Eric Holder Wants One Law for Whites and Another for ‘Non-Whites’

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.

Previous post

Contrary to Dan Rather: Most Journalists are Liberal

Next post

How to End Deficit Spending in Five Minutes and Why It Won’t Happen