Obama Sells Out America's Youth with Eric Holder

Obama Sells Out America’s Youth and Defenders of Civil Liberties with Eric Holder

November 19, 2008

Living to see the first African-American elected as President of the United States was supposed to feel a lot better. But, it’s hard to get excited about Barack Obama, who seems to have never met an issue he can’t take both sides on, and who has elevated “selling out” to an art form. Obama is the Magna Cum Laude, Zen master, and Oracle of All Sell Out Knowledge. He has once again affirmed his exalted position as the King of Masquerade when he chose Eric Holder to be his Attorney General and sold out American youth, particularly black youth.

Holder, yet another ex-Clintonite, was Clinton’s Deputy Attorney General and US Attorney General for the Washington DC area. He is an extreme drug warrior who believes that harsher and longer sentences should be enacted for minor crimes such as marijuana use and prostitution. This, in spite of the mounting evidence that the “war on drugs” is a failure and has amounted to nothing more than a war on black people, which also appears to be it’s original intent. He wants harsher sentencing for marijuana, which will impact American youth more than any other demographic, and it will specifically impact African-American youth, who are already targeted to be shuffled off to America’s new plantations, US prisons.

Perhaps this was Clinton’s, now Obama’s plan for getting more Black men employed by major corporations, because once inside of prison, many get hired by some of America’s top corporations. Of course, they’re only paid about 25 cents an hour and they have no benefits, but at least they have a job. I guess that’s supposed to be something. Having a job is something that cannot be said for an increasing number of Americans who are not part of this “affirmative action” program. Some American companies are actually closing up shop, laying off workers, and re-opening in an American prison to take advantage of this bonanza of prisoner/slaves. Funny but America’s new slaves look an awful lot like the old ones.

You are aware that slavery is still legal in America, aren’t you? If you aren't, be assured that American corporations are.

Holder was part of the Clinton Justice Department that enacted harsh and racially biased laws that exploded America into becoming the greatest prison nation in human history and Bill Clinton into becoming the greatest incarceration president in American history. Clinton ran away from signing legislation that would have addressed the injustice of crack and power cocaine laws. America has more prisoners than all the totalitarian nations we like to look down our noses at. America locks up more prisoners than China, which has 4 times our population.

I wonder how much it costs to be the greatest prison nation in human history?

In 1996, as U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C, Holder petitioned the City Council to enact mandatory minimum sentencing laws and to make marijuana sale offenses a felony, even for first time offenders. He said he wanted to “Nip it in the bud.” He wanted to turn a misdemeanor into a five-year prison sentence. Holder said in an interview that he is considering not only prosecuting more marijuana cases but also asking the D.C. Council to enact stiffer penalties for the sale and use of marijuana. His policies achieved none of its stated goals.

Obama supporters, particularly the youth, who stood in hours long lines to vote for him thinking him a fresh approach to politics and society have been sold out. If you thought Obama once saying that our prisons are too full with first time offenders or that our prisons are too full of young people was a good reason to support him, you’ve been sold out.

However, Holder’s appointment, which will fly through confirmation by the lemming-like Democratic Congress, is not only bad news for America’s youth, it’s bad news for those who thought Obama was about protecting civil liberties in this country and reversing the atrocities of the Bush Administration. If you didn’t get a clue when Obama reversed himself on FISA and the Patriot Act, Eric Holder is your next clue. Holder was part of the team that developed strategies for the re-authorization of the Patriot Act in 2005, and had this to say about opponents of it, "We're dealing with a different world now. Everybody should remember those pictures that we saw on September the 11th. The World Trade Centers aflame, the pictures of the Pentagon, and any time some petty bureaucrat decides that his or her little piece of turf is being invaded, get rid of that person. Those are the kinds of things we have to do." Get rid of those who oppose it. I voted for someone, although not “petty” by any means, Cynthia McKinney, who certainly opposed it, and the system got rid of her just as he said.

Holder was also involved in Clinton’s pardoning of Mark Rich, and as a corporate lawyer in private practice after leaving the Clinton team, played a key role in negotiating an agreement with the Justice Department that got Chiquita Brands International executives off the hook for paying protection money to right-wing death squads in Colombia.

Of course many African-Americans will be dancing to the beat of the seeing first black Attorney General and never notice the words they’re dancing to. But those who stand against the attack on civil liberties that emanated from the Bush Administration, and America’s youth, Black, White, Hispanic, and Asian college students, who rallied to Obama’s side, have now joined the antiwar crowd and those looking for genuine change as pawns in the mindfuck called “Change We Can Believe In.”

Everybody dancing .. but the election is over, and it’s time to listen to the words.

***

Both sides of an issue. Brings this story into context, doesn't it?

CrimsonWhite said:
I have jumped off of the fence and landed on the GOP side. I feels good to be home. McCain will get my vote in a couple weeks. The few on this board that truly know me, know that I did not come by this decision lightly, nor did I arrive at this decision by mere partisan tactics. I don't care about Wright, Ayers, ACORN, or any other partisan tactic that my beloved GOP has employed during this election cycle. What I do care about is political ideology. McCains idealogy is more closely entwined than mine. I considered overlooking this and voting for Obama until my liberal wife reminded me of something from Obama's '04 Senate campaign.

In '04, I was working for the GOP Senate nominee in the State of Illinois. My candidate had dropped out of the race in due to scandal and the GOP had caucused Alan Keyes to take his place. I was disenchanted and disgruntled and I was curious about Barack Obama. So I attended a rally outside Marion, IL. His message was fantastic. He was articulate, intelligent, charasmatic, and had an ability to transcend his race. A black man speaking to a crowd of white farmers is not a small thing in Southern Illinois. Yet, Obama spoke to the crowd. He connected with them. Especially on the issue of farm subsidies. He railed on for about ten minutes about farmers being the backbone of America and these subsidies were needed to support that backbone and take some weight off of farmers shoulders. Then everybody went crazy and applauded. Two hours later in Carbondale, IL. Seven miles away. Obama spoke to a different kind of crowd. His crowd was now more urbanized. I was at this speech as well, because I was seriously considering volunteering for his campaign. However, he took questions from the crowd and somebody asked him about farm subsidies. He answered this question by telling the crowd that these subsidies were nothing more than welfare for those that don't need it. That the money that goes to farmers to not grow crops needed to be reallocated to those that really need it. I ignored this obvious display of pandering and voted for him anyway. Alan Keyes was simply not going to get my vote.

I believe that Obama is all about change. Hell, I watched his position change in a seven mile roadtrip down Route 13 between Marion and Carbondale. This is why I can't vote for him for President.
 
FYI, more people went to prison for marijuana related crimes under Clinton that any previous President.

Anyone who thinks these so called liberals are remotely interested in killing the full employment for cops, prison guards, judges and lawyers drug laws is sadly mistaken.


Thro in the fact that is prohibition is not only counter productive and ends up causing the taxpayers a small fortune is entirely irrelevant to them.

The fact that those evil laws are destroying productive people's lives, also not very important to them.

Power and control is what it's all about folks.

Power and control for power and control's sake, too, I might add.

The prohibition on Alcohol lasted thirteen years.

The prohibition on hemp is going on its 70th year.

Do we have more or less people who smoke dope than we had in the 1930s?
Not to even mention all the cross border drug running, which would totally disappear if these drugs were legalized and sold like alcohol and tobacco.

But the control freaks (just like the teetotalers before them) would rather we have run away crime than contemplate someone being allowed to decide what they put into their bodies.
 
And back to the "if it feels good, do it... it's all ok" mantra....

No editec... drugs are really not a good thing... even if some stoners, hippies, and weirdos like to try and associate them with the word "recreational"

And now waiting on more of the "but.. but... but... alcohol" retort :rolleyes:

Aren't you one of those wankers who talks about how much you love freedom, DD?

Apparently you love your freedom but fear others freedoms, eh?

FYI the current killer crop of drugs are all pharmacueticals.

There is no reason whatever for the current war on hemp.
 
Aren't you one of those wankers who talks about how much you love freedom, DD?

Apparently you love your freedom but fear others freedoms, eh?

FYI the current killer crop of drugs are all pharmacueticals.

There is no reason whatever for the current war on hemp.

Spoken like the true pot smoker.. you do have the freedom to choose to break a law that a vast majority of people agree with... just as you have the consequences to go with that action if and when caught

Freedoms do have limits... I don't have the freedom to speed everywhere at 150MPH... I don't have the freedom to walk up and punch a whimpy, annoying liberal straight in the face... I don't have the freedom to practice medicine because I want to regardless of how qualified I am.... I don't have the freedom to do many detrimental things or things that impact the freedoms of others

Drugs are not a good thing for society at all... keeping those things out of mainstream society is a noble goal... yes, even though stoners and all love to defend pot by calling it "harmless" or "recreational", it is not a good thing

And now awaiting the "but, but, but alcohol" retort
 
Last edited:
Here is a dumb question...

Why do We, The People want to restrict the ADULT use of recreational drugs?

I thought freedom was supposed to be precious around here... Shouldn't we be free to be as stupid as evolution allows? Sure if someone gets high and kills someone with their car, they should go to prison, but not for being high.

-Joe

It's the remnants of puritanical society.

There is no reason at all to punish someone for getting high, but not for getting drunk.

In fact, I've never known anyone high to get into a bar fight. You?
 
It's the remnants of puritanical society.

There is no reason at all to punish someone for getting high, but not for getting drunk.

In fact, I've never known anyone high to get into a bar fight. You?

And how many productive and goal oriented stoners do you see?... I mean besides actors, music stars, the occasional NBA player, etc
 
Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.
Ronald Reagan
 
And how many productive and goal oriented stoners do you see?... I mean besides actors, music stars, the occasional NBA player, etc

How many productive and goal oriented drunks do you see?

As for your question, the real answer is that there are far more productive and goal oriented stoners than there are drunks. In fact, I've known successful executives, lawyers, judges, business owners, who like to light up now and then. It's not my poison, I prefer a glass of wine. But I've never been able to understand why my glass of wine is ok, but someone lighting up a joint can cost them their job, their livelihood, their freedom.

Sorry, it seems silly to me but for a moral designation that really has no basis in reality.

And just for good measure, I seem to recollect that you can see the current governor of california lighting up in the movie Pumping Iron. I could be wrong about that, but I know for a fact he lit up after every competition. ;)

As with everything else, you're talking about the difference between moderation and excessive use. Personally, I figure I'm safer around someone who uses pot excessively than someone who's a drunk. But if government is going to pick and choose what is legal, shouldn't they be rational in those choices?

I mean, I thought the AWB was equally stupid because of the same type of baseless distinctions without difference and I figure same rules apply to drugs vs alcohol.
 
Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.
Ronald Reagan
:clap2:

He had some good sayings even though his implementation was off.

It always cracks me up when so called libertarians or conservatives think what people do to their own bodies is any of the government's business.
 
How many productive and goal oriented drunks do you see?

As for your question, the real answer is that there are far more productive and goal oriented stoners than there are drunks.
In fact, I've known successful executives, lawyers, judges, business owners, who like to light up now and then. It's not my poison, I prefer a glass of wine. But I've never been able to understand why my glass of wine is ok, but someone lighting up a joint can cost them their job, their livelihood, their freedom.

Sorry, it seems silly to me but for a moral designation that really has no basis in reality.

And just for good measure, I seem to recollect that you can see the current governor of california lighting up in the movie Pumping Iron. I could be wrong about that, but I know for a fact he lit up after every competition. ;)

As with everything else, you're talking about the difference between moderation and excessive use. Personally, I figure I'm safer around someone who uses pot excessively than someone who's a drunk. But if government is going to pick and choose what is legal, shouldn't they be rational in those choices?

I mean, I thought the AWB was equally stupid because of the same type of baseless distinctions without difference and I figure same rules apply to drugs vs alcohol.

And there are no lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc who tie one on with a bottle of scotch or a 12 pack of beer :eusa_liar:

Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization, Fact 3

Even the supposed "harmless" marijuana is not as harmless as it's supporters love to claim.... to the individual or to others....

But of course.. ban tobacco in public places
 
And there are no lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc who tie one on with a bottle of scotch or a 12 pack of beer :eusa_liar:

Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization, Fact 3

Even the supposed "harmless" marijuana is not as harmless as it's supporters love to claim.... to the individual or to others....

But of course.. ban tobacco in public places

I think my point was that it is EXCESS that is the problem, not use. And you still have given no justification for one being legal and the other being criminal.

As for tabacco. I don't think that should have been banned. I think business owners should have the right to choose whether they want a smoking or a non-smoking establishment.
 
I think my point was that it is EXCESS that is the problem, not use. And you still have given no justification for one being legal and the other being criminal.

As for tabacco. I don't think that should have been banned. I think business owners should have the right to choose whether they want a smoking or a non-smoking establishment.

Agreed on the rights of the business owner....

But as for Alcohol... there is no real detriment for it's occasional and marginal use.. even health benefits with wine, dark beer, etc.... this is not the case whatsoever for even marijuana... and drinking a glass of wine next to someone is not going to give them the effects, smoking a joint imposes the exhaled mind altering effects onto someone else... I know that exhaling tobacco can pose health risks to others, but it is not going to effect their mind
 
:clap2:

He had some good sayings even though his implementation was off.

It always cracks me up when so called libertarians or conservatives think what people do to their own bodies is any of the government's business.[/QUOTE]




I don't care one wit that you trash your body, just don't expect us to pay for you to fix it..
 
Thanks for bringing Holder's background to light...blackascoal.

very disappointing...
 
Hey dave.. lets have a little contest... We'll get you a fucking crate of your favorite alcohol and I'll take a crate full of bricks of pot and we'll start consuming and see which of us will actually die of an overdose.

Deal?
 
Agreed on the rights of the business owner....

But as for Alcohol... there is no real detriment for it's occasional and marginal use.. even health benefits with wine, dark beer, etc.... this is not the case whatsoever for even marijuana... and drinking a glass of wine next to someone is not going to give them the effects, smoking a joint imposes the exhaled mind altering effects onto someone else... I know that exhaling tobacco can pose health risks to others, but it is not going to effect their mind

How many THOUSANDS OF DEAD motherfuckers from driving accidents, spousal abuses victims etc do you think would differ with your opinion that there is no detriment in the consumption of alcohol?

Do you REALLY want to compare what effects someone else? REALLY?
 
Wow that's absolutely meaningless.

I guess it makes sense that a stupid guy like yourself would think so.. here, lemme school you once again by drawing your stupid ass a picture

Marijuana Overdose

The Drug Awareness Warning Network Annual Report, published by the US federal government contains a statistical compilation of all drug deaths which occur in the United States. According to this report, there has never been a death recorded from the use of marijuana by natural causes. Unlike opiates, barbiturates or amphetamines, there seems to be little risk from the use of large amounts of marijuana. When a person smokes too much they feel very tired and lie down. When people swallow large amounts of hashish, occasionally they get sick to their stomach.
marijuana overdose by drug overdose.com



Way to do your Alma Mater proud, homedawg.
 
I guess it makes sense that a stupid guy like yourself would think so.. here, lemme school you once again by drawing your stupid ass a picture

Marijuana Overdose

The Drug Awareness Warning Network Annual Report, published by the US federal government contains a statistical compilation of all drug deaths which occur in the United States. According to this report, there has never been a death recorded from the use of marijuana by natural causes. Unlike opiates, barbiturates or amphetamines, there seems to be little risk from the use of large amounts of marijuana. When a person smokes too much they feel very tired and lie down. When people swallow large amounts of hashish, occasionally they get sick to their stomach.
marijuana overdose by drug overdose.com



Way to do your Alma Mater proud, homedawg.

You are confused little boy. I'm well aware that it is nearly impossible to kill yourself with pot, unless you drop a ton of it on yourself. But so what? Its illegal and potheads should go to jail.
 
Hey dave.. lets have a little contest... We'll get you a fucking crate of your favorite alcohol and I'll take a crate full of bricks of pot and we'll start consuming and see which of us will actually die of an overdose.

Deal?

Hey... let's have a contest... try reading what I fucking wrote....

Did I advocate over drinking?

NO...

I did state, however, that there are benefits to the consumption of occasional alcohol.... this is NEVER and I do mean NEVER the case with even the supposed 'recreational" marijuana... and as stated, use of marijuana next to someone can deliver the person next to you the mind altering effects. This is NOT the case with a glass of wine, a beer, or a shot of Jack
 

Forum List

Back
Top