Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bryan Preston

Bio

July 25, 2013 - 10:34 am

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is responding quickly and forcefully to Obama Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to rope Texas back into the Voting Rights Act. The US Supreme Court just struck part of that law down.

A minute later, Abbott followed up with another tweet.

 

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.

The Obama administration has been very consistent about opposing laws that buttress election security, and it has been very consistent about punishing states that don’t get in line with Obama’s radical agenda. Holder’s lawsuit is just another example of both.

The lawsuit comes just after Abbott announced his run for governor. It will give him a major platform from which to oppose Obama and Holder, which will play very well in Texas. Frankly, Abbott was already heavily favored to win. Now he’s all but a lock.

Update: Texas Gov. Rick Perry posted the following statement on his Facebook page.

“Once again, the Obama Administration is demonstrating utter contempt for our country’s system of checks and balances, not to mention the U.S. Constitution. This end-run around the Supreme Court undermines the will of the people of Texas, and casts unfair aspersions on our state’s common-sense efforts to preserve the integrity of our elections process.”

Update: Land Commissioner and Lt. Gov candidate Jerry Patterson responds.

DON’T MESS WITH TEXAS – The latest federal attack on Texas has been launched today, and Eric Holder is back in his role as Barack Obama’s chief aggressor. There is no longer any pretense about hiding the partisan agenda to target our state. This latest attack is not about voting rights, and everything to do with destroying and diminishing the success of the Lone Star State. Our very existence is an affront to this administration, but we aren’t going anywhere, and we aren’t scared of a fight. Better dig in for the long haul, my fellow lovers of liberty – this is just the beginning.

Update: True the Vote, which is one of the victims of the scandals that President Obama called “phony” yesterday, responds.

 Update: State Sen. Dan Patrick, who is also running for Lt. Gov. gets a bank shot on Wendy Davis.

Update: Sen. Ted Cruz reacts:

Attorney General Holder’s recent announcement is just the latest example of his politicization of the Department of Justice. Holder’s refusal to accept the judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding preclearance continues the Department’s longstanding pattern of refusing to follow the law.

Likewise, Holder continues to attack voter ID laws, even though the Supreme Court has concluded that voter ID laws are supported by multiple interests that are “unquestionably relevant to the State’s interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.”

Bryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
When BHO gave his first DNC speech at the second Clinton convention I started my investigation. First the speech came across to me as an exact replica of the hundreds of speeches delivered by Soviet polititians from the 50's thru the 70's... Devoid of all content. Lipstick on a pig comes to mind.

I thought to myself then "this guy is a hard core communist." Did not take me long to find out this was exactly the case. Everything in this guys past is based on lies and corruption. Everything.

The source of Holders contempt for Texas is derived from BHO with his full blessing. Democrats cannot win elections without massive across the board fraud and they know that. They will fight to protect their base, even if such is made up of imanginary voters they invented by fraud.

Holder is just the bag man in the BHO crime spree. Need to focus more on the source of the dysfunction... BHO.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Damn straight. Holder can ingest fecal matter and expire.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Now if we could just get some of that backbone transplanted to Boehner, et al.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (37)
All Comments   (37)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Another reason for Texas Independence! www.texasnationalist.com
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Republicans (or whoever opposes voter fraud and belongs to a group likely to lose out from voter fraud) should make an announcement:

"If Texas voter ID requirements are stopped, I think that Republicans (or whoever) should vote as often as possible under as many other people's names as possible. If Holder wants to facilitate voter fraud, we will use voter fraud to our advantage to get as many votes as possible.

It's time to stop whining about Democrats supporting voter fraud, and on relying entirely on the system to stop it (not that we shouldn't try to stop it through the system), and to declare that if there is going to be voter fraud, we are going to participate.

We should look at challenges to vote security as opportunities and declare them as such.

That will dampen resistance to anti-fraud measures.
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why is it that Osama Bin Laden is having a dirt nap but Eric Holder is a breathing zombie? Did Osama Bin Laden ever take any direct action against Americans, ie, shoot at them or strap a boom-boom on his chest? Eric Holder has done essentially the same thing as Osama Bin Laden, that is, being a master mind behind murders. Fast and Furious.
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Federal government can go to Hell.
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
btw, how do I file a complaint that the new elctronic scanning vote machines in NYC rob me of my secret ballot - very intimidating to have the young minority poll worker read my ballot before they insert it in the voting machine!
and NO way of ever knowing if the machines are rigged. no atm-like receipt to prove to me that my votes were scanned as I entered them.

oh, and no voter id in a city bursting with illegal immigrants.
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
Massachusetts passed a law requiring anyone buying wine to show their photo ID to prove their age, which has made for a lot of very startled 50+ wine purchasers in the supermarket checkout line.
Startled at being 'carded' with gray hair and wrinkles.

Yeah, do not mess with Texas. This is a political with hunt. Texas really drives the Dems crazy. Thank goodness for Texas.



52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
I meant political witch hunt.
and the Mass law applies to all alcoholic beverages, not just wine.

pjm - add an edit feature!
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
This is the same thing they did in the late 1850s, texas should do the same thing and secede and the southern states will follow. The federal goverment should no be allowed to over rule a states law or dismiss our
Constitution.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It won't be just southern states that bail. I think a decent number of plains states will out too.
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
Careful. Article VI, Clause II of the Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

So, Constitutionally, state laws and constitutions are subordinate to a Federal law and the US Constitution. For example, Ohio couldn't pass a law saying no one had to pay income taxes to the Federal government any more.

That said, the Federal government should not be meddling with voting in Texas. They have no valid reason to do so.
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
You may want to re-think using the Constitution to discuss Fed oversight of State voter laws. Couple of reasons: 1) Article 1, Section 4: "The time, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof..." 2) the 14th Amendment requires States to treat all citizens equally - Voter ID laws do exactly that, so the 14th Equal Protection clause is MET by State voter IDs, though this is Holders' argument against them, 3) The States are the senior partner in the Constitution, not the Feds. The States gave the Feds specific enumerated powers, within which the Feds ARE superior - hence, the supremacy clause, but that does NOT apply to powers not delegated TO the feds (imagine the feds dictating, oh... driver license laws, to which they have zero authority... murder, even, was not a federal crime until the drug wars began. Nothing in the Constitution removes the sovereignty of any State (international law requires a specific, written declaration to relinquish sovereignty, and no State ever did this), and voting is among the most critical functions of sovereignty. And the 9th & 10th Amendments are pretty clear about who is the senior partner: The ones holding ALL the powers THEY did not SPECIFICALLY give to the federal government. If the Feds were the senior partner that you mistakenly claim, the 10th could not exist. The feds like to pretend it doesn't, of course, as do many who dislike federal overreach but are too ignorant to use it, and it is too often ignored in these discussions, even though the Constitution would not have been ratified in its absence.
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well then, tell me this en Sauce. If it is a victory for democracy when the USSR became R and several sovereign countries and India partitioned itself in to 2 sovereign countries and it was seen as a good thing, why then would it not be a good thing for there to be 2 or more USA's? When there are irreconcilable fundamental differences about the rule of Law as promulgated by the US Constitution, why couldn't this be a good thing. Progressives would have a country with a "living constitution" that is interpreted with the thoughts of the world in mind and another for Constitutionalists that believe in the rule of Law and equal rights, not equal outcomes and ever how many more are needed to be a good thing.
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
Because secession sets the precedent that any time any state doesn't like what's going on, it's just going to take it's ball and go do something else. It's childish.

Texas is a big-boy state, and they can learn to tough it out and play along with the rest of us. If they remain part of the union, but stand up to abuse of power, they become a rallying point for other states (governors). If Texas secedes, then they're just a defiant "little country" doing their own thing. The other states will be whipped into line by the fed, or worse, the entire union disintegrates into 50 individual countries.

You think Vermont could stand up against an attack? You think New Mexico wouldn't fall to a power-hungry Mexican cartel lord? You think the Mexican government could stop it from happening?

Just try to expand your mind past the Libertarian Utopia you'd like to create and try living in the real world for a few minutes.
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
Jaycen, are you just stupid?
"Play along with the rest of us," you wrote. Are you in one of the few Southern States that had to get permission from Washington to alter their own voting laws?
If not, then go sit down and quit talking until you what you are talking about.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
We've been a FREE REPUBLIC once before. Don't for a second think it can't, or won't, happen again. Remember what the Founding Fathers said about an oppressive government, too.

Shove that in your "real world" pipe and puff on it.
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
Who says they'd be 50 separate countries? I think if it got that far, a fair chunk of the South and Great Plains would out and they wouldn't go it alone. The benefits of banding together are too manifestly obvious, plus many of them are red states and have too much in common when all is said and done.
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
Because if the Fed is abusing Texas that badly, the rest will know it's only a matter of time before the Feds come for them. Texas is the big fish to fry. Once Texas is broken, the others fall into line. The left knows it and so does everyone else in the country.
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
Suspect there is a bigoted federal government in Washington, D.C. Stand tall, Texas. Don't let them push you around.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
In April of 1773, throughout the colonies, groups formed to support the actions at Concord. Rest assured, the 49 states will stand with Texas when "push comes to shove"... See ya soon!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm not so sure about the North East, Minnesota and the western coastal states, or NM.
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
Did you mean April of 1775?
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
What the fornication is this defecation, Mr. Holder? Supreme Court not good enough for you?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All