What we see on the news is Attorney General Eric Holder telling the American people there’s no need for Americans to show ID to vote. In fact, he says, to do so would be racist. He assures us that there is really no problem with voter fraud. Really?
The head of the NAACP travels to Geneva to meet with the UN Council about Texas’ voter ID laws. Do we really need some outside organization telling us what to do? Plus, the UN has really no moral authority to tell us what to do. Look at the countries and people they ignore and they’re supposed to choose Texas voter ID laws.
I have to show ID in my state if I want to vote. It’s not that hard to do. In fact, I have to show ID for many things I need to do in life.
I know AG Holder thinks there’s nothing to see here. No problem…No problem at all. Watch the following video and tell me what you think.
ProjectVeritas.com Investigation. Election officials advise no ID necessary to register Timothy Tebow and Thomas Brady to vote in Minnesota. Absentee ballots are discussed, voter registration forms are given out, and Election officials blow the whistle on potential fraud in their own state.
This reminds me of President Clinton answering a question by saying, “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.” I think Mr. Holder is not sure what the definition of the word lie is. I also notice that just like the lawyers they are, no one will give a straight answer. If he wasn’t told and didn’t know about what had happened, the answer is easy. Just say NO. All of this word play just makes him look more guilty. What do you think? Read the article from The Daily Caller below:
By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller Published: 1:12 AM 01/30/2012 | Updated: 12:58 PM 01/30/2012
The documents sent from the DOJ to congressional officials Friday night included a series of emails between former Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke and Holder’s then-deputy chief of staff Monty Wilkinson. Those emails show Wilkinson, a senior Holder aide, knew on December 15, 2010 — the day Terry was killed – that the weapons used to murder him were provided to a Mexican gang by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
On that day, records show, Burke wrote to Wilkinson that “[t]he guns found in the desert near the murder[ed] BP officer connect back to the investigation we were going to talk about – they were AK-47s purchased at a Phoenix gun store.”
The emails also show that Wilkinson “alerted” Holder of Terry’s death on that day. They do not, however, show whether he told Holder that Operation Fast and Furious had provided Terry’s killer with the means to murder him.
Reached by The Daily Caller on Sunday, DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler would not give a yes-or-no answer to the question of whether Wilkinson told Holder, his superior, about the connection between the gunwalking scheme and Terry’s murder.
Instead, Schmaler pointed to a letter Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich sent to Congress Friday with the documents. In that letter, Weich wrote only that Wilkinson “does not recall” whether or not he informed Holder. Weich added that the DOJ has been “advised” that Burke similarly has “no recollection” of discussing these details with Wilkinson in the first place.
Over the course of an email conversation Sunday lasting more than two hours, Schmaler declined to answer whether Holder was informed. She did, however, agree that it’s “absolutely not unreasonable to ask” that question of Holder.
Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who has led the congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious along with House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, said in a tweet Saturday that the documents DOJ released Friday “clearly show Holder[']s people knew” about the gunwalking initiative before Grassley opened his investigation – and that the DOJ “lied” to Congress.
While I was searching for a picture for this post I was appalled at how far some groups had gone to disparage religion. What’s worse is the things we held most to be true are now being challenged by people in the government like that weasel Eric Holder and his whole corrupt DOJ. If the Supreme Court of the United States decides to step into even one case, it opens the door for them to step in and tell ALL churches what they can and can’t do. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?
The following is an article I got from PJ Media and was written by J. Christian Adams. This court case is a big deal and all people of faith should know about it. I have heard about it at various times while it was making its way to the Supreme Court. We need to wake up and see what’s happening to religion in our country before it’s no longer protected and the government decides which teachings from the bible churches can to teach and which ones are forbidden, or “hate speech”.
Please read Mr. Adams article here:
Eric Holder’s Department of Justice has quietly advanced legal arguments in direct conflict with Catholic teaching and the teaching of other Christian denominations. If the Department of Justice prevails, the Catholic Church and other churches will have a difficult time preserving doctrinal traditions central to church teaching, particularly in church schools. The quiet and radical legal attack comes with perilous political risk, because active Catholics may determine Obama’s fate in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, and Wisconsin.
Like so much from this Justice Department, Holder’s radical legal positions are at odds with long American traditions. This latest species of Holder’s radicalism is a frontal attack on faith communities.
In the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Holder’s DOJ argued that a church cannot fire an employee for acting contrary to church teaching, and contrary to an employment contract that incorporates that teaching. A teacher filed a complaint to the government about how the school handled her narcolepsy, which presumably would involve sleeping at work. The church school then fired the teacher because the church forbids lawsuits among believers based on 1 Corinthians 6:1-8. (“But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!”)
Holder’s Justice Department believes that religious schools should not be able to enjoy a longstanding exemption to various employment laws which conflict with church teaching, or, the “ministerial exception.”
Assistant to the Solicitor General Leondra R. Kruger (photo below) argued that the religious school could not fire the teacher for filing a complaint to the government even if church teaching forbids it. (Some background on Kruger here, here, and here). At oral argument, Kruger advocated positions so extreme that even Justice Elena Kagan appeared to reject them.
It’s not hard to see where this slippery slope slides. What if a teacher in a Catholic school does something directly contrary to Catholic teaching? Or, consider this possibility offered by American Catholic:
Then, too, what also about Catholic women using this principle to sue the Catholic Church in the United States because they are excluded from the priesthood? There’s absolutely no doubt that when it comes to ordination, the Catholic Church discriminates in favor of males. Should SCOTUS be able to tell the Catholic Church in the United States that it must redress the imbalance?
Yes…if, as an organization, the Catholic Church is bound by federal employment discrimination statutes.
No…if, as an organization, the U.S. Catholic Church is exempt from federal employment discrimination statutes.
Far fetched? Not to Kruger.
At oral argument, she wouldn’t categorically preclude the possibility. Instead, she told the Court that the government interest isn’t currently sufficient to justify an assault on the male priesthood. Kruger said “the government does have a compelling and indeed overriding interest in ensuring that individuals are not prevented from coming to the government with information about illegal conduct.” In other words, even if church doctrine prohibits you from settling disputes with the church through the government, the Obama administration cares not. Holder wants informants, or as the DOJ prefers to call them, complainants.
You can read the transcript of the argument with details of Kruger’s assault on religious independence.
Sometimes the radicalism of Obama’s Justice Department is on full display, like when it sues Arizona or blocksSouth Carolina voter ID. Other times, the radicalism creeps along the margins, as Kruger did at the Supreme Court, arguing that the long respected ministerial exception to church doctrine is no longer respected by this president and his Justice Department.
Expect a decision very soon in the case. Let’s hope if Kruger gets her way, the voters notice in November.