Tuesday, October 20, 2009

The Justice Department? What's going on here? Do they have jursidiction here! Have they not heard of "States Rights"

Here's your police state taking over your country... What are you going to do about it?
________________

Justice Dept: Blacks MUST Have Democrat Label to Know How to Vote

Posted By Bobby Eberle On October 20, 2009 at 9:02 am

There have been some crazy actions to come from Obama and his advisors regarding race. Remember when, not knowing ANY of the facts regarding an incident between a white police officer and a black professor, Obama said on national television that the officer acted "stupidly?" Or how about Obama's 20-year affiliation with a pastor who blasts America and advocates racial division?

Well, now I think I've seen it all. Obama's Justice Department has ruled against the actions of the town of Kinston, North Carolina. What did this town do that was so terrible? The residents voted overwhelmingly to eliminate partisan elections for mayor and city council members. The Justice Department stepped in and said, "Whoa! Wait just a second!" According to the Justice Department, blacks in Kinston must have the Democrat Party in order to elect their "candidate of choice." How insulting! Basically, what Obama's team 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. This is not only a slap in the face of the voters, but it continues Obama's efforts to divide people along racial lines rather than bring them together.

The Washington Times has an excellent accounting of what is happening in this small North Carolina city. Following a city vote to do away with partisan elections for city offices, the Justice Department blocked the action:
The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black. The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.
Candidate of choice? Basically they are saying that blacks will ONLY vote for Democrats, and if there is no party label, they won't know what to do. Obama's team also continues to take steps backward in race relations. Saying that whites will only vote for a black if there is a party label attached smacks of blatant bigotry. Furthermore, to say that blacks can't figure out who their "candidate of choice" is without a party label, Justice Department officials are making a huge assumption about the intelligence of black voters.
First of all, if a person is running for office, and that person is the "candidate of choice" for a voter or group of voters, it doesn't matter if that candidate has a party label attached or not. Shouldn't the electoral process by a process where voters actually pay attention to issues, do a little research, and then make an informed decision? What the Obama folks are saying is, "Forget all that! We just want them to vote for the Democrat."
Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He said the ruling was based on "what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction" and how it affects blacks' ability to elect the candidates they favor. "The determination of who is a 'candidate of choice' for any group of voters in a given jurisdiction is based on an analysis of the electoral behavior of those voters within a particular jurisdiction," he said. Critics on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are not so sure. "The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism," said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates."
Keep in mind that according to the news story, this city votes Democrat overwhelmingly... both blacks and whites. Kinston "voted by a margin of nearly 2-to-1 to eliminate partisan elections in the city."
The news story gets ridiculous when one reads the quotes from Loretta King, "who at the time was the acting head of the Justice Department's civil rights division."
"Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office," she said.
Ms. King is the same official who put a stop to the New Black Panther Party case. In that case, the Justice Department filed a civil complaint in Philadelphia after two members of the black revolutionary group dressed in quasi-military garb stood outside a polling place on election last year and purportedly intimidated voters with racial insults, slurs and a nightstick.
Through King's efforts, the charges against all but one of the Black Panthers were dropped.
The Justice Department's actions are not only racial, but overtly political. As noted by Hans A. von Spakovsky at National Review Online:
The attorneys in the Voting Section also increasingly use the Voting Rights Act as primarily a political bludgeon to protect and enhance the electoral successes of the Democratic Party. Thus, in the Kinston objection letter, the Department stated that “it is the partisan makeup of the general electorate” that allows the winner of the Democratic primary to win in the general election. But of course, the VRA is supposed to protect voters, not majority parties. The fact that blacks are a controlling majority in the city is essentially deemed irrelevant.

This is yet another example of Obama's advisors showing that they are not ready for their duty to represent the entire country. They are partisans, and they are ideological radicals.

_________________

Courtesy Ad

_________

It's the eleventh hour, fifty-nine minutes, and fifty nine seconds...what am I talking about? Check here to find out more.

Storm'n Norm'n Last Warning

You may have avoided me for all my crazy warnings but you know I'm not crazy...it's your own complacency that you will not admit to and as much as you may not like it, friend, family or foe, I blame you directly for allowing this to happen...or what is about to happen. Especially friend or family! You could have stopped this dead in it's tracks when I first warned you years ago, but no, you decided to believe a stranger more so than your friend. Some former friends have become staunch Marxists unknowingly through their associations over an extended period of time and so be it, they have drawn a line in the sand. For where do you think all this is going? It's going, it's going...your country is almost gone! And if you still don't care you will be on the other side of that line from me. For I will live, I will fight, I will die, for God and Country...in that order and no one will stand in my way! Remember this as we move closer to the end...you must not identify yourself as a member of either of the two major political parties, Democrat or Republican...they have lied to you and lied about each other all the while they were conspiring to do away with our freedom. I have burnt many a midnight oil to come up with my decisions... studied thousands of documents...and I will not let over a thousand hours of study be reduced to zero simply because of your complacency or some unfounded affliction to your party (you should have thought more about being an American than a Democrat or Republican). Have faith in me...your friend or place your tail between your legs and scamper like the coward you may be...and don't come crying to me and say I didn't tell you so. Now for one last warning from Lord Christopher Monckton (see video below). ~ Norman E. Hooben

video

Monday, October 19, 2009

Obama is our new jesus ...apparently he thinks he is!

This is so offensive to all of Cristianity the only reason I'm posting this story is to help expose the anti-Christ Obama for what he really is...the devil in disguise is too good a title. Barack Husein Obama certainly has known about this and did nothing to remove it from his website Organizing For America in which he has control. The information provided below (with link provided to full story) should be ample enough for his entire audience to shout out, "Liar !" the next time he even so much as says a word that he is a Christian. ~ Norman E. Hooben
ps: I couldn't find it in me to capitalize the "J" in the title ...sort of the same reason I don't capitalize the "g" in false gods.
_________________
"President Obama is the son of Kings and Queens who ruled over the greatest civilizations in human history. The world waited a long time for the arrival of Obama. We did not always know what his name would be or what he would look like but we knew a son of Africa would return to restore light to the world."

This has been up on O's site for a year. There are no accidents, ladies and gents.

The world propaganda photoshop is from "Obama's adviser's" blog.

Thousands of years ago a remarkable African man traveled from present-day Ethiopia to the Middle East. His name was Jesus and he carried with him a message of justice and peace. By this time, most African peoples were aware of the white man from the cold north. The great Obama African cities in Egypt, Libya and Morocco had been ransacked and largely destroyed by these strange beings. And they continued to travel south into the heart of Africa leaving destruction behind them. A large area of northern Africa was being transformed from lush farmland into a desert. (It is known today as the Sahara Desert.) Jesus traveled north to where the white man came from with the hope he could stop their destructive ways.

But Jesus was killed. There were only a few whites who accepted Jesus and heard his message. And Jesus was killed simply because he was a black African man.

Now as Barack Obama prepares to cure America of its sickness and bring forth justice we wonder if it could happen again.

Obama is well protected, of course. He is guarded by the Secret Service but can they be trusted? They are techically part of the Bush regime and can we trust a group of mostly white men called the "Secret" Service?

Obama is also protected by NOI [Nation of Islam] guards and with them, I feel much safer. During my travels with Obama this year I have noted that they are always alert and ready to defend Obama with their lives. They share a bond with Obama that is not possible with the Secret Service.

This was advising the President of the United States?
Read entire post here
________________

________

Courtesy Ad

Obama adviser, "and we're going to let you die"


Click on image to enlarge.

The image at left may have been sent as a joke but if you listen to the advisers that Obama surrounds himself with, this is no time to be making sport of your health or mine. I wonder just how many of these advocates of expendable life for older folks because, "its too expensive and we're going to let you die" how they will feel when it's their turn to roll over and die. Robert Reich is an advisor to Obama and he's the one that made the above statement and from all outside perspectives Obama approves of this philosophy...if you can call it that. Reich is also one of the advisers who was pushing for passage of the latest health care bill due to some kind of urgency that has no rhyme or reason behind it. His urgency was simply that the Congress was going into a recess therefor the urgency. Now what kind of urgency is that?
Here's what he said, "Why is timing so important? Because the health-care clock is ticking, and doesn't have many weeks left. Universal health care is so complicated -- touching on so much of the economy, stepping on the toes of so many vested interests -- that to allow the bills to languish past recess risks the entire goal. Speed is essential. Recall that after Bill Clinton was elected, universal health insurance looked inevitable; a year later, it was doomed. As Lyndon Johnson warned his staff after the 1964 landslide, "every day while I'm in office, I'm gonna lose votes."
Speed is essential? Gimme a break! The bill has still not passed so what is so essential about it?
Meanwhile you don't want to miss those famous words, "...and we're going to let you die". ~ Norman E. Hooben

video
See also (another adviser says): "It is easier to kill a million people than control a million people."
________________
Courtesy Ad

Unemployment...it will get worse before it gets worse...


Unemployment...
it will get worse before it gets worse... I kid you not! Norman E. Hooben
_____

True unemployment rate already at 20% Read more here

The U.S. Department of Labor Home Page Oct 10, 2009 ... Consumer Price Index (CPI). +0.2% in Sep 2009. Unemployment Rate. 9.8%67890 Read more here

Unemployment rate jumps to 26-year high of 9.7% - MarketWatch Read more here


al.com
Alabama unemployment rate 10.7 percent‎ -
By Cosby Woodruff • October 17, 2009 Alabama's September unemployment rate of 10.7 percent is bad enough on the surface, but it hardly tells the whole story ... Read more here

Michigan unemployment tops 15% - Jul. 17, 2009 Jul 17, 2009 ... NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Michigan became the first state in 25 years to suffer an unemployment rate exceeding 15%, according to a report ... Read more here

And we have fifteen states that already have ten percent or more unemployed...

ILLINOIS10.0
GEORGIA10.2
ALABAMA10.4
FLORIDA10.7
NORTH CAROLINA10.8
OHIO10.8
TENNESSEE10.8
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA11.1
KENTUCKY11.1
SOUTH CAROLINA11.5
CALIFORNIA12.2
OREGON12.2
RHODE ISLAND12.8
NEVADA13.2
MICHIGAN15.2

Now aren't you happy you voted for change?

The worse speech ever... "I'm just getting started."
How would you like to be a member of that audience?
...gives a new definition to the expression, "The dumbing down of America."
"Pitiful", to say the least!

Warnings are wearing thin...WAKE THE HELL UP AMERICA

Click on picture to enlarge.


Click on picture to enlarge.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

"Cannot Be Verified" Does that mean you're sorry? Probably not knowing the damage as already been done!

Two items here...Do they have a connection? The St. Louis Post-Dispatch seems to be backing down...but will the sleazy lawyers? ~ Norm

Item #1. First paper to run Limbaugh "slavery" quote issues retraction

Source: Pro-Football Talk NBC Sports

In the wake of the news that radio host Rush Limbaugh was hoping to buy a chunk of the St. Louis Rams, Bryan Burwell of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote a column containing the now-infamous quote, supposedly from Limbaugh, regarding the notion that slavery "had its merits."

We first became aware of the quote not from perusing the copy of the Post-Dispatch that arrives in our mailbox every morning in West Virginia, but because Limbaugh mentioned the issue during the Monday broadcast of his radio show. (Indeed, if Limbaugh had never talked about the quotes on his radio show, we and likely many others would have never even known about the issue.)

When posting on the matter on Monday, we made it clear that Limbaugh contends he never said the words. (The next day, he supplied a more forceful denial; the practical effect was that even more people became aware of the allegedly false quotes.)

But now the toothpaste is being squeezed back into the tube by the Post-Dispatch. In an Editor's Note published today, the newspaper says that the quote in question "cannot be verified, and its use did not meet the Post-Dispatch's standards for sourcing."

The Post-Dispatch also points out that the source of the quote was Jack Huberman's 2006 book, 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America. "The book provided no details about the origin of the quote," the Editor's Note explains. "When contacted by the Post-Dispatch, Huberman said that he had a source for the quote but declined to reveal it on advice of counsel. The book's publisher, Nation Books, did not return calls to the Post-Dispatch."

(Huberman's response suggests pretty strongly to us that he never actually heard Limbaugh say the words on the air, or in any other setting.)

Others have cited the same quote from Huberman's book, and others likely will be providing similar retractions and/or clarifications. We'll be adding an Editor's Note to our original story on the matter, pointing out that the Post-Dispatch has retracted the quote.

As you know, we've never contended that Limbaugh uttered the words that have been attributed to him by Huberman. Unless and until Huberman identifies a compelling source, there is absolutely no evidence that Limbaugh uttered the words.

In our view, Huberman should not be permitted to hide behind legal advice. He needs to either identify a source or publicly admit that the quote is false. Until Huberman (or anyone else) identifies a compelling source, we will assume that the quote is false, and that Limbaugh is telling the truth.


Item #2. Source of Limbaugh Smears is Far Left Firm (source: Gateway Pundit)
Saturday, October 17, 2009, 10:47 AM
Jim Hoft

American Thinker has an article today discussing the source of the Limbaugh smears.
This was originally posted Mark Steyn from a reader:

“The quotes were added by a user with the IP address of 69.64.213.146. This address has been used mostly to make changes to the article about Rush, but also Karl Rove, Sean Hannity,.. James Dobson and Sara Palin from 2005 until earlier this year.

“While others have noted this in various forums, no one seems to have made the connection that this IP address is used as a gateway by the law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP (see here, for example) that all users from that IP address come from the pbwt.com domain.)”

The law firm has a history of supporting several far left causes and donated big to the Obama campaign.

Plus– Rush responded to the state-run media’s smear machine today in the Wall Street Journal, via Instapundit:

Numerous sportswriters, CNN, MSNBC, among others, falsely attributed to me statements I had never made. Their sources, as best I can tell, were Wikipedia and each other. But the Wikipedia post was based on a fabrication printed in a book that also lacked any citation to an actual source.

I never said I supported slavery and I never praised James Earl Ray. How sick would that be? Just as sick as those who would use such outrageous slanders against me or anyone else who never even thought such things. Mr. Wilbon refuses to take responsibility for his poison pen, writing instead that he will take my word that I did not make these statements; others, like Rick Sanchez of CNN, essentially used the same sleight-of-hand.