forgottenliberty.com

The Obama administration, via the Department of Justice (DOJ), may be attempting to lessen the number of service men and women who vote using absentee ballots.  Last October, Congress passed the MOVE (Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment) act.  The MOVE act helps ensure that members of the military serving overseas will have their votes counted.  Some of the key elements of the Move act are,

• elimination of notarization requirements for overseas ballots in the states that still require this, as well as other registration requirements imposed specifically on overseas and military voters.
• all states must make voter registration and absentee ballot applications available electronically, as well as General Election information. MOVE also requires that all states make a Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot, matching the design and functionality launched last year by the Overseas Vote Foundation, available online for when official ballots don’t arrive in time.
• all states must plan, as of this year, for a 45-day window for the ballot “round-trip”.

The MOVE act will definitely increase the amount of military votes in subsequent elections… which is bad news for Democrats.  The military vote is historically conservative and I’m sure Democrats would love to minimize a block of voters who usually vote Republican.  It appears the Obama administration is doing just that.  The Department of Justice is actively helping states file waivers to avoid having to follow the new law.  I may be wrong but I thought the Department of Justice was supposed to enforce the law, not teach people how to avoid following it, right?

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a cosponsor of the MOVE act, sent a letter to Attorney General Holder stating his concern that the DOJ is not enforcing the law.  In the letter Sen. Cornyn mentions comments made by a DOJ official that the MOVE act was “unclear” and that enforcing it was the “last resort.”  Cornyn then asked Holder to make sure states are obeying the law.  It really says something when a Senator has to ask the Attorney General of the United States to enforce the law.

Recently, the DOJ dropped the voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panthers because they evidently don’t investigate claims of black on white voter intimidation.  Now, the DOJ is trying to minimize the military vote by not enforcing the new law.  What is going on in the DOJ and the Executive Branch in general?  Is this still the United States of America where we believe that everyone’s vote should be counted?  I’m not sure anymore.

Democrat Representative Maxine Waters has inserted a provision in to the financial “reform” bill currently before the house that would take us backwards in terms of racial equality and civil rights.  This provision will create diversity czars to promote racial and gender hiring in federal agencies.  I guess getting hired because of your abilities, education, and experience is out the window.  Now the color of your skin and your genitalia will become something employers will be forced to consider.  According to Fox News,

The bill would establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion at each federal agency to “ensure equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic and gender diversity” of the work force and senior management.

The diversity czars would also aim to “increase the participation of minority-owned and women-owned businesses in the programs and contracts” of each agency and conduct “an assessment” of those goals.

If this remains in the bill and the bill passes, instead of segregated water fountains, bathrooms, and restaurants, we will have segregated job applications.  Instead of signs proclaiming “Irish need not apply” we will see signs saying “White males need not apply”.  How can people in good conscience support something that goes against the very essence of having a color blind society?  I thought skin color was not supposed to matter anymore!  Now we will have an office at every federal agency whose sole purpose is to get people of a certain race or gender hired.  How is it right to have a federal office that will treat people differently because of the color of their skin?

In his “I Have A Dream” speech, Dr. King said “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.“  If this provision passes, we will be moving farther away from Dr. Kings dream.  The color of ones skin, not the content of their character, will be what is judged if they apply for a federal job.

As a side note, how much will it cost the taxpayers to have a new Office of Minority and Women Inclusion for every federal department?

I read a column today by progressive columnist E.J. Dionne.  In his column, Dionne describes why the recent Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case was an example of legislating from the bench.  He also defends Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court during the State of the Union address.  His column is a perfect example of (oxymoron alert!) liberal logic.  For instance, he claims that,

The Supreme Court is now dominated by a highly politicized conservative majority intent on working its will, even if that means ignoring precedents and the wishes of the elected branches of government.

Two things strike me as illogical in this statement.  The first is the issue of precedent.  Progressives love precedent when it supports something they approve of.  They feel if they can get a court ruling in their favor, they have locked in their policies for generations.  The Supreme Court usually defers to precedent, but it is not bound to do so.  The only thing the Court is bound by is the Constitution.  If the Court believes a previous court made a wrong decision, they can choose to correct it.  This has happened many times in our history (usually in favor of Progressive policies), and to act like it never happens, is revisionist history.

The second issue in this statement that defies logic is