According to the Justice Department, Americans of African descent need the Democrat Party because without it they wouldn't know how to vote.
I kid you not.
Obama’s Justice Department ruled against the actions of the town of Kinston, North Carolina when the residents voted overwhelmingly to eliminate partisan elections for mayor and city council members. According to the Justice Department, blacks in Kinston must have the Democrat Party label in order to elect their “candidate of choice.” In other words, what Obama’s justice department (headed up by Eric Holder) is saying is that blacks will only vote for Democrats, and without the party label, blacks can’t figure out for themselves which candidate will get their vote.
That's right. Obama is saying that blacks are too stupid to vote on their own. They need the label "Democrat" next to the candidate's name.
Read for yourself here, but be warned... DON"T GET DISTRACTED!
Here's the real issue: Where does the Justice Department get off telling North Carolina how it can or cannot conduct local elections? For all you lefties out there who cried and whined about how the Supreme Court stole the election from Gore, how do you explain this?
You can't.
Please, allow me: What the Justice Department is doing is un-American, un-constitutional, dictatorial and fascist. Once again, Americans of African descent are allowing themselves to be pimped in the name power. Eric Holder and Barack Obama are the proverbial wolves in sheep's clothing . . . or should I say white guys in black face? They are using "their own people" to expand their power in the federal government, turning black folk into brown shirts. Demagogues like Eric Holder and company don't care about race, they just say they do... then they pour the Kool-Aid.
The truth of the matter is that blacks don't need Democrats, Democrats need blacks! But with friends like the congressional black caucus, Eric Holder and the "Justice Brothers" (Jesse and Al), who needs enemies?
Pay attention, class! After decades of dependency, in the 21st century, blacks in America are now deemed too dumb to vote. Barack Obama may be president and Eric Holder the attorney general and yet the Democrat ideology still dictates that blacks are stupid and must be taken care of.
Cartoon: GOPUSA
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. We've known for many months that not only the Black community, but the American public as a whole is viewed by the current administration as being too ignorant to know what is best for us.
Day by day, more and more of our freedom is being taken away from us. A little piece here and a little piece there. The pres. and his kronies are not going to stop "transforming" this country into something more representative of a socialist state until they are stopped.
Below is a couple minute video "Interest of Tyrants" you may want to check out.
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=16195220&ch=4226716&src=news
Posted by: Lone Wolf | October 21, 2009 at 07:15 AM
James, is he breaking the law? We are a nation of laws. If he is breaking the law we need a lawyer to sue him and get this show on the road.
Posted by: lauren | October 21, 2009 at 08:06 AM
Lauren, We have a Republican Congressman by the name of Jim Sensenbrenner who sits on the Constitutional Committee and every time any one asks him to start procedures he shuts us down with a lame answer or no answer at all.
I don't know where the help is going to come from.
Posted by: maddypie | October 21, 2009 at 08:59 AM
If I sat down and went over some law reviews, I am pretty sure I remember seeing something about local vs. national in terms of elections. Basically, local elections have ultimate leeway to setup up their elections and should be reserved by the states.
From reading the story, it does seem fishy that Holder would stick his nose in a state issue like this. Lefties love themselves some big ole government. Long arms, keep everyone within reach. Pretty bad.
Posted by: Happenstance | October 21, 2009 at 09:12 AM
Nvm, I am not going to do it. But I will assign homework for the posters here. Just google:
10th Amendment
Election laws
Federal vs. state elections
Something along those lines and see if any court cases come up regarding elections. I don't believe there is party ID precedent, but something close to it may be out there.
I could see the NC Repubs suing and having a good chance of winning.
Posted by: Happenstance | October 21, 2009 at 09:18 AM
I cannot belive this. seriously. this does not look good for your country my friends.
Posted by: LegioNofZioN | October 21, 2009 at 02:29 PM
where does the justice department get off on telling local governments how to run elections?
I'm going to go with the voting rights act of 1965. conservatives still don't like that one. funny how blindly modern day conservatives are so willing to carry that mantle.
OMG the federal government interferes in electoral law of southern states!?!?!?
no shit sherlock. and there is a long history behind that one.
Posted by: Derek | October 21, 2009 at 04:26 PM
what's next? you guys going to start saying that there was nothing wrong with literacy tests either? congress just thought blacks were too stupid to pass them when they banned those too?
Posted by: Derek | October 21, 2009 at 04:29 PM
Derek. Ever pay attention to the informed, know-nothing citizens (regardless of skin color) who know little if anything about their own country, the government and basic facts easily learned in school... yet those individuals are voting.
Damn scary. I wonder how those folks manage to make it though a day and find their way back home.
Posted by: Joyce | October 21, 2009 at 04:41 PM
Okay Derek, Thanks for pointing out the past but is it okay for them to do it now? I don't really get you...you point out how wrong it was when conservatives did it but you seem to give a pass for liberals doing it.
shouldn't the standard be - if it's wrong it is wrong no matter who does it!
Come on now!
Posted by: Natisha | October 21, 2009 at 05:34 PM
Kinston is about an hour from where I live. It has a population of about 23,000 - 65% black.
That's right folks - 2/3 of the Kinston population is black - and voted to make the city council and mayor non-partisan.
So Holder seems to be trying to protect the good citizens of Kinston from... themselves.
So what do you think of that one Derek?
Posted by: neomom | October 21, 2009 at 06:38 PM
Totally awesome JTH!
And we continue to see the result of the gag order on Obama's lifetime pals, racists, terrorists and criminals. There should be no surprise what-so-ever over the depraved new world he's bent on dictating.
FIRE CONGRESS. The entire Congress, every member, systematically. They have failed us in every way. We have no government of the people, by the people or for the people. The government is theirs. Its their town hall meetings. Its their responsibility to whoever greases their pockets the most.
FIRE CONGRESS. Term Limits. Common Citizen Representatives. No Parties, No Partisanship.
Posted by: Maddie - Saukville | October 21, 2009 at 07:00 PM
The gag order on us prior to the election that is.
The same gag order that forbade us from using his middle name that school children are now programmed to sing praise to, hmm, hmm, hmm.
Posted by: Maddie - Saukville | October 21, 2009 at 07:02 PM
If Kinston is 65 percent black then it DEFINITELY falls in with the voting rights act. Majority minority district in a formerly discriminating state.
The sins of the past don't just disappear because someone wants to write a dumb anti government rant
Posted by: Derek | October 21, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Gosh Derek...
I hope you play by the rules.
The tribe has missed your surly bull*hit.
Posted by: James T. | October 21, 2009 at 10:39 PM
So "Ida" the fossilized specimen is back!
And spewing ridiculous statements just as before.
What's the matter Ida? Was crashing plans in the sky getting boring?
Are you just another cog in the government machine?
Are you actually even in air traffic controller school?
If you are do they make you sing: barack hussein obama Mmmm,Mmmm,Mmmm, every day?
Or manifesto boy are you back in the woods sitting in the cabin with the monkey? I told you they wouldn't let you take him to school with you.
Well pumpkin head no matter what the reason is that you have come back, it is obvious that you are still a loser with no facts to back up your twisted arguments.
Once a child of the gypsies always a child of the gypsies. Lies and diversion.
Your shell game is old.
Better sharpen up your conversation or we will get bored and shut you down just like your acorn nut friends.
Oh and commrade derek, I hope you saved that piece I wrote for you back in February because nine months later herr hussein is following it like a book.
Wow gnat I really am a prophet!
Posted by: maddypie | October 22, 2009 at 05:34 AM
Derek:
I've read the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and it has nothing to do with this situation. No where in the legislation does it reference anything about how states set up their ballots with reference to party affiliation. The act addresses only the process of voter registration and makes sure that no one is denied the right to vote based on skin color or any other discriminatory factors and defines measures that can be taken if noncompliance is identified.
I don't think anyone on this site has any problems with literacy tests being banished or anything else referenced in the Voting Rights Act that prevents VOTER REGISTRATION. What is the issue is big brother sticking his nose in somewhere it doesn't belong trying to forcefully impose their will.
The argument you are making has no merit and it seems that your comments are posted for arguments sake only.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | October 22, 2009 at 06:53 AM
Lone Wolf meet Derek. Argument for arguments sake is his specialty as is diversion.
I kicked him off the site a few months back for excessive posting. If you want to know more about his antics, just ask Maddypie.
Posted by: James T. | October 22, 2009 at 07:18 AM
Lone Wolf,
Don't even bother. The guy gets a couple months ban and still doesn't have a clue. He flies airplanes or something so that gives him the right to power trip. Reality escapes him.
"I kicked him off the site a few months back for excessive posting. If you want to know more about his antics, just ask Maddypie."
It wasn't really the excessive posting per se. It was the posting littered with talking points, swears, name-calling, taunts, red herrings, strawmen, and just every single other liberal tactic to get off topic. Never really making an argument, but his brash and poor attitude made it very hard for people to address him. A lot of people didn't post because of him. They didn't feel like they needed to see how to be berated by some government hack.
Posted by: Happenstance | October 22, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Gosh... Thanks for reminding me Happenstance. That how I knew it was Derek when he snuck back in using that fake name.
The ass in him burned right through.
Oh well I believe in second chance but I also believe in a super short leash!
Posted by: James T. | October 22, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Happenstance and J.T.:
Thanks for the insight into Derek's character. Sounds like good old fashioned lefty tactics being practiced by someone with nothing really relevant to say.
I hope that his presence being allowed back on this site by J.T. doesn't prevent anyone on this site from posting their thoughts, feelings and points of view because that's exactly what the left wants. They think if they berate, criticize and tear down our beliefs that they will silence us. I've read some very good posts and articles provided by people on this site over the last several months and feel that the followers on this site have passion in their beliefs. Don't let someone like Derek take that away.
As for myself and possibly many of you who contribute to this site, I'm sure we've all been called much worse than whatever Derek may be able to dish out.
I don't assume to speak for anyone on this site, but for me personally I say to the lefties who visit this site "Bring in On!" You will never discourage me or make my beliefs falter. Besides, I can always use a good laugh every now and then.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | October 22, 2009 at 12:55 PM
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/about.php
"Section 5 freezes election practices or procedures in certain states until the new procedures have been subjected to review, either after an administrative review by the United States Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This means that voting changes in covered jurisdictions may not be used until that review has been obtained."
I have a bring it on attitude because 99 percent of the time none of you know what you are talking about.
You can argue whether or not Kinston is a covered district under said section... but you'll end up looking stupid like lone wolf
Posted by: Derek | October 22, 2009 at 05:13 PM
And the relevance here should be obvious. This whole article is a bunch of crying about government intrusion, as though there isn't a law that explicitly makes the justice department oversee electoral law changes in certain states. Not only that, this is basically a copy paste argument for when southern states tried to keep literacy tests. Just because someone can establish a plausible excuse for a change in electoral law doesn't automatically make the law acceptable. Literacy tests sounds like a good idea. But we all know what southern states did with that idea. Th serehould be a historical lesson learned here. Instead, I get the joy of dealing with recycled arguments from 1965, parroted by people that are none the wiser
Posted by: Derek | October 22, 2009 at 05:25 PM
Lone Wolf,
You haven't experienced the insolence of Derek = Diversion yet. Check out his last two post and multiply that by 50!
He is like a moth to the flame... he can't stay away. You will win 90% of the arguments and feel like you have wasted your time.
Be warned.
Posted by: James T. | October 22, 2009 at 09:03 PM
gnat, Of course nobody at air traffic controller school likes you.
Are you surprised? I'm not.
They laugh right in your face, they ignore your questions, no one eats lunch with you, they have striped your bed five times already and you haven't even been there a month.
Yeah it sucks being you. Being punked and looked down on by your peers.
I just want to remind you that no one will ever have less regard for your opinion and less respect for you than me.
Only "you" hold yourself in high esteem, and though that is sad and pathetic, it doesn't tug at my heart strings.
I bet you are longing for the good old days when life was simpler and you ma and pa were traveling the country side in your wagon with all of your other gypsy friends.
Yeah pumpkin head growing up is hard.
But hey look on the bright side. Halloween is one week away and with that pumpkin head of yours I know it is your favorite holiday of the year.
Well have fun and don't eat too much candy all at one. A puking pumpkin head is not a pretty sight.
Posted by: maddypie | October 23, 2009 at 06:20 AM