1) Why did Obama's Dept of Justice dismiss the default judgments it had obtained in the voter intimidation case coming out of Philadelphia? Two new black panther members, one brandishing a billy club, were found to have been in violation of the Voting Rights Act (section 11(b), which prohibits any "attempt to intimidate, threaten or coerce" any voter or poll worker.
The complaint the Justice Department filed in January (before Messrs. Obama and
Holder took over) says the Panthers made "racial threats and racial insults" to
voters and "menacing and intimidating, gestures, statements and movements
directed at individuals who were present to aid voters." One witness, Bartle
Bull, a civil-rights lawyer who worked with Charles Evers in Mississippi in the
1960s, called it the worst voter intimidation he had ever seen.Justice won the suit by default when the Black Panthers and three individual defendants didn't show up in court to deny the allegations. But instead of following
through and getting an injunction to prevent this behavior in future elections,
the department, now under Mr. Holder, dismissed the lawsuit against all but one
of the defendants (the nightstick holder). Even then, Justice requested only a
watered-down penalty: an injunction to prevent him from carrying a weapon in a
polling place. But only in Philadelphia and only until 2012!
Whose interests does it serve to dismiss a(n already-won) case against a couple of thugs who didn't even bother to attempt to defend themselves from charges that they were intimidating voters at the polls on election day? There is no doubt that these guys were guilty, and the case was over, so it is not as if Obama could argue that he didn't want to waste resources pursuing the case. Instead, he wasted resources pursuing a dismissal of a case that had already been won. (Being repetitive is a bad habit of mine, but I just want to ensure the point is clear.) Why would Obama want them to get away with it? Perhaps most importantly, why is Obama himself getting away with dismissing these charges? Had you even heard about this (it is pretty old news)? Can you imagine if President Bush did the same thing?
2) Why is it that Obama can vote against providing medical care to babies born alive after a botched abortion attempt and then give a false justification for doing so, accusing others of lying for reporting exactly what he said and did, and never get called on it?
The undisputed facts are as follows: Obama voted against a bill in Illinois that would provide medical care to babies born alive after a botched abortion attempt. A virtually identical bill passed the Senate unanimously a year later. During the presidential race, Obama claimed that he would have supported the federal bill. How did he explain this? He lied.
He claimed that his objection to the state bill was that it undermined Roe v. Wade, even though the legislation itself contained language reaffirming Roe. When questioned about whether he had misrepresented his position on the state bills, he said:
Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to
say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have
said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the
federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should
provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence
of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state
level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.
Read the Illinois measure against the federal for yourself. They are the same.
We are simply left with the embarrassing facts. Obama heard testimony from nurses about babies being thrown in bins of dirty laundry and left to die, but was more concerned that a bill to put a stop to this horrific practice would somehow infringe on abortion rights--even though that bill actually contained language to the effect that it would not be construed to undermine Roe. When not a single U.S. senator had an objection to an identical bill (who would, really, aside from our New Great Hope?) Obama was left all alone with abortion rights radicals. When called on it, Obama lied, and accused others of lying to cover it up, the media never reported it and the vast majority of the people in this country voted for the man. And are still wildly happy with him, even though they are of increasing disagreement with his policies. What is going on here?
3) The budget deficit and the proposed Government Run Healthcare system. We now have the biggest deficit in the history of the nation. And what do Obama and his supporters have to say? "Bush did it, too!" I will grant that Obama is copying Bush on many things (mainly regarding the War on Terror, but only the ACLU seems to be paying attention to that these days. The rest of the masses are just swallowing his nuances and nodding. Which is ok with me, actually.) And I will grant that Bush was definitely not the deficit hawk that I wish he had been. But I have two responses:
First, does Bush doing something make it appropriate for Obama to do, too? Second, Obama is taking this spending to an unprecedented level. He makes Bush look downright fiscally responsible.
If only I had better computer skills, I could post these graphs of Obama v. Bush spending.
And he has the nerve to say that his Healthcare system will reduce costs? I can't believe it. And by that I mean, I can't believe he said it. I certainly do not believe that it will reduce costs, and neither do members of his own party in the House and Senate. I don't see how he is getting away with this stuff.
I have put these three complaints in the wrong order, if the proper order is to place the most disturbing facts first. I just let myself go in this one. Perhaps all I wanted to vent about was that our President gets away with having radical views and then lying about them, and yet ordinary people who are so far away from his thinking nonetheless adore him. I don't understand it at all and I believe this President is an absolute disaster for our nation. A dishonest, apologist, blame America first, elitist disaster.
I have never before in my life wanted to be wrong as much as I do now.
