I’ve had it with this racist, partisan joke. His agenda comes before his country. His words mean less than his actions. He is dangerous for America, and just one of the many reasons we have to win back the House in November.
Let’s start with the Arizona immigration law. Mr. Holder told us on Sunday that he’s floating the possibility of another suit against the state of Arizona based on racial profiling grounds. Seriously? I would like Mr. Holder to step back for a moment and deal with some of the issues he previously had to face.
Let’s start with the dropping of the Black Panther voter intimidation case. He had that one dropped even though it was already won.
Or, we could talk about the word “terrorism” and perhaps the potential threat it poses to our national security. Well, Mr. Holder can’t even bring himself to say “radical Islam.”
What else do we know about Eric Holder?
- Holder suggested the last minute pardon of Marc Rich, which Bill Clinton provided on his last day as president
- Holder worked for law firm Covington & Burling where he worked as a special investigator for Rod Blagojevich
- Covington & Burling also represented Guantanamo inmates, but Holder denies every working directly on the cases
- Holder supported the Washington D.C. gun ban
- Holder is for the closing of Guantanamo Bay but is against the Patriot Act
- During a speech during black history month he called the United States “a nation of cowards” on racial issues
- Holder support the Assault Weapons Ban
- Holder represented Swiss bank UBS AG and has recused himself from any involvement in the case involving conspiracy in U.S. tax fraud
- And of course, he made the popular decision to try 9/11 conspirators in New York City criminal courts.
Given the fact that Mr. Holder formed a negative opinion of the Arizona law despite admitting that he never read it, I think we can safely say that Eric Holder is a man with an agenda, not a man of integrity or respect for our laws. A lawsuit based on racial profiling grounds is doomed to fail and waste tax dollars that could be used to fund resources that actually can have an impact such as a fence, more guards on the border, or better weapons for our border agents.
Mr. Holder, if you are by chance reading this I encourage you to come to Texas and kiss my cracker white ass. I can say that, right? After all, you let this outstanding citizen Black Panther free and he says what he wants. Mr. Holder, you are a disgrace to the Founding Fathers and the concept of a country of, by and for the people.
The left is preparing it’s mindless minions for the final month of the campign by warning about Team McCain and a plot centering around “character assassination.” And the media is ready, willing and able to deploy whatever message Obama wants to send. Here’s an example from the New York Times. Sarah Palin has pointed out that Obama has been associated with domestic terrorist William Ayers. The mere mention of this is somehow construed by the NYT as a racist statement. Seriously…
“Palin’s words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee “palling around” with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn’t see their America?
In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers’ day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.
Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as “not like us” is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.”
When did Palin ever mention race? When did stating a known truth about Obama become a false claim? Obama was hand-picked by Bill Ayers to serve as Charmain of the Board for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a group that Ayers founded. Anyone who knows the slightest thing about how the business world works knows that a company founder does not select acquaintences to serve as the leader of governing board of their business. With all of the people and politicians available in Chicago, why would Ayers select Obama? Perhaps because he has the same mindset? Perhaps because he will do what you want politically? There is no other way to slice this lemon, Obama is a disciple of the far left and Ayers acted accordingly by placing him at the top. And, if there is supposedly nothing is wrong or questionable about the Obama/Ayers relationship, why doesn’t Obama mention his five-year stint as Ayer’s chairman in either of his two autobiographies? The press will have you believe that there’s nothing to see here, just move on.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tddfiG70pQ0]
There’s more to a candidate than a smile and charisma. So, to the people on the left concerned about character assassination, maybe you should be more concerned about how Obama will kill our country if elected. It is not character assassination if you are stating the truth.
Now that bloggers have had time to digest various thoughts on Reverend Dr. Wright’s repertoire of controversial statements we will soon see which bloggers are thinking with their heart versus their head. The main take from the left is that Obama can’t be blamed for the things others say. Here are some examples:
- “I call upon my opponent to say that she forthrightly rejects statements made by her hairdresser” (Washington Post)
- “The racist Clinton/Far Right smear machine proves that Obama’s minister had a valid point” (Huffington Post)
- “If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.” (New York Times – April 2007)
This last bullet is quite interesting since it came from Wright almost a year ago. He admits that guilt by association with him is a real possibility. However, if anyone else says the very same thing they are labeled as racists or character assassins. So with this in mind I have a message for the reverend.
Screw you and the divisive horse you rode in on.
Yes, people should not necessarily be blamed for comments made by someone else. However, these comments deserve far more scrutiny when they come from the leader of an organization that exists to shape how you live your life. If Obama’s security guard, baby sitter or barber said the things Wright has said, the comments would be ignored and Obama would be clean. But these comments came from the man that married Barack and Michelle, the man that baptized his children, and the man that inspired the title of Obama’s second book. Wright is a man of influence, he has had Obama’s attention for more than twenty years.
Here are some words from Obama himself aboutReverand Dr. Wright:
“A special shout out to my pastor, a guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me, he’s a friend, and a great leader …” (source)
This doesn’t sound like a man referring to his crazy uncle. I also find the following comment from Wright’s church interesting: “This is an attack on the legacy of the African American Church which led and continues to lead the fight for human rights in America and around the world.”
To me this sounds an awful lot like the stuff that radical Muslims say about Islam. Both conveniently ignore the substance of the criticism they receive and instead replace it with a diversion aimed to inflame their own members. Find me a single reporter or blogger that has attacked Trinity United Church of Christ. I doubt you can find one. It’s much easier to find people that are attacking Wright’s controversial statements. Not the church, his statements. And given that Wright has influenced Obama so deeply these attacks are absolutely justified.
