Attorney
General Eric Holder spoke to a gathering of black church leaders on
Wednesday 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? Sounds like “theocracy” and “dominionism” to me.
Where’s Michelle Goldberg? Wasn’t the Attorney General trampling on the
First Amendment by mixing religion and politics?
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. So instead of harping on it in this article, I want to address
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 Churches:
“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 have to show IDs in the
future? Can anyone say “reverse discrimination”?
Did Eric Holder have to show his law license in order to practice law? Apparently not.
