According to an article by Justin Sink at The Hill, Eric Holder is still trying to separate the country along racial lines.
Holder’s boss, President Obama, uses race, economic status, gender, age, intelligence and or any other means to divide the country. Thus far in his presidency, Obama has pitted young against old, reasoned thought against ideologues, secularists against the religious, poor against rich, care-for-naughts against the responsible, women against men, Democrats against Republicans, ill against the healthy. He has caused the American public to pay for things they neither want or need so that those who want for free may need not want.
I thought, in 1986, that Ronald Reagan’s signing of the Immigration Reform and Control Act was going to be a clarion call for more people to enter the country without proper papers. Was I racist then? When he said, “A nation with no borders is not a nation” I asked what good the borders were if we gave respect to those who did not respect them. Was I racist then? The swarm began immediately and as time passed it became easier and easier for those choosing to skirt the immigration laws. This time Holder and Obama are showing the world that they care little for our sovereignty and our laws are applied when and where it is most convenient for the two of them. This is tyranny! Am I racist, or do I simply disagree with our Attorney General’s policies?
Holder told ABC. “You know, people talking about taking their country back. … There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus.” Yes Eric, and both of those people have been duly admonished. The rest of us simply don’t agree with your insane desire to destroy the country we love.
Holder said. “I think we are still a nation that is too afraid to confront racial issues,” rarely engaging “one another across the color line [to] talk about racial issues.” Hmm, could that be due to the fact that when you’re not blaming Bush for your ineptness you claim the person with a different opinion is racist?
The attorney general also pointed to Republican efforts to enact stricter voter ID laws in southern States as evidence that more needed to be done to protect minority rights. Republicans have maintained the efforts are designed to prevent voter fraud, while Democrats say instances of fraud are exceedingly rare, and far outpaced by the minority population that does not have identification that would be unable to vote. Perhaps if they are asked to produce proof of identity they may not be able to partake of government giveaways and entitlement programs that make and keep them dependent on Big Brother?
Holder called the laws “political efforts” designed to make it “more difficult” for “groups that are not supportive of those in power” to “have access to the ballot.” And just what is the excuse for those who support the party in power but still want you to uphold the law?
Holder said, “this notion that there is widespread in-person voter fraud is simply belied by the facts.”
This, too, might be true if you disregard the reports of certain districts with as much as 116% of the registered voters showing up at the polls and not one vote other than Democratic. It also might be true if you discount districts where poll watchers were forcibly removed from the area by Democratic operatives. Yes, if you consider the facts as you selectively enforce the nation’s laws, I guess voter fraud is belied by the facts.
Yes, I guess racial animus does exist when you ascribe racism to every opposing opinion. Even Harry Reid agrees with you. Harry’s remark about five white men neglected to account for Clarence Thomas. That is, unless he became white before voting on the Hobby Lobby case. Yeah, racial animus can be part of any debate!