Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Texas AG Greg Abbott To Obama's Land-Grabbing BLM: "Come And Take It"

After their attempt at grabbing land from Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, the Obama Regime's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is looking to grab about 90,000 acres of land on the Texas and Oklahoma border.

Texas Attorney General (and GOP nominee for Governor) Greg Abbott is having none of it and resurrected a phrase from the Texas Revolution to make his point (Breitbart Texas).

After Breitbart Texas reported on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) intent to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas landholders along the Texas/Oklahoma line, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott questioned the BLM’s authority to take such action.
“I am about ready,” General Abbott told Breitbart Texas, “to go to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.”

Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab.
“I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,” General Abbott wrote. “The BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.”
In an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas, General Abbott said, “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country ...And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.”
This is why Abbott is one of the best state AGs in the nation, and is going to be a great governor of Texas.  We need a lot more people like him in the nation.

Meanwhile, the corrupt "Dingy" Harry Reid made a veiled threat at Mr. Bundy in the media.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says “something is going to happen” to get Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy to stop letting his cattle graze on federal land.
“It’s obvious that you can’t just walk away from this. And we can speculate all we want to speculate to what’s going to happen next,” Reid told KSNV-TV. “But I don’t think it’s going to be tomorrow that something is going to happen, but something will happen. We are a nation of laws, not of men and women.”
Reid called militias staying at Bundy’s Bunkerville ranch “domestic violent terrorist-wannabes.”
Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., disagreed with Reid, telling KSNV that these militia members are “patriots” and took issue with how the U.S. Bureau of Land Management handled the situation.
“I take more issues with the BLM coming in with a paramilitary army of individuals with snipers. I’m talking to people and groups that are there at the event. Your own government with sniper lenses on you. It made a lot of people very uncomfortable,” Heller told KSNV.
A nation of laws? What about the right to owning private property, Dingy?  Oh yeah, I forgot, you don't live by the law, you just make one sleazy land deal after another. Of course, Reid had to attack private citizens who stand up against the fascist, jackbooted thugs. All the dingy one does has been attack private citizens (Rush Limbaugh, the Koch Brothers) from his bully pulpit on the Senate floor like some power mad tyrant.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

GOP Establishment's Choice, Jeb Bush, On Board Of Pro-Obamacare Company

The GOP establishment once again shows how little difference there is between them and liberal Democrats. (Breitbart)
According to a report in The New York Times, "Bush left public office seven years ago with a net worth of $1.3 million and an unapologetic determination to expand his wealth, telling friends that his finances had suffered during his time in government."

Bush tried to prop up Lehman Brothers before it collapsed and almost took down the financial system with it, eventually costing taxpayers billions of dollars to bail out banks. This galvanized what would become the Tea Party movement. He has also been associated with some troubled and shady companies and executives, as well as a company that promoted Obamacare. Bush's associations with Lehman Brothers may prove more troubling for someone the Tea Party already distrusts for his unabashed support of amnesty and the Common Core:
Records and interviews show, for example, that Mr. Bush participated in the fevered, last-ditch efforts to prop up Lehman Brothers, a Wall Street bank weighed down by toxic mortgage-backed securities. As a paid adviser to the company in the summer of 2008, he met with Carlos Slim HelĂș, a Mexican billionaire, as Lehman sought to persuade Mr. Slim to make a sizable investment in the firm, emails show.

.... Within a year of departing the Statehouse, he had signed on as consultant to Lehman Brothers, where he was eventually enlisted to reach out to Mr. Slim in a plan code-named Project Verde. Mr. Slim, however, was not interested in making a major investment in Lehman Brothers or striking up a joint venture with it. “Project Verde was unsuccessful,” Mr. Bush wrote to a Lehman colleague in early July 2008.

Lehman executives talked openly about the value of Mr. Bush’s family connections in the midst of the crisis. Lehman’s chief executive, Richard S. Fuld Jr., discussed the possibility of having Mr. Bush ask his brother President Bush to persuade the British prime minister to allow Lehman’s emergency merger with a British bank, according to testimony from the company’s bankruptcy case. Mr. Fuld never followed through, and Mr. Bush did not call the president, a spokeswoman for him said.

Barclays, which took over Lehman Brothers, reportedly pays Bush "in excess of $1 million a year," according to the report.

The Times also reports that Bush was a paid director for a company, Tenet Health Care, that aggressively supported and promoted Obamacare because it would be profitable for the company. He may have to explain his connections to GOP primary voters--and an increasing number of Americans--who staunchly oppose the law.

InnoVida brought Bush on board its company in 2007, but the company went bankrupt in 2011, and its "founder went to jail and investors lost nearly all of their money," the Times reports: "It turned out that the leaders of InnoVida, a manufacturer of inexpensive building materials, had faked documents, lied about the health of the business and misappropriated $40 million in company funds, records show."

A Democrat "who lost millions on his investment in InnoVida," however, said that once he told Bush about the "major problems inside the company, the former governor acted swiftly and forcefully to investigate them" to protect the shareholders.

Nonetheless, Bush has been accused of "insufficient oversight" at a company that lost more than three-quarters of its value.
Get ready for a repeat of 2012 (and the words President Hillary Rotten Clinton) if Karl Rove and the GOP RINO establishment is dumb enough to have a nominee who served on a board that supported the destructive Obamacare.

But I'm sure Jebby will tell us it was "an act of love."

Obama Pushing "Card Check" By Unions Via Regulatory Fiat

"Card Check," or the ability of leftist labor unions to pressure employees to vote for unionization, has been a goal of Richard Milhous Obama's, and the consequences warned about back in 2008.

Obama couldn't get the legislation through Congress, but it appears his fat little commie thug Richard Trumka is right, it will happen in the second term.

But (as usual) Obama will bypass Congress and impliment it through regulations (Daily Caller).
The administration’s National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) proposed rules would allow for union elections — in which workers at a company vote whether or not to unionize — to be held 10 days after a petition is filed. And what, exactly, would be happening to the unions during those 10 days? The new rules require employers to disclose workers’ personal information, including phone numbers, home addresses, and information about when they work their shifts.

Insiders close to the situation believe the new rules will almost certainly go into effect with few or no fundamental changes.

“The members of the Board went through two days of grueling hearings that went into the evening. They asked plenty of probing questions. But I wonder if any minds were changed at all,” Workforce Fairness Institute spokesman Fred Wszolek, who recently testified at an NLRB hearing in opposition to the rule, told The Daily Caller.

“Certainly some parts of the proposed rule will be changed at the margin. But it seems very likely that going forward, union organizing elections will happen much more quickly and more private contact information of employees will be turned over to the unions,” Wszolek said.

“If Board members wanted to truly modernize these rules, they would do two things. First, leave the timetable alone. Thirty or forty days to hold an election is not a long time. Let people think about it. Second, if you’re going to give access to unions any personal email addresses a company has, fine. But let’s protect the privacy of workers by no longer requiring companies to give to the union the home addresses of workers. It’s very hard to intimidate or coerce a worker by email. But it’s much easier to intimidate or coerce a worker when you’re standing on their doorstep,” Wszolek said.

As TheDC previously reported, United Auto Workers (UAW) members in black shirts recently paced the assembly line intimidating workers during normal business hours before the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee voted not to unionize. The NLRB is holding a hearing Monday to determine whether or not to discard the plant’s election results, on the grounds that they were tainted by outside sources, and allow the plant to be unionized.
What that means, is that Obama and the Democrats want more unionization because they are bought and paid for by the unions.  For all the talk about the Koch Brothers influencing elections with money, liberals never mention how unions (along with George Soros) have funneled more money to Democrats than the "evil" Koch brothers.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Obama Regime Considering Bond Hearings For Illegal Aliens

Once again, it's another unconstitutional end-run around Congress. (Breitbart)
Even though the number of illegal immigrants who have been deported through the courts has dropped by 43% since President Barack Obama took office, the Obama administration may enact administrative changes to allow bond hearings for detained illegal immigrants.
According to the Los Angeles Times, this could result in "several thousand" illegal immigrants being released from jails and "could slow the pace of deportations" even more.
The Times notes that the White House is scrambling to "ease the concerns of Latino groups and other traditional allies that have turned on President Obama in recent weeks" by trying to brand him as the "deporter in chief." That label has been proven to be nothing more than a myth in reports, not only from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), but in the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times.
The American Civil Liberties Union has found that "871 of 1,262 immigration detainees who were given bond hearings after a September 2012 federal district court ruling in California were ordered released on bond, or released with an ankle monitor, regular check-ins or other restrictions."
The LA Times also notes that "Justice Department lawyers have spent years fighting proposals to require bond hearings," and the White House "has not yet decided whether to drop its objections to the federal court's decision or appeal to the Supreme Court."

How phony is Obama's claim of deporting so many illegals?  About as phony as his claim of 8 million people being "covered" by Obamacare.
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson acknowledged Tuesday that his department’s deportation numbers are now mostly made up of illegal immigrants caught at the border, not just those from the interior, which means they can’t be compared one-to-one with deportations under President Bush or other prior administrations.  
No wonder no one believes a word that comes out of Obama's mouth.

IRS Scandal Gets Bigger. Lerner Wanted Conservative Groups Prosecuted, 49 Percent Polled Say White House Involved

Despite the attempts of the Demonrat party and their propagandists in the legacy media (NBC, SeeBS, ABC, NY Slimes, Washington ComPost), the IRS scandal of targeting conservative and Tea Party groups isn't going away.

Thanks to a FOI request by Judicial Watch, we're finding out more about how Lois Lerner wanted to abuse her power at the IRS by going to the racist Eric Holder's InJustice Department to prosecute conservatives.

J. Christian Adams explains at PJ Media.

Larry Noble, a law professor now with the Soros-funded Campaign Legal Center , was cited in the emails as someone agitating to jail conservatives who “falsely” report on IRS forms that they are not engaged in political speech. Lerner talked about setting up meetings with Justice Department election lawyers who wanted to talk about making Noble’s dreams a reality — this after Senator Sheldon Whitehouse raised the idea of criminal charges for conservatives who are not sufficiently quiet, charges that they falsely completed an IRS tax exemption form.
Their theory is a favorite among speech regulators in the Soros-funded left and academia. It goes like this: “Too much speech is bad (unless unions do it.) Groups who talk about things leftists find uncomfortable are necessarily political and thus should never have 501(c) tax exempt status. Criminally charge any group that said on their IRS tax exempt form that they were not political if they say things the left finds uncomfortable. Get Eric Holder’s Justice Department on the case.”   
The emails obtained by Judicial Watch reveal this is essentially what was going on behind the scenes at the IRS, DOJ, and with outside leftist interests.   The emails, so far, only name a few of the speech regulators involved. But there are many who don’t appear in the latest document dump that give life to the cause of limiting the First Amendment.  
Hans von Spakovsky, a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, is intimately familiar with the scope and power of the speech regulators. He said: “Ever since I came to Washington, I’ve been shocked at the liberal politicians like Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, advocacy groups like Democracy 21 and Fred Wertheimer, and government bureaucrats at the FEC and the Justice Department who want to use the power of government to censor their opponents. They hate the First Amendment and would fit right into the Soviet Union.”  
All roads in the IRS scandal run through Citizens United , the Supreme Court case that sent the speech regulators into a frenzy when it allowed private citizens to spend money to express their views without government regulation. Even President Obama attacked Citizens United in a State of the Union address. Justice Samuel Alito mouthed his opinion about Obama’s truthfulness during the speech.   
Citizens United , in timing and substance, was the genesis of the IRS scandal.    
So who are the speech regulators seeking to impose government limits on the exercise of the First Amendment?   
Like bats in the belfry, they tend to congregate online at University of California at Irvine Law Professor Rick Hasen’s election blog.    
Hasen runs an online meeting hall for all the would-be speech totalitarians. They post, bluster, and kibitz about the latest news on their effort to erode the First Amendment and increase federal power. Whenever a free speech advocate seeks to contribute to the conversation at the blog, they are often deliberately given a cold shoulder and ignored, per plan. The ignored don’t understand that leftists aren’t interested in debate. Their pedigree requires the eradication of opposing ideas, not their incubation.    
But perhaps the ignored should be thankful. Being ignored is better than what the speech regulators have done in other places throughout history. Jail and truncheons are the usual tools of those who want to stamp out free speech. In America, the speech regulators have just begun to warm up to jail as a tool.    
That Hasen’s online hangout is hosted on government servers provides an interesting twist.    
Judicial Watch sent the University of California at Irvine a freedom of information request demanding Hasen’s emails to the White House and other government officials including any on the topic of speech regulations. The University told Judicial Watch to pound sand, and still hasn’t provided anything.
Yesterday’s IRS email revelation makes you wonder what Cal-Irvine is hiding.   So who are some of the other speech regulators who haven’t shown up on IRS scandal documents yet?   One of the top speech regulators is former White House counsel and Obama campaign lawyer Bob Bauer. As I noted at PJ Media:
Robert Bauer had the motive to direct IRS policy against Tea Party groups. He is a longtime opponent of First Amendment freedoms and an advocate of government-speech regulation. He also can’t stand the work the Tea Party is conducting to monitor and eradicate voter fraud, work the Republican Party and national campaigns have utterly failed to perform.  
During the 2008 election, while representing the Obama campaign, Bauer sent a threatening letter to the Justice Department demanding criminal investigations of people who had the audacity to speak about voter fraud. Bauer even singled out Sarah Palin in the letter. Anyone who “developed or disseminated” information about voter fraud, to Bauer, deserved the heavy boot of a criminal investigation. Read the letter; it reveals a nasty, thuggish, and lawless attitude toward political opposition.
There’s that jail thing again. They just can’t resist that totalitarian impulse against political opponents.    
Other campaigns have had speech regulator attorneys — even Republicans. Trevor Potter was John McCain’s head lawyer in 2008, and he founded the now Soros-funded Campaign Legal Center. He helped cook up the McCain-Feingold speech regulations.   Scads of well-funded groups also exist to stamp down free speech, groups like Common Cause and Demos.    
The new, more sinister IRS scandal is deadly dangerous to Democrats. It isn’t dangerous because bureaucrats took too long to approve tax exemption applications. It’s dangerous because it reveals the authoritarian impulses of powerful Democrats. First they tried to shut up political opposition through threats and bureaucracy. Then we learn yesterday that Democrats and leftists at the Justice Department, the United States Senate, and the Internal Revenue Service were discussing jailing political opponents.    
Just wait until the American people learn more about the modern American version of history’s speech regulators.
Notice the one name all these people are affiliated with? George Soros, the Democrat Party and Leftists big sugar daddy, who they gladly take his billions while bashing the Koch Brothers for funding conservative/libertarian groups.

Not a smidgen of corruption?  Think again.

Fox News now has a poll that spells trouble for the White House.
Nearly half of American voters think the IRS targeted conservative groups at the request of the White House, and most want Congress to keep investigating the matter.
The latest Fox News poll also finds 69 percent don’t feel President Obama has followed through on his vow to “find out exactly what happened on this.”
By a 49-41 percent margin, voters believe the Obama administration “intentionally had the IRS target conservative political groups.” That includes 26 percent of Democrats, 52 percent of independents and 71 percent of Republicans.
Overall, 72 percent of voters disagree with the president when he says there is not even a “smidgen” of corruption regarding the IRS targeting conservative groups.

This is much bigger than Watergate. It is an attack on private citizens for expressing their First Amendment right to petition the government.  And yet the same liberals and leftists who will attack previous administrations for going after so-called "anti-war" and "anarchist" groups (mainly due to their violent protests and Communist affiliations) are silent when conservatives' right to free political speech come under assault.

Now what is needed is members of Congress who are willing to investigate this matter, instead of those who will do a show trial just to make it look like they're doing something.  A special counsel needs to be called as well, but don't count on that to happen while "Sobbin" John is Speaker of the House.

This is not about Obama, or Democrats. No one who peaceably expresses political thought should have the government go after them, even seek their prosecution, for the sake of political differences.  For those Democrats who want to continue the cover-up and encourage this abuse of power, what will you say when a corrupt Republican President might do the same thing to your groups?

Oh, didn't we see that 40 years ago?

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Obama Wanted Ben Carson To Apologize, I Sensed This About President Thin-Skinned Back In 2006

Dr. Ben Carson, who made a big splash after his infamous National Prayer Breakfast speech where he ridiculed big government and socialist ideas in front of Richard Milhous Obama, said that he was asked by the White House to apologize for his comments (Daily Caller).
Carson, the former director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, recalls the events surrounding his 2013 speech in his new book, One Nation: What We Can All Do To Save America’s Future. The Daily Caller obtained an advance copy of the book, which is set for release May 20.

“He did not appear to be hostile or angry,” Carson writes of Obama, “but within a matter of minutes after the conclusion of the program, I received a call from some of the prayer breakfast organizers saying that the White House was upset and requesting that I call the president and apologize for offending him. I said that I did not think that he was offended and that I didn’t think that such a call was warranted.”

Conservatives rallied around Carson last year after his remarks, made from a podium as Obama sat just feet away. In his speech, he railed against “political correctness” and offered specific ideas for health care reform.

“Many have commented that the president appeared to be uncomfortable during my speech, but I was not paying particular attention to him or his reactions, as my comments were really directed more at the American people than the people on the dais,” Carson recalls. “At the conclusion of the program, the president approached me to shake my hand and thank me for my participation.”
The White House didn't get an apology, but Ben Carson got an IRS tax audit. And if you believe that was circumstantial, I have ocean front property in Phoenix to sell you.

Let me take you back to this text from Rush Limbaugh's radio show on December 13, 2006. I remember listening to this at work and thinking to myself "If this guy ever became President, God help us, because he's so obviously thin-skinned he can't take questioning or criticism."
Now, we have some EIB exclusive audio here. It's from Sunday in New Hampshire when Barack Obama made a speech up there. After his speech was over he made a beeline for Maureen Dowd and the audience. The camera kept rolling. We have this. I haven't seen it. I mean, it's not really "exclusive" to us. It's exclusive in the sense we're the only ones that are going to use it. Just listen. He goes up to Maureen Dowd. This is your sexy rock star, drop dead sex appeal, somebody you want to follow, somebody firm in his convictions. This guy is a rock, not just a star, and this is what he said to Maureen Dowd.

OBAMA (off mic): You talked about my ears, and I just want to put you on notice: I'm very sensitive about -- What I told them was, ''I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears.'"

DOWD (purring): We're trying to toughen you up.

RUSH: Did you hear all that? Were you able to hear it? You want me to translate this? All right. Maureen Dowd has written about his big ears, and after his speech Barack Obama made a beeline to Maureen Dowd and said, "You talked about my ears, and I just want to put you on notice: I'm very sensitive about -- What at I told them was, 'I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears.'" Maureen said, "We're just trying to tough you up." Just trying to toughen you up. I tend to personalize a lot of these things. I'm sorry, my friends, I'm like everybody else: everything is about me -- and I hear this, and I think, "If I went to a reporter and said, "You know, don't talk about X aspect of me. I'm very sensitive. I was made fun of my whole life because of X. Would you just stop? I'm putting you on notice that I'm very sensitive about that," instead of Maureen Dowd saying, "Come on, Rush! We're trying to toughen you up," it would be the subject of her next column.

The weak, cowardly, insecure and insensitive Rush Limbaugh begged me not to make fun of X!

But Maureen Dowd has decided that the Drive-By Media needs to toughen Barack up. Listen to the bite again now that you know what was said.

OBAMA (off mic): You talked about my ears, and I just want to put you on notice: I'm very sensitive about -- What I told them was, ''I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears.'"

DOWD (purring): We're trying to toughen you up.

RUSH: We're just trying to toughen you up. You sexy, exotic rock star, sexy, sexy, sexy, we're just trying to toughen you up! (interruption) Snerdley is convinced that Maureen wants Barack Hussein Obama. (sigh) I don't even want to go there. I know more than you do about this and I'm not going to talk about it. Here is a question. An unidentified reporter said to Barack, "What do you make of the recent fascination that people have as they are getting to know you about your middle name being 'Hussein'?"
But too many people were getting thrills up their legs to notice this sensitive, thin-skinned little man child, who had whipped up such a cult-like following.

Monday, April 14, 2014

Rep. Steve Israel, Who Said GOP Base Is "Animated By Racism," Led Group Who Supported Anti-Semitic Occupy Movement

Show how all the Democrap Party has to run on is throwing the race card from the bottom of the deck, New York Congressman Steve Israel played the "card" on CNN yesterday (Gateway Pundit).
As George Will says, if you can’t win a political argument, pound the table and cry racism.
DCCC Chair Steve Israel says the Republican base is ‘racist.’
Via the NRCC Blog:
Candy Crowley: Do you think your Republican colleagues are racist?
DCCC Chair Steve Israel: Not all of them, no. Of course not. But to a significant extent, the Republican base does have elements that are animated by racism.
Of course, Crowley just accepted the outrageous accusation and moved on.
Not surprising that Crowley, who was Obama's tag-team partner in the second Presidential debate of 2012, took Israel at face value.

But keep this fact in mind.

Despite one big allegation that is a proven smear (the infamous March 20, 2010) anti-Obamacare rally in Washington DC, there has been no outright racism at a Tea Party event.

However, the liberal "alternative" to the Tea Party, the squatters known as Occupy Wall Street was a movement that saw violence, property damage, sexual assualts, racism and anti-Semitism.

The DCCC, under Steve Israel's leadership, urged Democrats to "stand with" these anti-Semetic rabble-rousers (NY Post). The RNC ran this ad back in late 2011.

Why did Steve Israel, as leader of the DCCC, support a movement that is clearly motivated by bigotry, violence, Marxism and anti-Americanism?

Friday, April 11, 2014

Obama's Racial Demagoguery To Al Sharpton's Organization: The GOP Wants To Deny The Vote

Here's another example of how, despite what Richard Milhous Obama said on David Letterman back in September 2012, he does not represent all of America.

He only represents those he can frighten into voting for him and Democrats by using whatever demagoguery necessary, be it the phony "War on Women" or playing the race card.

Today, he used the podium at an organization headed by one of the most divisive figures in modern America, the alleged "Reverend" Al Sharpton, to employ racial demagoguery about voting rights being stripped away by those evil wascally Wepublicans (the Obama-friendly Politico).
President Barack Obama struck hard at restrictive voting rights laws Friday, calling them a Republican political tactic conceived to address a made-up problem.
Pretending that there’s widespread impropriety, he said, is just about keeping Democrats from winning.
“The real voter fraud is people who try to deny our rights by making bogus arguments about voter fraud,” Obama said, in a speech to Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network in New York — an organization that he said should serve as a national model for organizing people around voting, led by a man who deserved “a big round of applause.”
The voting rights argument is a key element of the White House’s strategy to have the president focus on boosting base turnout for the midterms, especially among core Obama voters.
“There are well-organized and well-funded efforts to undo [the] gains” of the civil rights movement, Obama told the largely African-American crowd. “Just as inequality feeds on justice, opportunity requires justice, and justice requires the right to vote.”
Democrats face a different landscape than they did in 2012, when they had the benefits of running against new voting laws that were being challenged in court without having to worry as much about their voters actually being blocked.
The laws are on the books. Obama isn’t on the ballot. And the party needs an issue that can rile up the base, raise money from the grassroots, rally volunteers and form a rhetorical entry point to a larger argument about how Republican policies are hurting the constituencies most threatened by voting restrictions.
“The right to vote — what kind of political platform is that? Why would you make that a part of your agenda, preventing people from voting? How can you defend that?” Obama said. “This recent effort to restrict the vote has not been led by both parties. It’s being led by the Republican Party.”
As Obama did Thursday in Austin in a speech commemorating the anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, he directly linked the struggle of African-Americans in the 1960s to the battle against voting laws today.
Obama did not announce any new policy, but did say that he was fully supportive of the efforts by Attorney General Eric Holder — who addressed the convention Wednesday, speaking about the priority he’s placed on voting rights cases.
“There’s a reason the agency he runs is called the Department of Justice,” Obama said.
You mean Eric "My People" Holder, the racist, black supremacist who dropped the case of the New Black Panther Party members who stood in the doorway of a voting area, telling white voters "you're about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."?

The Obama-boot lickers at the Politico didn't report on how Al Sharpton hugged a woman named Melowese Richardson, convicted of vote fraud, admitted voting six (6) times for the vote fraud denier Obama.

Not only that, Ms. Richardson sat on the board of a group that received a grant from Obama's EPA.  But just like protecting Socialist Security as a monument to FDR, Obama and Democrats want the voting rights act left alone as a monument to progressive Democrat racist Lyndon "I'll Have Those N'rs Voting Democrat For 200 Years" Johnson.

Also, for all the talk of conservatives and Tea Party members being "extremist," why do liberals not mind Obama and his fellow racist Holder speaking at a group headed by someone who has called Jews "diamond merchants," and used homophobic slurs, in addition to using the N-word against then New York Mayor David Dinkins?

And can we still consider that Obama is a racist?

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Lyndon Johnson, The "Civil Rights President": "I'll Have Those N*ggers Voting Democrat..."

Yesterday, at the LBJ Presidential Library on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin, the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act being signed into law was celebrated, and the past three Democrat Presidents used it to celebrate their party and their 1964 standard-bearer as President, Lyndon B. Johnson (USA Today).
There was a time -- a long time -- when Democratic presidential candidates would not even utter the name Lyndon Baines Johnson. 
This week, the three Democrats elected president since Johnson traveled to Texas to honor the memory of LBJ -- a president once reviled for the Vietnam War, now revered for a domestic record that includes landmark civil rights laws. 
"We're here because the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act made it possible for Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to be president of the United States," Clinton said during a speech Wednesday. 
Clinton spoke during a three-day summit on the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an event that has drawn scores of lawmakers and civil rights activists from decades past.
The summit is part of what ex-Texas lieutenant governor and LBJ protege Ben Barnes called "the re-introduction of Johnson" more than four decades after his death in 1973. 
It's another example of how, like stock values, presidential reputations can rise and fall over time. It is now a buyer's market for Johnson, amid a string of golden anniversaries that include, this year, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, next year, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 
"LBJ was known as the Vietnam president," said Mark Updegrove, director of the Lyndon Johnson library in Austin. "But I think ultimately he'll be known as the civil rights president." 
Quite a change from 1992, when Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clinton made a campaign stop at the LBJ library but never mentioned Johnson by name -- even though the event took place on Johnson's birthday.
Well, (hanging my head) I was there at that event in 1992, which was a campaign rally for the Clinton/Gore ticket, and I remember the name of LBJ and the fact it was his birthday was mentioned a lot from the podium that day. Don't remember if Slick Willie uttered it though.

But the legacy of Lyndon Johnson as the "Civil Rights President" is outrageous, and an effort by liberals and Democrats to rewrite not only Johnson's past as a racist, but the racist legacy of the Democrat Party as well.

First of all, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was largely a result of John F. Kennedy, and would most likely have been signed by him, had he not been assassinated a few months earlier. (Forget the conspiracy theory that LBJ had him killed, JFK was killed by a lone Communist sympathizer, Lee Harvey Oswald).  Plus, the first Civil Rights 0ill was signed into law by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, but had been watered down by....Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson.  James Taranto explains...
As Bruce Bartlett explains in "Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past" (available from the OpinionJournal bookstore):

In his January 10, 1957, State of the Union Address, Eisenhower renewed his request for civil rights legislation, which had passed the House but died in the Senate in the previous Congress due to Southern Democratic delaying tactics. . . .

Everyone knew that the critical fight on the civil rights bill would be in the Senate. . . . In that body, the key figure was Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, who represented the [former] Confederate state of Texas and had been installed in his position by Southern Democrats precisely in order to block civil rights legislation. Until the 1950s, Johnson's record of opposition to all civil rights legislation was spotless. But he was ambitious and wanted to be president. 
After dragging his feet on the civil rights bill throughout much of 1957, Johnson finally came to the conclusion that the tide had turned in favor of civil rights and he needed to be on the right side of the issue if he hoped to become president. . . .

At the same time, the Senate's master tactician and principal opponent of the civil rights bill, Democrat Richard B. Russell of Georgia, saw the same handwriting on the wall but came to a different conclusion. He realized that the support was no longer there for an old-fashioned Democrat filibuster. . . . So Russell adopted a different strategy this time of trying to amend the civil rights bill so as to minimize its impact. Behind the scenes, Johnson went along with Russell's strategy of not killing the civil rights bill, but trying to neuter it as much as possible. . . .

Eisenhower was disappointed at not being able to produce a better piece of legislation. "I wanted a much stronger civil rights bill in '57 than I could get," he later lamented. "But the Democrats . . . wouldn't let me have it."
Liberals criticized Eisenhower for getting such a modest bill at the end of the day. But Johnson argued that it was historically important because it was the first civil rights bill to pass Congress since 1875. "Once you break virginity," he said, "it'll be easier next time."
But here's something else LBJ said about the 1957 Civil Rights bill.
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again." 
But that doesn't compare to what Johnson was overheard saying to two Democrat governors on Air Force One, while he was President, and is attributed to Ronald Kessler from his book "Inside the White House."
“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”
Johnson allegedly used the racial slur against Marin Luther King Jr., when King decided to attack American involvement in Vietnam due to LBJ's bungling and insistence of running the war from the White House.
President Lyndon Johnson is said to have admitted privately, "That g*ddamn nigger preacher may drive me out of the White House."
If you don't believe Johnson used that word, here's a YouTube clip of a phone call where Johnson casually drops the "N-word."

Real credit for passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act should go to Congressional Republicans, because it was Democrats like Al Gore Sr., Bill Clinton's mentor J. William Fulbright, liberal hero of Watergate Sam Ervin, and Robert "Sheets" Byrd (D-KKK) who opposed the act. Byrd even filibustered the bill for 14 hours on the Senate floor.

Some history you won't hear about from the liberal media, or in your history class, and the Democrat Party won't discuss it either.