Comments on: Holder DOJ: Whites Will Only Vote for Blacks If They Are Democrats

By: Achance

Achance — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:37:15 +0000

states with large Indian or Hispanic populations remain under the supervision of the USDOJ pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of ‘65. The supervision was just renewed by Congress since it is vital to the hideously gerrymandered “safe” minority districts that ensure Democrats having seats in states where they could NEVER win an election.

Since the USSC now requires that there be an actual demonstration of discrimination on the basis of membership in a protected class, these states should challenge the federal encroachment on their sovereignty, but whoever did it would simply be excoriated by the Democrats and all the other race baiters and poverty pimps.

By: dclamage

dclamage — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:23:32 +0000

Pittsburh, PA is heavily, lopsidedly, Democrat Residents almost always pull the Party lever.

Of course being in the minority (Republican), I’m forced to do the same thing!

Trouble with these mostly older Democrats is, they haven’t yet realized today’s Democrat Party isn’t the same as it was post-WWII. It’s been overrun and taken over by left-leaning Statists.

By: jeffreywturner

jeffreywturner — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:13:21 +0000

The real reason that Democrat elected and appointed officials (like Holder) do not want things like this to happen has nothing to do with white folks. The truth is that they KNOW that the only way they can keep BLACK folks voting for candidates who are pro-abortion, pro-same-sex-marriage, anti-prayer in schools & anti-school vouchers, is to have a “D” after those candidates’ names on the ballot.

By: wayneepalmer

wayneepalmer — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:43:47 +0000

The truth is in the current Obamian DOJ, the REAL MESSAGE is…

… “all American whites are racist oppressive thieves who’ve stolen their way across all of planet Earth and it is our job and goal to remove them from power, take back every last cent they have stolen - plus interest - and return to them every last once of humiliation and misery - with interest - they have brought to all the rest of mankind”.

By: DefendUSA

DefendUSA — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:36:23 +0000

But cannot remember where that there is something in the NC laws or perhaps NC Constitution that the Federal Gov’t must be notified or something like that…I don’t like federal jurisdiction on any state issue, myself and it’s clear that the DOJ is out of it’s collective mind.

By: merryj1

merryj1 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:11:21 +0000

Are there no conservatives and/or Republicans in Kinston? A town where no elected officials nor voters “could recall a Republican ever having been elected in the town” sounds like a good place for citizens to focus on recruiting Black conservatives to run for office, and then supporting those candidates with volunteer work and campaign contributions.

At first impression, Eric Holder’s rationale for prohibiting the “no party labels” Kinston decision does sound incredibly — well, stupid. If it was merely an awkwardly-phrased recognition that the town historically only elects Democrats, that could be a different matter. In that event, I guess it’s both racist AND stupid.

By: aposematic

aposematic — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:52:39 +0000

The DOJ strikes another blow to sanity in what is quickly becoming an very insane World.

Why would the DOJ call all white Democrat voters racists and by default all Republican voters racists while assuming all black voters will automatically vote for a black (90% do) and that is not racist.

Confusion Reigns Supreme in the DOJ

By: aposematic

aposematic — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:43:15 +0000

I know people that vote strict Party lines without even knowing the names of the people running for the various offices.

Without a Party label to pin on someone, how would any of the idiots know which lever to pull?

Labels of all disguises are but for one purpose…market a product, sometimes that product stinks.

By: NightTwister

NightTwister — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:45:44 +0000

Funny thing though…the Democrats had a float in a local parade prior to the elections and had signs for all of the liberal city council candidates on their float. Of course, that wasn’t an ethical violation. One of the conservative candidates just barely mentioned verbal support for another one before he officially announced his candidacy and was brought up on ethics charges.

Breach of ethics is only investigated when it’s a conservative they’re going after.

By: Richard Mullins

Richard Mullins — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:09:54 +0000