MaxRedline

Barry U.N.-American

Barry's running around, yammering about "voting rights" again. Photo ID, which you have to have in order to drive or board a plane, among other things, is once again being portrayed as somehow "disenfranchising" people of their right to vote, and it's all a plot by those wascally Wepublicans.

Obama previewed that sentiment earlier this week while raising money for Democrats in Houston: "the idea that you'd purposely try to prevent people from voting."

When one donor shouted out that the Republican effort was "un-American," the president promptly concurred. "Un-American. How is it that we're putting up with that?"

Not to worry; that paragon of justice, Eric Holder, is all over it:

Meanwhile, the administration is stepping up its offensive. Attorney General Eric Holder has challenged the North Carolina election law as well as one in Texas.

"Let me be very clear. Protecting the right to vote - the action that truly makes our nation an exceptional one - will continue to be a priority for this administration, for this Department of Justice, for this president and for this attorney general," Holder said Wednesday at Sharpton's conference.

It seems rather clear that they don't like the idea of states' rights any more than they like the U.S. Constitution, and they're doing everything they can to limit both - including bringing in U.N. "observers" in a fruitless effort to prove that voter ID requirements prevent people from voting:

The United Nations, accustomed to more chaotic places on the globe, has overseen selected elections since 1991, and 44 observers from Europe’s Organization for Security and Cooperation were sent to the United States in 2012 to determine if photo identification requirements, including those in Tennessee, affected voter turnout.

For some reason, that little scheme didn't sit well with Tennessee legislators, who overwhelmingly passed a bill barring future such escapades. Naturally, some people have a problem with this, and accuse the state legislators of having something to hide. Evidently, they can't wrap their little heads around the fact that Democratics and Republicans both voted to pass the bill.

As one commenter correctly noted:

In the 1950′s the first real civil rights amendment was put before congress by President Eisenhower (a Republican) and Democrats north (JFK himself included) and south (Al Gore’s dad included) voted against it en masse.

Southern Democrats coordinated their efforts to kill Civil Rights legislation in the 1950s and ’60s.

All of the Southern Governors that opposed the Civil Rights movement were Democrats and they all remained LOYAL Democrats until the day they died….

And remember this; if it hadn’t been for the Republicans voting FOR the “Civil Rights Act” under President Johnson, it would have never passed. 84% of Republicans voted FOR the “Civil Rights Act” whereas ONLY 63% of Democrats voted for it. How racist of them.

Heck, every time I go to the doctor these days, they want to see a photo ID. Ditto for CT/MRI scans, lab tests, and more.

Obama and Holder are deeply afraid that voter ID will cost them the support that Democratics have long enjoyed among their reliable bloc of dead voters.

Related articles

Decries 'bogus' voter fraud complaints...

Obama says right to vote under threat in the US

Eric Holder's race-baiting attack on congress

House GOP votes to hold Lerner in contempt; Eric Holder's thoughts are elsewhere

In Oregon, That's Not A Farm

Yeah, thanks to our incredible land-use laws, a farm is 80 acres or more (before you can build a house on it), and must pass several other hurdles. In Wyoming, not so much.

All Andy Johnson wanted to do was build a stock pond on his sprawling eight-acre Wyoming farm. He and his wife Katie spent hours constructing it, filling it with crystal-clear water, and bringing in brook and brown trout, ducks and geese. It was a place where his horses could drink and graze, and a private playground for his three children.

At best, he's a hobby farmer - his day job is as a welder. But it's his property, and the EPA is once again trying to overstep its bounds; it's demanding that the pond be filled in and the land restored, and are threatening to fine him $75,000 a day for failure to do so.

The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Further, the EPA claims that material from his pond is being discharged into other waterways. Johnson says he built a stock pond -- a man-made pond meant to attract wildlife -- which is exempt from Clean Water Act regulations.  

The property owner says he followed the state rules for a stock pond when he built it in 2012 and has an April 4-dated letter from the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office to prove it.

“Said permit is in good standing and is entitled to be exercised exactly as permitted,” the state agency letter to Johnson said.

While President Nixon established the EPA with the best of intentions, it has, as is always the case with government agencies, morphed over the years into an army of entrenched bureaucrats intent upon accumulating ever more power and control. These lifers have been busily drafting new rules with an eye toward wresting control over all bodies of water, large or small, public or private, with complete disregard for states rights and those of property owners.

They've recently lost a court battle against a Montana couple, wherein they claimed that the home they built on their land had to be removed because it was built on a wetland - despite several independent reviews supporting the couple's contention that their land was in fact not a wetland. And as in this case, they threatened massive daily fines for failure to obey their decree.

It can only be hoped that the next non-Democrat President will take some time to examine this agency, and others as well, and either rein them in or disband them completely. Too many people are being forced to divert hard-earned resources to fighting governmental overreach.

 

Related articles

Wyoming man defiantly fights possible $75,000 a day EPA fine for building backyard pond

Well, At Least You've Got Your Health

Support for Obamacare has fallen to an all-time low, and that trend's happening fastest among the very folks that Sandra Fluke and Barky were trying to sway: women. Meanwhile, down in Georgia, the Obamacare Nullification Bill is heading through the legislature:

HB 707 authorizes Georgia’s Attorney General and State Council to work with other states to resist the ACA. It bans the State from participating in health insurance exchanges and other intrusive elements such as involuntary maternal-infant in-home visitations. It does not directly address the constitutionality of Obamacare, but simply states that Georgia will not participate in implementing it.

Gosh, maybe that whole "visitation" thing is one of the reasons why women are increasingly opposed to it. Fluke figured free birth control'd suck her fellow sluts in, while Barky brayed about breast pumps. But neither of them mentioned the intrusive aspects.

Representative Stover declared that Obamacare is a profound over-reach of federal government. “To tax someone for simply being alive is anti-American, anti-Constitutional and anti-common sense… The federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.”

He just might be onto something, there.

Voter Identification Disenfranchises Minorities!

Oh, but this is entirely cool:

Oregon has until October to comply with a national ID law, or risk the federal government rejecting Oregon driver’s licenses as proof of identity to enter federal buildings.

Aren't they "disenfranchising minorities" with such policies? Really, Eric Holder and his buddies are suing states for requiring voter identification - identical to that required to enter a federal building or to board an aircraft - but somehow voter ID is different?

Only A Matter Of Time

Photo credit: Fikra

Remember how the Left kept claiming that conservative warnings about messing with marriage would lead to reinstatement of polygamy and other issues were just a bunch of hooey from knucle-dragging, mouth-breathing teabaggers? Well, guess what? The chickens, as they say, have come home to roost:

In his 91-page opinion in Brown v. Buhman, on Dec. 13, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups struck down Utah’s law making polygamy a crime.

In its 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case, the Supreme Court overruled previous sexuality precedents by declaring unconstitutional laws that made homosexual sodomy a crime, holding that although the Constitution says nothing about sex or marriage, there is nonetheless a right to consensual sexual activity between adults that government cannot regulate. This was over the vigorous dissent of conservative justices, who said that the Constitution commits such questions of marriage and morality to the states and the democratic process, and that therefore federal courts have no power to impose their own moral judgments.

The Lawrence case lays the foundation that has been cited for a decade now in court to make the case for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. If government cannot forbid homosexual conduct, this argument goes, then neither can it deny those who define themselves by homosexual behavior to officially recognize any such relationship as a marriage.

And so here we are, exactly as predicted. All manner of activities, such as one man with multiple "wives", one woman with multiple "husbands", and any other form of "relationship" must be considered as sancrosanct "marriage". With all of the rights, privileges, and other attributes afforded therein.

You had to know it was just a matter of time.

Related articles

Federal Judge Strikes Down Ban On Religious Cohabitation In Utah Polygamy Law

Court strikes down part of Utah polygamy law

Polygamy advocates hail judge's ruling in Utah

Attack Of The Walking Left

Forget about zombies, this is way worse. pResident Cades has issued another of his famed executive orders, instructing his minions to "work with states" to battle the effects of global worming. Which is to say, federal agencies are now ordered to decide whether or not local zoning ordinances are sufficiently stringent (and expensive). This is another of his "we can't wait" edicts.

“The question is not whether we need to act,” Mr. Obama said at the time. “The question is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late.”

And we all know how much courage Barry has. Ask any golf ball.

 

Forget "Guide Dogs For The Blind"

A blind person learns to use a guide dog at the test track of the Brailleliga Nederlands

Okay, in Iowa they can still get guide dogs if they want to (and complete all ownership requirements satisfactorily). But they can also get something that could at some point prove even more helpful, albeit a lot more lethal: they can get guns, and permits to carry them.

Now, don't go off half-cocked, here; the concept's a bit controversial still, even in the Midwest. One sheriff's on record as stating that he will not issue a weapons permit to a blind person; a position that, quite frankly, may well run afoul of provisions of the ADA. Apparently, that particular aspect has yet to be tested. On the other hand, another says there's no reason why a blind person, after appropriate training, shouldn't be cleared for a permit.

Wethington, the Cedar County sheriff, has a legally blind daughter who plans to obtain a permit to carry when she turns 21 in about two years. He demonstrated for the Register how he would train blind people who want to carry a gun.

"If sheriffs spent more time trying to keep guns out of criminals' hands and not people with disabilities, their time would be more productive," Wethington said as he and his daughter took turns practice shooting with a semi-automatic handgun on private property in rural Cedar County.

He does have a point; even folks who want to have a guide dog have to undergo training in how to work with it.

And unlike the gun-grabbers who especially hate scary-looking guns, what the gun looks like doesn't much matter to a blind person.

 

Related articles

Iowa grants gun permits to the blind

Eric Holder Keeps On Suing States

In the OBumbler administration, what the people want doesn't really matter.

Marist/McClatchy Poll: 82% of whites support "racist" voter ID. 83% of "non whites" support "racist" voter ID.

As well, 72% of Democratics support voter ID. A huge majority of the country's against Barky and his buds on this, and they have one very blunt response: STFU.

Related articles

Eric Holder Sues Texas Over Voting Laws

Why the Left Really is against Voter ID Laws

Cruz Strikes Back

On the heels of race-baiting AG Holder's efforts to legalize voter fraud on a national level, Senator Ted Cruz has introduced S.B. 1336, which would amend the "motor voter" law to clarify that states have the right to enact and apply laws which enable them to verify citizenship and elegibility to vote.

The bill has nine additional co-sponsors joining Sen. Ted Cruz.

The bill has been read twice and is already on the Senate Calender for hearings, debate and voting. The pleasantly short bill can be read in its entirety at this link.

I hope this guy decides to run for President, and can successfully circumvent the roadblocks that the Republican establishment are certain to erect.

 

What "Rule Of Law?"

The Supreme Court's ruling on the Voter Rights Act clearly and unambiguously holds that the establishment of voter requirements is solely under the purview of the states, yet Eric Holder has again announced his intention to ignore the law:

In a speech to the Urban League in Philadelphia, the attorney general said the Justice Department is asking a federal court in San Antonio to require the state of Texas to obtain approval in advance before putting future voting changes in place.

This requirement to obtain “pre-approval” from either the Justice Department or a federal court before making changes to voting laws is available when intentional voting discrimination is found.

In other words, Texas is somehow racist for two reasons: (1) they require voters to produce valid identification, and (2) Eric Holder says they are. This is the same Eric Holder who ordered federal prosecuters to drop their bullet-proof case against New Black Panthers who stood outside polling places in Philadelphia armed with clubs, intimidating would-be voters.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is prepared to take Holder and his DoJ on, and Holder's going to lose again.

The facts are on Abbott’s side. Texas specifically modeled its voter ID law on Indiana’s. That law has already been taken all the way to the US Supreme Court and was upheld. The Texas law enjoys widespread support across all ethnicities in the state. Only the Texas Democrat Party and its allies oppose it.

Naturally, MSNBC, the official propaganda wing of the Democrat party, portrays Holder as bravely fighting to protect minorities.

 

Related articles

Feds suing to protect minority voting rights in Texas