Obama nominee to lead Civil Rights Division says America is attached to a “cruel and racially discriminatory capital punishment system”

In 2012, Vanita Gupta, the current nominee for the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, sent a letter to ACLU supporters opposing capital punishment.  She said America was attached to a “cruel and racially discriminatory” capital punishment system.  Link to her full statement opposing many aspects of the criminal justice system.

Throughout the year, the ACLU was in legislatures across the country promoting smart criminal justice reforms aimed at safely reducing jail and prison populations and dismantling the devastating and ultimately ineffective war on drugs. We were in court fighting abusive police practices and inhumane prison and jail conditions. And we have been relentless in our efforts to end America’s attachment to its cruel and racially discriminatory capital punishment system.

“Holder DOJ expert witness: blacks are dumber and less civic-minded than whites”

Attorney Paul Mirengoff at Powerline has this commentary on DOJ’s use of expert witnesses:

“The requirements that the DOJ’s witness found blacks less able than whites to comply with are (1) registering to vote before the day of the election and (2) voting in the precinct where one lives. Since one needn’t be at all “sophisticated” to comply with either requirement, the DOJ’s witness, who was paid with our tax dollars, must have little regard for African-Americans.”

More on DOJ Expert in NC Voting Case

American Thinker on DOJ’s expert in NC:

“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.”

“Shades of Jim Crow at the Justice Department”

“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.”

Link here.

Obama nominee for Civil Rights Head wants to Decriminalize Cocaine and Heroin, among other drugs

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.

Tennessee woman indicted on six counts of voter fraud

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.

Mug Shots-TN-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.”

O’Keefe Strikes Again: Exposing Voter Fraud Vulnerabilities of Vote By Mail

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.

Campaign Finance Reformers Have Weakened Political Parties and Increased Polarization

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.