BREAKING: FBI Official Just Issued TERRIFYING Warning For Those Who Live Near “Peaceful” Mosques

Dec. 12,2015

A former FBI counter-terrorism special agent named John Guandolo has gone public with a BOMBSHELL and has issued a terrifying warning for the American people about Islamic centers and mosques around the country exposing that most are part of a broad “jihadi network.”

In an interview with Breitbart, Guandolo claimed that almost every jihad attack inside America has has the support of local Islamic centers and mosques.

Guandolo says that the cast majority of the more than 2,200 mosques and Islamic centers here in America “are part of this hostile network- they’re HOSTILE!”

He went on to say that over 75% of these centers, based on their property records, are a part of the “Muslim Brotherhood network” since they are “owned by the North American Islamic Trust, which is the bank for the Muslim Brotherhood here” and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

Guandolo said that the San Bernardino terrorists attended the Islamic Center of Riverside, which he said was a “a Muslim Brotherhood Center.” He noted that the Boston Bombers attended the Islamic Society of Boston, which he said was a subsidiary of the Islamic Society of North America that was founded by an al-Qaeda guy who used to advise former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore and is now in prison.


(Distribution of Mosques in USA 2015 – Via The map above shows the current distribution of Mosques in the United States as of April 2015, which totals 3, 186.

Guandolo even set up training courses to educate FBI agents and government officials but those were squashed by Hussein Obama, of course.

Conservative Tribune reports that in the course of his investigations, Guandolo also discovered via internal documents that “the purpose of this network is to wage civilization jihad… until the entire world, and specifically the United States, is under Shariah law and the Islamic State is established here.”

He went on to explain how the leaders of these Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Islamic organizations have worked themselves into various levels of the federal government as advisers in sensitive departments like the FBI, Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security staffs.

Guandolo said that these advisers have immense input on the writing of terrorism-related policies and have made numerous changes to existing policies due to some aspects being “offensive” to Muslims.

He also warned against focusing too much on terror organizations like the Islamic State group, as they are merely “part of a much broader movement” that is bigger than simply one group or organization.

Guandolo is astonished at how ignorant government officials are about the widespread threat saying that the majority of them had no idea what is going on in the Muslim community.

The reason these overpaid ‘officials’ are ignorant is because Obama’s people are the ones advising them, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Al Qaeda who are necessarily hostile to our system, our war fighting and our way of life.

“That’s the problem,” he said.

You can read more from our friends at All News Pipeline.

(H/T Right Wing Tribune)

Please share this post with friends on Facebook and Twitter!


France Closes 3 Mosques, Finds Hundreds Of Weapons


Government Proves Hillary’s Crimes but Not One Mainstream Media Outlet Reports It!

By / 10 November 2015

The biggest political scandal discovered on Friday was not the now discredited Politico Ben Carson/West Point story it was a startling scoop in the Washington Free Beacon by Lachlan Markay that Hillary Clinton did sign a non-disclosure agreement which outline that she could be criminally libel for negligent handling of classified information (see below). People have assumed that she signed such a document but Markay found and produced the signed document which was obviously ignored. Since the Free Beacon scoop, not one newspaper or wire service picked up the story–not one.

The basics of the Free Beacon scoop include:

As the nation’s chief diplomat, Hillary Clinton was responsible for ascertaining whether information in her possession was classified and acknowledged that “negligent handling” of that information could jeopardize national security, according to a copy of an agreement she signed upon taking the job.

 A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information.

Experts have guessed that Clinton signed such an agreement, but a copy of her specific contract, obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute through an open records request and shared with the Washington Free Beacon, reveals for the first time the exact language of the NDA.

“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation,” the agreement states.

 On Sunday morning, I ran the following Lexis/Nexis searches to see if Markay’s big story receive any media coverage, to make sure nothing was missed the search was run from the day before the Free Beacon story through Sunday morning.

  • Hillary Clinton
  • Hillary Clinton Signed
  • Hillary Clinton Non-Disclosure

The above three terms were searched for the following media they represent a few hundred pages, however if anybody wishes to see the articles searched send me an email and I will email them to you:

  • All newspapers and newswires
  • CNN
  • ABC, CBS, NBC news

Not one of the above revealed coverage of the huge Free Beacon story.  Lexis/Nexis does sometimes miss things, but even if one or two items were missed– if the story received the widespread coverage it deserved more than a few examples would show up.

Two days after the discredited Carson story, his claim of a West Point scholarship offer is still major news in the mainstream media.  Two days after the huge Washington Free Beacon story there is still media silence. In the end this proves Dr. Carson’s point that the media treats Republican candidates differently than it treats Hillary Clinton.

Hrc Sci Nda1

hill in orange funny face prison

<p style=” margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;”> <a title=”View Hrc Sci Nda1 on Scribd” href=”; style=”text-decoration: underline;” >Hrc Sci Nda1</a></p>

SAY WHAT?? Plan: Pay Muslims not to kill us.?? IS THIS FOR REAL??? Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens??? WTF

I hope I am not bugging you with what I keep finding…..full story at (cuzzin ricky) below

U.S. Federal Government Program:
Pay Minnesota Muslims Not To Kill People….

U.S. Federal Government Program: Pay Minnesota Muslims Not To Kill People….
Posted on  September 15, 2015 by sundance

Those who support the program are welcoming of new resources to their community, particularly if they will keep any brewing problem contained.

If you thought Secretary Kerry’s 2013 “Jobs for Jihadists” program was goofy, wait until you read about this one.

The U.S. federal government is announcing a new program called CVE (Counter Violent Extremism) in Minneapolis Minnesota.  Under the U.S. program, authorized by President Obama, Somali Muslims living in Minnesota will be paid not to go on terror rampages. or blow themselves up.

…”Led by a taskforce of 15 Somali Americans and a traditional community grant-making organization, the Counter Violent Extremism (CVE) program is the brainchild of the chief federal prosecutor for Minnesota, Andrew Luger. […]  The goal is to prevent youth recruitment by overseas extremist groups such as Isis or al-Shabaab”….  Full (cuzzin ricky)

We are at war with Islam.  By WE, I mean the entire effing world.  Propaganda is a necessity during such  crises; a message designed to persuade and inspire citizenry  to join the effort to defeat the enemy.  What is  Disgusting & Idiotic in Minnesota is the misguided (at best) attempt to pay protection money to filthy Somali gangsters bent on killing us and destroying our country.  WTF!

Obama orders Behavioral experiments on U.S. Citizens

September 16, 2015 — bunkerville

In what should chill the marrow of our bones, this latest Executive order should have the GOP Presidential candidates rocking on their feet. Where are the headlines? Where is the Media, the GOP? Anyone out there? Am I the only one in this echo chamber? Good ole Cass Sunstein is getting his earlier wishes. (Married to Samantha Power of the Arab Spring fame.)
President Obama announced a new executive order on Tuesday which authorizes federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens in order to advance government initiatives.
“A growing body of evidence demonstrates that behavioral science insights — research findings from fields such as behavioral economics and psychology about how people make decisions and act on them — can be used to design government policies to better serve the American people,” reads the executive order, released on Tuesday.
The initiative draws on research from University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler and Harvard law school professor Cass Sunstein, who was also dubbed Obama’s regulatory czar. The two behavioral scientists argued in their 2008 book “Nudge” that government policies can be designed in a way that “nudges” citizens towards certain behaviors and choices.
The desired choices almost always advance the goals of the federal government, though they are often couched as ways to cut
Behavioral experiments on U.S. Citizens

September 16, 2015 — bunkerville

In what should chill the marrow of our bones, this latest Executive order should have the GOP Presidential candidates rocking on their feet. Where are the headlines? Where is the Media, the GOP? Anyone out there? Am I the only one in this echo chamber? Good ole Cass Sunstein is getting his earlier wishes. (Married to Samantha Power of the Arab Spring fame.)
President Obama announced a new executive order on Tuesday which authorizes federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens in order to advance government initiatives.
“A growing body of evidence demonstrates that behavioral science insights — research findings from fields such as behavioral economics and psychology about how people make decisions and act on them — can be used to design government policies to better serve the American people,” reads the executive order, released on Tuesday.
The initiative draws on research from University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler and Harvard law school professor Cass Sunstein, who was also dubbed Obama’s regulatory czar. The two behavioral scientists argued in their 2008 book “Nudge” that government policies can be designed in a way that “nudges” citizens towards certain behaviors and choices.
The desired choices almost always advance the goals of the federal government, though they are often couched as ways to cut overall program spending.
Read more: Daily Caller

            Plan: Pay Muslims not to kill us. Posted by Rodger the Real King of France | 9/18/2015 10:28:00 AM | PERMALINK Back Link (2) | Send This Post | HOME

The Queering of America

Written by 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down state laws barring same-sex “marriage” is the culmination of a decades-long corrosive process, one that has been methodically guided by a strategic subversive plan. All moral people are rightly outraged by this official mockery of the natural law, the moral law, and the divine law. But we should not be shocked or surprised, as the unmistakable signs that this was coming have been ever more obvious with each and every concession to the “gay” lobby and “gay” culture. This article originally appeared in the June 8, 1998 issue of The New American, 17 years ago. — The editors


‘‘I want to give you a little more evidence for my notion that this country has shifted in the 1990s and has transformed,” lesbian activist Elizabeth Birch told her university audience earlier this year. “Where is the least likely place anybody would look for leadership on a social issue?” she asked. “Corporate America, right?” But therein lies a tremendous irony. Ms. Birch explains: “By 1991, almost no companies in this country, almost none, had even nondiscrimination policies. Just a handful of years later, over half of the Fortune 500 had instituted nondiscrimination policies…. Over 100 of the Fortune 1,500 have instituted domestic partner coverage. That means the CEO at some point says, ‘I am going to take on my board, my shareholders, and my customers and do this.’ And I’ve happened to have the privilege to work very closely with a number of these companies. These are household names like Kodak, American Express, IBM, and the Disney Corporation.”

Look at Disney

Disney, of course, epitomizes the astonishing transformation of which Ms. Birch spoke. In the past few years, the company once synonymous with wholesomeness and quality family entertainment has become a leading purveyor of perversion — and the target of repeated campaigns by churches and religious organizations offended by its scandalous productions. Who would have thought it possible that the beloved Magic Kingdom would so soon after Walt Disney’s passing turn into a Wicked Empire that: hires a convicted child molester to direct a movie; recruits an open lesbian and an avowed homosexual to top executive positions; publishes openly pro-homosexual books directed toward youngsters; injects subliminal pornographic images into its animated movies; produces a children’s animated epic with sub rosa homosexual characters; and sponsors an annual homosexual confabulation at Disney World that subjects unsuspecting families to the rowdy and raunchy activities of hordes of deviants?

In her keynote address to the 1998 University of California Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered Association’s “Exposed!” conference, Elizabeth Birch triumphantly revealed a deep, dark secret. First she asked furtively, “Is there any press in the room?” Then she explained: “Okay, I’m gonna tell you — ’cause some of these conversations are very private — but when I said to Michael Eisner, CEO of Disney, [that] ‘30 percent of your employees are gay,’ he said, ‘You are wrong, Elizabeth, it’s 40 [percent].’”

Until a very short time ago, homosexuality was known as the unmentionable vice. It was not spoken of in decent company. But that recent bygone era seems like ancient history; in “post-Christian America,” one cannot open a newspaper, flip a television channel, turn on a radio, watch a movie, or pass a magazine rack without being clobbered by the “gay rights” issue du jour or the latest homosexual-themed pop entertainment offering. An incredible societal transformation — a tectonic shift of enormous magnitude — has taken place before our eyes, in less than the space of one generation. What was once universally seen for the vile abomination that it is, in a few short years has been transmuted into simply a different “lifestyle” or “orientation,” protected by law and endlessly defended, glorified, and celebrated by the cultural elites. What was once deviant, abhorrent, and criminal has been rendered by a perverse alchemy into something “polite” society now calls, simply, “gay.”

rainbow puking

The homosexual revolution is but the latest and most viscerally repellent installment in an ongoing, much larger revolution that has been in the process of upending our entire civilization for many years. And it may yet succeed in doing so. The unimaginable success thus far of the homosexual revolution provides one of the most dreadful portents on the horizon today. For this revolution is far from over. And those “tolerant” citizens who think that, “Hey, I’m not gay, but they’re not harming me,” have a rude awakening coming. The militant sodomites have made it explicitly clear that tolerance is not sufficient; they demand positive “approval” from society, manifested in the enactment of laws granting them special rights, and the abolition of the residual laws that impede their full homoerotic expression and deny their full access to children. Moreover, as we shall see, they insist on the complete “conversion” of “straight” society, which involves the therapeutic cleansing of all “homophobic,” “homohating,” “anti-gay bias” attitudes.

Straight America has been asleep on a deadly battlefield with a relentless enemy that is waging total war and believes in giving no quarter. We exaggerate not. In their own words to their own troops, the apostles of perversion describe their lavender jihad as “war” and constantly invoke aggressive, military terms such as “Trojan Horse,” “deception,” “propaganda,” “war strategy,” “battle tactics,” “hand-to-hand combat,” “rage,” “fury,” “enemy,” “war conference,” “attack,” “hate,” “vilify,” “destroy,” “conquer,” “subvert,” etc.

“Gay” Agenda

If you are already sickened by the super-saturation of contemporary culture with “gayness” and the non-stop whining about gay victimization, get set for an acceleration of the homo “rights” agenda. The targets include:

• Legalized marriage and adoption rights.

• Mandated “domestic partner” policies for all employers, public and private.

• Vast increases in government funding for all homosexual programs.

• Explicit homosexual “education” at all levels of schooling.

• More homosexual teacher/“role models” in the schools.

• Broad dissemination of explicit homosexual literature in schools and public libraries.

• Abolition of “age of consent” laws.

• Abolition of all state and local statutes restricting homosexual behavior.

• Criminalization, prosecution, and persecution of “homophobes,” i.e., religious “bigots.”

• A dramatic increase in the visibility of provocative and “diverse” manifestations of the gay subculture.

• Expanded pervert programming on television.

• Rapid expansion of the gay revolution to small-town, suburban, and rural America.

• Admittance of homosexuals and lesbians into Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and other private youth groups.

How do we know? The homosexual strategists tell us so in their own books and publications. Just as they told us years ago of the impending social sea-change that has now come to pass. One of the most influential manifestos of the militant homosexuals has proven to be the 1989 bestseller by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, entitled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s. This theoretical and operational manual for the “overhauling of straight America” left no doubt as to the admittedly “subversive” nature of its authors’ plan for “converting” America. Kirk and Madsen state: “By conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American way of life. We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind and will, through a planned psychological attack. We mean ‘subverting’ the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends — using the very process that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard — whether they like it or not.”

Sodomite Strategy

And, indeed, the buggery brain trust has been wildly successful in carrying out this “planned psychological attack.” Kirk and Madsen, Harvard-trained professionals in neuropsychiatry, public persuasion, and social marketing, have shown themselves to be formidable strategists and tacticians. Their plan for “converting” America involves the systematic use of very sophisticated psychological techniques of desensitizing, jamming, and conditioning. Their book provided the step-by-step program that has been relentlessly employed — and is still being religiously pursued — to totally “overhaul” America. The authors describe the opening phase of their plan as “our recipe for desensitizing Ambivalent Skeptics; that is for helping straights view homosexuality with neutrality rather than keen hostility.” “At least at the outset,” say Kirk and Madsen, “we seek desensitization and nothing more. You can forget about trying up front to persuade folks that homosexuality is a good thing. But if you can get them to think that it is just another thing — meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders — then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.”

And how would this be accomplished? Through a massive media, public relations, and advertising “propaganda campaign.” “Gays must launch a large-scale campaign — we’ve called it the Waging Peace campaign — to reach straights through the mainstream media,” the co-authors wrote. “We’re talking about propaganda.” They explained to their deviate cohorts that “propaganda relies more upon emotional manipulation than upon logic, since its goal is, in fact, to bring about a change in the public’s feelings.”

“The main thing,” they asserted, “is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.” (Emphasis in original.) Accordingly, they said, the “free and frequent discussion of gay rights by a variety of persons in a variety of places gives the impression that homosexuality is commonplace. That impression is essential, because … the acceptability of any new behavior ultimately hinges on the proportion of one’s fellows accepting or doing it.” And, the pervert pair opined, the “fastest way to convince straights that homosexuality is commonplace is to get a lot of people talking about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open, frank talk makes gayness seem less furtive, alien, and sinful; more aboveboard.” This strategy comprehended fully the truth of Alexander Pope’s observation that, “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

Even the religious “bigots” and “intransigents” who do not “embrace” gay culture, noted Kirk and Madsen, will begin to feel more and more isolated and more reticent when it comes to expressing disapproval. And the conservative “may still shake his head and think, ‘People are crazy these days,’ but in time his objections will become more reflective, more philosophical, less emotional.”

But — and this is all-important — the non-stop, desensitizing talk about “gayness” was meticulously designed to be a strictly controlled propaganda operation, employing not only the aforementioned sophisticated psychological techniques, but the very deliberate and massive use of the Big Lie. The Big Lie technique — repeating a gross falsehood often enough that it becomes “fact” — has been a central and essential component of the long-term campaign by the queer lobby — and its allies and patrons — to “sell” the American public the fallacies that:

• Homosexuals comprise 10 percent of the population.

• Homosexuality is an innate, genetically determined orientation.

• Science, reason, and true Christian charity affirm homosexuality as natural and virtuous.

• Homosexuals are just as “normal” as the general heterosexual society and present no moral, social, or health threat to the larger community.

• Common stereotypes concerning homosexual behavior, traits, mannerisms, dress, and sexual practices are vicious and false.

• Homosexuals are kind, loving, monogamous people, not practitioners of wild, promiscuous sex.

• Homosexuals present no more danger to children or national security than do heterosexuals.

• Homosexuals are innocent victims of an oppressive heterosexual society.

• Fairness and decency demand that “good” heterosexuals defend homosexuals from the bigotry and oppression of “straight” society.

• “Anti-gay” attitudes and moral condemnations of homosexuality constitute “hate crimes” and/or mental illness, requiring either prosecution or coercive medical treatment and “reeducation.”

Lies Have Consequences

Has this campaign of “emotional manipulation” worked? Absolutely. The ten percent myth has been so frequently cited in popular literature that it has achieved the status of unchallenged dogma in both straight and deviant circles. However, there is absolutely no evidence to support such an extravagant claim. Like so many other lies concerning homosexuality, it owes its origins to the perverse pseudoscience and outright deception of Alfred Kinsey. The most generous, reliable estimates, based on surveys using scientifically recognized methodology, put the figure at closer to two percent (see “Pseudo-science Behind the Ten Percent Myth”). Of course, establishing “normalcy” by citing the percentage of the population which claims a particular belief, practice, habit, or lifestyle — whether it be 10, 20, or even 90 percent, and whether or not the figure is genuine — does not answer the more important questions concerning the moral rightness or wrongness of the belief, practice, habit, or lifestyle. Moral verities are not properly derived from polls, scientific measurements, or sociological data.

Rivaling the 10 percent myth in terms of frequency of repetition and the employment of unalloyed mendacity and bogus science is the “born gay” lie. Kirk and Madsen know this is the case, but are not about to let facts get in the way of their higher purpose. “We argue,” say the author-activists, “that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay — even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predisposition and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.” It’s a simple matter of expediency. “To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms labeled ‘moral choice and sin’ and give the religious Intransigents a stick to beat us with,” they confess. With the help of Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, and the rest of the prostitute press, the homosexual propagandists have been largely successful in keeping the moral choice/sin “can of worms” closed.

However, the cooperation of corrupt and radical members of the clergy also has been crucially important in keeping the “sin” stick hidden in the closet. “While public opinion is one important source of mainstream values,” say the manifesto co-authors, “religious training in childhood is another. Yet two things can be done to confound the homohatred of the moderately religious.” And what are those things? “First,” the lavender war strategists explain, “gays can use talk to muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that ‘justify’ religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards. This entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections to conservative biblical teachings….” Moderate churches? They mean, naturally, “progressive,” “socialist,” and “communist,” churches — members of the World Council of Churches, and member churches of the openly homosexual Metropolitan Community Churches denomination.

“Second,” say Kirk and Madsen, “gays can undermine the moral authority of homohating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying such institutions as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of Old Time Religion one must set the mightier pull of Science and Public Opinion….”

They are confident the formula will work. “Such an ‘unholy’ alliance has already worked well in America against churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion,” they note. And “with enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work for gays.” As indeed it has. The above words were published, recall, in 1989. Over the past decade, we have seen pro-sodomite “Reverends” like Jesse Jackson, Mel White, Hans Venable, Larry Bethune, Jerry Sloan, William S. Coffin, Paul Moore, and many others marching in Gay Pride parades and insisting that active, practicing perverts can be, at the same time, faithful Christians.

Wholesome “Everyman”

For the most part — aside from the repugnant and thuggish activities of Queer Nation and ACT-UP extremists — the Lavender Lobby has followed the Kirk and Madsen prescription to not “draw attention to the gay sex habits that provoke public revulsion.” “In the early stages of the campaign,” the deviant advisers admonished, “the public should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself.” What’s more, they advised their fellow deviates to keep the “cocky mustachioed leathermen, drag queens and bull dykes,” as well as pedophiles and other “exotic” gays, as far from straights and the media as possible. “Persons featured in the media campaign should be wholesome and admirable by straight standards,” they insisted, and “indistinguishable from the straights we’d like to reach.”

Thus, the slick public relations campaigns of the perverts generally have featured as spokespersons conservative-appearing homosexuals in Brooks Brothers suits and lesbians in Liz Claiborne-style fashions. And countless news stories, commercials, and public presentations have followed the Kirk-Madsen script, which calls for presenting “conventional young people, middle-aged women, and older folks of all races,” along with “parents and friends of gays.” The endless media procession of “coming out” stories has been an integral part of this plot.

“First, coming out helps desensitize straights,” according to propagandists Kirk and Madsen. “As more and more gays emerge into everyday life, gays as a group will begin to seem more familiar and unexceptional to straights, hence less alarming and objectionable.” They elaborated further that “coming out is a critical catalyst for the all-important ‘conversion’ process. Conversion is more than merely desensitizing straights or jamming their homohatred: it entails making straights to identify with them. This becomes possible when a heterosexual learns that someone he already likes and admires, such as a friend or family member, is homosexual. The discovery leads to an internal showdown between the straight’s personal affection on the one hand and his bigotry on the other.”

And you thought that the decade-long deluge of “coming out” events was a spontaneous affair! Ha! Never has a charade been more carefully choreographed. “In order to make a Gay victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman,” the Kirk-Madsen script explained, confident that “the press will publicize our concerns and report our news, and our community will enjoy enhanced prestige.” It is the long-term, cumulative effect of many little steps that they seek: “After ‘meeting’ enough likable gays on television, Jane Doe may begin to feel she knows gays as a group, even if none has ever introduced himself to her personally.”

In addition to the “Everyman” strategy, the Kirk-Madsen program outlined a campaign to “paint gay men and lesbians as superior — veritable pillars of society.” This involves both publicizing an historical “honor roll of prominent gay or bisexual men and women,” including “suspected ‘inverts’” from “Socrates to Eleanor Roosevelt,” and lining up celebrity endorsements. The past few years have witnessed a politically correct stampede of politicians, entertainers, authors, and intellectuals into the “pro-gay” camp, a host of celebs pouring out of the closets, and an avalanche of movies and television programs with homosexual, lesbian, and transvestite characters and themes. Singers Elton John, Boy George, K.D. Lang, Janis Ian, and Melissa Etheridge openly proclaim their “gay” identities. Homosexual movie/record mogul David Geffen (the “G” in SKG Dreamworks, with Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg) lavishes millions of dollars on gay/lesbian causes. Geffen, together with Fox TV founder Barry Diller, Hollywood power broker Sandy Gallin, designer Calvin Klein, and a close group of homosexual and pro-homosexual friends, comprise what has been dubbed the Velvet Mafia, which has boosted the queer content of films and television programming and helped to line up stars such as Oprah Winfrey, Madonna, Tom Hanks, Sharon Stone, Magic Johnson, Barbra Streisand, Ted Danson, and a legion of others to endorse “gay rights” or raise funds for homosexual causes. One measurement of the magnitude of their baleful influence can be seen in the willingness of macho-male stars Patrick Swayze and Wesley Snipes to take roles as prancing transvestites in the drag-queen comedy, To Wong Foo, Thanks For Everything, Julie Newmar, or of Tom Selleck and Kevin Kline to do the homosexual kissing scene in the blatant, gay agitprop “comedy,” In and Out.

Admissions Against Interest

The Hollywood and media power elites have enthusiastically implemented the homosexual propaganda agenda as outlined by Kirk and Madsen. But even a cursory perusal of the homosexual press (which is about all any self-respecting “straight” can stomach) quickly reveals that the “normal,” “wholesome,” “victim” image is a monstrous lie. But don’t take our word for it. Read what homosexual author and playwright Larry Kramer, one of America’s best-known, militant gay activists, says in The Advocate, which bills itself as “The National Gay & Lesbian Newsmagazine.”

In his angry essay, “Sex and Sensibility,” in the May 27, 1997 issue of The Advocate, Kramer laments the fact that his fellow homosexuals, far from having learned their lesson from the plague of AIDS, are rushing promiscuously and obliviously into the abyss of destruction. “Nature always extracts a price for sexual promiscuity,” says Kramer, surveying the rampant debauchery of contemporary “gay” culture. AIDS and other deadly and debilitating sexual diseases comprise a major component of that price. “Tragically, not enough of us have responded to this information maturely and responsibly,” says Kramer. We cannot repeat (and have no desire to) most of Kramer’s profanity-strewn jeremiad against his fellow perverts. But he makes our case more powerfully than we — or any other straight “homophobe,” for that matter — ever could.

“We must create a new culture that is not confined and centered so tragically on our obsession with our [genitalia] and what we do with them,” Kramer declares, while almost despairing of that lofty gay ideal. “Instead,” he says, “our ‘artists’ just continue to perpetuate what got us into all this trouble and death in the first place.” He cites, as an example, the anonymous, promiscuous sex of the then-new novel, The Farewell Symphony, by Edmund White, whom he describes as “our most distinguished gay writer.” “There are so many faceless, indistinguishable pieces of flesh that litter these 500 pages that reading them becomes, for any reasonably sentient human being, at first a heartless experience and finally a boring one…. Surely life was more than this, even for — especially for — Edmund White.”

Kramer vainly pleads: “Is it not incumbent, particularly in the time of a plague that has been spread by our own callous indifference to ending it, that those of us who are read and listened to perceive of ourselves as fuller human beings and capable of writing about far more than just what sex we had night after night for 30 years?” “I am so sick,” he continues, “of the literature of sex, of the soft porn of all our novels and short stories that traffic only or mostly in sex. Tricks, bushes, S/M, discos, drugs, bathhouses, Fire Island, phone sex, meat racks — is that all we are capable of writing about or our audience capable of reading?”

Kramer continues to dish it out, with a vengeance:

We don’t have a gay culture, I don’t believe. We have our sexuality, and we have made a culture out of our sexuality, and that culture has killed us. I want to say this again: We have made sex the cornerstone of gay liberation and gay culture, and it has killed us….

We’ve all been partners in our destruction…. We have been the cause of our own victimization. I know these are grotesquely politically incorrect things to say. So be it. We knew we were playing with fire, and we continued to play with fire, and the fire consumed monstrously large numbers of us and singed the rest of us, all of us, whether we notice our burn marks or not. And we still play with fire.

Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen know that what Kramer says is true. In fact, they sound off with similar-sounding anger against rampant pervert excesses in their book. In chapter 6, “The State of Our Community: Gay Pride Goeth Before the Fall,” they write: “Of all the misbehavior we decry, self-indulgence is perhaps the most characteristic of gays, and of the gay community as a whole.” “Indeed,” aver the deviant duo, destructive self-indulgence “was institutionalized, long ago … as a central tenet of gay liberation.” Amongst gays, they say, “any self restraint is, itself, suspect of being a sign of self-hatred and blue-nosery — so one virtually must act out one’s most fleeting impulses in order to prove that one isn’t a hung-up, judgmental old poop.”

Kirk and Madsen confess that they, too, formerly indulged in many excesses. But they are appalled at the wild, public debauchery and the “ongoing lavatorial passion play” in which so many gays indulge. They write:

Despite their high visibility, and attempts by authorities to squelch them, however, a coterie of gay men continues, daily and nightly, to perform the play before what is, all too often an S.R.O. [standing room only] straight audience — in the men’s rooms of Ivy League Colleges, and in the public lavatories, parks, and alleyways of every major city in the United States. Theirs is the wretchedest of all gay excesses.

But the wretchedness doesn’t end there. Validating what religious “homophobes” and professional psychologists alike have observed, Kirk and Madsen explicate a common problem of homosexuals:

As one gains experience, vanilla sex with one partner becomes familiar, tame, and boring, and loses its capacity to arouse. At first, the increasingly jaded gay man seeks novelty in partners, rather than practices, and becomes massively promiscuous; eventually, all bodies become boring, and only new practices will thrill. Two major avenues diverge in this yellow wood, two nerves upon which to press: that of raunch, and that of aggression. The pursuit of sexual happiness via raunch — fetishism, water sports and coprophilia, and so forth — seeks, essentially, to restore erectile thrills by restoring the “dirty,” hence forbidden, aspect of sex.

But these depravities soon fail to do the trick. “Unfortunately,” Kirk and Madsen say, “this, as with all attempts to sustain the furor sexualis of youth by sheer intensification of some peripheral aspect of the experience, is doomed to failure; mere amplification of ‘dirtiness’ results, finally, in mere wallowing in filth — which, however far the ante is upped, eventually fails to satisfy, or even to arouse.” Which is why so many homosexuals then “graduate” to the even more unspeakable depravities of sadomasochism and bondage sex. “Aggressive sex,” Kirk and Madsen acknowledge, “is worse than a mere dead end: in extreme cases, it’s dangerous.” No, in all cases it’s dangerous; in “extreme” cases it’s more extremely dangerous. And all too often it results in a literal dead end, as the cases of Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrew Cunanan, John Wayne Gacy, Juan Corona, Bruce Davis, Patrick Kearney, Andrei Chikatilo, Ludwig Tiene, and numerous other infamous homosexual mass murderers attest. This should not surprise, since, as Kirk and Madsen admit, the “trappings, expressions, and emotions [of “aggressive sex”] are those of pain and hate, and, say what you will, pain and hate are what it arouses.”

Kramer, Madsen, Kirk, and other “responsible” homosexual moralists regularly condemn the “promiscuous” sex of their more ribald confreres. But their definitions of what constitutes “promiscuous” and “responsible” are noteworthy. “By ‘promiscuous’ we mean those who have sex only with anonymous partners,” say Kirk and Madsen. Which would seem to leave wide latitude for sex with multiple partners — as long as you know their names. That would qualify as promiscuous in just about any heterosexual lexicon. Indeed, while even liberal heterosexuals would consider two or three sex partners per year to be treading the bounds of promiscuity, surveys of homosexuals repeatedly show that it is common for them to have dozens — even hundreds — of partners.

This mad pursuit of raw, gratuitous, non-stop sexual gratification provides no emotional fulfillment. “One of the major reasons the gay lifestyle doesn’t work is that, when gays form relationships at all — and they do so far less frequently than the wishful thinking of popular mythology would have it — they form them for the wrong reasons, with the wrong people, of the wrong ages,” Kirk and Madsen note. So what do these moralists offer as the “right” ages, people, reasons, and relationships? The ideal of these then-30-something authors is the pairing of “an attractive boy — of, say, sixteen or so” and “an older, presumably more mature and established man — of, say, thirty or so.” And this they say even as they condemn the “youth obsession” of the larger homosexual community.

Rage vs. Love

After the prudish public has been properly “desensitized,” “conditioned,” and “converted” to believe that decency and justice require support for “gay rights,” public hostility must be focused upon those who remain committed to traditional morality. In After the Ball, Madsen and Kirk have delineated an insidious, Orwellian propaganda program that you undoubtedly have already witnessed in operation — perhaps without even realizing it. This is what they recommend:

The best way to make homohatred look bad is to vilify those who victimize gays. The public should be shown images of ranting homohaters whose associated traits and attitudes appall and anger Middle America. The images might include:

Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered or castrated;

Hysterical backwoods preachers, drooling with hate to a degree that looks both comical and deranged;
Menacing punks, thugs, and convicts….

Whom do they advocate targeting for this vicious treatment? All those “denizens of bigotry’s darkest realm — say, 30-35% of the citizenry” who are “vehemently opposed to homosexuality.” If you fall into that category, you are considered one of “the damned.”

What is the force that motivates these revolutionaries? Kirk and Madsen offer a revealing answer in After the Ball. “After all,” they tell their readers, “we are asking you to change a nation under your own steam. And where, for that matter, is the steam supposed to come from? Your patriotism and sense of fair play? Your homophile zeal?… Agape? No, few are motivated over the long haul by zeal or saintliness. Yet sufficient motivation is found … all around you: the sustaining emotional steam that comes not from Love but from Rage.” Yes, a hellish rage and fury drives this revolution. “Fury galvanizes,” say the authors. “Now it must drive all of us to decisive action. America in the 1990s is the time and place for rage — ice-cold, controlled, directed rage.”

Unfortunately, Christians have allowed Hell’s rage, fury, and deception to wage war on our civilization virtually unchallenged and unimpeded. It is time to join the battle — not with rage, but with courage born of, yes, agape — love.

13 Things Liberals Want To Ban

Let freedom ring! When liberals see a problem, the solution is often to call for a ban. Here’s a list of just some of the more ridiculous items on the liberal chopping block.

Update: Kelli D Gordon vs The Facebook Nazis

August 21, 2014

fb display of civil disobedience for real

By Kelli D Gordon in McAllen, TX                                                                          August 20 2014

I’m blogging everything from now on first.
FB actually made me mad enough to file a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (Ref. # 55570072 if anyone wants to chime in) or leave me a statement in the comments below) I’m seeing an attorney later this week.

Normally, I avoid the court system like the plague. I am of the opinion that THERE IS NO JUSTICE left to be had in my once great American Nation of God & Liberty. However,  I WILL NOT stand still for ANYMORE of this slander and tyranny! Now I been accused of posting sexually explicite photos of children?? and declared “ineligible” to use facebook!! (This the final insult, after enduring months and months of unconstitutional discrimination and harrassment by fb nazi “security checks” and ridiculous invasions of my privacy.  I hope the attorney takes this case. Im charging FB with slander, discrimination, defamation of character, theft of intellectual property, theft of my treasured collections of archived articles  that i utilized daily in my informative, humorous and thought provoking posts. I kept my collections proudly in 50 publicly visible and well organized “Situation Rooms” I am also furious about these fb nazis holding my 5000 FB friends (and family) and readers cyber hostage. I am suffering from separation anxiety (I miss the interaction and conversations I once enjoyed with my fellow like-minded fb friend). I feel I have been targeted simply for being an outspoken Federal Government Dissident who is resisting a tyrannical situation. Is the federal government afraid of little old me? Is this fear I smell? Fear that my message is being recieved and understood by others who will organize and help me fight this tyranny?

My networking skills obviously scare the hell out of the enemy. I am NOT going to go quietly into the night. I will amp up the volume instead. I am not going to diminish in to the sunset or out of the way. I will make even more noise and bring even more attention to the treachery instead.

My blog numbers dropped from 2600 viewers a day down to just 2 or 3 hundred since I no longer can access my homepage, groups or friends and readers so they succeeded in killing the reach of my messages and posts. And I’m pissed. They had to try to stop me because i was reaching too many people. I have effing had it with these nazi rat bastards and the unconstitutional censorship, discrimination and bias.

Not only have I have been declared “ineligible” to use facebook with no explanation as to why, but three of my favorite American Patriots were also taken down from posting on facebook. Irish Lass of California, John Gaultier of Texas and Michael Louis Toups of Louisiana are no longer among the patriot voices I once enjoyed reading on Facebook. These three individuals are also outspoken, highly intelligent and effective networkers, organizers, activists, writers, thinkers and all around Great Americans!!!

Shame on Zuckerberg and on the facebook anti-American stance.

fb zuckerberg hitler lol

Kelli D Gordon vs Facebook Nazis

For more info click the link.

August 18, 2014

Kelli D Gordon and Kelli DeAnne Gordon both profiles have been taken down by the facebook nazis. Discrimination? What… targeted by a criminal out of control government. This is unacceptable. How many patriot voices will we sacrifice to the enemy of Liberty before we make a stand and fight for our unalienable rights!!!? What about John Gaultier and Michael Louis Toups or Irish Lass? Declared ‘ineligible’? with no explanation from the faceless facebook gestapo. Hmmmm. 

 Someone commented that this was a four year old pic anyways, I went to try to verify this and got threatened by the nsa and another group called IWF internet watch foundation??? WTH?? Then was notified that my browser is ‘locked’. Im not even kidding. Along with a pic of flashing lights and handcuffs.. YAH.. Investigate me treat me like a criminal.

Federal Court Says the Government Can Impersonate You on Social Media — and There’s Not Much You Can Do About It

Twitter sues U.S. government over national security data

By Eric Bradner, CNN
updated 3:19 PM EDT, Tue October 7, 2014

Military Partnered with Facebook to Conduct Massive Psy-Op… And It Was All Done in Secret

Uncle Sams Misguided Children is sharing my fb story!

Patriots under attack

Kelli is emphatic that no one is going to shut her up. She has elicited the services of Attorney James Grissom of McAllen, Texas for her action.

“They take you down and you have to rework everything you’ve done…They play games…They are working with the government against hard-hitting Patriots…They believe we are ‘subversive.’”

Kelli is not alone. Patriots and Conservatives on Facebook live under the ever-present censorship of the social network. Though everyone who “joins” Facebook must sign a user agreement demanding that they comply with Facebook “Community Standards,” those standards are not applied equitably to all groups.  There is a definite liberal/pro-muslim agenda.

You Won’t believe What Facebook is Doing & You Could Be Their Next Target! Exclusive Victims Report

You Won’t believe What Facebook is Doing & You Could Be Their Next Target! Exclusive Victims Report
Published on Dec 12, 2014
Here is the link that goes with the post:

Lyn Leahz Youtube:

If anyone out there misses me, my posts or is angry that facebook falsely and slanderously accused me of posting sexually explicite photos of CHILDREN!!! Then declared me ‘ineligible’ to use facebook and permanently disabled my Kelli D Gordon account, please leave me a comment below so I can show my attorney evidence that we have all been injured and angered. That though we may have never met before we still care for one another and consider ourselves friends.

If anyone out there misses me, my posts or is angry that facebook falsely and slanderously accused me of posting sexually explicite photos of CHILDREN!!! Then declared me ‘ineligible’ to use facebook and permanently disabled my Kelli D Gordon account, please leave me a comment below so I can show my attorney evidence that we have all been injured and angered. That though we may have never met before we still care for one another and consider ourselves friends.

Comments collected from my secondary Kelli DeAnne Gordon account on 9/4/2014

Try to remember with farcebook, they can kick you off any time they want. I just got that treatment a few days ago.

Past Time To Arrest Eric Holder The Criminal Scumbag Of The DOJ

holder behind bars

I have attached a long list of archived articles that demonstrate very clearly the criminality of the so-called AG Eric Holder. Dept of Justice
Yah right. *spits* Insane Hussein 0bama & Holder makes me sick
Watch this 30 second video clip and THEN tell me Holder ISN’T certifiable!!…

PATCON is an acronym for “Patriot Conspiracy”, a Clinton-Reno-Holder, FBI and ATF undercover operation. PATCON was designed to infiltrate and incite the milita and evangelical Christians to violence so that the Department of Justice could crush them.

Ruby Ridge was a PATCON operation. Waco was a PATCON operation. And so, too, I believe was the Oklahoma City Bombing. As well as any number of ‘school shootings’ and other ‘massacres’.

After watching these news broadcast excerpts, it is very difficult to come to any other conclusion, but that McVeigh’s ‘truck bomb’ was little more than a decoy for an FBI-run false-flag terror operation – for which they were already poised in nearby hotels to emerge as the ‘heroes’. SAYS BRAINWASH THE PEOPLE?…/congressman-at-hearing-eric…/…/eric-holder-state-attorneys…/…/article/2543100…/eric-holder…/…/Obama-Plans-Pardons-of……/…/…/eric-holder-the-devils…/

PATCON & THE STRATEGY OF TENSIONS                             …/Holder-begs-court-to……/eric-holder-wants…/ wants to force gunowners to wear ID braclet????…/what-the-doj-doesnt-want……/holde…/2014/05/08/id/570273/……/eric-holder-leads-top-12-porn…/ THE LINCHPIN…/watch-sen-ted-cruz-lock…/
THERE IS NO DOJ INVESTIGATION OF THE IRS (imagine that! im so shocked)…/watch-smoke-clearing-irs…/

This next article is written by my friend John Gaultier




Was originally appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia by President Bill Clinton

  • Vetted the Clinton administration’s 176 last-minute pardons in January 2001
  • Was deeply involved in Clinton’s pardons of Marc Rich and the Puerto Rican FALN terrorists
  • Condemned the Guantanamo Bay detention center as an “international embarrassment”
  • Was appointed U.S. Attorney General by President Barack Obama
  • Strong opponent of gun rights
  • Sought to try islamic terrorists in civilian courts rather than in military tribunals
  • Filed suit against several states that had passed laws designed to stem the flow of illegal immigration
  • Opposes efforts to purge voter rolls of ineligible names, or to enact voter-ID laws

Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. was born on January 21, 1951 in the Bronx, New York and was raised in Elmhurst, Queens. His father (1905-1970) hailed from Barbados and worked as a real estate broker; his mother (Miriam) was the American-born daughter of immigrants from Saint Philip, Barbados.
In 1969 Holder enrolled at Columbia University, where he became involved in what he would later describe as the “rise of black consciousness” protests on campus. As a freshman, he took a leadership role with the Student Afro-American Society (SAAS), which demanded that the school’s abandoned ROTC (Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps) office be renamed the “Malcolm X Lounge” — “in honor of a man who recognized the importance of territory as a basis for nationhood.” In 1970, while still a freshman, Holder participated in a five-day occupation of that office; according to some accounts, the occupiers were armed. In addition, Holder and SAAS also occupied the office of Henry Coleman, Dean of Freshmen, until their demands were met.
Holder graduated from Columbia University in 1973 with a degree in American history. Three years later he earned a J.D. from Columbia Law School. During one of the summers between his law-school academic years, Holder worked for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Holder was employed by the U.S. Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section from 1976 to 1988. In 1988 President Ronald Reagan appointed him as a Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Five years later, President Bill Clinton appointed Holder as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. In 1997 Clinton nominated Holder to replace Jamie Gorelick, the retiring Deputy Attorney General in Janet Reno’s Justice Department; Holder was confirmed by the Senate in a unanimous vote.
As Deputy Attorney General, Holder, as The Washington Post explains, “was the gatekeeper for presidential pardons.” Indeed, Holder was a key figure entrusted with the task of vetting the Clinton administration’s 176 last-minute pardons in January 2001. The beneficiaries of those pardons included such notables as former Weather Underground members Susan Rosenberg (who was involved in the deadly 1981 armed robbery of a Brink’s armored car) and Linda Evans (who had used false identification to buy firearms, had harbored a fugitive, and was in possession of 740 pounds of dynamite at the time of her arrest in 1985).
Holder played a particularly significant role in what was perhaps the most infamous of Clinton’s 176 pardons—the one granted to the billionaire financier Marc Rich, a fugitive oil broker who had illegally purchased oil from Iran during the American trade embargo, and had then proceeded to hide more than $100 million in profits by using dummy transactions in off-shore corporations. Rich later renounced his American citizenship and fled to Switzerland to avoid prosecution for 51 counts of racketeering, wire fraud, tax fraud, tax evasion, and the illegal oil transactions with Iran.
Over the years, Rich’s ex-wife Denise had funneled at least $1.5 million to Clinton interests. Some $1.2 million went to the Democratic National Committee, $75,000 went to Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, and $450,000 helped finance the Bill Clinton Library in Arkansas.  Mrs. Rich also had given expensive gifts to the Clintons and, according to some rumors, had a very close relationship with the President.
According to The New York Times:

“Mr. Holder had more than a half-dozen contacts with Mr. Rich’s lawyers over 15 months, including phone calls, e-mail and memorandums that helped keep alive Mr. Rich’s prospects for a legal resolution to his case. And Mr. Holder’s final opinion on the matter—a recommendation to the White House on the eve of the pardon that he was ‘neutral, leaning toward’ favorable—helped ensure that Mr. Clinton signed the pardon despite objections from other senior staff members.”

The Times details the sequence of events:

“Holder’s role in the Rich issue actually began … [a]t a corporate dinner in November 1998, [where] Mr. Holder was seated at a table with a public-relations executive named Gershon Kekst, who had been trying to help Mr. Rich resolve his legal troubles. When Mr. Kekst learned that his dinner companion was the deputy attorney general, he proceeded to bring up the case of an unnamed acquaintance who had been ‘improperly indicted by an overzealous prosecutor.’ … A person in that situation, Mr. Holder advised, should ‘hire a lawyer who knows the process, he comes to me, we work it out.’ Mr. Kekst wanted to know if Mr. Holder could suggest a lawyer. Mr. Holder pointed to a former White House counsel sitting nearby. ‘There’s Jack Quinn,’ he said. ‘He’s a perfect example.’ Months later, Mr. Rich’s advisers settled on Mr. Quinn to lead the legal efforts …”

Between October 1999 and January 2001, Holder and Quinn discussed the Rich case on at least six separate occasions. Says The New York Times:

“In February 2000, Mr. Quinn sent Mr. Holder a memorandum entitled ‘Why D.O.J. [Department of Justice] Should Review the Marc Rich Indictment.’ About a month later, Mr. Holder spoke with Mr. Quinn again and told him that ‘we’re all sympathetic’ and that the legal ‘equities’ in the issue were ‘on your side.’ … By the fall of 2000, efforts to re-open the criminal case were dead, and Mr. Rich’s lawyers had moved on to the idea of a pardon. Again, Mr. Quinn turned to Mr. Holder. On Nov. 21, 2000, at the close of a meeting on a separate topic, Mr. Quinn took Mr. Holder aside, told him he was planning on filing a lengthy pardon petition with the White House and asked whether the White House should contact Mr. Holder for his opinion … In a separate e-mail message that Mr. Quinn [had] sent three days before that to other members of the Rich team,… he wrote: ‘Spoke to him last evening. Says to go straight to W.H. [White House]. Also says timing is good.’ …

“For the next months, Mr. Rich’s team pressed ahead with the pardon … On Jan. 19, 2001, Mr. Quinn called Mr. Holder and let him know that the White House would be contacting him for his recommendation on the pardon, which he said was receiving ‘serious consideration.’ Mr. Holder told him that he did not have a personal problem with the pardon, and Mr. Quinn quickly passed on the gist of the conversation to the White House. Minutes later, Mr. Holder received a call from Beth Nolan, the White House counsel, who had opposed the pardon idea and was surprised to hear that Mr. Holder apparently felt differently.

“Mr. Holder, according to Ms. Nolan’s testimony, told her that if the Israelis were in fact pushing for the pardon, he would find that ‘persuasive’ and would be ‘neutral leaning toward’ favorable.”

The next day, President Clinton signed the pardon. Clinton later cited Holder’s assessment as one of the factors that had persuaded him to issue the pardon. And once the pardon was granted, Holder sent his congratulations to Quinn.
Although he clearly had interceded on Rich’s behalf beginning in 1999, Holder in 2001 told the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, that “Mr. Rich’s name was unfamiliar to me” in 1999. Holder then elaborated that he had “gained only a passing familiarity with the underlying facts of the Rich case” during the months that followed.
But Holder’s account was entirely untrue. As early as 1995, when Holder was the Clinton-appointed U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, his office had conducted an investigation into Rich and his business interests for tax evasion and other suspicious activity. Also in 1995, Holder’s office filed a civil suit against the Swiss trading company Clarendon, Ltd. because that company, in obtaining $45 million in government contracts, had concealed the fact that it was controlled by Rich, whose history of fraud and his status as a fugitive rendered him legally ineligible for government contracts. Ultimately, Holder agreed to dismiss the case in exchange for a payment to the government of $1.2 million.
A March 2002 congressional report concluded that Rich’s lawyers had tried to circumvent prosecutors (who they knew would oppose the pardon), and instead had chosen to take their case directly to the White House. Holder’s assistance in this process, coupled with his failure to alert prosecutors of a pending pardon, was crucial, said the report.
In 2009, when President Obama nominated Holder to be Attorney General, Holder, at the nomination hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, was asked by Senator Arlen Specter: “Were you aware of the kind of record this man [Rich] had?” Holder replied:

“No I was not. And that was one of the mistakes that I made. I did not really acquaint myself with his record. I knew that the matter involved — it was a tax-fraud case; it was a substantial tax-fraud case. I knew that he was a fugitive. I did not know a lot of the underlying facts that you have described.”

In written follow-up questions, Specter asked: “Did you receive information about the facts of the Rich case from anyone other than Mr. Rich’s attorney, Jack Quinn?” Holder responded, “No.”
Holder was also intimately involved in President Clinton’s August 11, 1999 pardon of 16 members of the FALN, acronym for the Armed Forces of National Liberation—a violent Puerto Rican terrorist organization (as designated by the FBI) that was active in the U.S. from the mid-1970s through the early 1980s.
The FALN was a Marxist-Leninist group whose overriding mission was to secure Puerto Rico’s political independence from the United States. Toward that end, between 1974 and 1983 the group detonated nearly 130 bombs in such strategically selected places as military and government buildings, financial institutions, and corporate headquarters located mainly in Chicago, New York, and Washington DC. These bombings were carried out as acts of protest against America’s political, military, financial, and corporate presence in Puerto Rico. All told, FALN bombs killed six people—including the Chilean ambassador to the United States—and wounded at least 80 others.
On April 4, 1980, eleven FALN members were arrested in Evanston, Illinois. More of their comrades would also be apprehended in Chicago in the early 1980s. All were charged with seditious conspiracy, but they refused to participate in their own trial proceedings—claiming defiantly that the U.S. government was an illegitimate entity and thus had no moral authority by which to sit in judgment of them. All the defendants were found guilty and were sentenced to federal prison terms ranging from 35 to 105 years.
On November 9, 1993, a self-identified “human rights” organization named Ofensiva ’92 filed a petition for executive clemency on behalf of 18 members of the FALN and another violent organization seeking Puerto Rican independence, Los Macheteros (“The Machete-Wielders”). According to a December 12, 1999 report issued by the House Committee on Government Reform, the prisoners themselves “refused to take part in any process that would legitimize the government’s actions against them, therefore they refused to file their own petitions.”
This presented a problem because the Department of Justice (DOJ) traditionally stipulates that clemency will be considered only if a prisoner first files a petition on his or her own behalf, an act which the Department views as a sign of contrition. Nonetheless, DOJ made an exception in this case and accepted Ofensiva ’92’s petition, a document which cast the FALN prisoners as blameless freedom fighters analogous to those Americans who had fought in the Revolutionary War against Britain.
Among the notables who joined Ofensiva ’92’s clemency crusade were Cardinal John O’Connor, Coretta Scott King, Jimmy Carter, and the National Lawyers Guild. Perhaps the most passionate support came from Democrat Representatives Luis Gutierrez (IL), Jose Serrano (NY), and Nydia Velazquez (NY), each of whom echoed Ofensiva ’92’s claim that the FALN members were “political prisoners” who deserved to be released.
The attorneys and advocates who were fighting for the freedom of the FALN prisoners first met with the Justice Department’s Pardon Attorney on July 19, 1994. In October 1996 they met with Jack Quinn, Counsel to the President. They were unsuccessful, however, in their efforts to convey the legitimacy of their cause to the Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA), which in 1996 contacted the Justice Department and recommended against clemency; that recommendation, in turn, was forwarded to the White House.
But the matter was not over; OPA continued to meet with groups and individuals lobbying for clemency on behalf of the FALN terrorists. Then in 1997, Eric Holder—who was President Clinton’s new Deputy Attorney General (in the Justice Department headed by Janet Reno)—became involved in the case.
In this role, Holder was responsible for overseeing clemency investigations and determining which of those requests were ultimately worthy of President Clinton’s attention. As evidenced by a September 1997 memorandum from the Pardon Attorney, the Justice Department was, at this point, receiving numerous inquiries about the FALN and Macheteros—from the White House and from supporters of the prisoners. The aforementioned House Committee on Government Reform report stated: “Throughout the closing months of 1997 it appears that Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder was active in the issue. The privilege log reflects at least two notes regarding his questions on the clemency or his thoughts on the matter.”
On November 5, 1997, Holder met with Representatives Gutierrez, Serrano, and Velazquez to discuss the clemency issue. He advised the legislators that they might greatly increase the likelihood of a presidential pardon if they could convince the prisoners to write letters testifying as to the personal remorse they felt for their past actions. But no such letters would be produced for five months, during which time the clemency issue remained on hold. Meanwhile, in a January 6, 1998 letter a senior Justice Department official expressly referred to the FALN members as “terrorists.”
Then on April 8, 1998, Holder again met with FALN supporters. This time, they finally delivered statements from the prisoners as Holder had advised in November. But all the statements were identical—indicating that not one of the prisoners had made an effort to craft his own personal expression of repentance.
Undeterred, Holder then raised the question of whether the prisoners might at least agree to renounce future violence in exchange for clemency. One of the prisoners’ backers, Reverend Paul Sherry, made it clear that they surely “would not change their beliefs”—presumably about the issue of Puerto Rican independence—but was vague as to whether they were apt to eschew violence altogether.
Over the next few weeks, Holder and the Justice Department continued to meet with numerous advocates of clemency and to review pertinent materials which the latter brought forth on behalf of the prisoners. Holder clearly was the point man for these clemency negotiations. As Brian Blomquist wrote in the New York Post, “A list of FALN documents withheld from Congress shows that many memos on the FALN clemency decision went directly to Holder, while [Janet] Reno’s role was minimal.” Similarly, New York Daily News reporter Edward Lewine wrote that Holder was “the Justice Department official most involved with this issue.”
Throughout the clemency review process, neither Holder nor anyone else in the Justice Department contacted any of the people who had been victimized (or whose loved ones had been victimized) by the FALN. Most were never aware that clemency for the terrorists was even being contemplated. And those few who were aware of the possibility were rebuffed in their efforts to participate in the review process.
On May 19, 1998, the Pardon Attorney sent Eric Holder a 48-page draft memorandum “concerning clemency for Puerto Rican Nationalist prisoners.” Seven weeks later, on July 8, Holder sent President Clinton a “memorandum regarding clemency matter.” Indeed the Deputy Attorney General was methodically spearheading the march toward clemency—despite the fact that the sentencing judges, the U.S. Attorneys, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the FBI were unanimous in their opposition to pardoning the individuals in question.
In late July 1999 an attorney from Holder’s office spoke to White House Counsel Charles Ruff regarding the clemency matter. On August 9, 1999, Holder’s office and OPA held one final meeting to hammer out the details, and two days later the President made his announcement: clemency was granted to sixteen terrorists, most of whom had served only a fraction of their prison terms. Of the sixteen, twelve accepted the offer and were freed, two refused it, and two others, who already were out of prison, never responded.
Congress, for its part, was not pleased—condemning the clemencies by votes of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House.
In the aftermath of the clemencies, a Justice Department report stated that the FALN posed an “ongoing threat” to America’s national security. And in late October 1999 the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report from Attorney General Janet Reno stating that the FALN members’ “impending release from prison” would “increase the present threat” of terrorism.
In an October 20th Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and again with reporters the following day, Eric Holder denied that Reno was referring to the same FALN terrorists whose pardons he had worked so long and hard to secure. Yet when Holder was asked to identify whom Reno was in fact talking about, he responded as follows:

“I don’t know, no, I don’t know that. We might be able to get you some more information on that, but, I mean, you know, there were certain people who are due to be released, or who were at least eligible for parole, had a release date in the next, as I said, three, four years. I don’t know exactly who they were. Maybe—we might be able to get you that information.”

Neither Holder nor the Justice Department ever provided any additional names.
In December 1999, a House Committee on Government Reform report stated:

“The 16 [FALN] terrorists appear to be most unlikely candidates. They did not personally request clemency. They did not admit to wrongdoing and they had not renounced violence before such a renunciation had been made a quid pro quo for their release. They expressed no contrition for their crimes, and were at times openly belligerent about their actions…. Notwithstanding the fact that the 16 did not express enough personal interest in the clemency process to file their own applications, the White House appeared eager to assist throughout the process. Meetings were held with supporters, and some senior staff [i.e., Holder] even suggested ways to improve the likelihood of the President granting the clemency. Overall, the White House appears to have exercised more initiative than the terrorists themselves.”

After the end of the Clinton presidency, Holder left the Justice Department and joined (as a partner) the Washington, DC law firm of Covington & Burling (C&B). In 2004 he met Barack Obama at a dinner party hosted by former White House aide Anne Walker Marchange, a niece of Clinton friend Vernon Jordan.
In the spring of 2007, shortly after launching his White House bid, Obama asked Holder to join his presidential campaign as a legal adviser and strategist. At that time, Holder’s firm, C&B, was representing 17 Yemeni detainees (and one Pakistani national) in Guantanamo Bay. A former client of C&B was yet another Guantanamo detainee, from Kuwait, who had contributed to an anthology of detainee poetry compiled and published by Holder’s C&B colleague, Marc Falkoff. Falkoff likened the plight of these “gentle, thoughtful” poets, to that of the Jews who had been held in concentration camps during World War II. The aforementioned Kuwaiti was released from Guantanamo in 2005 and promptly resumed his terrorist activities. In March 2008 he blew himself up with a truck bomb in Mosul, Iraq, killing 13 Iraqi army soldiers and wounding 42 others.
In the summer of 2008, candidate Obama tapped Holder to serve on the vice presidential selection team that ultimately chose Joe Biden to be Obama’s running mate. In November 2008, President-elect Obama, who was slated to take his oath of office two months later, selected Holder to serve as his Attorney General.
At an American Constitution Society gathering in 2004, Holder made the following comments:

  • “Conservatives have been defenders of the status quo, afraid of the future, and content to allow to continue to exist all but the most blatant inequalities.”
  • Conservatives have “made a mockery of the rule of law.”
  • Conservatives try to “put the environment at risk for the sake of unproven economic theories, to play to the fears of our citizens, and not to their hopes, and to return the nation to a time that in fact never existed.”
  • Conservatives are “breathtaking” in their “arrogance,” which manifests itself in such things as “attacks on abortion rights,” “energy policies that are as shortsighted as they are ineffective,” and “tax cuts that disproportionately favor those who are well off and perpetuate many of the inequities in our nation.”
  • The hallmarks of the “conservative agenda” include “social division, mindless tax cutting, and a defense posture that does not really make us safer.”
  • “The nation must be convinced that it is a progressive future that holds the greatest promise for equality and the continuation of those policies that serve to support the greatest number of our people. In the short term this will not be an easy task. With the mainstream media somewhat cowered by conservative critics, and the conservative media disseminating the news in anything but a fair and balanced manner, and you know what I mean there, the means to reach the greatest number of people is not easily accessible.”


In a 1995 address to the Woman’s National Democratic Club, Holder announced the launch of a public campaign to “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.” “What we need to do,” he explained, “is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.” Holder added that he had already asked advertising agencies to produce anti-gun ads rather than commercials “that make me buy things that I don’t really need”; that he had urged local newspapers and television stations to devote prime space and time, respectively, to anti-gun themes; and that he had asked the local school board to make the anti-gun message a part of “every day, every school, and every level.”
During his tenure as Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration from 1997 to 2001, Holder was a strong supporter of restrictive gun-control legislation. He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners; a three-day waiting period on all handgun sales; limits on handgun sales to no more than one per month; a ban on the possession of handguns and so-called “assault weapons” by anyone younger than 21; a law authorizing the federal government to shut down all gun shows; and a national gun-registration mandate.
Holder also advanced the notion that “Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence”—a statistic that was true only if one classified 18-year-old, gun-wielding gangsters as “children.” In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Holder wrote an opinion piece for The Washington Post calling for a new law that would give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms “a record of every firearm sale.” He also advocated that prospective gun buyers be checked against the secret “watch lists” compiled by the government.
While Holder served in the Clinton Justice Department, he oversaw the “instant” background-check system for prospective firearm purchasers. Under Holder’s watch, constant breakdowns of that system halted gun sales for hours or even days at a time. Even by the end of the Clinton administration, from September 1999 to December 2000, the system was down about one hour for every 16.7 hours of operation. The breakdowns often came in big blocks of time; gun shows sometimes were unable to sell guns during the entire weekend that they were open. Notably, the breakdowns were quickly resolved within weeks of President Bush assuming office in 2001, and the problems did not recur.
In 2008, Holder argued that “the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms,” but only protected government militias’ rights to guns. Scholar and political commentator John Lott writes that he “can’t find even one gun control law that Holder has opposed.” “On every gun control regulation [Holder] has discussed,” says Lott, “he has been supportive, including: bans, raising the age that someone can possess a gun, registration and licensing, one-gun-a-month limit on purchases, and mandatory waiting periods.”

In the latter days of the Bush administration, Holder publicly condemned the Guantanamo Bay detention center as an “international embarrassment.” He accused the U.S. government of having “authorized torture and … let fear take precedence over the rule of law.” Further, he demanded an immediate end to warrantless eavesdropping by intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

In April 2009, reporters asked Holder whether he might seek to prosecute CIA agents who had carried out the Bush administration policies to which the Attorney General now objected. He replied: “It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department.” Four months later, however, Holder referred their cases to a special federal prosecutor with broad and independent powers. In making this decision, the Attorney General ignored the bitter opposition of CIA Director Leon Panetta and even attorneys in his (Holder’s) own Justice Department.
In 2004 Holder filed an amicus brief on behalf of al Qaeda terrorist Jose Padilla, who had been dispatched to the United States by Osama bin Laden and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to carry out a post-9/11, second wave of terrorist attacks. In the brief, Holder asserted that President Bush lacked the constitutional authority to determine the parameters of the battlefield in the war on terror. Padilla, for example, was arrested in an American airport when returning from a trip to Pakistan, where he had met with Mr. Mohammed to discuss plans for attacking U.S. interests. By Holder’s reckoning, Islamic terrorists had a right to be treated as criminal defendants, not enemy combatants, unless they were captured on a traditional battlefield.
As former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy explains, Holder’s Padilla brief was “a comprehensive attack on Bush counterterrorism, an enthusiastic endorsement of the law-enforcement approach in vogue during the Clinton era (when Holder was deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, who also signed on to the Padilla brief).”
Notably, when the U.S. Senate in early 2009 deliberated vis a vis Holder’s nomination for Attorney General, Holder failed to disclose seven legal briefs he had written or signed during the course of his professional career—most notably Amicus briefs on behalf of detained terrorists and enemy combatants like Padilla.
In May 2009, Holder announced that Ahmed Ghailani—who had been indicted by a federal grand jury for the 1998 bombings (which killed 224 people, including 12 Americans) of two U.S. embassies in Africa—would be transferred from the Guantanamo Bay detention center to New York City for trial. This would make Ghailani the first Guantanamo detainee brought to the U.S. and the first to face trial in a civilian criminal court. Said Holder:

“By prosecuting Ahmed Ghailani in federal court, we will ensure that he finally answers for his alleged role in the bombing of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya…. This administration is committed to keeping the American people safe and upholding the rule of law, and by closing Guantanamo and bringing terrorists housed there to justice we will make our nation stronger and safer.”

On November 13, 2009, Holder announced that his Justice Department would likewise try five Guantanamo Bay detainees with alleged ties to the 9/11 conspiracy, in a civilian court—the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The defendants were Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM).
In response to Holder’s announcement, political commentator Mona Charen wrote: “By granting a civil trial to KSM, while Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, will receive a military tribunal, the U.S. telegraphs this message to terrorists: Wherever possible, attack our civilians. You’ll get more lawyering and a better deal than if you attack our military. (And by the way, you’ll get more rights than a member of our military who commits a crime.)”
After Holder’s announcement that Islamic terror suspects would be tried in civilian courts rather than in military tribunals, many Americans began to wonder if U.S. military and law-enforcement personnel would be required to be read Miranda rights—which bar prosecutors from using, as evidence, statements which suspects make before they have been informed of their right to remain silent and to consult an attorney—to newly captured terror suspects. In a November 2009 Justice Department oversight hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) raised this issue in the following contentious exchange with Holder:
The very next month, Holder’s Justice Department elected to Mirandize the so-called “Christmas bomber,” al Qaeda operative Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian-born Islamist who had tried to blow up a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines jet with explosives hidden inside his underwear. Informed of his right to remain silent, Abdulmutallab promptly chose to exercise it. Soon thereafter, several FBI agents traveled to Nigeria to plead with the suspect’s family for assistance. Ultimately (and fortuitously), the family traveled to the U.S., where they persuaded Abdulmutallab to cooperate.
In May 2010, Holder and the Obama administration abruptly shifted their position regarding the highly controversial and politically radioactive matter of Miranda rights for terror suspects. Specifically, Holder and the administration said that they would thenceforth seek to pass a law allowing investigators to interrogate terrorism suspects without informing them of their Miranda rights. As Holder put it, interrogators needed greater flexibility to question such suspects than was permitted by existing exceptions.
On May 13, 2010, Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee. During that testimony, Rep. Lamar Smith tried to get the Attorney General to acknowledge that radical Islam might have played a role in motivating several recently attempted terrorist attacks against U.S. interests—most notably: (a) Major Nidal Malik Hasan‘s November 2009 shooting of 13 fellow U.S. soldiers in Fort Hood, Texas; (b) Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab’s attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines jet on Christmas Day 2009; and (c) Faisal Shahzad’s attempted car bombing in New York’s Times Square on May 1, 2010. Holder steadfastly refused to acknowledge Smith’s assertion. A video and transcript of Holder’s exchange with Smith can be viewed here.
Holder changes course and decides to try 9/11 mastermind in military tribunal
On April 4, 2011, Holder announced that the Justice Department, in an abrupt reversal of its November 2009 decision, would now proceed to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (and 4 co-conspirators) in a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay.
In a February 18, 2009 speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder alleged that Americans on the whole were afraid to confront racial issues in an honest or meaningful way. Among his remarks were the following:

“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards…. [W]e, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race. It is an issue we have never been at ease with and, given our nation’s history, this is in some ways understandable…. [T]his nation has still not come to grips with its racial past … [A] black history month is a testament to the problem that has afflicted blacks throughout our stay in this country. Black history is given a separate, and clearly not equal, treatment by our society in general and by our educational institutions in particular.”


On April 23, 2010, Arizona’s Republican governor, Jan Brewer, signed into law a bill deputizing state police to check with federal authorities on the immigration status of any individuals whom they had stopped for some legitimate reason, if the behavior of those individuals—or the circumstances of the stop—led the officers to suspect that they might be in the United States illegally. In the ensuing days and weeks, Holder spoke out forcefully against the bill and indicated that the federal government might challenge it. During the weekend of May 8-9, he participated in a number of television interviews in which he warned that the law could lead to racial profiling and might cause Latinos to stop cooperating with police. But in a May 13 House hearing, Holder admitted that he had not read the statute: “I have not had a chance to. I’ve glanced at it. I have not read it.”
Eventually, Holder’s Justice Department filed suit against Arizona in an effort to prevent the immigration law from taking effect. The suit resulted in court rulings that blocked key portions of the law. By November 2011, the Justice Department would file similar suits against three additional states (Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah) that likewise had passed laws designed to stem the flow of illegal immigration.
On Election Day, 2008, two members of the New Black Panther Party—Jerry Jackson and King Samir Shabazz—intimidated white voters with racial slurs and threats of violence at a Philadelphia polling place. Bartle Bull, a former civil rights attorney and campaign aide to the late Robert F. Kennedy, witnessed the Panthers’ actions and characterized them as “the most blatant form of voter intimidation” he had ever seen. Because Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits intimidation, coercion and threats to voters or those aiding voters, the Bush Justice Department filed a civil-rights lawsuit not only against the aforementioned Jackson and Shabazz, but also against the New Black Panther Party and its national chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz.
In 2009, the Obama administration inherited that lawsuit from the outgoing Bush administration. When the defendants failed to answer the suit, a federal court in Philadelphia entered a default judgment against them. But the Holder Justice Department responded by suddenly dropping the charges against the Panthers and two of the defendants; the third defendant was merely barred from displaying a weapon near a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years.
In June 2010, J. Christian Adams, a five-year Department of Justice (DOJ) veteran, resigned to protest the “corrupt nature” of DOJ’s dismissal of the case against the Panthers. “I mean we were told, ‘Drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party,’” he told Fox News. In July 2010, Adams gave damning public testimony about how the DOJ believed that “civil rights law should not be enforced in a race-neutral manner, and should never be enforced against blacks or other national minorities.”
Christopher Coates—Voting Section Chief for the DOJ—testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and corroborated Adams’ assertion that the Department had routinely ignored civil rights cases involving white victims. For more than a year previously, Holder’s DOJ had denied the Commission’s requests to hear Coates’ testimony and had instructed Coates not to testify. But in September 2010, Coates finally went public with his story and asked for protection under whistleblower laws. For the full text of Coates’ testimony, click here.
In testimony he gave on March 1, 2011, Holder assured the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies that politics had played no role whatsoever in DOJ’s handling of the New Black Panther Party case: “The decisions made in the New Black Panther Party case were made by career attorneys in the department,” said the Attorney General. But documents obtained in 2012 by Judicial Watch, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, revealed that top political appointees at DOJ were intimately involved in the decision to drop the voter intimidation lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party. DOJ had initially refused to turn over the documents, contending that they didn’t show “any political interference whatsoever.” But Judge Reggie B. Walton in Washington, DC District Court disagreed. Allowing the release of the documents on July 23, 2012, he declared that they “reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case[.]”
In July 2010, Holder’s Justice Department released the former Marxist terrorist Marilyn Buck from prison, where she was serving an 80-year sentence that began in the 1980s. Buck had helped the Black Liberation Army (BLA) member and convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur escape from prison in 1979; helped the BLA acquire weapons and ammunition; participated in the deadly 1981 Brink’s armored-car robbery; and played a role in a number of bombings—directed against the U.S. Senate, three military installations in the Washington D.C. area, and four sites in New York City. Explaining the rationale for Buck’s release, Justice Department officials said that Buck had learned her lesson and had “expressed a dramatic change from her previous political philosophy.” After discovering in early summer 2010 that Buck had contracted uterine cancer and was not expected to live much longer, Holder’s officials released her even earlier than scheduled, on July 15, 2010. She died less than a month later.
In a January 2011 address to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Civil Rights, Holder cited a 2005 report based on EPA data which showed that African Americans were almost 80 percent more likely than whites to live near hazardous industrial pollution sites.


In 2011, Holder’s Justice Department pushed to maximize Democratic voter turnout for the 2012 elections by filing “motor voter” suits across the country, complaining that state agencies were not circulating voter-registration forms in social service agencies. By contrast, the Justice Department made no effort to enforce another section of the law requiring states purge voter rolls of dead persons and ineligible felons.
In late May 2012, Holder’s DOJ ordered the state of Florida to halt its efforts to identify and purge its voter rolls of non-citizens. The DOJ’s lead civil-rights lawyer said that his Department had not yet determined whether Florida’s efforts “neither have the purpose nor will have the effect of discriminating on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.”
Florida did not back down. “We have an obligation to make sure the voter rolls are accurate and we are going to continue forward and do everything that we can legally do to make sure than ineligible voters cannot vote,” said Chris Cate, a spokesman for Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner. “We are firmly committed to doing the right thing and preventing ineligible voters from being able to cast a ballot. We are not going to give up our efforts to make sure the voter rolls are accurate.”
Earlier in 2012 Secretary Detzner had worked with Florida’s Department of Motor Vehicles to identify more than 2,600 people who were registered to vote despite being non-citizens at the time they applied for a driver’s license. Further, Detzner said that earlier efforts by his agency had identified 182,000 voters who were non-citizens by comparing voter rolls and driver’s-license databases. Detzner also revealed that he and his staff had been refused access by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the federal database containing more up-to-date immigration and citizenship information. In other words, the DHS would not assist Florida in its effort to be as non-discriminatory as possible, even as Holder’s DOJ insisted that Florida was engaging in discrimination.
Also in Florida, some 53,000 dead registered voters had been discovered when the state compared voter rolls to federal Social Security files for the first time—as a result of the passage of an election law by the GOP-controlled legislature.
When Florida failed to comply with Holder’s demand that it stop purging the voter rolls of dead people and non-citizens, the DOJ on June 12, 2012 filed a lawsuit against Florida.
Also as of June 2012, DOJ had already filed suit against both Texas and South Carolina for enacting voter photo ID statutes; yet a 6-3 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in 2008 had already upheld the right of a state (in that case, Indiana) to require such identification for voting. Thus the DOJ suit implied that Holder and company believe each state must file individual suits to achieve the same right.

In a July 2010 column for PJ Media, former DOJ Voting Section attorney J. Christian Adams had written: “In November 2009, the entire Voting Section was invited to a meeting with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes…to discuss Motor Voter enforcement decisions. The room was packed with dozens of Voting Section employees when she made her announcement regarding the provisions related to voter list integrity: ‘We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law. It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it.’”

As U.S. Attorney General, Holder, who contends that nearly one in four black people lack photo identification, has consistently opposed efforts to pass voter-ID laws designed to combat voter fraud. According to Holder, such laws—which either took effect or became pending in 11 states between 2008 and 2012—have the effect of disenfranchising nonwhite minorities. “It is time to ask: What kind of nation and what kind of people do we want to be?” Holder said in a December 2011 speech condemning voter ID. “Are we willing to allow this era—our era—to be remembered as the age when our nation’s proud tradition of expanding the franchise ended?”
In a May 2012 meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus and black church leaders, Holder said that during the preceding two years, the Justice Department had challenged “two dozen state laws and executive orders from more than a dozen states that could make it significantly harder for many eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.″ Further, Holder asserted that conservatives in a number of states were enacting photo-identification requirements at polling places as a pretext for blocking “access” to the voting booth for blacks and other nonwhite minorities. According to the Attorney General, voter fraud was much too rare to warrant such measures.

In the fall of 2011, controversy arose over Holder’s role in endorsing “Fast and Furious,” a program which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms (ATF)—an agency of the Justice Department—had administered during 2009-10. In that initiative, the ATF sold some 2,500 guns—including 34 sniper rifles with an effective lethal range of approximately 2,000 meters—to “straw purchasers” in the U.S. who agreed to subsequently smuggle the guns into Mexico and put them in the hands of cartel leaders, who supposedly were to be arrested at some subsequent point.
The entire “Fast and Furious” operation ended with only 20 indictments of straw purchasers—all of whom were already familiar to U.S. authorities from the outset. Moreover, the program was linked directly to two weapons found on the scene where U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered in Arizona in December 2010. By the fall of 2011, the weapons that had been transferred as part of “Fast and Furious” had been used in at least 200 murders in Mexico. They also had been identified at 11 additional crime scenes in the United States.
While being questioned under oath during a Judiciary Committee hearing on May 3, 2011, Holder indicated that he had known nothing about “Fast and Furious” until about April 2011. But soon thereafter, a newly discovered memo (dated July 2010) showed that Michael Walther, director of the National Drug Intelligence Center, had already told Holder that straw buyers in the “Fast and Furious” operation “are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to the Mexican drug trafficking cartels.” Other documents also indicated that Holder had begun receiving weekly briefings on the program from the National Drug Intelligence Center no later than July 5, 2010. Moreover, former ATF special agent William Newell testified under oath that “the DHS, IRS, DEA, ATF, ICE and the Obama Justice Department were all involved” in the operation.
In 2011 the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued a subpoena instructing Holder to turn over all internal Justice Department documents related to the “Fast and Furious” program. As of late June, 2012, DOJ had supplied fewer than 8 percent of the 80,000 documents the congressional investigators sought. (Further, DOJ had blocked 48 of the 70 Justice Department officials who were  involved in Fast and Furious, from testifying.) House Republicans continued to pressure the Attorney General to turn over the remaining documents, but Holder refused.
On June 20, 2012, President Obama granted a request by Holder to exert executive privilege over the documents in question. That same day, the House Committee—having exhausted all other means of obtaining the documents from the Justice Department—voted 23 to 17 (in a vote that was split along party lines) to hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress for failing to produce the missing documents.
On June 28, 2012, the full House of Representatives voted 255-67 to uphold the criminal contempt charge against Holder. Most Democrats walked out of the vote in a gesture of protest led by the Congressional Black Caucus, but 17 Democrats sided with the majority Republicans. The vote represented the first time a U.S. Attorney General had ever been held in contempt by a chamber of Congress.
Minutes after the criminal contempt vote, the House voted 258-95 (with 21 Democrats joining the Republican majority) to pursue a civil contempt case against Holder in court.
In response to the contempt charges against him, Holder suggested that Republicans were retaliating against him because he had blocked voter-identification laws in a number of states. “Today’s vote may make for good political theater in the minds of some, but it is, at base, both a crass effort and a grave disservice to the American people,” he said. “They expect—and deserve—far better.”

On September 19, 2012, the Justice Department’s inspector general issued a report saying there was no evidence that Holder had known about Fast & Furious. Instead, the report blamed a total of 18 DOJ officials, most notably the high-ranking Jason Weinstein (number two in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division) and Kenneth Melson (former head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) for “a series of misguided strategies, tactics, errors in judgement and management failures.”


In February 2012 it was reported that radical Muslim groups in the United States had repeatedly met with high-ranking Obama administration officials to complain that the usage of the term “radical Islam” in FBI curricula was both “offensive” and “racist.” In response, Holder and FBI director Robert Mueller issued directives requiring all such language to be purged from FBI training materials. Among the more than 1,000 items destroyed or removed by the FBI and the DOJ were PowerPoints and articles that defined jihad as “holy war,” and presentations that portrayed the Muslim Brotherhood as an organization which seeks to establish Islam’s dominion over all the world — a goal the Brotherhood has candidly and publicly declared for decades.

During a February 2012 forum at Columbia University, Holder voiced his support for affirmative action, saying that he “can’t actually imagine a time in which the need for more diversity would ever cease.” Added Holder: “Affirmative action has been an issue since segregation practices. The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin; when do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?”
In a February 25, 2012 speech to the organization 100 Black Men of Atlanta, Holder lamented the findings of a 2011 study of discipline patterns in Texas schools. Holder said the study showed that “83 percent of African American male students and 74 percent of Hispanic male students ended up in trouble and suspended for some period of time” — as compared to 59% of white male students. “We’ve often seen that students of color, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and students with special needs are disproportionately likely to be suspended or expelled,” Holder stated. “This is, quite simply, unacceptable.… These unnecessary and destructive policies must be changed.” After citing the Texas study, Holder added that “tellingly, 97 percent of all suspensions were discretionary and reflected the administrator’s discipline philosophy as much as the student’s behavior.” In his speech, Holder ignored data indicating that the different discipline rates were consistent with differences in actual schoolyard behavior.
On April 11, 2012, Holder delivered a speech at the 14th annual convention of Al Sharpton‘s National Action Network. RACE-BASED “DISPARATE IMPACT” LAWSUIT
On April 23, 2012, Holder’s Justice Department sued Jacksonville, Florida, claiming that the city’s use of written tests to determine promotions in its fire department had “resulted in a disparate impact upon black candidates,” who registered passing grades at significantly lower rates than their white counterparts.
On September 18, 2012, The Daily Caller reported that internal DOJ emails (obtained via the Freedom of Information Act) showed that Holder’s communications staff had secretly collaborated with Media Matters For America in an effort to discredit and suppress further news stories about scandals that were plaguing Holder and his agency. For further details about these and other collaborations between Media Matters and DOJ, click here.


In the wake of the deadly Boston Marathon bombing by two Islamic terrorists on April 15, 2013, the surviving bomber, Dzhokar Tsarnaev — who had been wounded by law-enforcement officers pursuing him — was interrogated by FBI agents in a Boston hospital. He was not read his Miranda rights prior to the questioning, due to a 48-hour “public safety exemption” that can be invoked in cases where there is reason to believe that a suspect may be able to provide information that could help authorities prevent additional, imminent acts of terror or destruction. During the first 16 hours of questioning, Tsarnaev revealed a significant amount of highly useful intelligence. But then, on orders from the Justice Department, federal judge Marianne Bowler entered Tsarnaev’s hospital room and, in a move that stunned the FBI investigators who were present, read him his Miranda rights. From that point onward, Tsarnaev refused to talk.


Fourteen days after the Boston Marathon bomb attack, Holder declared that the Justice Department would be on the lookout for any acts of violence or discrimination indicative of a backlash against Muslim Americans. Without mentioning the fact that the two perpetrators were Muslims, the Attorney General said:

“[J]ust as we will pursue relentlessly anyone who would target our people or attempt to terrorize our cities — the Justice Department is firmly committed to protecting innocent people against misguided acts of retaliation. In the dozen years since 9/11, this commitment has led the Department to investigate more than 800 incidents involving threats, assaults, and acts of vandalism and violence targeting Muslims, Arabs, Sikhs, South Asians, and others who are perceived to be members of these groups. As Americans, we must not allow any group to be stigmatized or alienated. We must not tolerate acts of hatred.”


In an April 24 speech to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund Awards Gala, Holder said: “The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented – by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows – transcends the issue of immigration status. This is a matter of civil and human rights.”

On May 13, 2013, it was learnedthat the Justice Department had secretly obtained the records oftelephone calls that, in April and May of 2012, had been routedthrough more than 20 separate phone lines assigned to the AssociatedPress (AP); those lines had been used by over 100 AP reporters andeditors.
DOJ claimedthat its actions were part of an investigation into AP’s May 7, 2012publication of a story (based on leaked, classified materials)disclosing the CIA’s infiltration of an alQaeda plot to detonate a bombaboard an airplane. Notably,the five reporters and an editor who had been assigned to thatparticular AP story were among those who had their phone recordsseized by DOJ.
Accordingto strict DOJ rules, phone records from news organizations can beobtained only with a subpoena that is issued after “allreasonable attempts” have been made to get the same informationfrom other sources (which DOJ electednot to do). Moreover, DOJ rules stipulate that the subpoena must beapproved personally by the Attorney General. But at a May 14, 2013press conference, Eric Holder saidthat he had recused himself from the DOJ investigation of AP, andthat Deputy Attorney General Jim Cole had signed off on the subpoena. Thus,when reporters began asking Holder specific questions about theseizure of AP’s phone records, the Attorney General pleadedignorance. “I frankly don’t have knowledge of those facts,” hecontended. When Republican congressman Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsinasked Holder why he had recused himself, the Attorney Generalreplied:”I was interviewed as one of the people who had access to theinfo”—in other words, he was a potential suspect in the leak.
In a subsequent letter sent to Holder, AP president and CEOGary Pruitt stated:”There can be no possible justification for such an overbroadcollection of the telephone communications of The Associated Pressand its reporters. These records potentially reveal communicationswith confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activitiesundertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map toAP’s newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP’sactivities and operations that the government has no conceivableright to know.”
AP reporters were equally upset. Saidone AP reporter: “We all know that confidential sourcing is thelifeblood of what we do, and people can’t come to us if they thinkthey’re going to be compromised. It’s hard enough gettingsources, now we’re afraid this is going to have a chillingeffect.”
On May16, 2013, the Washington Post broke a major storyexplaining the real motives behind the Justice Department’s actions.Specifically, said the Post, AP was prepared to publish itsscoop about the CIA’s infiltration of the al Qaeda plot on May 2,2012. But the CIA—particularly its deputy director, Michael J.Morell—told the news service that publishing the story at thatpoint would compromise a “sensitive intelligence operation” withserious national-security implications. Morell said that the agencywould need several more days to protect whatever it had in the works,and that AP could publish its story as soon as that had beenaccomplished.
Then, on May 7, 2012, CIA officials told AP thatnational-security concerns were “no longer an issue,” butnonetheless requested that the news agency delay publication for onemore day. This was because the Obama administration was planning toannounce the CIA’s successful counterterrorism operation thefollowing morning—May 8, 2012, when the president’s topcounterterrorism adviser, JohnBrennan, was slated to appear on Good Morning America.Given the fact that national security was no longer an issue,however, AP disregarded the CIA’s request and published the story onMay 7. That is what prompted Eric Holder’s Justice Department toillegally procure AP’s telephone records.
On May 20, 2013, it was revealed that DOJ’s efforts to intimidate the media went beyond targeting reporters and editors at the Associated Press. The Washington Post reported that DOJ had not only seized the phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen, but had used his security badge to access records tracking his movements at the State Department, traced the timing of his calls with a Department security advisor suspected of giving him classified information, and obtained a search warrant to access his personal emails.
That same day (May 20), it was reported that two more Fox News staffers — reporter William L