Before I proceed with Part 2 of US Justice Department corruption, how it affects the Blagojevich trial and yes, Obama eligibility, I want to give two Fox News personalities a chance to apologize and do their job.
First of all, Lou Dobbs, on CNN of all places, issued the most direct challenge to Obama about his birth certificate. Lou deserves our priase and respect.
Sean Hannity, on his radio show, also questioned Obama on not providing a birth certificate.
Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly have not only not covered Obama’s lack of eligibility, they have insulted well informed, concerned Americans who have asked questions. Why won’t they ask the simple core question?
Why has Obama employed a legion of private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?
Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, apologize to the American people, the people who made you a success, and do your job. It is not too late.
US Justice Department corrupt, Blagojevich trial, Patrick Fitzgerald, J Christian Adams
We now have multiple confirmations that the US Justice Department is corrupt and racially biased. J Christian Adams and others are speaking out. For well over a year Citizen Wells has been questioning the Justice Dept. and their actions.
Who in the US Justice Dept. made these decisions?
Wait until December 2008, after the elections, to arrest Rod Blagojevich.
Omit the following from the Indictment. The following statement was in the Criminal Complaint. “The Planning Board was a commission of the State of Illinois, established by statute, whose members were appointed by the Governor of the State of Illinois. At the relevant time period, the Planning Board consisted of nine individuals.”
Focus the prosecution of Blagojevich on the selling of the senate seat.
Indicate the trial will end much earlier than expected (month and a half vs three to four months).
And
Why did Judge James Zagel speak out and say that Tony Rezko would be a bad witness?
Was he laying the groundwork for prosecutors not calling Rezko?
Stuart Levine was the main witness in the Rezko trial. Not only was Levine heavily enmeshed in crime and corruption, he was a long time drug user. Criminals and corruption figures are routinely used as witnesses.
J Christian Adams testimony, US Commission on Civil Rights, Julie Fernandez
J Christian Adams, a former attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the US Justice Department, testified Tuesday, July 6, 2010, before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Adams is interviewed afterwards on FOX News by Megyn Kelly.
Adams alleges that the Justice Dept ignores voter fraud and states that a mandate came from Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandez.
Part 2
Julie Fernandez Deputy Assistant Attorney General
From the National Review January 12, 2010.
“Politicizing the Law”
“Eric Holder’s Justice Department has exiled Christopher Coates to South Carolina.
Coates, you may recall, is a career attorney at Justice, the chief of the Civil Rights Division’s (CRD) Voting Section. More to the point, Coates recommended that the CRD file a lawsuit for voter intimidation against the New Black Panther party and several of its members, who were in paramilitary uniforms (one of them waving a nightstick) threatening elderly white voters at a polling station in Philadelphia during last year’s elections.
Political appointees at the Justice Department overrode Coates’s recommendation. They ordered him to dismiss the lawsuit against all but one of the defendants, even though they were in default because they did not defend themselves. The eventual injunction against the defendant with the weapon was laughably weak.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation of the unexplained dismissal. It has subpoenaed Coates, but Justice has ordered Coates not to appear before the panel. Indeed, the partisan Democrats running the Civil Rights Division have barred Coates and another career lawyer, Christian Adams, from providing any assistance to the commission or the Republican congressmen investigating the matter. What are they so afraid will be revealed?”
“Washington today is infested with advocacy groups run by radicals who view the law — particularly federal civil-rights statutes like the Voting Rights Act — as a weapon to be used to further ideological goals, cement political control, and demonize political opponents. By contrast, fair-minded liberals and conservatives — at least those with whom I worked in the Civil Rights Division during the Bush administration — saw their duty as one of enforcing the law in a neutral manner within the narrow and objective strictures of federal statutes and case law. They did not assume the federal government had a monopoly on civil-rights virtue. They insisted that career attorneys recognize the proper role of the judiciary in what they asked courts to do. They recognized the need for restraint in certain investigatory activity lest the threat of federal power produce results that the law would not command.
Despite this conscious, principled adherence to “blind justice” and the constitutional role of the judiciary, some in the Bush Department of Justice found themselves accused of “politicization” when they tried to hire lawyers who would respect and carry out these principles. The radical Left simply could not tolerate a system in which the liberal ideologues who already predominated the career ranks in the CRD were not replicated in all hiring decisions.
The recent personnel action against Coates exposes the injustice (and hypocrisy) of the Left’s demagoguery. For all intents and purposes, the transfer was a demotion. A demotion for doing the right thing.”
“I would trace it to his mistake of enforcing civil-rights laws even-handedly. In 2003, while I was still at the CRD, we received complaints that black officials in Noxubee County, Miss., were discriminating against white voters. Coates went down and investigated. He found blatant racial discrimination occurring in the polls. The discrimination was organized, led, and orchestrated by the black head of the local Democratic party’s executive committee, a two-time felon. A federal district court found “improper, and in some instances fraudulent conduct . . . for the purpose of diluting white voting strength.” The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, when it upheld the judgment against the defendants, found there was intentional discrimination against white voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Coates’s audacity, first in investigating this case and then in recommending that a lawsuit be filed, made him many enemies. Previously, he had spent his entire career filing lawsuits on behalf of minority voters who had suffered discrimination. But in Noxubee, the white voters being discriminated against were the minority, representing only about 30 percent of voters. Their race made no difference to Coates, but based on what I observed, it made a big difference to ultra-liberal lawyers inside and outside the Justice Department.
When Coates first went to Noxubee to investigate the complaints, a number of the Voting Section’s career lawyers expressed disgust that we would bother to protect white voters. Coates was astonished by the blatantly illegal behavior he saw going on in the polls, but many of his colleagues wanted to ignore it. Several career lawyers in the section flatly refused to work on the case.”
“That brings us to the real bone of contention, the final reason Coates has been transferred: the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther party. NBPP members were hurling racial epithets and threatening voters at a polling place in Philadelphia. It was among the most blatant cases of voter intimidation the CRD had seen in decades. Adams was one of three lawyers assigned to the case by Coates, no doubt because, unlike the other career lawyers in the Voting Section, Adams would not refuse to sue non-white perpetrators of voter intimidation. The other two lawyers on the New Black Panther party case were Robert Popper and Spencer Fisher, both highly dedicated voting-rights attorneys as well.”
“One former Voting Section career lawyer who had left the Justice Department to go to work for the NAACP, Kristen Clarke, admitted to the Washington Times that she talked to the new political leadership after Obama was inaugurated, berating them for not dismissing the case. Sources at Justice tell me Clarke made an identical pitch to her former colleagues in the Voting Section once Obama and Eric Holder came to power.
The entreaties proved productive. According to the Washington Times, Loretta King, whom Obama named the acting assistant attorney general of the CRD, ordered Coates to dismiss the case against three of the defendants despite their default. King apparently received approval from Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli to do so. Who else Perrelli spoke with in the Justice Department and the White House is the subject of continued stonewalling in response to the subpoenas served on Justice by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission
Meanwhile, the forced dismissal of the New Black Panther case turned out to be just the beginning of the misery heaped on Coates. According to multiple sources at Justice, King and the political appointees who came in soon after Obama’s inauguration — particularly Julie Fernandez, an ideological firebrand and former lawyer for the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights — put severe restrictions on Coates almost as soon as they arrived and began micromanaging all of his work. The new political apparatchiks stripped Coates of virtually all discretionary authority, delegated responsibility for most decisions to more “results-oriented” underlings in the Voting Section, and rendered him a virtual figurehead.”
“Like Coates, Adams and the entire New Black Panther party trial team are consummate professionals who seek to enforce the laws without political or ideological considerations. Unfortunately, such lawyers are a rarity within the Civil Rights Division, which is without doubt one of the most insidiously partisan places I have ever worked, inside or outside of government.
Over the past year, all hiring within the CRD has been done on a purely partisan, ideological basis. Doubtless that will continue to happen over the next three years.”
“Hans A. von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Justice Department.”
J Christian Adams testimony, US Commission on Civil Rights, Fox News interview
J Christian Adams testimony, a former attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the US Justice Department, testified Tuesday, July 6, 2010, before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Adams has leveled a new charge against the Justice Department of not enforcing voter registration. Adams is interviewed afterwards on FOX News by Megyn Kelly.
July 4, 2010, Declaration of Independence, John Adams speech
“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”…Declaration of Independence
“John Adams speech before the Continental Congress on Freedom and the reading of The Declaration Of Independence”
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
US Justice Department corruption, Voter intimidation, New Black Panther case dismissal
I am watching the Rod Blagojevich trial unfold. I have been monitoring this since before the Tony Rezko trial ended. There were many disturbing signs well before the Blagojevich trial began. Many of us questioned Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department. Now we have J. Christian Adams and Bartle Bull speaking out, lending credence to our concerns. I have more thoughts on the Blagojevich trial that I will commit to words soon.
Bartle Bull interview, Obama a hustler, Megyn Kelly, Fox News
Bartle Bull, a lifelong Democrat and civil rights activist, was interviewwed by Megyn Kelly of Fox News today, July 1, 2010. Mr. Bull reacted to J Christian Adams resignation and statements about the US Justice Dept. dropping the lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party. Bartle Bull was also a witness to the voter intimidation by the Black Panthers in 2008. Mr. Bull had this to say about Obama.
“I didn’t like Obama from the beginning,
I thought he was a hustler
and I think he still is.”
J Christian Adams resignation, US Justice Dept. corrupt?, Biased?, Fox News coverage
J. Christian Adams resigned recently as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department.
“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.”
Obama and US Justice Dept corruption, Obama agenda, Racial bias, New Black Panther Party case dismissed
“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”…2001 Barack Obama interview on Chicago public radio station WBEZ
J. Christian Adams resigned recently as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department.
“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.”
“Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. 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.
The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the “facts and law” did not support this case. That claim is false. If the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls. Let’s all hope this administration has not invited that outcome through the corrupt dismissal.
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.”
““The communities that we serve must see that the federal government is really committed to the impartial and aggressive enforcement of our nation’s laws, and these communities must know that we will do all that we can to enforce the law that protect our civil rights with the same vigor that we enforce the laws that protect our public safety.”
“Despite those comments, Holder dismissed default judgments that the Bush Justice Department had filed against Malik Shabazz and Jerry Jackson in January 2009.
The suit alleged that Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPP), “managed, directed and endorsed” the incident, in which Jackson and a third defendant, Samir Shabazz, wore NBPP uniforms that included “black berets combat boots, bloused battle dress pants, rank insignia, (NBPP) insignia, and black jackets.”
Samir Shabazz also was accused by the Bush DOJ of having “brandished a deadly weapon,” described as a nightstick, and “pointed it at individuals” while the polls were open for voting in the presidential election.
Jackson accompanied Samir Shabazz throughout that activity, and both “made statements containing racial threats and racial insults” and made “menacing and intimidating gestures statements and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters.”
When the defendants did not respond to the complaint from the federal government, the Bush DOJ won default judgments against Jackson and Malik Shabazz, but Holder’s DOJ chose to dismiss them in May 2009.”
“Holder also assured ADC members attending the convention that hate crimes cases would be a priority of the Obama administration, and that it was working hard on a crime against Muslims in Florida.”
““Already, we have several investigations open under the new law, and I want you all to know that we are currently working with local law enforcement to investigate the recent pipe bomb attack on a Florida mosque.”
A pipe bomb exploded during evening prayers at the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida on May 10. No one was injured inside the Jacksonville mosque, but police and the FBI are investigating it as a possible hate crime.
“This case is a top concern for the FBI,” Holder said.”
Sheryl Crow uneducated comments, Tea party movement, Elitist remarks
From a Katie Couric interview in Glamour Magazine.
“KATIE COURIC: What do you think of the Tea Party movement? Because that is the specific sort of group of people who would say we’re out there, we’re getting involved in the process and—
SHERYL CROW: I think our system is broken in ways that can’t be fixed at this moment until we get some kind of campaign finance reform and we get people in office who—I think perhaps everybody starts off in office being altruistic and thinking they’re going to make big changes, and then they see the big dollars coming in. I don’t know what it is at the most fundamental level that…you know, what’s first, the chicken or the egg? But I appreciate the fact that those people are out there and that they are fired up.
My main concern is that it’s really fear-based. What’s coming out of the Tea Party most often, especially if you go onto YouTube, and you see some of the interviews with these people who really don’t even know what the issues are, they’re just swept up in the fear of it and the anger of it. They’re not sure what they’re angry at; they don’t understand what’s happening on Wall Street. They haven’t educated themselves, but they’re just pissed off. And I understand that, I’m pissed off too. But knowledge is power, and anything less than that when it comes to anger can be dangerous.”
Your comments are elitist and you accuse others of what you are guilty of. Not being educated. If you really want to get out of your comfort zone, contact me and ask questions and seek the truth.
Citizen WElls 
Sheryl Crow uneducated comments, Tea party movement, Elitist remarks, Getting Out of My Comfort Zone, Couric interview, Citizen Wells open thread, June 30, 2010
Sheryl Crow uneducated comments, Tea party movement, Elitist remarks
From a Katie Couric interview in Glamour Magazine.
“KATIE COURIC: What do you think of the Tea Party movement? Because that is the specific sort of group of people who would say we’re out there, we’re getting involved in the process and—
SHERYL CROW: I think our system is broken in ways that can’t be fixed at this moment until we get some kind of campaign finance reform and we get people in office who—I think perhaps everybody starts off in office being altruistic and thinking they’re going to make big changes, and then they see the big dollars coming in. I don’t know what it is at the most fundamental level that…you know, what’s first, the chicken or the egg? But I appreciate the fact that those people are out there and that they are fired up.
My main concern is that it’s really fear-based. What’s coming out of the Tea Party most often, especially if you go onto YouTube, and you see some of the interviews with these people who really don’t even know what the issues are, they’re just swept up in the fear of it and the anger of it. They’re not sure what they’re angry at; they don’t understand what’s happening on Wall Street. They haven’t educated themselves, but they’re just pissed off. And I understand that, I’m pissed off too. But knowledge is power, and anything less than that when it comes to anger can be dangerous.”
Read more:
http://www.glamour.com/magazine/2010/06/sheryl-crow-tells-katie-couric-this-is-my-year-of-getting-out-of-my-comfort-zone?currentPage=3
To: Sheryl Crow
From: Citizen Wells
Your comments are elitist and you accuse others of what you are guilty of. Not being educated. If you really want to get out of your comfort zone, contact me and ask questions and seek the truth.
Wells
92 Comments
Posted in America, Americans, Announcements, Barack Obama, Citizen, Citizen Journalism, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, DC, Democrats, Election 2010, Elitist remarks, First Amendment, Government, Grassroots, indictment, Liberalism, Lies, media, News, Obama, Obama administration, Patriotism, politicians, Politics, Smear campaigns, Tea Party, The Case Against Barack Obama, United Nations, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC, white house
Tagged 2010, Citizen Wells open thread, Couric interview, Elitist remarks, Getting Out of My Comfort Zone, June 30, Sheryl Crow uneducated comments, Tea Party movement