Beaumont ISD Raided by FBI – Admins Stole Millions – Texas to Take Over School District?

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has raided the Beaumont Independent School District and homes of two top School Officials. The FBI is assisting the US Attorney’s Office investigate allegations that School Officials created bogus accounts to steal money from the school and from the taxpayers. There is no official figure but rumors are that the total stolen could be in the millions of dollars.

No one should really be surprised at this I suppose. We are talking about the notoriously corrupt Beaumont ISD. I have written several articles about Beaumont ISD corruption in the last few years and I never even scratched the surface. My most recent article about Beaumont ISD was only a couple of weeks ago and was about a Federal Judge ruling the Beaumont ISD/DOJ election was illegal and also about BISD paying a top Administrator, Jessie Haynes, to be a fugitive.

According to KBMT Channel 12 News in Beaumont, “Agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided the administration building early Thursday morning. They also raided the home of the district's Director of Finance Devin McCraney and the home of District Comptroller Sharika Allison.”

The Texas Education Agency is currently investigating BISD. It is believed that the TEA discovered the mismanaged money trail and contacted the Federal Authorities which led to the raid. The State of Texas denies that they knew anything of the FBI raid and the TEA says their investigation is unrelated to what the FBI is investigating.

Will this latest incident be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and forces the State of Texas to take over Beaumont ISD? This would not be the first time. Beaumont ISD has a long history of corruption and the State of Texas has had to take over the School District at least once before.

BISD School Board Member Mike Neil has been fighting to correct problems in the school district ever since he was elected. Neil told KFDM Channel 6 News in Beaumont, "There's no doubt in my mind there's been corruption in the past," said Neil. "Whether or not there's currently corruption, I'm not going to say. But there's no doubt in my mind this is not a correctly run district, especially from a business standpoint."

Holder Sues Texas over Voter ID: Barry Smitherman Responds to USDOJ Challenge

AUSTIN – Barry Smitherman, Railroad Commission Chairman and conservative Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General issued the following statement in response to United States Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement that he will challenge Texas Voter ID law:

“Eric Holder and the Obama Justice Department continue their unrelenting attacks on the State of Texas, ignoring the facts and the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision (Shelby County, AL vs Holder USAG) that there is presently no evidence of minority voter suppression in Texas. We must stand up against the Obama Justice Department and its politicized attempt to subvert the Texas Voter ID law. Eric Holder's actions fly in the face of the highest court in the land and the laws of the Great State of Texas, and will not be allowed to stand.”

- See more at: http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/stop-big-government/statement-barry-smitherman-response-usdoj-challenge-texas-voter-id-law-005792#sthash.LyhumWiO.dpuf

AUSTIN – Barry Smitherman, conservative Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General issued the following statement in response to United States Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement that he will challenge Texas Voter ID law:
“Eric Holder and the Obama Justice Department continue their unrelenting attacks on the State of Texas, ignoring the facts and the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision (Shelby County, AL vs Holder USAG) that there is presently no evidence of minority voter suppression in Texas. We must stand up against the Obama Justice Department and its politicized attempt to subvert the Texas Voter ID law. Eric Holder's actions fly in the face of the highest court in the land and the laws of the Great State of Texas, and will not be allowed to stand.”
- See more at: http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/stop-big-government/statement-barry-smitherman-response-usdoj-challenge-texas-voter-id-law-005792#sthash.LyhumWiO.dpuf

AUSTIN – Barry Smitherman, conservative Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General issued the following statement in response to United States Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement that he will challenge Texas Voter ID law:
“Eric Holder and the Obama Justice Department continue their unrelenting attacks on the State of Texas, ignoring the facts and the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision (Shelby County, AL vs Holder USAG) that there is presently no evidence of minority voter suppression in Texas. We must stand up against the Obama Justice Department and its politicized attempt to subvert the Texas Voter ID law. Eric Holder's actions fly in the face of the highest court in the land and the laws of the Great State of Texas, and will not be allowed to stand.”
- See more at: http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/stop-big-government/statement-barry-smitherman-response-usdoj-challenge-texas-voter-id-law-005792#sthash.LyhumWiO.d

AUSTIN – Barry Smitherman, conservative Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General issued the following statement in response to United States Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement that he will challenge Texas Voter ID law:
“Eric Holder and the Obama Justice Department continue their unrelenting attacks on the State of Texas, ignoring the facts and the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision (Shelby County, AL vs Holder USAG) that there is presently no evidence of minority voter suppression in Texas. We must stand up against the Obama Justice Department and its politicized attempt to subvert the Texas Voter ID law. Eric Holder's actions fly in the face of the highest court in the land and the laws of the Great State of Texas, and will not be allowed to stand.”
- See more at: http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/stop-big-government/statement-barry-smitherman-response-usdoj-challenge-texas-voter-id-law-005792#sthash.LyhumWiO.dpuf

AUSTIN – Barry Smitherman, conservative Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General issued the following statement in response to United States Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement that he will challenge Texas Voter ID law:
“Eric Holder and the Obama Justice Department continue their unrelenting attacks on the State of Texas, ignoring the facts and the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision (Shelby County, AL vs Holder USAG) that there is presently no evidence of minority voter suppression in Texas. We must stand up against the Obama Justice Department and its politicized attempt to subvert the Texas Voter ID law. Eric Holder's actions fly in the face of the highest court in the land and the laws of the Great State of Texas, and will not be allowed to stand.”
- See more at: http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/stop-big-government/statement-barry-smitherman-response-usdoj-challenge-texas-voter-id-law-005792#sthash.LyhumWiO.dpuf

Holder Sues Louisiana over School Choice Vouchers. Holders Wants to Keep Blacks in Failing Schools

from NOLA.com

The U.S. Justice Department is suing Louisiana in New Orleans federal court to block 2014-15 vouchers for students in public school systems that are under federal desegregation orders. The first year of private school vouchers "impeded the desegregation process," the federal government says.
Thirty-four school systems could be affected, including those of Jefferson, Plaquemines, St. John the Baptist and St. Tammany parishes. Under the lawsuit, the state would be barred from assigning students in those systems  to private schools unless a federal judge agreed to it. A court hearing is tentatively set for Sept. 19.
The statewide voucher program, officially called the Louisiana Scholarship Program, lets low-income students in public schools graded C, D or F attend private schools at taxpayer expense. This year, 22 of the 34 systems under desegregation orders are sending some students to private schools on vouchers.
Last year, at least 570 students were affected; the program has expanded since then. The federal petition would require the state to analyze this year's vouchers to see how they affected school desegregation. (Read the petition.)
The Justice Department's primary argument is that letting students leave for vouchered private schools can disrupt the racial balance in public school systems that desegregation orders are meant to protect. Those orders almost  always set rules for student transfers with the school system.
Federal analysis found that last year's Louisiana vouchers increased racial imbalance in 34 historically segregated public schools in 13 systems. The Justice Department goes so far as to charge that in some of those schools, "the loss of students through the voucher program reversed much of the progress made toward integration."
In Tangipahoa Parish, for instance, Independence Elementary School lost five white students to voucher schools, the petition states. The consequent change in the percent of enrolled white students "reinforc(ed) the racial identity of the school as a black school."
While the federal petition would let courts approve vouchers in those school systems next year, Brian Blackwell, attorney for the Louisiana Association of Educators, said it likely would take a lot of time, effort and evidence to persuade the judges.
State Education Superintendent John White took issue with the suit's primary argument and its characterization of the program. Almost all the students using vouchers are black, he said. Given that framework, "it's a little ridiculous" to argue that students' departure to voucher schools makes their home school systems less white, he said. He also thought it ironic that rules set up to combat racism were being called on to keep black students in failing schools.

read more here: http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2013/08/us_government_files_to_block_s.html

Eric Holder Memo Reveals Gun Control Flaw – It Doesn’t Work! DOJ Prosecuted 55,000 Illegal Firearm Cases

A couple of months ago, Eric Holder sent a memo to all DOJ employees titled "Accomplishments Under the Leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder."

Most of this memo was not interesting and had to do with Attorney General Eric Holder's Department of Justice wrongly making claims of racism against states, banks, etc.

This section of this memo did catch my eye though:

The Department has successfully prosecuted thousands of violent criminals for illegal gun possession. For the past four years, the Department’s investigations resulted in the prosecution of more than 55,000 defendants – many of whom were involved with criminal groups or gangs - for violations of firearms laws. Of those defendants:
• 63 percent were previously convicted felons and 84 percent had been previously arrested • 28,037 were convicted for firearms-related offenses, 11,861 were referred for prosecution for violations related to the trafficking of firearms,, and 5,612 of those defendants have been convicted to date • 15,388 were involved with criminal groups or gangs and 7,250 have been convicted to date  


What does this statistic in Eric Holder's memo mean? It means that gun control does not work. Criminals will still get guns. Criminals do not care if you make guns illegal, they will still get them. In just the last 4 years, the DOJ has prosecuted over 55,000 people for firearms violations, and the super majority of those prosecutions were against felons or people who have been arrested before. 55,000 is a huge number and that is just the number of people who were CAUGHT.

I am not advocating for allowing criminals to have guns. What I am saying is that the current gun control measures do not work on criminals and any expansion of gun control that prevents law abiding citizens from getting guns will only create a situation where the good guys do not have guns but the bad guys do. Criminals will still get guns as proven by 55,000 criminals getting prosecuted in the last 4 years for having a gun even though it was ALREADY illegal for them to have one.

Gun restrictions will lead to law abiding citizens not being able to have a gun to protect themselves from the violent criminals who WILL have a gun regardless of whether or not it is illegal for them to have the gun.

So thank you Eric Holder. Your memo bragging about what you have done as AG has just turned around and bitten you in the rear by showing that criminals will get guns even when gun control measures are in place. The best solution to the gun problem is not to restrict 2nd Amendment Rights by barring law abiding citizens from getting guns, but to continue to prosecute the bad guys who use the guns to commit crimes.

Texas Democrat Loses Election then Sues to be Declared Winner - Election Theft in Jefferson County (Beaumont, Port Arthur) Thomas Sigee vs. J Shane Howard

Jefferson County in southeast Texas (Beaumont, Port Arthur) is a very corrupt part of Texas. Democrats have had a stranglehold on the county. Just last week I posted up an article about how Eric Holder's DOJ is trying to block a vote of the residents of Beaumont ISD because the DOJ says more white people voted than black people.  J. Shane Howard was the first Republican county-wide elected official in Jefferson County in over a century. Howard was elected as the Tax Assessor Collector for Jefferson County. This put a target on his back. Democrats are losing ground all across Texas. Counties that used to be Democrat strongholds are flipping over to the Republican side faster that Democrats could have ever imagined. Old Conservative Democrat Texans have woken up to the realization that the Democrat Party has become very liberal and are jumping ship to switch over to the Republican Party. Jefferson County is a county that the Democrats do not want to lose. The put up Thomas Sigee to run against Shane Howard. They tried hard to beat Shane Howard in the November 2012 election but they came short. Even after a recount, Sigee still lost. Sigee feels as though he should have won the election and has filed a lawsuit asking a judge to declare him the winner over Howard. Sigee claims that the election was basically rigged for Howard. This is such a silly argument because the county is run by HIS DEMOCRAT PARTY. The County Clerk who runs the elections is a Democrat and the recount committee was 50% Democrats. Billy Oliver, the Chairman of the Jefferson County Republican Party, has released the following statement detailing how Sigee and the Democratic Party are trying to steal this election from Republican Shane Howard. Press Release from Billy Oliver, Chairman of the Jefferson County Republican Party in Texas Regarding Sigee/Howard Election Lawsuit: Anatomy of an Election Theft A frivolous lawsuit was recently filed in secrecy by Thomas Sigee seeking to overturn the election which was won by Jefferson County Tax Assessor-Collector J. Shane Howard. Sigee asks the Court to award him the election or order a new election at taxpayer expense. The petition uses a "shotgun" approach to irresponsibly and inaccurately claim that certain provisional votes should be counted and also that some voters should be disenfranchised in a hope of adding votes to Sigee and subtracting votes from Howard. Sigee asserts that the County Clerk (a member of his own party) and the Early Voting Ballot Board (half of which were members of his own party and some of his closest political allies) were incompetent or dishonest in the conduct of their professional duties. This is part of a long-standing pattern with Sigee's obsession for political office and a wanton tendency to blame others for his own inability to garner sufficient votes or comply with the intent or form of the Texas Election Code. Yet, other than his own willingness to participate in this travesty, Sigee is not even the driving force of this bald effort to create chaos, uncertainty, and confusion where none exists. Instead, it is an effort by entrenched, big-money special interests to gain power at any cost, send a message to Democratic voters who dared to vote for a Republican, and to signal to potential party-switchers and future candidates that their efforts are futile. Indeed, this effort is funded by these interests to remove Howard from public office more than it is an effort to support Sigee, a candidate who could garner no more than 10% of the vote from actual individual votes. This lawsuit is unprecedented at this level and will cost 5-6 times more than Sigee raised for his campaign and he will not be responsible for paying for his attorney out of Austin. $50,000 for a big-name attorney out of Austin. Why? What is there to gain? What is there to lose? Who is paying for this? Background On November 6, 2012, J. Shane Howard won reelection as the Jefferson County Tax Assessor-Collector by a margin of 23 votes. On November 14 the election was certified after the counting of about 596 provisional and military ballots and

Holder's DOJ Blocks Texas ISD Election because More Whites than Blacks Voted

Eric Holder's Department of Justice Opposes a Beaumont Texas School District Election because too many white people voted, tries to block election using Voting Rights Act.

Beaumont, TX is a city where the majority of the residents are minorities. Beaumont ISD has a majority of school board members who are minorities. Minorities are WELL represented in this city and in this school district.

Recently, the residents of BISD voted to change the school board from being 7 single member districts to being 5 single member school districts with 2 at large districts. Something like this is not uncommon and it is completely within the rights of the citizens of the school district voters to decide what they want. The residents in BISD voted to make this change (keep in mind that the majority of voters in BISD are non-white). Something like this is good because it allows for 2 members of the school board to be elected by the entire school district. These two at large school board members can look out for the interest of the entire school district instead of having only single member districts where each member only looks out for the interest of their own district where they were elected. With an at large district you have someone who is not just looking out for one single member district and will be held accountable by the entire school district. This is kind of like how the Representatives in the Texas House do not just pass laws themselves for their own districts. Laws from the Texas Legislature pass through the Governor too, and the governor is elected by all the voters in the entire state of Texas and not just from one single district.

Well, along comes Eric Holder's Department of Justice and they say no to what the voters decided. One of the most absurd reasons the DOJ gives for opposing this change is that, according to them, most black people voted against the change and most white people voted for the change, and, because too many whites voted, the black's lost the election and it would therefore be discriminatory to make the change.

It is COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the DOJ to oppose this change. It is racism to overturn a vote based on the race you align with not winning the legal, non-discriminating election. Can you imagine the uproar if an election was overturned because someone didn't like that too many black people voted? That would be racism right? There is a double standard when it comes to racism in America. I vote based on values regardless of whether or not the person I am voting on is white or black and I wish Eric Holder's DOJ would stop being racist and using color of skin as a factor in everything he does. Oh, and keep in mind that the majority of voters in BISD are minorities so a good chunk of them had to vote for the proposition for it to pass, and also remember that people's votes are secret and there is no way to know who voted for what and what the race of the voter is. I guess Eric Holder does not care about the black people who voted FOR the proposition. They must not be black enough, or cornball brothers, or Uncle Toms so they do not count as part of the black vote even though they are black.

The BISD School Board (mostly black) will likely not oppose Eric Holder's non-binding OPINION even though the board is obligated to stand for the vote of the people, and it would be breaking Texas State Law if they do not implement the 5-2 plan (Section 11.502 of the Tex. Education Code). Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott might have to step into this mess to straighten things out. Who knows, some of the board members could even be arrested and charged if they do not follow Texas Law and implement the plan approved by the voters of BISD.

This situation with the DOJ and BISD is just another example of why Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is wrong, unconstitutional, and will likely get struck down very soon by the United States Supreme Court. The Voting Rights Act is facing challenges from several different states, including Texas who is challenging the Voting Rights Act over Eric Holder's DOJ rejection of the Texas Redistricting Maps.

BISD is known for being corrupt. The school district even recently voted to keep an electrical contractor on the payroll even though the contractor (Calvin Walker's Electrical Company) stole millions from the school district and was just convicted of tax fraud. In 2011, the Texas Legislature passed a law to prohibit school districts from using tax dollars to build a hotel. This law was specifically passed to prevent BISD from building a hotel that the school was looking into constructing with tax dollars. The former BISD Superintendent, Butch Carroll Thomas, was even the highest paid superintendent in Texas (annual base pay well over $350,000) even though BISD is only a medium sized school district compared to massive school districts like Houston ISD. Heck, the President of the United States only makes $400,000 (not including the millions of dollars the President spends in tax dollars every time he wants to fly somewhere to go golfing).

EXPOSED: Republicans for Obama Led by Racist Convict Bishop L J Guillory

Many conservatives will be holding their nose to vote for Romney because Obama MUST go, but I don't know of ANY conservative or Republican who is going to support (or campaign for) Obama. There are people out there like that though (some of it has to do with race based voting), and they are pretty much NUTS! I mean seriously, it takes a nut job to say they are Republican and be for Obama at the same time.

When I heard about "Republicans for Obama" I was not surprised to find that the president of the organization (and probably the sole member of this group) was a nut job who I happen to already have exposed recently.

Bishop L J Guillory, the President of Republicans for Obama is (in my opinion based on facts) a Racist Convict trying to Con People into believing his delusions. He likely uses money donated to his "non-profits" to pay for his many lavish trips to Hollywood. He has an infatuation with the Masons and he believes that Mitt Romney is part if a plot by the illuminate.

I first heard of Bishop L J Guillory when he came to Jasper, TX last year to defend council members who were getting recalled. The council members were getting recalled for hiring Rodney Pearson as the new police chief even though Pearson was at the bottom of the candidate qualification list, and Pearson even lied about having a criminal record. Guillory of course claimed the recall was a result of racism, even though I interviewed black residents in Jasper who were in favor of the recall due to the fact that Pearson was not qualified and was hired in a backroom deal. 

Guillory is the self titled "Ombudsman General." According to officials in Jasper, Guillory was wearing a badge and posed as a Department of Justice Official. After some investigating, I found out that Guillory spent 7 years and 7 months of a 15 year sentence in prison in California. His past criminal history includes charges of kidnapping, burglary, robbery, and even trying to prevent/dissuade a witness to testify.  Guillory has told me that he is innocent and was actually granted clemency but he rejected it. This turned out to be false because, in reality, court records show that Guillory unsuccessfully tried to get out of prison by appealing his case. The court rejected Guillory's appeals and said that Guillory was rightfully convicted by a jury.

Guillory claims to be a Republican, but he has publicly praised Obama and has posted up on his blog personal pictures of him with radical liberal Democrats like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

He claims to be a Bishop, but he has no religious degree (fake degrees do not count) and he is not connected to any church. He got his ordination certification from an online website where you type in your name and print out the certification for a few bucks. He uses the term "Bishop" likely to get people to trust him, but his actions certainly contradict what he professes. I discovered that Guillory has Sex Parties and Strippers at "his" house in California. Guillory is even on video bragging about it! See video below:



Guillory spends his time running an organization (Ombudsman International aka Save America Foundation) that he claims is meant to help people, but I do not know of anything that his organization has accomplished. Guillory shows up to situations where black and whites are involved and he pulls the race card and acts like some kind of government official who is there to fix things. in one situation, a black student stabbed and killed his white teacher. Guillory showed up defending the murderer and of course pulled the race card. Guillory was kicked out of the courtroom and was banned from the premises. In the video I posted above, Guillory even claimed to have lowered crime in the the top ten cities most crime filled cities in America!

Guillory spent time in prison and (I think) he used that time to think about how he can con people by claiming to help people. I believe his purpose is to use the guise of helping people as a way to get himself on the news and to get money to fund his lavish lifestyle. He uses his causes as a way to meet and to mingle with Hollywood celebrities. I do not know of any job he has, besides traveling the country stirring up trouble and mingling with celebrities as the Ombudsman General. With no financial source, I wonder if he is using donations to his "organization" as his personal financial source. He seems to be the only member of his organizations and it is registered as a non-profit, so he really has no oversight and pays no taxes.

I also believe that he also gets money from suing people. Everyone who speaks out against Guillory (including myself) has received the threat of Legal Action by Guillory unless we apologize and remove bad (factual) info about Guillory from online. When I first exposed Guillory I was threatened as well, butI did not back down from posting the truth about Guillory. In response, Guillory posted on his blog that I am a racist, part of the KKK and went on to attack my bother by calling her names. He did not respond to the facts I presented and only responded by making a baseless accusation or racism and calling me names. This man is a fraud and a complete nutjob. Yep, he fits right in with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Voting Rights Act vs. Texas in Supreme Court Over Voter ID and Redistricting - Section 5 Unconstitutional

A Washington D.C. Court has ruled against a Texas Voter ID Law and has also ruled against the latest Texas Redistricting Maps. The rulings are a result of Obama's DOJ leader Eric Holder's unconstitutional, race based attacks against Republican led Texas. These rulings are really just formalities that bring us one step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court striking down section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

With the Supreme Court already set to hear a challenge to the Voting Rights Act this year in a case out of Alabama, this challenge from Texas is more ammo needed to get the Supreme Court to declare parts of the Voting Rights act as unconstitutional.

Below you will find reactions from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Texas Governor Rick Perry. Below you will also find my explanation of why section 5 of the Voting Rights act is unconstitutional and should be struck down.


Attorney General Greg Abbott:


“The Supreme Court of the United States has already upheld Voter ID laws as a constitutional method of ensuring integrity at the ballot box. Today’s decision is wrong on the law and improperly prevents Texas from implementing the same type of ballot integrity safeguards that are employed by Georgia and Indiana – and were upheld by the Supreme Court. The State will appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, where we are confident we will prevail.”

Governor Rick Perry:


“Chalk up another victory for fraud. Today, federal judges subverted the will of the people of Texas and undermined our effort to ensure fair and accurate elections. The Obama Administration’s claim that it’s a burden to present a photo ID to vote simply defies common sense. I will continue to work with Attorney General Abbott to fight for the same right that other states already have to protect their elections.”


My Thoughts on Why Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is Unconstitutional


1)  Section 5 requires some states to have their plans approved by the DOJ while other states do not have to have anything approved. It is inequitable to have one standard for some states and a different standard from some states. That is like having one school for blacks and one school for whites. The different standards also creates a situation where you have some states, like Illinois, getting to pass voter ID laws but Texas cannot pass them because the DOJ will not let us. How is it constitutional that one state can have a regulation but then Texas cannot have the same regulation because the DOJ does not like it? The Supreme Court has already approved the Indiana Voter ID law that is very similar to the one in Texas. Also, other states have voter ID laws. So how is it constitutional that Obama, Holder and the DOJ can deny the right of Texas to have a Voter ID law when other states get to have it and even the US Supreme Court has approved them!

2)  Another reason why section 5 of the voting rights act is unconstitutional is that there is no difference today between southern states and northern states in the sense that there is no institutionalized racism anymore and there is certainly NO states trying to keep minorities from voting. When the voting rights act was initially passed it was a good thing. DEMOCRAT controlled southern states had laws discriminating against minorities and preventing them from voting. Those days are long gone. Anyone can vote no matter what color you are. Anyone of any color can be elected to public office in any state. Heck, the President is half black! My friend and conservative Texas State Rep, James White who is black, was elected here in East Texas based on his values, not the color of his skin. That right there shows you that the issue of minorities being restricted from voting, or even restricted from running for office, is long gone.

3)    Some parts of the Voting Rights Act are being used to CREATE INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM. That’s right, it was passed to stop discrimination but now it is creating discrimination. It is nothing short of racist and discriminatory to say that voting districts have to be drawn based on race and that some races must have their own voting districts while other races cannot have their own voting districts. It is just silly. I don’t think ANY voting district should have the district drawn based on race, whether white black or Hispanic. We, as Americans, have to stop using race as a factor in everything we do. We need to look at each other as all fellow Americans and stop looking at race. It is keeping us apart instead of allowing us to come together. It is keeping people together in groups based on the color of their skin instead of allowing people to group together based on their values and regardless of the color of their skin. Will we never have a nation where people are judged based on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed?

4)    The Voting Rights Act is being used to preserve DEMOCRAT districts and not minority districts. It is crazy but true. There are some districts in Texas that Democrats are trying to preserve using the courts. These districts are not majority minority districts. In other words, a majority of the voters in the district are not minority voters. The majority of the district is white. This makes them not protected by the Voting Rights Act as a majority minority district. The only reason the Democrats are trying to protect these Districts is because they are DEMOCRAT Districts. The Democrats argue that the minorities in the district team up to vote with part of the white people in the district and therefore it should be protected as a majority minority district. This is what the Voting Rights Act has become? A way for Democrats to keep districts without regard to protecting minorities?

Brandon Darby Exposes Child Sex Trafficking Cover-up by Eric Holder's DOJ

Brandon Darby has hit the national scene (again). This time, Darby has come out swinging (on TownHall.com) at Eric Holder's Department of Justice with proof that the DOJ has covered-up multiple cases of Child Sex Trafficking.This comes on the heels of Eric Holder being Held in Contempt by the United States House of Representatives for refusing to release documents in the fast and furious gun walking program that led to the death of federal border patrol agent Brian Terry.

Brandon Darby is not your average Texan. Darby is a conservative hero. Darby was once a liberal activist. Darby realized that liberal values were taking America in the wrong direction and were even becoming violent. After Darby became an FBI informant and exposed a plot by two liberal activists to bomb the 2008 Republican National Convention, Darby officially "came out" as a new conservative and began fighting to help people using conservative values instead of hurting them with liberal values.

I met Darby when he came to my neck of the woods (Lumberton, Texas) to gather info for his story NAACP Chapter President plays Race Card to Cover-up Child-Rape Charges Against His Relative. I was honored to help Darby by investigating Texas Media Bias and how The Silsbee Bee Downplayed the Child Rape Even After the Assailant Pleaded Guilty to Assault.

I followed Darby's activities and was able to interview him about how He brings Andrew Breitbart's Conservative Fighting Style to the Texas Ring. During last year's massive Texas Wildfires in Texas, Darby used the organization he founded (Citizen Patriot Response) to help victims of the wildfires.

Read Darby's latest article exposing the child sex trafficking cover-up here on TownHall.com

Obama DOJ Forces Women to Use Restroom with Men at Arkansas School - Obama's War on Women

Obama's war on women continues. Obama has already tossed out 30,000 women from a Texas Women's Health Program because Texas decided to not fund abortion providers as part of the women's health program. Now, over the objection of the women at the University of Arkansas at Ft. Smith, Obama's DOJ sent a letter to the school demanding that they allow a 38 year old male with male body parts to be able to pee standing up in a stall next to college girls who will likely be frightened wondering why there is a male in the stall next to them.

This man feels more comfortable wearing a dress and wants to use the bathroom with women instead of men and apparently Obama and Eric Holder at the Department of Justice agree with him. After all, it is a fundamental right that a guy should be able to use a women's bathroom right?

This is unbelievable. Obama does not care about the security and safety of women. Any pervert who wants to see women use the bathroom will now be able to do it thanks to Obama. If you let this guy use the women's restroom just because he puts on a dress and makeup, how can you stop any other guy who wants to do it? All the guy has to do it put on a dress and say he is a transgender...


below is an excerpt from the original story from Tony Listi on CampusReform.org

EXCLUSIVE: Obama's DOJ Forces University to Allow 38 Year Old Male To Access Women's Restrooms

By Tony Listi, on May 23, 2012

This is a DEVELOPING STORY. Please continue to check Campus Reform for the latest updates.
UPDATE 3:30 PM EST: Recently obtained university documents, shows that Braly also complained about "housing" issues and his ability to partake in a "pom squad tryout." The documents reveal that the university changed policy to accommodate him.
A letter from the Department of Justice (DOJ) caused the University of Arkansas at Ft. Smith (UAFS) early this month to reverse policy and allow a 38-year old anatomically male-student permanent use of women's bathrooms on campus despite opposition from female students.

The university made the reversal on "advice of counsel" after receiving a letter the DOJ sent in response to a complaint that a single, self proclaimed "transgender" student filed with the DOJ's Civil Rights Division.

"Because of the stance we took, the individual filed a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Justice," Mark Horn who is the vice president of university relations explained in an interview with Campus Reform on Tuesday.

Jennifer Braly, the student who filed the complaint, calls himself "transgender" with a "gender identity disorder." Braly, however, remains anatomically a man and is currently raising money online for Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS).

Braly filed the complaint with the DOJ after the university initially told him to use the campus's several gender-neutral bathrooms instead of the women's restrooms.
"Some saw me using the women' public restrooms and complained," explained Braly in her online appeal for donations for surgery. "[O]ne problem to this is there are not unisex bathrooms in every building. Especially the two main buildings where most of my classes are, so I have to go to a completely different building to use the restroom."

....."In the eyes of the law this individual [Braly] is entitled to use the bathroom that she identifies with," Horn concluded.
But in the eyes of at least some female students at UA, anatomy still matters.

''I disagree with allowing a male to use the female restrooms," Amanda Shook, a senior at UA told Campus Reform on Wednesday. "Even if they are a transgendered person, they are still a man, and should have to use the men's restroom.".....


read the rest of the original story here: http://uafortsmith.campusreform.org/group/blog/exclusive-obamas-doj-forces-university-to-allow-38-year-old-male-to-access-womens-restroo

Did Obama’s Immorality Influence Secret Service Agents in Colombian Prostitute/Sex Scandal?

Regardless of whether or not you are a soldier in the military or a federal agent, your actions are a reflection of your leadership. 

Soldiers in a military unit will be squared away if they have good leadership. The leadership sets the tone for the entire unit. If soldiers in a unit know that their commander will nail them to the wall for not following the standards then the soldiers of that unit will generally be well trained, display professionalism and follow the standards. Why? Because regardless of their personal beliefs or morals, they know that this is what the leadership expects and they will be in trouble if they don’t. On the other hand, if you are in a unit where the commander does not enforce the standards, or does not follow the standards himself/herself, then the soldiers of that unit will generally not follow the standards and will push the limits to see what they can get away with before they will get into trouble.

This is not to say that a unit will not have a couple of individual knuckleheads who just will not follow the rules even if they have a good commander. There will always be one or two outliers in any organization. In general though, the soldiers of a unit with a good commander will be squared away while the soldiers in a unit with a bad commander will be ate up. (Pardon my military terminology)

The actions of the Secret Service reflect poorly upon President Obama

This Colombian prostitute/sex scandal did not just involve one or two bad Secret Service agents. This scandal involved an entire unit of Secret Service agents and even military personnel. When an entire unit is corrupted, that tells me the problem also has to do with the leadership of this unit and the moral environment that these agents work in.

I know what you are thinking. How can the President be responsible for the actions of this unit when the President is over thousands of units as President Commander in Chief? Shouldn’t the blame fall on the supervisor of just that unit? The answer is that the blame should fall on both the supervisor and the President. You see, the Secret Service is unlike any other organization. They are constantly with or near the President. They are directly influenced by the President. They see him in public and in private. They know intimately how the President acts and how he enforces legal and moral standards.

I am not at all inferring that President Obama knew about this sex scandal or has been involved in anything like this. What I am inferring is that if these Secret Service agents were around a President who displayed high moral integrity and respected the rules and standards on a daily basis, then it is very unlikely that they would have gotten themselves involved in this sex scandal in the first place. They would have been too scared to get involved in this scandal. They would have known that their actions would not be tolerated and would get them into trouble.

These Secret Service agents were not scared though. This was not just a bad decision by one agent done in secret so that no one else would know. This was an entire group of agents. For them to all get together and do this tells me that they did not feel that what they were doing was wrong or that they would even get into trouble for doing it. The environment these agents are in with the President must be very lax when it comes to moral standards for them to even think that this was acceptable or that they could get away with it.

I am not a secret service agent, nor am I near the President, so I cannot know how the President acts when he lets loose behind closed doors. I do know how he acts publicly though, and his public disregard for the law and morality downright scares me.

How can we expect Americans in general, let alone the Secret Service agents, to uphold the law and have moral integrity if our own President does not seem to?

The President has a duty to uphold and defend the laws of the United States of America. The President can work to overturn a law, but the President cannot just unilaterally decide to toss out a law. That is what President Obama seems to have done though. The following list contains just a few of the instances where President Obama has refused to uphold the legal standards and/or displayed low moral integrity.

1)      The Defense of Marriage Act is a law that has been passed by Congress and signed by the President. President Obama has openly stated that he will not defend or respect the Defense of Marriage Act.

2)      President Obama has not enforced internet pornography laws. Online pornography is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking. Just as a secret service agent involved in the sex scandal (last line sarcasm)

3)      President Obama is disregarding the Constitution in regard to Obamacare by forcing Americans to engage in commerce and purchase private health insurance, and also by forcing religious organizations to pay for a private service that goes against their religious beliefs.

4)      President Obama is openly refusing to enforce immigration laws or take the measures needed to defend our borders. Furthermore, when the President could not get the Dream Act passed, he effectively implemented the Dream Act unilaterally by directing federal agencies to be lax in enforcing the law.

5)      President Obama is immorally spending trillion of dollars more than what the government can pay back. The national debt is more than 15 trillion and that is an amount that seems impossible to even be able to pay back. It will surely get passed off to our children and grandchildren who will have to pay it back. Having debt can and will lead to massive problems now and further down the road. Just ask the secret service agent who got his sex scandal made public because of an unpaid debt (last line sarcasm)

6)      President Obama immorally supports Partial Birth Abortion in which an American’s life is taken from them as they are being born by getting stabbed in the back of the neck before they come out. Furthermore, President Obama supports funneling millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood (an abortion provider) even though tax money is not supposed to pay for abortions. This federal money to Planned Parenthood effectively goes to paying for abortions even though the money was not technically given to Planned Parenthood to pay for abortions.

7)      Obama was willing to refuse paying the US Soldiers fighting for freedom because Planned Parenthood funding was more important that paying our military members.

8)      President Obama has immorally and unprofessionally created racial divides by using the DOJ to be racially biased in their decisions (like the DOJ not prosecuting the New Black Panthers but then turning around an unconstitutionally blocking the Texas Voter ID Law). Obama’s other actions have also caused racial divides instead of bringing races together. For instance, Obama has created a “Blacks for Obama” organization. Would it be acceptable for a white candidate to create a “Whites for Romney” organization or a “Whites against Obama” organization? Obama has also created racial divides between blacks and Hispanics and whites and blacks by taking the side of black Trayvon Martin against Hispanic George Zimmerman based on race/emotion and not fact, and also taking the side of a black professor over a white police officer based on race and not facts.

Those are just some of the instances where President Obama has publicly not followed the standards or has displayed low moral integrity.

And we wonder why these Secret Service agents did not follow the standards or display moral integrity by getting involved, as a group, in this Colombian Prostitution and Sex Scandal.

For the record, I think there are many great and very moral Secret Service agents serving their country and it is a shame that this scandal and bad leadership will taint the good work that they are doing and have done.