--> This guy has a lot of "insight" into DOJ affairs.
1 posted on
07/02/2009 7:43:35 AM PDT by
mudblood
To: mudblood
Holder’s race laws, make him the second coming of the Nazi regime.
3 posted on
07/02/2009 7:45:14 AM PDT by
junta
(I am the son of Yacub, who for one welcomes my new overlord Obama.)
To: mudblood
Hey Holder, who is going to protect you?
4 posted on
07/02/2009 7:45:43 AM PDT by
raptor29
To: mudblood
One of the most fundamental principles in the founding of this nation was that all are created equal. A bloody Civil War was fought to sustain it.And another may come to restore it.
6 posted on
07/02/2009 7:48:24 AM PDT by
DuncanWaring
(The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
To: mudblood
Then Holder goes on to list the only groups intended to be protected by the proposed law. This is racial identity politics taking a sinister turn. Holder explicitly says the proposed law only protects classes where there is a history of violence against those groups. What we are looking for here in terms of expansion of the statute are instances where there is a historic basis. See, groups of people who are singled out for violence perpetrated against them because of who they are. I dont know if we have the same historical record to say members of our military have been targeted in the same way that people who are African American, people who are Jewish, people who are gay, have been targeted over the many years. (minute 73:00-74:00)
This is clearly and egregiously unconstitutional, but given the current political climate - including SCOTUS - it will probably pass. All you white people jes better watch youself!
8 posted on
07/02/2009 7:49:11 AM PDT by
rockrr
(Everything is different now...)
To: mudblood
Henry Bowman, please pick up the white courtesy phone.
9 posted on
07/02/2009 7:49:45 AM PDT by
ClearCase_guy
(I don't believe anything anyone says about anything anymore.)
To: mudblood
So a white couple mugged, raped and murdered by racist black gangs or LaRaza Hispanics are just a statistic of an unfortunate incident?
Got it.
11 posted on
07/02/2009 7:50:28 AM PDT by
poobear
To: mudblood
This is seriously insane. If any of the senators had any ba&&s they would have thrown him out of the room.
Reverse racism working overtime.
12 posted on
07/02/2009 7:50:28 AM PDT by
VicVega
(Join Jihad, get captured by the US and resettled in the best places in the world. I love the USA)
To: mudblood
XIV Amendment!! EQUAL PROTECTION. Will some GOPer please bring this up in public along with a promise to bring the question to SCOTUS if this abomination becomes law. The GOP seems so enfeebled by the Obama method of constant pressure on all fronts.
Maybe the GOP should consider restructuring the party along the lines of a parliamentary party. Create a shadow govt. Develop a full array of policy alternatives. Nominate a candidate for POTUS this summer whose only job will be preparing for 2012 and being the daily visible opposition to Obama. The Dems are both restrucutring American govt AND running a permanent campaigm. It's time for the GOP to do something outside the box.
To: mudblood
What would it take to prove a historical pattern of violence against white folks?
15 posted on
07/02/2009 7:53:11 AM PDT by
The Toll
To: mudblood
If it doesn’t protect whites and ministers, or anyone else, then it denies equal protection of the law. Hello?
16 posted on
07/02/2009 7:55:48 AM PDT by
popdonnelly
(The Democrats have returned to their game of supporting totalitarian regimes. Now they're muslim.)
To: mudblood
“Whites and Ministers will not be protected by proposed hate crimes legislation”
If anything, they will be the preferred target. Like Jews in Europe. It’s been this way since the sixties and it’s getting more and more overt.
17 posted on
07/02/2009 7:56:08 AM PDT by
Niuhuru
(Anger means your spirit isn't broken)
To: mudblood
There goes equality.
By the way, haven't the moslems been slaughtering the Christians and people of other faiths since their inception?
The killing of anyone is a hate crime.
No one is more deserving than another!
22 posted on
07/02/2009 7:58:15 AM PDT by
mckenzie7
(TOTUS = PONZI)
To: mudblood
Our government becomes more and more illogical and irrational. That’s a hallmark of fascism.
25 posted on
07/02/2009 7:59:34 AM PDT by
popdonnelly
(The Democrats have returned to their game of supporting totalitarian regimes. Now they're muslim.)
To: mudblood
Unconstitutional under the 4th amendment. We don’t need hate crimes laws anyway. It is already against the law to physically attack someone, regardless of the reason. I see no instance, ever, of a physical attack on someone being a love crime. Hate crimes are just another way to make privileged class in America. As I said, it is an unconstitutional law under the 4th.
35 posted on
07/02/2009 8:08:08 AM PDT by
calex59
To: mudblood
I Guess Holder hasn't heard of Equal Protection under the law or the Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution.
He should be fired.
36 posted on
07/02/2009 8:08:10 AM PDT by
puppypusher
(The world is going to the Dogs.)
To: mudblood
38 posted on
07/02/2009 8:09:49 AM PDT by
IMTOFT
(At least I'm enjoying the ride...)
To: mudblood
Well, then, Rev Wright’s sermons could be used as evidence of hate speech against whites, as could all the negative press for Pro-lifers and Veterans by the DoHS. All we need to do is cry real loud.
39 posted on
07/02/2009 8:09:59 AM PDT by
huldah1776
( Worthy is the Lamb)
To: mudblood
Despicable ! Racists in the DOJ.
44 posted on
07/02/2009 8:16:42 AM PDT by
jimt
To: mudblood
I am wondering which city will host the upcoming "American Nuremberg" trials, when we retake this country from the Afro-Marxist cabal and hold racist thugs like Holder to account for these atrocities.

A verbis ad verbera
45 posted on
07/02/2009 8:17:30 AM PDT by
Costumed Vigilante
(Congress: When a handful of evil morons just isn't enough)
To: mudblood; SumProVita; HardStarboard; BradyLS; Ernest_at_the_Beach; dervish; Twotone; ...
51 posted on
07/02/2009 9:45:49 AM PDT by
Nachum
(The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
To: mudblood
Rule 10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
Rule 13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
If the Birthers can’t move him out of the White House, he may well be the catalyst for another (un)civil war.
52 posted on
07/02/2009 9:48:54 AM PDT by
HighlyOpinionated
(Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann in 2012. With Liz Cheney as Secretary of State.)
To: mudblood
54 posted on
07/02/2009 10:02:06 AM PDT by
FromLori
(FromLori)
To: mudblood; All
“Holder explicitly says the proposed law only protects classes where there is a history of violence against those groups. What we are looking for here in terms of expansion of the statute are instances where there is a historic basis. See, groups of people who are singled out for violence perpetrated against them because of who they are.”
_______________
Okay, fine, Eric. Here’s some HISTORY for you from YOUR justice dept.
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2009/04/janeane-garofalo-have-i-got-date-for.html
FACTS!!! They sure do get it the way!
Take a look at the line for white on black crime at the bottom of the following chart.
Also, note the other charts at the link........during republican administrations, black crime
went down and went up under democrats!
White on black crime is nearly zero, but nearly 20% for black on white!
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htmStranger
In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites
Homicides are more likely to cross racial lines than those that involve friends or acquaintances
For homicides committed by —
* a friend or acquaintance of the victim, less than one-tenth (8%) were interracial
* a stranger to the victim, one-quarter were interracial
To view data, click on the chart.
59 posted on
07/02/2009 10:14:54 AM PDT by
AuntB
(The right to vote in America: Blacks 1870; Women 1920; Native Americans 1925; Foreigners 2008)
To: mudblood
Not only does the violate the 1st Amendment (free exercise of religion), but it violates the 14th - Equal Protection clause!
63 posted on
07/02/2009 11:10:55 AM PDT by
LiteKeeper
(When do the impeachment proceedings begin?)
To: mudblood
Rush is talking about this right now.
64 posted on
07/02/2009 11:29:13 AM PDT by
Arrowhead1952
(Jimmy Carter - now the second worst POTUS ever. BHO has #1 spot in his sights.)
To: mudblood
And this is why I enjoy spending quality time at the gun range.
I have no intention of being a “victim” of any crime..
65 posted on
07/02/2009 12:52:58 PM PDT by
TexasM1A
To: mudblood
67 posted on
07/02/2009 1:11:01 PM PDT by
william clark
(Ecclesiastes 10:2)
To: mudblood
Of course, we know there has never been a tradition of violence against Christians. Just ask anyone who knows the history of Rome, or Islam, or the French Revolution.
To: mudblood
This one supposedly up for vote in Senate on Wed. July 15th. Melt the phone lines! E-mail and Fax your Senators!! You can bet those who want this travesty passed will be doing just that!!
73 posted on
07/10/2009 8:51:39 PM PDT by
JLLH
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson