Posted by Tina
There’s just no excuse for the radicalized Justice Department under activist and agitator Eric Holder. This man should have been gone long ago. He didn’t come to Justice to serve the people but to pursue a vengeful, racist agenda and, as New Black Panther leader Malik Shabazz warned menacingly, “rule” over the white man. Holder’s tenure began with a shady decision when his Department refused to enforce civil rights laws in the NBP civil rights case:
Two members of the New Black Panther party, Minister King Samir Shabazz, and Jerry Jackson, stood in front of the entrance to the polling station in uniforms that have been described as military or paramilitary.[2][3][4] Minister King Shabazz carried a billy club, and is reported to have pointed it at voters while both men shouted racial slurs,[5] including phrases such as “white devil” and “you’re about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”
The incident drew the attention of police, who around 10:00 am, sent King Samir away in part because of his billy club. Jackson was allowed to stay, in part because he was a certified poll watcher.[7] Stephen Robert Morse, a journalist and filmmaker, upon arriving at the scene, pulled out a Flip video camera and focused on Samir Shabazz. Morse turned over the video of the incident to ElectionJournal.org.[8] The incident gained national attention after being uploaded to YouTube.[2] No complaints were filed by voters about the incident, although poll watchers witnessed some voters approach the polls and then turn away, apparently in response to the New Black Panther Party members (emphasis mine)
Imagine how differently this case would have played out had militant white supremacists done this to black voters.
Unfortunately the Attorney Generals office learned nothing from the backlash in this case in which a prominent attorney from the civil rights era, Bartle Bull said this was “the most severe instance of voter intimidation he had ever encountered.” Bull is described as “a renown civil rights attorney who was Robert F. Kennedy’s New York campaign manager and worked along side Charles Evers, Medgar Evers’ older brother, enforcing voting rights laws in Mississippi in the 1960’s.”
Insiders at Justice indicate a deep division in the department between those who believe civil rights laws are there to protect only minorities and those who believe the laws protect all Americans from intimidation and discrimination. Internal emails obtained through FOI requests show that political appointees were indeed involved in the decision to dismiss the case. Back to Wikipedia:
In October 2010, a draft report from the Civil Rights Commission was posted on the political website TPM Muckraker, stating that political officials had been extensively involved in the decision to dismiss the case, and that the Department of Justice had attempted to conceal their involvement.[12] Civil Rights Commission chairman Gerald A. Reynolds confirmed the draft was authentic, but claimed it was not the most current version of the draft, and declined to immediately release the newest version or describe what revisions had been made to it.[13] The Justice Department denied the allegations in the report.[12]
In July 2012, Judge Reggie Walton dismissed the Justice Department’s denial, finding that political appointees did interfere with prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.[14]
One civil servant at Justice dismissed the case as “small potatoes” but if one person’s civil rights have been compromised by the nations highest law enforcement agency, the civil rights of all citizens have been compromised and justice has not been served.
The politicized Justice Department wasn’t deterred as events that would follow indicate. Justice inserted itself in the “white Hispanic” case in Florida and is still active in Ferguson. The politicization of our Justice Department has created a crisis of trust between the Justice Department and local law enforcement according to a letter sent to President Obama by former FBI Assistant Director Ron Hosko. Katie Pavlich of TownHall quotes from the letter:
“The hyper-politicization of justice issues has made it immeasurably more difficult for police officers to simply do their jobs. The growing divide between the police and the people – perhaps best characterized by protesters in Ferguson, Mo., who angrily chanted, “It’s not black or white. It’s blue!” – only benefits of members of a political class seeking to vilify law enforcement for other societal failures. This puts our communities at greater risk, especially the most vulnerable among us,” Hosko wrote in the letter exclusively obtained by TownHall. “Your attorney general, Eric Holder, is chief among the antagonists. During his tenure as the head of the Department of Justice, Mr. Holder claims to have investigated twice as many police and police departments as any of his predecessors. Of course, this includes his ill-timed decision to launch a full investigation into the Ferguson Police Department at the height of racial tensions in that community, throwing gasoline on a fire that was already burning. Many officers were disgusted by such a transparent political maneuver at a time when presidential and attorney general leadership could have calmed a truly chaotic situation.”
Holder made himself and his department an inflammatory presence in Ferguson and even before an official autopsy was performed suggested that officer Wilson was guilty of a murder based on race. The details and timeline in this case suggest a political agenda that gave no thought to the people, black or white, in the city of Ferguson.
Video of officer Wilson after the shooting has been made public, release of the grand jury decision is expected soon, and citizens both black and white, are bracing themselves against the possibility of protest and riots. In preparation local police have advised people to stock up on water and essentials and remain in their homes.
This administration has purposely incited resentment and anger and encouraged the dissemination of misinformation for political purpose. It is the most racist and divisive administration since the days of the 60’s civil rights movement, a giant step backwards in my estimation. I hope the American people learn something positive from this experience that will serve to put the ugliness of racism and vengeance, used in the name of justice, behind us.
The Obama administration prosecuted the NBPP to the same extent that the Bush administration had planned on doing. You know this. Your continued distortion of the facts in this case makes you a liar.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/23/bill-oreilly/bill-oreilly-blames-obama-administration-not-pursu/
Our readers are referred to the Wikipedia page cited in the article which includes the following all of which occurred during the Obama administration:
More information on this case can be found in the 2010 hearing transcript here,
Video of Megyn Kelly’s Interview with Bartle Bull is here:
Chris your distortion of fact and dismissal of fact is annoying but since your relentless pursuit of truth is limited to liberal talking points only it is also typical and to be expected.
There is a black activist cabal embedded in our justice department and its agenda under Obama and Holder isn’t justice for all.
Whoa … wanna talk about FBI Directors? I just got an earful re R. Reagan, J. Edgar’s stooge.
Mind blowing … that the republic survived … I mean … geez.
What ever happened to the third stooge in the comments section?
You probably mean Dewey. He was asked to leave for repeatedly violating the TOS.
Holder is a card-carrying member of the Professional Race-Baiters of America. Other members include Sharpton, Jackson, Lee, Oprah and even Obumble/Oblameo.
And anyone who “riots” or “protests” over a grand jury decision is only looking for one thing: an excuse to loot!
Tina: Our readers are referred to the Wikipedia page cited in the article which includes the following all of which occurred during the Obama administration: (emphasis Tina’s)
The Department of Justice became aware of the incident on Election Day and started an inquiry. Under the Bush administration, (emphasis mine) a criminal investigation into the incident was started, but later dropped…”
Look, I know I shouldn’t laugh at an old woman’s inability to read, but you’re making it really difficult.
You are in desperate need of a new hobby–you are really, really bad at this one. I suggest something a bit less intellectually demanding, like stamp collecting.
“Holder is a card-carrying member of the Professional Race-Baiters of America.”
Only in the perception of people who view the world entirely in racial terms. Hold him up against J. Edgar, and he gets huge kuddos for his resignation.
Were you (or your feeders) thinking that raising some sort of Holder stink would diminish the reek of the MLK/Hoover revelations?
Feeble effort.
Navy Vet and hotel employee fired for posting pictures of Homeland Security vehicles just outside of Ferguson, Mo.
Navy Veteran Points Out Unnerving Government Presence Not Far From Ferguson — and Now He’s Looking for Another Job.:
“But just 30 minutes after Paffrath arrived to work Saturday, Jim Bohnert, director of security for Drury Hotels Company, told Paffrath he had been fired, News Now reported. His Facebook posts apparently cost the hotel chain a $150,000 contract with the Department of Homeland Security, the outlet added.
As if that wasn’t enough, Paffrath also claimed Bohnert told him, ”[Y]ou’re a terrorist and you have dishonorably served your country by posting the photos and video.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/16/navy-veteran-points-out-unnerving-government-presence-not-far-from-ferguson-and-now-hes-looking-for-another-job/
It’s that nagging problem again of being “transparent” that got this guy fired after being called a terrorist for sharing pictures with the public 100 vehicles parked in a open to the public garage. Dept. of Homeland Security didn’t need to cancel their contract with the hotel chain. Just more Chicago-style politics.
Chris key words that YOU post: “but later dropped…” “later” occurred under Obama/Holder. Bush is GONE!
You choose to ignore the fact that the case continued into 2009. You choose to ignore the evidence proffered that the case was politicized under Holder. You choose to ignore evidence that activist career lawyers choose to apply the law only when it can be brought against white citizens under Obama’s and Holder’s “rule”. You choose to believe that this would be constitutional and that those lawyers were not acting in defiance of their oaths of office.
Chris you insist on being a manipulator of fact, even when the facts are printed out for all to see.
You are desperately defending a cabal of liars.
You have the unmitigated gall to double down and attempt to make me, a person of little influence in the larger scheme of things, a bad guy for daring to flesh out the facts and inform of the entire truth in the matter. You are fast becoming a joke.
Actually, Tina, it’s you … the poor, pitiful, persecuted white lady … that’s the joke.
Seriously, if at all possible, you need to step back.
Tina, great read, why anyone would defend the Obama administration with the landslide of problems he has created is difficult for the average apposing party voter to fathom. But there will always be that portion of party loyalist that vote party lines (verbal and otherwise)even after it becomes clear their not being honestly represented..
I do believe one can hold on to their Ideology and help promote the best aspects of it, GOP or Liberal, but to try and justify all the mistakes made by prior administration, just to brace against the comments about and of today doesn’t help the America we believe in.
I still wonder why one as educated as Obama has not learned from history, put his narcissist ideals aside and build on a legacy for Americas improvement. Sadly though, as pointed out by some of our more Liberal posters His party and himself continue on a path of failure in some areas that may have been started by predecessors, Even to the point of creating greater damage and concern, in covering up their own continuance of mistakes.
Politics in todays era is nothing but a power grab, The elected have positioned themselves as elitist, and all the while of failing to provide the leadership and unity needed to guide America back.
Sooner then later ‘We The People’ needs to replace ‘I the person’
Re: #12 Harold.
I think you answered your own question with the word “narcissist”. Fearless Reader neither knows nor cares about history. He merely sifts through it and discards all that does not fit his agenda. IMHO, he views the history of the United States with disdain, and his infamous mis-pronunciation of the word “corpsman” was deliberate.
As to the topic of this post, from elsewhere on the web—
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/obama-meets-with-ferguson-activists-says-hes-concerned-they-stay-on-course/
“President Obama met with Ferguson protest leaders on November 5th, the day after the midterm elections. The meeting was not on his daily schedule. He was concerned that the protesters “stay on course.”
What does that mean?
And why is the president meeting with the violent Mike Brown protesters before a verdict is reached in the court case?
The New York Times hid this in the 21st paragraph of their report:
But leaders here say that is the nature of a movement that has taken place, in part, on social media and that does not match an earlier-era protest structure where a single, outspoken leader might have led the way. “This is not your momma’s civil rights movement,” said Ashley Yates, a leader of Millennial Activists United. “This is a movement where you have several difference voices, different people. The person in charge is really — the people. But the message from everyone is the same: Stop killing us.”
At times, there has been a split between national civil rights leaders and the younger leaders on the ground here, who see their efforts as more immediate, less passive than an older generation’s. But some here said relations have improved in recent weeks.
Some of the national leaders met with President Obama on Nov. 5 for a gathering that included a conversation about Ferguson.
According to the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has appeared frequently in St. Louis with the Brown family and delivered a speech at Mr. Brown’s funeral, Mr. Obama “was concerned about Ferguson staying on course in terms of pursuing what it was that he knew we were advocating. He said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace.”
Obama wants the protesters to stay on course?
Unbelievable.
Tina, you and I both provided, months ago if not last year, it was under Holder’s watch the NBPP’s case was finally tried.
Chris should know this if he had read the documents we provided back then.
One more time.
Bombshell! DOJ Attorney J. Christian Adams Resigns Over Dismissal of New Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case – Blows Whistle:
“On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers.
After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.
The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.
The dismissal raises serious questions about the department’s enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation into the dismissal and the DOJ’s skewed enforcement priorities. Attorneys who brought the case are under subpoena to testify, but the department ordered us to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly placing us in an unacceptable legal limbo.
……
Most corrupt of all, the lawyers who ordered the dismissal – Loretta King, the Obama-appointed acting head of the Civil Rights Division, and Steve Rosenbaum – did not even read the internal Justice Department memorandums supporting the case and investigation. Just as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. admitted that he did not read the Arizona immigration law before he condemned it, Mr. Rosenbaum admitted that he had not bothered to read the most important department documents detailing the investigative facts and applicable law in the New Black Panther case. Christopher Coates, the former Voting Section chief, was so outraged at this dereliction of responsibility that he actually threw the memos at Mr. Rosenbaum in the meeting where they were discussing the dismissal of the case. The department subsequently removed all of Mr. Coates’ responsibilities and sent him to South Carolina.”
….Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the Voting Section. Read it all >>>”
Continued..
http://www.ironicsurrealism.com/2010/06/26/bombshell-doj-official-resigns-over-dismissal-of-new-black-panther-voter-intimidation-case/
Thanks to Peggy, RHT447, Harold, J Soden, Jack and Pie. Whether or not you commented on the post you offered welcome relief from a barrage of targeted vitriolic yammering. I love reading your comments.
The National Guard has been called out in anticipation of trouble. I’m sure there are some among the protesters who genuinely feel the need to call attention to what they see as police brutality. Since the race baiters and their willing accomplices in media are more interested in a divisive agenda than they are the truth in this case some of the sincere will never have a clear picture about what happened and that’s unfortunate. If ever there was a need for absolute clarity it is in this case.
A much bigger problem exists in the black community, several actually. Black on black crime is one. A crisis in education, another. Single mothers and absentee sperm donors is the third. Our economy has exacerbated these problems and Obama’s plan to welcome huge streams of undocumented, illegal entrants to our country hasn’t helped either. Young black youth as a group are acting out (screaming for guidelines and direction) from adults who refuse even to be honest never mind instilling the values and discipline that will help them form successful productive lives.
Sincere people spending so much of their time and energy in Ferguson might be more productive putting their efforts toward the problems with kids/young adults within the black community.
Tina: “Chris key words that YOU post: “but later dropped…” “later” occurred under Obama/Holder.”
No. Again, the criminal investigation was dropped under Bush. See the Politifact link in comment #1. An excerpt, since you won’t click the link to read it:
“On Jan. 7, 2009, the Bush Administration Justice Department announced that it filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members. Specifically, they were alleged to have violated Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits intimidation, coercion or threats against “any person for voting or attempting to vote.” The aims of the lawsuit were fairly limited: “The Department seeks an injunction preventing any future deployment of, or display of weapons by, New Black Panther Party members at the entrance to polling locations.” In other words, the aim was to make sure they didn’t do something similar again in the future. This section of the law does not subject violators to criminal penalties (fines or jail time, for example).
The Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, which handles all racially motivated voter intimidation offenses, determined that “the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes,” according to testimony provided by Thomas E. Perez , Assistant Attorney General, on May 14, 2010. Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler confirmed to PolitiFact that that determination not to file criminal charges was made prior to the filing of the civil case.
In other words, the decision not to pursue criminal charges was made by the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division prior to the Obama administration.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/23/bill-oreilly/bill-oreilly-blames-obama-administration-not-pursu/
The Obama administration obtained the injunction that the Bush administration sought against Shabazz, the guy with the nightstick, but not the other New Black Panthers that were charged under Bush.
And this is supposed to be a smoking gun that the Obama administration won’t pursue charges in cases with black perpetrators? That makes no sense. If that were the case, they wouldn’t have gotten the injunction against Shabazz! If the logic is that the OA should have went for criminal charges, you could make the same argument against the Bush administration.
Your accusations make no sense.
I have been very clear but will excerpt and restate one last time for Chris:
1. Under the Bush administration, a criminal investigation into the incident was started, but later dropped. (This is apparently where you lose interest)
2. In January 2009, less than two weeks before the Bush administration left office, the civil rights division of the Department of Justice filed a civil suit under the voting rights act against four defendants, namely, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Jerry Jackson, NBPP chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, and the NBPP itself.
(Bush is now gone; we are operating under the Obama Justice Department)
3. In April 2009 Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer who was serving as a poll watcher at the polling station where the incident occurred, submitted an affidavit at the Department of Justice’s request supporting the lawsuit, stating that he considered it to have been the most severe instance of voter intimidation he had ever encountered.
4. …none of the defendants who were charged appeared in court to answer the charges
5. …the career attorneys pursuing the lawsuit assumed that they would win it by default.
6. …the career attorneys’ move to pursue a default judgment was overruled by two of their line superiors, Loretta King, who was acting Assistant Attorney General, and Steve Rosenbaum, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney Genera
7. …a case filed by the Department during the Bush administration, known as United States v. Brown, was one of the first voting rights cases which involved a white plaintiff and a black defendant. The case precipitated deep divisions within the Justice Department. Some employees felt that the voting rights act was passed because historically, it was minorities who had been disenfranchised and that the department should therefore focus on cases filed by minorities, while others felt that it was intended to protect all voters in a race-neutral manner.
8. Employees who worked the Brown case have described being harassed by colleagues due to the widespread belief that civil rights laws should not be used to protect white voters.
(Under Obama the Justice Department appears to be freely exercising a political agenda rather than fulfilling their oaths of office to uphold the constitution)
9. Freedom of Information Act request show that political appointees were “intimately involved” in the decision to drop the case, including former deputy attorney general David Ogden, Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli and attorney general Eric Holder, and that Perez may have committed perjury by denying this in his testimony before the Civil Rights Commission
10. Civil Rights Commission chairman Gerald A. Reynolds confirmed the draft was authentic, but claimed it was not the most current version…
11. The Justice Department denied the allegations in the report.[12]
12. In July 2012, Judge Reggie Walton dismissed the Justice Department’s denial, finding that political appointees did interfere with prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.[14]
An “investigation” at the end of Bush’s term was dropped, perhaps in part because leadership at Justice would change within a short time.
The civil case was filed just prior to Obama’s inauguration.
In my original article above I asked, “Imagine how differently this case would have played out had militant white supremacists done this to black voters.” Considering what’s going on in Ferguson, it doesn’t take much imagination to realize the hellfire and brimstone anger that would have followed the decision to drop the investigation.
So, should all Americans be subject to our civil rights voting laws or not?
And is it right that the Attorney General act like an activist while serving as AG, creating greater tensions and divisions in the process?
Should the AG create distrust for law enforcement or do what he can to bolster trust? (Like waiting for the facts to be known and then making a statement based on facts not race?)
“An “investigation” at the end of Bush’s term was dropped, perhaps in part because leadership at Justice would change within a short time.”
Or because it were a kind of a half-assed business and not worth wasting any more of the taxpayer’s nickels on?
Or maybe because Philadelphia has a little bit of recent history to live down:
“During the 2003 mayoral election in Philadelphia, fully seven percent of a poll of 1000 African American voters described troubling experiences at the polls. Men with clipboards bearing official-looking insignia were reported at many precincts in African American neighborhoods.
Tom Lindenfeld, who ran the counter-intimidation campaign for Democratic candidate John Street, said this deployment included a fleet of 300 cars that featured decals closely resembling those of federal law enforcement agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Many prospective voters reported being challenged for identification by such workers. Lindenfeld told reporters from the American Prospect that ‘What occurred in Philadelphia was much more expansive and expensive than anything I’d seen before, and I’d seen a lot.'”
If it makes you feel any better, these much more numerous and well-organized intimidators weren’t prosecuted either.
So I think you should get a grip. This pitiful white people’s persecution obsession is really pretty silly.
Libby: ” Men with clipboards bearing official-looking insignia were reported at many precincts in African American neighborhoods.”
Like “official poll watcher” perhaps?
The radical progressives in the Democrat Party, your pals, have scared the he77 out of people, especially old people, with all the “Tea Party is racist” and “Republicans want to take away your vote” lies! Your party is deceitful for just this purpose!
“…his deployment included a fleet of 300 cars that featured decals closely resembling those of federal law enforcement agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.”
Would not surprise me at all to discover this was planned and carried out by lefty thugs.
The Shame of a City:
Blockquote>The Shame of a City is a 2006 feature-length documentary, which premiered at the Philadelphia Film Festival,.[1] Filmmaker Tigre Hill chronicles the 2003 Philadelphia mayoral race between Democrat incumbent mayor John Street and Republican challenger Sam Katz. Early polls showed Katz with a small lead in this predominantly Democratic city but twenty-seven days before the election, an FBI bug was found in the mayor’s office. The discovery at first seemed like a death knell to the Street campaign and a near certain victory for Katz. Yet this prediction was proven wrong when Street and his supporters successfully polarized the campaign by leveling accusations of instituational racial prejudice and playing on historical skepticism of the Republican-controlled federal government. As a result, Street won re-election by a sixteen-point margin.
With exclusive inside access to the Katz campaign,[2] “The Shame of a City” traverses the bizarre final month to Election Day with the losing candidate as he tries in vain to salvage his campaign while his victor succeeds in manipulating voter sentiment in order to thwart it.
“The Shame of a City” is named for Lincoln Steffens’ 1904 book, The Shame of the Cities, which sought to expose the wrongdoing of public officials in cities across the United States.[3] Considered one of the first and finest examples of muckraking journalism, the book sparked Hill’s idea to shine a similar light into the deep corners where Philly’s political cronyism and malfeasance lurk. In his book, Lincoln Steffens infamously calls Philadelphia “corrupt and contented.” One hundred years later, this documentary explodes with overwhelming evidence that not much has changed.
Same old Saul Alinsky tactics and lies.
Get Real!
Outside the polls? Working from cars with fake government-looking insignia?
Please, Tina. Election day shenanigans are ubiquitous, and as American as apple pie. However, right off the top of your head, which party generally has the wherewithal for such a large and expensive operation?
Any claims to persecution on your part are absurd.
Libby: ” which party generally has the wherewithal for such a large and expensive operation?”
You poor conditioned progressive. The Democrat party has all kinds of big money and organization to pull off such a sham. ACORN and SEIU have the money AND the dirty tricks to pull it off. Soros has Billions and lavishly donates to hundreds of 501c4 organizations that could pull it off. There are any number of “the rich” and big corporations behind the Democrats. And, as we have seen over the last six or more years, there’s a wide pattern of lying and deceptive practices in the leadership and in large support organizations of the Dem Party…get real.
Besides, local politics in Democrat heavy Philadelphia politics is rife with corruption; has been for some time.
It’s really cute that you still want to paint the Republicans as the party with all the money. The facts tell a much different story.
Tina: “Would not surprise me at all to discover this was planned and carried out by lefty thugs.”
Wait…so your theory is that Democrats were trying to scare likely Democratic black voters from voting, just to convince black voters that Republicans didn’t want them to vote, so that those voters would then vote Democrat (as long as they weren’t scared away from voting)?
Have you ever even heard of Occam’s Razor?
“It’s really cute that you still want to paint the Republicans as the party with all the money. The facts tell a much different story.”
Facts re spending in the last election … via OpenSecrets.org
House
Democrats: $410,744,214
Republicans: $543,467,916
Senate
Democrats: $263,997,216
Republicans: $285,180,851
True, in the Senate races a paltry $22M.
But Tina … you wanna put all that “poor, pitiful Republican me” … where the sun don’t shine.
Oh, I do beg your pardon …
$22 Billion
Silly me.
Shows what you know.
The Democrat Party knew they were going to lose big time so they spent sparingly and in targeted campaigns where they thought thy might have a prayer.
You forget too all of the fund raising, and hoarding, that Obama has done since being re-elected to office…I mean its positively obscene.
Soros money is enough, for heavens sake, used in covert ways.
You cannot hide. Your party cannot hide. Your party is a deception machine. It’s floated the lie that Democrats are for the little guy and have no wealthy players or donors…its all horse hockey.
Silly you, indeed.
and don’t put words in my mouth (Or invite me to do obscene acts with them).
That’s ok, Tina. We long ago gave up expecting that facts would alter your prejudices.
When I can muster the energy to put stuff like that up … it is only to demonstrate to anyone who might be passing that your prejudices are not amenable to fact.