“It is amazing what Eric Holder’s minions are willing to say in order to facilitate vote fraud. Up to and including demeaning arguments about the intelligence and sophistication of blacks. The mainstream media can relied upon to avoid publicizing the testimony just provided by Charles Stewart, an MIT political scientist hired by Eric Holder’s Justice Department to testify in a case involving election integrity laws in North Carolina.”
“The NAACP’s expert was another professor, Barry Burden, of the University of Wisconsin. Burden claimed that blacks and Hispanics are less able “to pay the costs of voting” because of the “stark differences between whites, on the one hand, in North Carolina and those of blacks and Latinos in North Carolina.” By costs, Burden was referring to “the time and effort that a voter has to put in in order to participate.” That includes “locating the polling place, getting the right paperwork, understanding who the candidates are, becoming informed.” From his testimony, it was clear that Burden did not think that blacks and Hispanics have the same ability as whites to accomplish basic tasks such as locating a polling place, filling out a one-page voter-registration form, and learning what issues candidates support or oppose.”
The Daily Signal points out the new radical nominee to the Civil Rights Division – Vanita Gupta. Who knew access to cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, and other dangerous drugs were civil rights.
So who supports decriminalizing cocaine, heroin, LSD, methamphetamine, ecstasy and all dangerous drugs, including marijuana? No, it’s not your teenage nephew. It’s President Obama’s new acting head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, Vanita Gupta. In 2012, Gupta wrote that “states should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs, particularly marijuana, and for small amounts of other drugs.” (Emphasis mine).
Last week, President Obama appointed Vanita Gupta to the position of acting head. According to the Washington Post, the administration plans to nominate her in the next few months to become the permanent assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division.
…Her radical views on drug policy–including her opinion that states should decriminalize possession of all drugs (cocaine, heroin, LSD, ecstasy, marijuana etc.) should damper that support of those conservatives, and raise serious concerns on Capitol Hill.
This is just the first prosecution…
A months-long investigation into alleged voter fraud in the August general election in Polk County, Tennessee has resulted in a six count indictment against Jo Ann Cronan.
District Attorney General Stephen Crump warns that more prosecutions are coming:
“Every election cycle this office will be proactive and aggressive in prosecuting those who seek to influence the outcome of elections by illegal means. This is just the first prosecution to come from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation’s current investigation. Further evidence will be presented to the grand jury in Polk County… I anticipate that evidence will be presented to the Monroe County Grand Jury in the very near future as well… Those who would try to buy an election should take note and recognize that we will be watching and waiting.”
Vote by mail is unlikely to spread to other states. Why? Because it promotes voter fraud, as exposed by this latest James O’Keefe video. Vote by mail puts into the hands of the federal government the instruments of state elections. Vote by mail decentralizes the process of voting away from the eyes of supervision by election officials. Vote by mail makes it more likely ballots will be cast by those not entitled to cast them, and nobody will ever be able to catch it.
Of note, a Greenpeace activist and Udall supporter says on camera that “Ghetto Aurora” is the best place to find Vote By Mail ballots which have been thrown in the trash to vote.
The New York Times reports on what may be causing polarization in the Congress and legislatures. It now appears that McCain Feingold Act and other so-called reforms that weaken state and national political parties turn out to be a major cause of the problem. The blame may actually lay at the feet of the First Amendment speech police, a.k.a. the “reformers”
The intensity of polarized politics at every level of government now puts the dispute over political parties at the center of a debate among office holders, political scientists, legal experts and partisan activists. Is it possible that strengthening the parties could lessen polarization? The pro-party camp contends that many reforms have unintentionally fostered polarization: diminishing the clout of parties and party leaders undermines their role as a force for moderation and compromise.
Link to story.
Human Events: It’s because of this dogmatic opposition to speech that Lessig’s MayDay PAC is opposing candidates who have supported conservative free-speech rights like Michigan’s Congressman Fred Upton. Indeed, it was recently reported that MayDay will spend $1.5 million to target Upton, whose support for constitutionally protected speech appears to be an unforgivable sin for MayDay apparatchiks.
So how did Lessig get to the point where he so actively works against important individual rights? Where Barack Obama pursued elected office to implement his agenda, Lessig remained in academia to achieve the same purpose. Both men want to curb the right to free speech, and both have raised millions of dollars to limit 1st Amendment rights. Indeed, they’ve both declared that because money in politics is so dangerous, they must raise record amounts of it to prevent others from having the right to do the same
The Wall Street Journal exposes the liberal assault on conservative free speech. The epicenter is in Wisconsin.
It’s important to understand that this political attack on “coordination” is part of a larger liberal campaign. The Brennan Center—the George Soros-funded brains of the movement to restrict political speech—issued a report this month that urges regulators to police coordination between individuals and candidates as if it were a crime.
The report raises alarms that independent expenditures have exploded since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, as if trying to influence elections isn’t normal in a democracy. The political left wants to treat independent expenditures as a “contribution” to candidates limited under campaign-finance law to $2,600 per election. That would essentially ban independent issue advocacy, since you can’t buy much air time for $2,600. Such regulation is also an assault on freedom of association. If like-minded people can’t pool resources to influence elections, they are essentially shut out of modern political debate.
All the more so if citizens who do join together can be harassed by regulators or prosecutors. That’s clearly the intention of the Brennan speech enforcers, who survey state efforts to regulate speech and urge others to pick up the truncheon.