Attorney General Eric Holder spoke to a gathering of black church leaders May 30 in Washington, D.C., where he told them that voting is a “sacred” right. Where’s the ACLU? Americans United for Separation of Church and State? Wasn’t the Attorney General trampling on the First Amendment by mixing religion and politics? Oh, Holder also wants one law for Whites and another for ‘Non-Whites.’
The whole separation of church and state thing is a one way street. It’s only OK for liberals to make appearances before church leaders and speak about a “sacred” right.
It’s too bad that conservative church leaders are intimidated by the claims of liberals and organizations like the ACLU and Americans United. It’s more likely, however, that pastors use the “separation of church and state” myth as an excuse not to speak on political issues, thereby giving liberals free reign to recruit among religious adherents with no blowback from groups the ACLU and Americans United.
Liberal hypocrisy is so rampant that no one is surprised by it anymore. Here are some of Eric Holder’s legal and logical absurdities that he spoke about in his address to the participants at the Conference of national Black Chruches:
“The recent wave of changes to state-level voter identification laws also has presented a number of problems requiring the department’s attention. In December [of 2011], we objected to South Carolina’s voter ID law, after finding — based on the state’s own data — that the proposed change would place an unfair burden on non-white voters.”
Does the requirement to show an ID put an unfair burden on “non-whites” who cash checks, purchase alcohol, or buy cigarettes? Are only “non-whites” economically disadvantaged? Sounds like racial stereotyping.
Is there an unfair burden on “non-whites” who want to purchase a drug like Mucinex? The non-prescription drug loosens the mucus that causes chest and nasal congestion. Since it contains chemicals used that can be used to make crack, Mucinex purchasers have to show ID to purchase the product.
Is Eric Holder saying that the ID requirement in the above examples should be set aside for “non-whites”? Does this mean that a bank would have to cash a check for a “non-white” person without having to require an ID? Can we assume that only “non-whites” will NOT have to show IDs in the future? Can anyone say “reverse discrimination”?
Editor’s note: Once again the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party is stunning in its display. According to Breitbart reporter Mike Flynn, the party that is horrified at the prospect of American voters being required to show photo identification has included this little gem of a requirement in the program for the Massachusetts Democratic Convention which convened Saturday.
Registration and Credentials: A PHOTO ID WILL BE REQUIRED TO ENTER
THE MASSMUTUAL CENTER.
Who would have thought the “Party of The People” would say ‘Attendees will be required to show a photo ID before being allowed into the event!’
This tidbit can be found on page 14 of the convention program which is chock full of advertising by all those stalwart Democrats who would defend American voters against disenfranchisement
Phonies. They’re nothing but a bunch of phonies.
ICE Most Commented