Particulalry about 4 minutes into the video …. at the article here.
Support Our Troops & Allies
Apparently, it’s no longer a question.
Here’s a few recent items:
So what we have here is NJ’s Governor vetoes a bill where MD’s Governor is (almost) ecstatic that he may soon sign into law a “marriage equality” legislation package.
But what the heck is a “conditional veto”? Is that a Jersey thing?
Anyway, what does it matter anymore since the DOJ is now deciding it won’t have anything to do with enforcing any legislation having to do with or against “marriage” of any kind? Is it the stench of the Fast And Furious scandal that soured the taste of any type of law enforcement? (cough) Naw, that can’t be it. Or, is it that the DOJ won’t even bother with allegations of voter initimidation? (hack cough) Naw, DOJ is too busy suing states they claim are breaking NVRA (National Voting Rights Act) laws in preparation for the November 2012 elections? Hhhmm, don’t know, what do you think? In fact, when was the last time the DOJ actually enforced constitutional laws anyway?
Psst, isn’t marriage a religious Sacrament? Why would the Government have anything to say or do about that anyway?
“Congress shall make no law …..” Now where is that phrase found? Oh yeah.
The First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.
How about that.
That’s the State Attorney General talking.
There have been prior versions floating around, but I wanted to update the list to see where this goes and if it grows “legs.”
If anyone has extra information to add, please be so kind to let me know. I will be happy to update and re-post it.
That’s how this Hot Air article portrays him. Nevertheless, this article is an excellent read and blockquotes this tidbit within theirs:
The 1965 Voting Rights Act was created to combat the systematic disenfranchisement of minorities, especially in Southern states with a history of discrimination. But the Justice position is a lead zeppelin, contradicting both the Supreme Court and the Department’s own precedent. In 2005, Justice approved a Georgia law with the same provisions and protections of the one Mr. Holder nixed for South Carolina. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board that an Indiana law requiring photo ID did not present an undue burden on voters.
But betting man? Holder? I’m surprised has hasn’t folded his hand. He really should.
Read the whole article as Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey points out that the photo-id established by Indiana and others are provided to the applicant for free.
At least, it would seem so.
Here’s an open letter to the AG from an ATF Agent. In Mexico.
Wonder if it will make a difference.
Nah. If his boss won’t hold his feet to the fire, there’s only one way to take care of the problem.
Elect someone else as President of the United States and – hopefully – most of BO’s administration gets replaced. Eric Holder first.
Oh, and then there’s this – apparently, Eric doesn’t think a photo ID is needed to vote. You know, we wouldn’t want any unnecessary burdens on anyone that doesn’t have a drivers license, or has to prove their identity when seeking a job, or credit, or cashing a check, or buying liquor. One would think that voting wasn’t as important as, you know, preventing fraud of any kind now is there?
UPDATEx2: From FB. This picture was recently updated to include an additional line item at the bottom of the list.
From the PJ Media article:
A violation of any of the IEEPA sanctioning programs or the Kingpin Act carries stiff penalties, both criminal and civil, and potentially totaling decades in prison and tens of millions of dollars in fines. It is not necessary that an individual or governmental entity be shown to have “knowingly” violated any of these programs: it is illegal for any U.S. entity or individual to aid, abet, or materially assist — or in the case of Operation Fast and Furious, to facilitate others to aid, abet, or materially assist — designated drug traffickers. There are no exceptions within IEEPA programs for unlicensed U.S. law enforcement or intelligence agency operations.
The only way the DOJ could remain legal invovling this Kingpin Act, would be if Attorney General Eric Holder requested a waiver before activating the program.
Hhhhmmm. So, if there is no waiver, either he didn’t know (and ignorance of the Law is not an excuse in Court) or he knew and has perjured himself (and if this is true, find the waiver).
Either way, he’s in deep doo-doo, I’d say.
UPDATE: Friday’s document dump (Jan 27, 2012) includes documentation proving Holder was informed immediately after the agent’s murder