Eric "Mother-f*c# i @g" Holder

 

I’ve spent months chronicling the confluence of incompetence, deceit, and political opportunism that is Eric "Mother #ucki*g" Holder’s Justice Department, whether it takes the form of the Fast and Furious scandal or the administration’s transparently partisan staffing of the department’s Civil Rights Division.

Now, without a coherent counterargument, the Attorney General is essentially pulling the fire alarm with his request for "Executive Privilege".

 Is Attorney General Eric “Mother F*c@i$g” Holder telling the truth about "Operation Fast and Furious"? Does anyone have an answer different from "Hell No"?

While the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were spending a year and a half supplying weapons to Mexican drug cartels, did he really have no idea what was going on? My guess would have to be "He knew everything".

Although documentary evidence strongly indicates that Holder’s Department of Justice has engaged in a cover-up of “Fast and Furious” in order to protect Holder/Obama appointees, is Holder actually innocent? Ah, let me think; "NO!"

Any time you have to judge a person’s veracity, it is important to take into account that person’s prior record of honesty or dishonesty. That a person has often lied in the past does not necessarily mean he is lying today. But considering Eric “Mother F#ck*ng” Holder’s established record of dishonesty and dissimulation, there is absolutely no reason to take him at his word on “Fast and Furious” or anything else he says.

Holder has recently claimed that racism is one reason he is being criticized for “Operation Fast and Furious.” While there is no evidence to support his claim, there is plentiful evidence that Holder himself perverts law enforcement for racist and other purposes.

Watch Eric Yaverbaum Discusses Eric Holder’s Racism Claims on Fox News Live in News  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Prior to serving as attorney general for President Barack Obama, Holder served as deputy attorney general for President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno. In that capacity, he helped lead what the White House called its “all-out offensive on guns” in 2000.

Marc Rich

He had other duties as well, among them responsibility for making recommendations for presidential pardons. Among the most notorious was for the fugitive plutocrat Marc Rich.

Beginning in the 1980s, the U.S. Department of Justice began 15 years of attempting to dismantle Marc Rich’s criminal empire. Among Rich’s crimes was illegally violating the U.S. embargo against Iran, funneling money to the Iranian tyrants while they were holding Americans hostage.

In 1983, Rich was indicted for violating the Iran embargo and for $48 million in tax evasion. At the time it was the biggest federal tax fraud indictment ever. He was in Switzerland at the time, and refused to return to the United States to face charges. He promptly earned a spot on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list.

In 1995, Holder was the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, in charge of all federal civil and criminal cases being brought in the District. Holder sueda company, Clarendon Ltd., whose previous name had been “Marc Rich & Company International.” Being controlled by a fugitive, the company was ineligible for government contracts, but Rich’s involvement was concealed so that Clarendon could win federal contracts to provide metal to the U.S. Mint.

After being sued by Holder’s office, Clarendon agreed in April 1995 to pay the government $1.2 million. The company admitted that it should have disclosed “Rich’s substantial indirect ownership.”

Holder’s office immediately sent out press releases bragging about Holder’s big victory against Marc Rich. As reported in the Wall Street Journal on April 13, 1995, “U.S. Attorney Eric "Mother Fuc*in#"  Holder said the agreement ends an investigation into the company’s contracts to supply $45 million in coinage metal to the U.S. Mint.”

Denise Rich

In the meantime, while Marc Rich was living in Europe as a fugitive from justice, his ex-wife, Denise Rich, was donating lavishly to the Clinton presidential library, the Hillary Clinton Senate campaign and to other Democrats.

Denise Rich made the brilliant move of hiring Jack Quinn to lobby for Marc Rich. Quinn, formerly Clinton’s White House counsel, happened to be very close to Vice President Al Gore. It was also common knowledge that Holder wanted to be attorney general if Gore won the 2000 election.

Jack Quinn Testifies in Marc Rich Pardon    

So in 1999, Quinn approached Holder on behalf of Rich. Two years later, when Congress made Holder testify under oath about the Rich pardon, Holder said that when Quinn asked Holder to help Rich, “Mr. Rich’s name was unfamiliar to me.”

Of course, those words are very hard to believe in light of Holder’s efforts a few years before in touting himself for his lawsuit that exposed Rich’s secret control of Clarendon.

Supposedly not knowing anything about Marc Rich, Deputy Attorney General Holder contacted the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York City and attempted to get them to settle their criminal case against Rich for a deal that would involve no prison time. The New York office refused.

The next approach was to try to get a presidential pardon for Rich. Normally, a pardon for Rich would have been impossible. The U.S. Department of Justice has a long-established rule that it will not consider pardon requests for fugitives.

Normally, when a convict requests a pardon, the Department of Justice headquarters in D.C. solicits input from the U.S. Attorney’s Office that handled the prosecution. In the Rich criminal case, that was the Office for the Southern District of New York. The New York office was fiercely opposed to a pardon for Rich, and could have provided the D.C. headquarters with a thorough explanation of the scope and magnitude of Rich’s misdeeds.

Telling Quinn that the New York prosecutors would “howl” if they found out that Rich was seeking a pardon, Holder told Quinn to submit the pardon request directly to the White House, thereby keeping the New York prosecutors unaware. As a House committee later found, Holder was a “willing participant in the plan to keep the Justice Department from knowing about and opposing” the pardon.

President Clinton

Holder’s written memo to President Clinton about the Rich pardon was based almost entirely on information provided by Rich’s own lawyer.

President Clinton waited until his last day in office to announce all his pardons. The Rich pardon immediately became a public controversy, and so in February 2011 the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee conducted an investigative hearing. The House Government Operations Committee also called Holder to testify under oath.

As with Holder’s 2010-2011 testimony on “Fast and Furious,” the core of his defense was that he had little, if any, idea what was going on?

He told Congress that at the time when he pushed the pardon, and circumvented the New York prosecutors, he had “gained only a passing familiarity with the underlying facts of the Rich case.”

The U.S. House Government Operations Committee presumed that Holder was telling the truth under oath. Thus, the committee reported that the “sum total” of Holder’s “knowledge about Rich came from a page of talking points provided to him by Jack Quinn in 2000.” The committee declared Holder’s conduct “unconscionable.”

It is clear he has not been honest about the extent of his involvement with the failed Fast and Furious program and should not be entrusted with managing the Department of Justice.  Eric “Mother Fu*ki@g” Holder cannot avoid responsibility for his involvement with a government program that directly led to the tragic death of a decorated U.S. Border Patrol agent. As our nation’s top enforcer of the principles of law and justice, Mr. Eric "Mother F&%king" Holder has now lost all credibility and should step down immediately. The question now for Mr. Eric "Mother Fu#ki!g" Holder is whether he is only protecting himself or whether he is also protecting others - perhaps all the way to the top of the administration.

Despite the fact that Congress has subpoenaed documents from Eric “Mother Fuc@i*g” Holder, Holder has refused to provide a congressional committee while Obama short circuited the whole process by asserting "executive privilege" over the documents in question has all the earmarks of a cover up. The administration has already been embarrassed by certain revelations already produced by the investigation into "Fast and Furious." The documents Congress wants would probably make that embarrassment more acute, if not actually produce evidence that officials at the Justice Department may have lied during the course of the investigation. The use of "executive privilege" to prevent Congress from getting its hands on the documents in question makes it  look a lot like the administration is stonewalling.

Executive privilege is legitimate when properly invoked. But even then, the Supreme Court has maintained that it is not absolute. The Department of Justice must provide a compelling rationale for each assertion. Shielding wrongdoing has never been a qualifying rationale.The Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon (1974) held that executive privilege cannot be invoked at all if the purpose is to shield wrongdoing. The courts held that President Nixon’s purported invocation of executive privilege was illegitimate, in part, for that reason. There is reason to suspect that this might be the case in the Fast and Furious cover-up and stonewalling effort. Congress needs to get to the bottom of that question to prevent an illegal invocation of executive privilege and further abuses of power. That will require an index of the withheld documents and an explanation of why each of them is covered by executive privilege.

It is now up to Congress to ascertain the specific reasoning for executive privilege with every withheld document. Even in the unlikely case it is determined that this was a proper invocation of executive privilege, the administration is still not off the hook to inform Congress of what they know.

President Obama now owns the Fast and Furious scandal. It is entirely up to him whether he wants to live up to the transparency promises he made four years ago, or further develop a shroud of secrecy that would make President Richard Nixon blush. If the stonewalling continues, and the privilege is not waived, it will be up to the American people and the media to demand the reasoning for the cover-up.

It is also time for the media to begin responsibly covering this scandal. For more than 16 months, only a handful of reporters have appropriately researched the facts and sought answers. Most members of the national media would not even acknowledge the existence of the scandal. 

Liberals will try and pretend this operation that began in mid-2009 is connected to former President George W. Bush's administration. The media should challenge this false assertion. Operation Wide Receiver in 2006 did not remotely resemble Fast and Furious.Mexico helped coordinate it, and there was traceable controlled delivery. Even Holder admitted in testimony that you cannot "equate the two."

We will also hear that this is "election-year politics." The problem with that refrain is that this investigation has been ongoing since early 2011, well before campaign season started. It has been Attorney General Holder's evasiveness that has dragged this process closer to Election Day.

If it were not for conservative media outlets, bloggers, a few dogged reporters and the steadfastness of House Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), this troubling scandal would have been buried long ago. 

Darrell Issa

We will also hear that this is "election-year politics." The problem with that refrain is that this investigation has been ongoing since early 2011, well before campaign season started. It has been Attorney General Eric "Mother Fu#k@n%" Holder's evasiveness that has dragged this process closer to Election Day.

If it were not for conservative media outlets, bloggers, a few dogged reporters and the steadfastness of House Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), this troubling scandal would have been buried long ago. Here's an excellent example of the duplicity of  that is Eric "Mother *uc*infg" Holder. 

Mr. Issa contends that, “The contempt hearing is not about this investigation, it’s about a narrow subset of documents that this committee must ultimately receive.” In April, Issa gave an interview at the National Rifle Association convention in St. Louis, in which he gave credence to suspicions held by many conservatives and gun owners about the program’s true intent. 

"Could it be that what they really were thinking of was in fact to use this walking of guns in order to promote an assault weapons ban? Or, was this an attempt to subvert the second amendment of the constitution?" Rep. Issa said. “Many think so, and the administration hasn’t come up with an explanation that would cause anyone not to agree.”Loosely based on two similar operations that took place during the Bush administration, Fast and Furious began in 2009, shortly after administration officials, including Obama, several times cited in public a contested estimate that 90 percent of guns used in Mexican violence came from the US, a situation they said was wreaking havoc in Mexico and injuring relations between the two continental powers.

Around that time, the administration says, ATF agents in Phoenix, under pressure to stem the flow, began allowing straw purchasers to “walk” assault weapons into Mexico, in order to track the guns and build criminal cases against not just low-level drug operators, but cartel bosses.                        

But in the process, ATF lost track of 1,400 guns, some of which have been recovered at murder scenes in Mexico and two of which were found at the scene in Arizona where Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was gunned down by suspected drug smugglers.

To be sure, Holder, who has testified nine times about the program, has made some slips, including the fact that he told Congress he didn’t know about the program until after the death of Agent Terry, though it now seems clear that some of his direct reports may have had rudimentary knowledge of the program 10 months earlier.

Another event that piqued Republican interest came last year when Holder had to retract a letter sent to Congress on Feb. 4, 2011, which stated flatly that the ATF wasn’t allowing guns to walk. DOJ said it was relying on inaccurate field reports when it wrote that letter, and filled Congress in six months later when they could confirm and nail down the truth.

In the aftermath, both Holder and the President have acknowledged the gambit was a terrible idea, shouldn’t have happened, and won’t happen again. Though he contends he was never directly involved, Holder, as Obama’s top cop, has taken responsibility and apologized to the family of Agent Terry for his death. Meanwhile, half a dozen involved agents and officials have lost their jobs or been reassigned.

DOJ Documents

While tens of thousands of documents are in play, Congress say it wants to look specifically at a set of 1,300 documents, mostly emails, that investigators hope will shed light on who at Justice and the White House were directly involved. Holder has maintained that releasing some of the documents Congress wants could put cases and field agents in jeopardy.

At the least, the contents of the documents could fall short of conspiracy but still yield politically embarrassing information about how the administration crafted its response to the scandal, giving rise to charges that Republicans are on an irrational “fishing expedition” for political dirt.

“Though it’s not clear exactly what these documents may involve, it seems likely they consist of the Department of Justice’s reaction to the backlash against Fast and Furious, and quite possibly documents signed by Obama himself.

Given that most Americans “hold Congress in contempt,” the President has portrayed the constitutional showdown as part of a running battle with obstinate Republicans, a situation he certainly elevated by stepping in to block the Congressional subpoena with executive privilege.

"The Republicans are succeeding in a strategy that they laid out for all of you at the beginning of last year,". "They vowed to use their investigative powers to score political points against the administration and to further obstruct the President's legislative agenda."

Democrats on the Oversight Committee on Saturday filed a “minority view” to be included in next week’s scheduled contempt vote, noting specifically that, “The Committee’s investigation of ATF gunwalking operations has been characterized by a series of unfortunate and unsubstantiated allegations against the Obama Administration that turned out to be inaccurate.”

But while the political lines around Fast and Furious are thus clearly drawn, allusions to Watergate-sized conspiracy theories do, at the very least, also help bolster Issa’s central point: If only to quell such theories, Americans deserve to know whether it was really a hapless bureaucratic blunder or whether administration officials lied about the extent of their involvement in what became a deadly scandal.

Obama is America's New Jim Jones

The Dead In Jonestown, Guyana

    On November 18, 1978 the world was shocked to learn that more than 900 members of the People's Temple had committed suicide in Jonestown, Guyana. They took their lives at the urging of Jim Jones, the Temple's founder.

    Until 9/11 it was the single loss of American civilian life in a non-natural disaster and the tragedy still ranks high among the largest mass suicides in history. Jones had been a charismatic preacher who founded the Temple in the 1950s in Indiana, later moving it to California.

     It is increasingly evident with every passing day that Barack Obama is America's Jim Jones, undermining the U.S. Constitution while urging Americans to drink his Kool-Aid lies. Need a reminder?

Stimulus Act Kool-Aid                         Obamacare Kool-Aid

Financial Reform Kool-Aid                  Reach out to Muslims Kool-Aid

Mosque at Ground Zero Kool-Aid       Amnesty for illegal Aliens Kool-Aid

Bailout General Motors Kool-Aid       Cash-for-Clunkers Kool-Aid

Union Card Check Kool-Aid               Green Jobs Kool-Aid

Close Down Gitmo Kool-Aid             Climate Change Kool-Aid

Regulate Carbon Dioxide Kool-Aid   Gulf Oil Drilling Moratorium Kool-Aid

As you can easily see, this list is endless and ever growing.

     Americans are resisting the behemoth of the federal government under Obama's control. The Tea Party movement is evidence that the American spirit is far from spent. Many states are joining together in legal suits to oppose Obamacare and to demand the federal government shut down the border traffic that is breeding crime and other costs.

     It is a life or death struggle for America. Niall Ferguson, a British historian and author of "The Ascent of Money", gave a lecture for the Center for Independent Studies in Sydney, Australia. He warned that "In the history of empires the end is abrupt and those that rely on them need to be ready."

The America Empire

     He has often referred to America as an empire and so have others, given its global military presence, the global reliance on the U.S. dollar as the standard against which other currencies are measured, its moral stature as a defender of human rights and advocate for freedom, and its vast worldwide cultural impact.

     "Alarm bells should therefore be ringing very loudly in Washington," said Ferguson, "as the United States contemplates a deficit for 2010 of more than $1.47 trillion, about ten percent of GDP for the second year running." He further warned that "half the U.S. federal debt in public hands is in the hands of foreign creditors. Of that, a fifth (22%) is held by the monetary authorities of the People's Republic of China, down from 27% in July last year."

Niall Ferguson

     "The United States is on a completely unsustainable fiscal course with no apparent political means of self-correcting," said Ferguson.

     The indicators are, however, that on November 6 th, the national elections will provide a self-correction IF the power in the Senate changes from the Democrats to the Republican Party. It's a very big IF because, short of anything less, the damage that President Obama can inflict is still significant. Even so, some of his more noxious programs can be defunded.

     The President and the Democrats in the Senate are possibly the most anti-energy administration in the history of the nation. Everything in our economy and our lives is dependent on access to plentiful and affordable energy whether it comes from oil, coal, natural gas or hydroelectricity.

     The Obama administration has blandished billions on "alternative", "clean" or "green" energy in the form of solar, wind, and bio fuels. Nothing about any of these options represents a reliable and viable power source to replace or provide the nation's huge energy requirements.

     The most rogue federal agency in U.S. history, the Environmental Protection Agency, is pursuing the power to regulate "greenhouse gases" despite having no authorization to do so. The justification offered is the totally discredited "global warming" theory. Other nations that have invested in solar or wind power only to discover that neither provides sufficient energy and both eliminate jobs in the process.

     That, I suggest, is the very reason why the Obama administration wants to impose them on the nation while at the same time gutting the oil and coal industries.

     The moratoriums imposed on the drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, despite two court injunctions against them, will cost the Gulf Coast states an estimated 8,000 jobs or more, nearly $500 million in wages, more than $2.1 billion in economic activity, and nearly $100 million in state and local tax revenue. Outside of the states immediately affected, the moratorium will cost the nation 12,000 jobs and nearly $3 billion, including almost $200 million in federal tax revenues.

     Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will raise taxes across the board at the worst possible time in the midst of this longer running major recession.

     This isn't delusional, it's intentional.

     It is Barack Obama's Kool-Aid for America.

How Can a 'Fellow Black American' Oppose Obama?

                      

                                    (This was a comment sent to me)

Mr. Greer,

If you're black and support the
Democrat Party; This Is YOU

      I am shocked that you oppose Barack Obama and belong to the Republican Party. We must get over ourselves and realize there is room at the top for everyone and we must get there by helping each other — instead of agreeing with policies and old politics that are proven not to work.

      To endorse John McCain, a person who will not make it easier for the underprivileged, is just too much. How can a fellow black American feel this way?

Your Former Supporter

Dear Former Supporter,

Democrat Looking For Friends

      Do you have any Republican friends, let alone black ones? If so, how many of them want to make it harder "for the underprivileged"?

      You also might want to familiarize yourself with the history of the Democratic and Republican parties, and see which party has stood up longer for the rights of people of color. Do you know that Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution — abolishing slavery, granting citizenship rights to newly freed slaves, and guaranteeing the right to vote (at least on paper) to blacks, respectively? Do you know that most of the politicians who stood for segregation were Southern Democrats? Do you know that the Ku Klux Klan was founded by Democrats, one of whose goals was to stop the spread of the Republican Party? Do you know that, as a percentage of the party, more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Faithful Democrats Entertain Their Black Members

      Do you know that inner-city parents want vouchers — the right to determine where their children go to school? Do you know most Democrats, including Barack Obama, oppose this? Republicans, for the most part, support vouchers. Where vouchers have been tried, kids appear to perform better, with higher parental satisfaction. You tell me, how many things are more important than a child's education?

      Do you know that 36 percent of babies aborted are black, while blacks make up 13 percent of live births? Do you know that polls show blacks are more pro-life than are whites? Yet the Democratic Party — to which over 95 percent of all registered black voter belong — is the party of Roe v. Wade, requiring states to legalize abortion on demand. Do you know that Margaret Sanger, the founder of the organization that became Planned Parenthood, believed that poor blacks were inferior and that aborting their babies made our society better? Look it up.

      Do you know that blacks stand to benefit more than whites through Social Security privatization, a position opposed by Obama but supported by McCain? Are you even familiar with the issue and what a powerful income-generating vehicle it would be for blacks? If not, take a look at the research done by the libertarian think tank Cato Institute and the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation.

      Porous borders enable illegal aliens to enter our country and threaten the jobs and lower the wages of Americans, many of whom are unskilled people of color.

Illegal Mexican Immigrates Protesting Deportation

      Which party is more determined to deal with this — Republicans or Democrats? Obama called the foes of the House anti-illegal immigration bill "ugly and racist." I did not support the bill, but vehemently object to characterizing those who did as "ugly and racist."

      You speak of policies that have "proven not to work." What about the "war on poverty" that began in the '60s, the policies that Obama and his party want to continue and expand? Do you know that today 70 percent of black children and over 50 percent of Hispanics are born outside of wedlock? The welfare state — which Democrats want to expand — has played a huge role in discouraging marriage and destabilizing families.

      Speaking of helping the "underprivileged," I'd suggest you read a book called "Who Really Cares," by Arthur C. Brooks. A non-Republican professor raised by Democrats, he examined the charitable spending habits of Democrats and Republicans. The results surprised him. Brooks found that Republicans give far more of their money and time for charitable purposes than do Democrats. And the giving is not confined to their churches or other houses of worship. This, by the way, has nothing to do with income. Poor Republicans give more than poor Democrats.

      Compassion is not about making people dependent on government. Compassion is about encouraging personal responsibility, and getting people to understand that life is about making choices. Poverty does not cause crime. Crime causes poverty. Poverty does not cause a child to have a child. A child having a child causes poverty. Finishing high school is a choice. Not joining a gang is a choice. Not having a child until you have the maturity and the means to raise that child is a choice.

      You ask how can a "fellow black American feel this way"? Quite a statement. You may disagree, but it doesn't make me less caring and compassionate than you are. I'm sure you truly consider yourself open-minded and tolerant. But based on your letter, tolerance ends — especially with "fellow black Americans"  if someone has an opposing point of view.

You Need To Leave The Koolaide Alone

DEMOCRATIC PARTY RACIAL POLITICS IN ACTION

Regardless of the issue - from immigration to ObamaCare - Democrats, with the complicity of the liberal media, demonize as racist average Americans who oppose their socialist agenda and are unhappy about how President Barack Obama and the Democrats in control of Congress are ruining our economy with massive deficit spending.

Incredibly, Democrats even stoop to condemning as racist anyone who dares to engage in philosophical discussions about the constitutional limitations on federal powers - just ask Rand Paul who dared to voice the fact that a few aspects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act lacked constitutional authority.

Ron Paul

Lost in the media-generated firestorm designed to falsely paint Ron Paul as a racist and derail his bid for US President is any discussion about the reason why civil rights laws were necessary in the first place - Democratic Party racism.

In his new book, "Whites Blacks & Racist Democrats", Wayne Perryman provides startling details about racism in the Democratic Party from 1792 to 2009.  Perryman describes how the Democratic Party became known as the "Party of White Supremacy" that fought to preserve slavery and enacted discriminatory laws to deny civil rights to blacks.

Wayne Perryman

Included in Perryman's book are facts about how the Republican Party that was founded in 1854 as "The Anti-Slavery Party" became the party of freedom and equality for blacks.  Republicans fought to end slavery; amended the U.S. Constitution to grant blacks freedom, citizenship and the right to vote; and pushed to enact every piece of civil rights legislation from the 1860's to the 1960's over the objection of the Democrats.

Perryman brought to light the 1875 Civil Rights Act, the first law that dealt with accommodations and equality and was passed by a Republican-dominated Congress.  To their eternal shame, Democrats in 1883 convinced the United States Supreme Court to declare the 1875 Civil Rights Act as "unconstitutional."  Eleven years later in 1894, Democrats passed the 1894 Repeal Act to overturn the previous civil rights legislation passed during Reconstruction by Republicans.

Senator Olin Johnson

Perryman also revealed that in 1964 while debating the accommodations portion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Democrat Senator Olin Johnson of South Carolina argued: "Mr. President, this is the blackest day in the U.S. Senate since 1875, when the Congress passed a Civil Rights bill similar to this one.  It was 89 years ago that the [Republican] Congress passed the nefarious Reconstruction era Civil Right laws, identical with what we are now discussing, which were later declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Senate, if it passes this measure before us, will be compounding that unconstitutional error made back in 1875.  I predict that this bill will never be enforced without turning our nation into a police state and without the cost of bloodshed and violence..."

Ignored by the media today, as they attempt to paint all Republicans as racist, is the fact that Jim Crow laws were enacted by Democrats to force private businesses to refuse services to blacks.  Those Jim Crow laws were in violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states, in part:  "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  The entire text of section 1 of the 14th Amendment is below.

It is rank hypocrisy for the liberal press to give Democrats, including former Klansman Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a pass for their real racism, while attacking Rand Paul, labeling him as a racist for his theoretical musings about the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  In essence, Paul, who said he detested racism in any form, wondered whether other means, such as boycotts, may have been effective in forcing an end to non-governmental racial discrimination.  Paul focused on the fact that the 14th Amendment to U.S. Constitution provides the federal government only with the power to stop racial discrimination by state and local governments.

Our nation will continue to be divided along racial lines until we bring an end to the Democrats' despicable race-baiting by holding Democrats accountable for their racism - past and present.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.