The mob that gathered last Saturday to voice their negative opinion of the George Zimmerman acquittal did get one thing right. Whether or not one agrees with their premise that the basis for Mr. Zimmerman’s not guilty verdict was the result of a justice system that punishes minorities more harshly than it does whites, they are correct in saying that anytime anyone is either convicted or acquitted of a crime because of something extraneous to the facts of the case, there is an inequity which has prevailed – and all of us should protest against it.
Why should we protest such a miscarriage of justice – especially if we happen to like a particular verdict? The answer is little more than “self-preservation”. If we close our eyes to this sort of behavior in someone else’s case, who knows how long it will be before a corrupt political system finds reason to place us in the defendant’s box?
This administration, beginning with President Obama and continuing with Atty. Gen. Eric Holder have demonstrated a continuing pattern and practice of engaging in precisely such behavior – not only in violation of their oaths of office but to the general degradation of our legal system and ultimately to the detriment of every American.
It is hard, other than for political reasons, for me to understand the administration’s resistance to requiring people to provide proof of identity before they are allowed to vote. When I write a check for groceries, the store wants to verify who I am. (I don’t blame them). When I call my gas or electric or telephone or cable TV provider to make an inquiry on the phone, they ask for the last four digits of my Social Security number and my DOB. (I don’t blame them).
Why, then is it such a big deal that a person be required to prove that he is the person who he or she claims to be before being handed a ballot? In fact, I believe that if we want to talk about discrimination in voting (as the Atty. General recently has regarding changes in the voting rules in a Texas county), I believe a strong case could be made about the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters by allowing people who do not have that right to vote in our elections.
There are only a few plausible explanations:
1) The Administration is more concerned with getting people who support their agenda to vote them and their cronies into office than they are in upholding the Constitution;
2) The Administration is terminally brain-dead and doesn’t have a clue that voting “irregularities” occur. (If President Obama had lived his entire life in Alaska rather than a good portion of it in Chicago, there might be more believability in this);
3) The Administration is vindictive and selective in its enforcement of the laws of the land;
4) The Administration, having been called on by the mob to bring “Justice to Trayvon”, realizing there is no basis for their further pursuing this, need yet another distraction to show that they’re on the side of the “oppressed”;
5) The Administration is just down right upset at the recent passage of tighter abortion regulations in Texas and is trying to appease one of its most faithful voting blocs.
That Atty. Gen. Holder’s new initiative comes in response to the recent Supreme Court decision to strike down key portions of the Voting Rights bill as being currently irrelevant is particularly disturbing. There is a reason that the Founding Fathers ordered government divided into three equal parts.
Perhaps the president and the AG missed that semester in law school.