remotely piloted American drones are still periodically firing missiles.

The administration has also emphasized that there are no troops on the ground, that Libyan forces are unable to fire at them meaningfully and that the military mission is constrained from escalating by a United Nations Security Council resolution.

That position has attracted criticism. Jack L. Goldsmith, who led the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration, has written that the administration’s interpretation is “aggressive” and unpersuasive, although he also acknowledged that there was no clear answer and little chance of a definitive court ruling, so the reaction of Congress would resolve it.

Walter Dellinger, who led the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration, said that while “this is not an easy question,” Mr. Obama’s position was “both defensible and consistent with the position of previous administrations.” Still, he criticized the administration’s decision-making process.

“Decisions about the lawfulness of major presidential actions should be made by the Department of Justice, and within the department by the Office of Legal Counsel, after consultation with affected agencies,” he said. “The president always has the power of final decision.”

Other high-level Justice lawyers were also involved in the deliberations, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. supported Ms. Krass’s view, officials said.

Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said, “Our views were heard, as were other views, and the president then made the decision as was appropriate for him to do.”

This article, “Obama Rejects 2 Top Lawyers’ Views on War Power in Libya,” first appeared in The New York Times.

Even DEMOCRATS are now beyond outraged for Obama’s contempt for the truth and for basic reality:

Representative Lynn Woolsey charged the President of showing “contempt” for the Constitution, and insulting the intelligence of the American people.  Woolsey made the following statement: “The Obama Administration’s argument is one that shows contempt for the Constitution and for the executive’s co-equal branch of government, the United States Congress.  To say that our aggressive bombing of Libya does not rise to the level of ‘hostilities’ flies in the face of common sense and is an insult to the intelligence of the American people.  This act must not stand, because we can’t afford another full-blown war—the ones we’re already fighting are bankrupting us morally and fiscally.  Let those who support the military campaign against Libya make their case, in an open debate culminating with a vote in the U.S. Congress.  The American people deserve nothing less.”

Democrats denounced the two wars Bush waged in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Obama is still in both countries, but in addition he is now bombing three others.  WE ARE NOW IN FIVE WARS UNDER OBAMA.

And now we learn that we is circumventing the normal proces and not even bothering to listen to his own top lawyers.

What we are finding out is that Democrats are the quintessential essence of hypocrisy, with way too few exceptions.  Where are all the damn liberal protestors shouting about all these outrages?  They crawled out from every rock when Bush was president.

Barack Obama should be impeached according to the standard of BARACK OBAMA:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded [on December 20, 2007].

Unlike Barack Obama, George Bush NEVER ACTED IN SUCH A MANNER.

If Democrats had any honor or integrity whatsoever, this would not stand.  The problem is that they don’t.

We have a fascist for a president.

Update, 6/18: Headline: “NATO bombs Tripoli, sending Khadafy into rage.”  Strange, this.  It seems that Qaddafi is under the clearly completely false impression that Obama constantly bombing his country somehow qualifies as “hostilities” or mayhap even “war.”  I’m sure it’s all just a complete misunderstanding, one that the Teleprompter-in-Chief could lay to rest with one of his long speeches.

Marriage Undefended: Obama Decides To Ignore Law Passed By Congress And Signed By Pres. Clinton

Let me first go back to Barack Obama’s own words as candidate for president:

Asked to define marriage, Obama said it “is the union between a man and a woman.”

That was when he was running.  His promises don’t matter though.  This man is a documented liar.  He is an evil man.  Why should his promises and what he said when we was seeking votes matter?

Obama promised that he would transcend the political divide.  The New York Times called that promise “the core of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.”  And I want someone to explain to me how doing undermining something that Republicans and many Democrats approve of and which was signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton isn’t a vicious gut-punch to Obama’s “core promise” to the American people???

That’s first of all.  Second, let’s say that George W. Bush had taken a law – oh, let’s say laws protecting unions or civil rights laws – and said, “I don’t think this is constitutional and we’re not going to uphold it anymore.  We aren’t going to recognize anything that says we have an obligation to recognize that.  I’m president, and I can do whatever I want.”  [See more on the ramifications of this despicable view at the bottom of this article].

Democrats would RIGHTLY have called for Bush’s impeachment.  Because like the laws or don’t like them, the laws of the land are the laws of the land.  And the president has the constitional duty to uphold laws that have been passed by Congress and signed into law by a president of the United States.

This is unthinkable.  It is unconstitutional.  It is an abuse of the office of the presidency.  If Obama gave a flying damn about the Constitution, he could begin by pursuing his role within it and recognizing the authority and the power of both the Legislative and the Judiciary branches which he just stomped all over.  And yes, Barack Obama should be impeached.

President Obama Instructs Justice Department to Stop Defending Defense of Marriage Act calls Clinton-Signed Law “Unconstitutional”
February 23, 2011 12:39 PM
by Jake Tapper, ABC News Senior White House Correspondent

President Obama has instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which has since 1996 allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex partnerships legally recognized in other states.

The announcement was made in a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to congressional leaders in relation to two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, which challenge a section of DOMA that defines marriage for federal purposes as only between one man and one woman.

President Obama believes that section – Section 3 — “is unconstitutional” given the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (including its equal protection component), Holder wrote, and the president has instructed the Department of Justice to no longer defend the law in those two lawsuits.

President Obama “has made the determination,” Holder wrote, that Section 3 “as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.”

DOMA was passed by a Republican House and Senate and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1996. In application the law means same-sex couples are not afforded the same rights as straight couples when it comes to Social Security benefits, hospital visitation and other rights.

Following presidential precedent, the Obama administration has been defending the law even though President Obama has long opposed it.

But now, “under heightened scrutiny” since the 2nd circuit court asked for the administration to defend its position given lack of precedent, Holder wrote, the government’s ability to defend the law can no longer be made by “advancing hypothetical rationales, independent of the legislative record, as it has done in circuits where precedent mandates application of rational basis review.  Instead, the United States can defend Section 3 only by invoking Congress’ actual justifications for the law.”

That legislative record, Holder wrote, “contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny.  The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”

Chuck Donovan, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation said that “After a series of steps that undermined the legal case for the Defense of Marriage Act, the Obama Administration has apparently decided to drop its mask and publicly switch sides.  This action raises the stakes in this litigation even higher, because both portions of DOMA – both the federal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as well as the authority of Congress under Article 4 of the Constitution to interpret the Full Faith and Credit Clause to allow states to protect similar definitions – are now at heightened risk.”

Last month, then-White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that “we can’t declare the law unconstitutional…The President believes, as you said, that this is a law that should not exist and should be repealed.  But we, at the same time, have to represent the viewpoint of the defendant.” Gibbs said that “given the current makeup of the Congress,” having DOMA repealed would be :inordinately challenging,”

President Obama told Holder that the Executive Branch of the government will continue to enforce Section 3 “consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality.  This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.”

In Zanesville, OH, in June 2008, then-candidate Obama said DOMA “was a unnecessary imposition on what had been the traditional rules governing marriage and how states interact on the issues of marriage.”

“This is a monumental decision for the thousands of same-sex couples and their families who want nothing more than the same rights and dignity afforded to other married couples,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals. Congressional leaders must not waste another taxpayer dollar defending this patently unconstitutional law. The federal government has no business picking and choosing which legal marriages they want to recognize.  Instead Congress should take this opportunity to wipe the stain of marriage discrimination from our laws.”

-Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller

UPDATE:

A reminder that in June 2009, President Obama’s DOJ began its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act by invoking incest and adults marrying children.

This did not go over particularly well among some of the president’s supporters.

In July 2010, a judge ruled against the Obama administration.

Also in June 2009, the president extended some benefits to same sex partners of federal employees.

At a news conference in December of 2010, shortly after signing into law a repeal of the military’s ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy toward gay servicemembers, I asked the President if it was “intellectually consistent to say that gay and lesbians should be able to fight and die for this country, but they should not be able to marry the people they love?”

Gay marriage, he said, is an issue with which he struggles.

“My feelings about this are constantly evolving,” he said. “I struggle with this.  I have friends, I have people who work for me who are in powerful, strong, long-lasting gay or lesbian unions, and they are extraordinary people, and this is something that means a lot to them and they care deeply about.”

At this point, “unconstitutional” becomes the adjective which best describes the Obama presidency.  And I’m not just talking about the bizarre inability of this man to produce a birth certificate.  I am stating that Obama is now not a president, but a dictator.  Because dictators place themselves above the law, just as Obama is doing now.

The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996.  It passed both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and was signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton.  The Supreme Court has not said anything about this being in any way unconstitutional for fifteen years.  And it is Obama’s role as our Lord and our God, and the ONLY Lord and God with whom we have to do, to overturn the constitutional process, the Congress, the law of the land and the will of the people???

The Constitution is not a salad bar which allows you to pick and choose what you like and what you don’t like.  Unless you’re a liberal who despises truth, who believes truth doesn’t even exist and holds that the truth is whatever you can make it.  I’ve described the invariable outcome of that view before: it’s called fascism.

We have a history of liberal activist judges who usurp their constitutional role all the time.  Now we’ve got a president who thinks he’s a liberal activist judge.  And who gets to sit in judgment over the Constitution and every law that has been passed before him.

Obama also thinks he is the entire liberal constitutional philosophy in microchosm.  Liberalism holds that the Constitution means nothing in and of itself, that it is constantly changing and that only the changes reflected in current liberal rulings have any real power (if conservatives embrace the exact same philosophy, of course, then they and only they are wrong).  And lo and behold, “Obama’s views on same-sex marriage are ‘evolving,’” and so therefore obviously the Constitution must be evolving.  Because everything revolves around Obama.

Obama should be impeached.  And the only reason he won’t be is that Democrats as a class don’t much give a damn about the Constitution, either.  And the Democrats still control the Senate.

Just remember this, Democrats.  If Obama gets away with this, the next Republican president has the right by precedent to decide which laws HE wants to ignore.  And you will have supported that right by supporting what Barry Hussein is doing right now.

The “Hunt Every Democrat And Burn Them Alive Act” is coming.  I can feel it.  And when it comes, Democrats will have burned themselves.

Update, Feb 24: Rush Limbaugh was on his game today.  He mentioned that this wasn’t about gay marriage – as bad as that is – but rather about a president who is lawless.  This is a president who is literally community agitating in several states across the republic; this is the president who is ignoring a federal judge’s ruling that his health care program is unconstitutional; thisis a president who enacted sweeping environmental rulings through his EPA because the United States Congress would never have allowed such a radical agenda to pass; and this is a president who added more czars than just about every president before him combined.  And now this is the president who makes himself the sole arbiter of what is “constitutional” and what is not.

And so Limbaugh started talking about a President Palin doing the same things (including not being able to produce her birth certificate, because you don’t think the left would make an issue out of that if she couldn’t?).  This President Palin – citing Barack Obama as her justifying precedent – would determine that she did not think Roe v. Wade was constitutional, and so so sorry, but it wouldn’t be defended any longer.  This President Palin would look at ObamaCare and virtually anything else she didn’t like (e.g. drilling bans) and simply determine that they weren’t constitutional on her view as dictator #2 (Obama having set the stage as dictator #1), and so would not be defended.  And further, whereas the Obama White House meets repeatedly every week with union thug president Richard Trumka to plot strategy on how to “punish their enemies.”   So just imagine President Palin meeting with big oil, big business and big insurance three plus times per week to plot how to punish liberals and liberal groups.  All in secret, of course, and all justified by Obama indifference to the Constitution and hostility to any interest that doesn’t pay billions to his campaign warchest.

Republicans now have a huge majority in the House.  And yes, they are heavily favored to re-take the Senate in 2012, thanks to Democrats being the vile cockroaches that they are.  Meanwhile, Obama’s approval has plunged well below 50% in states he needs to win.

Like I said, the “Hunt Every Democrat Down With Dogs And Burn Them Alive Act” is coming, and its coming thanks to Democrats as conservatives learn the new rules of the game that Obama started.

Democrats are howling about Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker not listening and bargaining with unions.  Don’t you dare forget, you vile hypocrite Democrats, how Republicans and even many Democrats spent the last two years shut out and not even getting to know what was happening, let alone have a vote in uber-liberal government takeovers like ObamaCare.  And how dare you whine as the same hell you unleased comes back to you?

The massive Obama stimulus that heavily favored blue states and blue districts and ObamaCare were Pearl Harbor moments for conservatives.  And just as decent American people gave the Imperial Japanese the hell they richly deserved, decent American people are more than ready to give imperialist liberals the hell that they richly deserve.

This has become a war.  Obama promised to transcend the partisan divide, but he is a liar and a cheat who plunged deeply into that divide than any American preisent in history.  It is an ideological and cultural war being fought over every front for what precisouAnd it is a war because liberals and Democrats have incapable of any other political approach.  When they have the power, they use that power in an un-American fashion.  And when they don’t have the power, they use their mainstream media voice to bitch and whine about how the other side that they never once listened to when they had the power won’t listen to them.

String Up Clarence Thomas? Death Threats For Sarah Palin? Liberals Continue To Prove Just How Full Of Hypocrite They Are

How many times are conservatives forced to nod their heads like cheap stadium bobble-heads while liberals constantly harangue them for being racist and for being violent?

The only problem with this picture is that all the racism and violence keeps coming almost entirely from the left.

Remember that Black Panther who intimidated Republican voters in Philadelphia, in addition to being caught on video calling for the murder of white cracker babies?  A completely racist and hypocritical system whitewashed this case and employed an explicitly racist rationale in doing so.  Career Justice Department officials resigned in protest, but the racist hypocritical propaganda could care less when good people put their careers where their mouths are.

Remember the Gabrielle Giffords shootings, when the hysterical left came emotionally unglued made Sarah Palin responsible for the shootings because she did something that liberals had been doing for years with no one blaming them for it, and in fact had even done to Gabrielle Giffords herself?  Remember how it turned out that the only threats of death and violence related to the actual situation turned out to come from a self-professing liberal (on top of the death threats that piled up against Sarah Palin)???

Now this:

NAACP won’t directly address racism leveled against Clarence Thomas at progressive protest
By Matthew Boyle – The Daily Caller | Published: 2:16 AM 02/07/2011 | Updated: 12:41 PM 02/07/2011

The NAACP won’t directly address the racism displayed by progressive protesters outside a summit hosted by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch at the end of January in Palm Springs, Calif., but the organization did call for an end to all “vitriolic language.”

In response to The Daily Caller’s request for comment on a video showing progressive protesters calling for somebody to “string up” African American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, or “send him back into the fields” or “cut off all his toes and feed them to him one-by-one,” NAACP spokesman Hilary Shelton pointed to the organization’s recent resolution calling for a “civil political discourse.”

“Last summer, the NAACP passed a resolution calling for a civil political discourse,” Shelton said in an e-mail to TheDC. “We continue to call on all Americans to abandon vitriolic language. It serves as a distraction from the real issues our society need to address and distorts the challenges we as Americans have to confront to make our nation greater still.”

Shelton would not, however, address the content of the video directly.

WATCH: Progressive protesters make racist remarks at rally outside conservative summit

This isn’t the only time in recent years that the NAACP has chosen not to condemn racism directed against black conservatives, according to Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the black conservative group Project 21. Borelli has called on Shelton and the NAACP to denounce racist remarks she has received as recently as last summer.

Appearing together on Fox News Channel’s “Geraldo At Large” in mid-July, Borelli asked Shelton if he and the NAACP would issue a public statement condemning racist remarks that have been directed against her.

Shelton answered her by saying, “Why, yes, ma’am. Just give us some details. The very broad answer is: Yes, we repudiate anybody calling you a bad name in the political arena.”

WATCH: NAACP spokesman tells Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli he would denounce racist remarks against her

Borelli says she sent the evidence of the racist remarks directed against her for being a black conservative to Shelton and the NAACP in late July 2010, but the self-described “civil rights” group has yet to release any statement. Shelton, according to Borelli, hasn’t even acknowledged receiving the documentation.

One of the sample e-mails Borelli sent to Shelton reads: “You faggot niggas need to be lynched by the Klan. I pray a nightrider strings up every one of you no count good for nothing niggas, it would serve you right for trying to think that these crackers love you. I hate a house nigga worse than I do a Klansman. Rot in hell you scurvy dogs. I would laugh to see you body strung up. It would save us real brothers the time and trouble to do it.”

One liberal at the liberal protest event said Clarence’s Thomas’ toes should be chopped off one by one and force fed to him.  Nothing hateful there.

Today – and frankly for most of my lifetime – the NAACP is a racist organization.  It cares only about “liberal people,” not “colored people.”  It’s very existence is an anathema and a demand to continue racism and racist policies (just what would the NAACP say if someone were to start a “National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People” form of “the NAACP”???).

Violence?  It is at the very shriveled soul of the left.  And it always has been.  Sarah Palin was scheduled to show up at a charity event whose proceeds were to benefit our veterans.  The result?

Palin speech honoring service members canceled due to liberal hate
February 5th, 2011 7:32 pm PT.

Thanks to an “onslaught of negative feedback”, an event featuring Sarah Palin has been canceled.

The Sharon K Pacheco Foundation announced Saturday it was canceling its 2011 Patriots & Warriors Charity Gala out of concern for the safety of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

Palin was scheduled to be the keynote speaker at the event, originally set for May 2.

According to the announcement on the group’s website:

Due to an onslaught of personal attacks against Governor Palin and others associated with her appearance, it is with deep sadness and disappointment that, in the best interest of all, we cancel the event for safety concerns, says the Foundations Director. 

Leo Pacheco, founder of the organization, expressed concern for the safety of military members and their families.  “Military members and their families have been through a lot due to the wars.  We have a responsibility to protect their emotional safety just as well,” he said.

“And unfortunately, some have overshadowed the purpose of this event by concentrating on their personal hatred of Sarah Palin, which is truly sad.”

The event was designed to honor service members and those who have served and/or sacrificed for the country.

Sarah Palin hasn’t just received one or two death threats.  It’s been an avalanche that has come from hypocrites who say she’s a hater while they are totally rabid with hate:

ABC News reports death threats against Sarah Palin have reached unprecedented levels.  That’s pretty amazing, given the smear campaign the Left waged against her in 2008 when she was a vice presidential candidate.

These despicable events would have been on the pages of every newspaper and television news station in America if it weren’t for the fact that the media is so shockingly biased.  If the Tea Party had done this to a prominent black liberal or a prominent female liberal, the coverage would have been so massive and last for so long that it would remain permanently ingrained on the American psyche.  The way the media made George H.W. Bush’s “Read my lips, no new taxes” a household word but never did so when Bill Clinton – and now Barack Obama – have repeatedly made similar statements.

Because of the demonic hatred by the mass media and the left that they represent, Sarah Palin has taken a real hit in popularity.  She was victimized, and then she paid for being a victim.  The media have verbally raped Sarah Palin again and again, and then called her a slut who deserved it.  And an increasingly stupid American people eat their manure like its a delicacy.

I used to read the book of Revelation and ponder at the Bible’s statement that “the whole world would worship the beast” (Reveation 13:8).  And I couldn’t understand how the American people would actually worship a vile dictator.

Since November 2008, and with further evidences coming each and every day, I no longer ponder that.  It is obvious to me that after the Rapture of genuine believers in Jesus Christ, a wicked people of a wicked United States of America will welcome a political tyrant and actually worship him.  And then this dictator, who will promise the same sort of leftist Utopia that leftist dictators have promised since the French Revolution, will bring about instead a literal hell on earth.

And the liberals who will have welcomed this bloodbath that unfolds in the pages of the Book of Revelation won’t have Sarah Palin or Clarence Thomas to blame any more.

Obama Administration Puts Voting Rights Of Criminal Felons Over Our Soldiers

The Obama administration is tipping its hand as to whom it regards as its friends, and whom it regards as its enemies.

EDITORIAL: Holder puts felons over soldiers
The Justice Department obstructs military voting rights
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES – The Washington Times

Obama Justice Department outrages never cease. The politically charged gang led by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is more interested in helping felons vote than in helping the military to vote. Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, has put a legislative hold on the already troubled nomination of James M. Cole to be deputy attorney general until the attorney general ensures full protection for voting rights of our military (and associated civilian personnel) stationed abroad. The senator is right to raise a ruckus.

Mr. Cornyn co-authored a 2009 law mandating that states mail absentee ballots to military voters at least 45 days before the election. Yet, as former Justice Department lawyer Eric Eversole first reported in The Washington Times last week, the department seems to be encouraging states to apply for waivers so they won’t have to follow that law. More than 17,000 Americans serving overseas were denied the vote in 2008 – but, presumably because military personnel are thought to lean conservative, the liberal Obama administration is in no hurry to correct the situation.

The Justice Department is so unenthusiastic about military voting that its website still lists the old requirement for a shorter 30-day military voting window, rather than the current law mandating 45 days. On the other hand, the Justice Department has no legislative mandate whatsoever to involve itself with helping felons to vote, but its website devotes a large section – 2,314 words – to advising felons how to regain voting privileges.

[Continue reading the Washington Times editorial]

Obama understands that the Democrat Party is the type of corrupt organized criminal enterprise that attracts criminals to vote for it.  Just as he understands that the men and women who put their lives on the line for America’s freedom are not folks he wants to encourage to vote.

See my article “How Do Marines Feel About Obama? When Silence Is Golden” and then watch the video to see why Obama fears the vote of our greatest citizens even as he tries to increase the vote of our very worst citizens.

Obama Administration ‘Justice’: ‘Never Bring A Lawsuit Against A Black’

Whenever I’ve heard people try to argue that black racism somehow doesn’t qualify as racism (usually because blacks don’t have power, and racism depends on power), I know I’m talking to a true moral idiot.

The problem is, there are a great many moral idiots in the world.  And virtually all of them are Democrats.

So we find our all-too-typical postmodernist “will to power” divide-by-race-and-conquer socialists such as Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes hard at work:

Assistant AG Deputy Julie Fernandes: “Never Bring A Lawsuit Against A Black”

In the midst of accusations that the New Black Panther voter intimidation lawsuit was dropped by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for “racial issues” Todd Gaziano, the commissioner of the U.S. Commission for Civil Rights and Director of the Center for Legal Studies at the Heritage Foundation, dropped a bombshell; Julie Fernandes– the Assistant Attorney General– resoundingly barked the orders to “never bring a lawsuit against a black,” and meant it.

He began naming names and cuts right to the chase saying the case was “open and shut.” In fact, the DOJ won the case and was ready to talk sentencing. Then suddenly, under the new leadership of Eric Holder, the case was dropped.

Gaziano laid all the marbles on the table within the following recording by Bob Parks of Black & Right for MRC.

[Video from Eyeblast.tv]

The event took place on election day in 2008 in Philadelphia, PA. Two members of the Black Panther party, one holding a billy club, were patrolling the front doors leading into a building where people were to go to cast their votes, intimidating every person who walked by that didn’t look like a Democrat. The actions of the panthers were exposed thanks to an individual who caught the incident on video, which can be found here.

In comes J. Christian Adams, the former DOJ attorney turned whistleblower saying the case was dropped because of “racial issues.” Adams also said “The [voting] section doesn’t want to protect white voters.” Fox Nation elaborated, as Adams–like Gaziano–began naming names:

“He testified that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes told Voting Section management that there would be no more cases brought against black defendants vindicating the rights of white victims.  Adams personally heard Fernandes say that the division would only bring “traditional civil rights cases” (code words  for suits against white racists).  Adams also heard Fernandes say that  she had no interest in the Voting Section enforcing Section 8 of the National  Voter Registration Act (which requires purging rolls of ineligible voters to  prevent voter fraud), because Section 8 does not increase voter turnout.  Fernandes now needs to be questioned under oath, as does the head of the Civil  Rights Division, Thomas Perez, who previously testified this was not the  Justice Department’s policy and that he was unaware of such views.”

Never bring a lawsuit against a black.

Furthermore, the Weekly Standard Reported:

“Former voting rights attorneys confirm that the belief is omnipresent in the Justice Department. DoJ attorneys openly criticized the Panther case, objecting not to any lack of evidence or to the legal arguments but to the notion that any discrimination case should be filed against black defendants. There are instances of attorneys refusing to work on cases against minority defendants. In 2005, for example, Coates pursued, filed, and won a case (upheld on appeal to the Fifth Circuit in  2009) of egregious voter discrimination by black officials in Noxubee  County, Mississippi. Colleagues criticized Coates for filing the case and refused to work on it.”

Gaziano said that during the whole process the commission had three hearings on the matter with eyewitnesses present, claiming the voters did– in fact–feel intimidated despite organizations like Media Matters reporting otherwise. He also claims it wasn’t just the voters who had to deal with the two black panthers at the polling station, but also the poll watchers.

Not surprisingly after the case was dropped, never before seen footage of one of the panther members involved began pouring out. In one video uncovered by Naked Emperor News, King Samir Shabazz is advocating for “killing all white babies” and claiming that he’s “ready for war.” Looks as if he’s not the only one.

Malik Shabazz, the Chairman of the New Black Panther Party, made an appearance on Russian TV and accused Fox News of “stirring up racial fears.” But he didn’t stop at that. He also issued a challenge to “right wingers” and the tea party and said he’s “ready to rumble.” Despite this talk, Shabazz easily  could be nominated for an Oscar for his ability to hold himself together during a TV interview with so much hatred fuming at his inner core.

Knowing this, I figured I’d look around the internet for EyeBlast.tv in hopes of finding footage of him with his guard down. Not only did I come across a rare video from a closed door Black Panther meeting, he was guilty of everything that he accused Fox News of doing– spewing up radical racism.

He attacked “white America” claiming he didn’t have to be patriotic because “white America” has “given him nothing.” He even went as far to say that the September 11 terrorist attacks occurred because of the actions of American people, saying “the chickens have come home to roost.”

This is the New Black Panther party that the Obama Administration is protecting. This is why Julie Fernandes said to “never bring a lawsuit against a black.” And the reason for all of this, according to new accusations from the former lawyer, is the DOJ OK’d voter fraud to help Democrats win elections.

Posted by Joe Schoffstall

I’d have something more to say, but I pretty much expressed myself on this subject yesterday.

The American people overwhelmingly want fairness – and they will not get it from this president.  This is a president and an administration that demonizes and then sues a state (Arizona) for making a federal crime a state crime.  Even though the American people oppose Obama by a 2-1 margin.

Yet they refuse to pursue the dozens and dozens of “sanctuary cities” – including Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco – which openly defy federal law.

But that’s not all.  Not even close.

Liberals, Democrats, and other moral idiots are saying that the New Black Panther voter intimidation case was dismissed because of lack of evidence.  And when we point to the testimony of good men like whistleblower J. Christian Adams – who resigned from the Justice Department in outrage over what he saw going on – we’re told that his testimony isn’t valid because he’s a conservative.

Well, both arguments are crap, as evidenced by the following report from the Wall Street Journal:

President Obama’s Justice Department continues to stonewall inquiries about why it dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.

The episode—which Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-wing Village Voice, calls “the most blatant form of voter intimidation I’ve ever seen”—began on Election Day 2008. Mr. Bull and others witnessed two Black Panthers in paramilitary garb at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia. (Some of this behavior is on YouTube.)

One of them, they say, brandished a nightstick at the entrance and pointed it at voters and both made racial threats. Mr. Bull says he heard one yell “You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!”

In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. In March, Mr. Bull submitted an affidavit at Justice’s request to support its lawsuit.

When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years—action that’s already illegal under existing law.

You can hear what Bartle Bull said for yourself here.

Bartle Bull is a career liberal civil rights attorney who knows voter intimidation when he sees it.  And he both saw and heard “the most blatant form of voter intimidation he’d ever seen.”

Which is to say, he agreed entirely with what J. Christian Adams was saying.

But a racist has come to occupy the White House.  And so these obvious, blatant charges were dismissed simply because the intimidator was black and the victims were white.

Barack Obama spent over 20 years in a racist, Marxist anti-American church whose “reverend” spewed “No, no, no.  Not God bless America, God damn America!”  He is now a demonstrated racist with a demonstrated racist agenda.  His “reverend,” his “spiritual mentor,” his “uncle,” Jeremiah Wright, openly mocked Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for being about “becoming white.”

It’s not about any actual “equality” for Obama and Wright.  It’s about race-based Marxism.