Link at PJ Media.

Tom Perez tries to dodge another housing discrimination case. Wall Street Journal.

“As chief of the Civil Rights Division since 2009, Mr. Perez pioneered the use of this “disparate impact” legal theory to extract big-dollar settlements from banks. His Labor nomination is now in jeopardy because in 2012 he arranged a quid pro quo to induce the City of St. Paul, Minnesota to drop its disparate impact case after the Supreme Court had already accepted it.”

Daily Caller reports that the Obama appointee to the Commission has already made up his mind on voter ID.  Requiring each voter to provide an photo ID will make any voting lines move more quickly than trying to confirm the identity of a voter by other and sometimes multiple means.

During the 2012 election, the Obama team tapped Bauer to lead the legal teams for the campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Among his initiatives: fighting voter ID laws enacted by a number of states in an effort to combat voter fraud. During his time as the team’s organizer, Bauer told the Associated Press that he believes that the GOP is enlisting these new laws to impede the right to vote.

Pure Alinsky 101.  Use power to keep power.

Newsbusters: “On Bill Press’s radio show yesterday, a reporter with left-leaning Politico told Press that the Internal Revenue Service dragging its feet on applications for tax-exempt status from tea party groups probably affected the outcome of last year’s election.”

“Voter ID didn’t reduce turnout, but the IRS may have.”

Cleta Mitchell has prepared this lengthy memo detailing the abuse of Tea Party and election integrity groups seeking 501(c)(3) status with the IRS.

The latest narrative from the speech regulators is that these groups didn’t deserve status because they were political.  Of course that crowd considers folks who disagree with them to be political because of the disagreement.  They are always a-political and mainstream.  So anyone who seeks to help the election process with whom they disagree must be political.  Pay attention to that emerging fringe narrative – that the Tea Party deserved it.  Bryan Preston has more about the narrative here: JournoList’s IRS Angle Begins to Gel.


So far the Praetorian Guard in the media has not adopted the narrative of the speech regulators who are busy defending the IRS shakedown of conservatives.  This is one more example where the academics are entirely out of touch with the body politic.  Consider a group called “Democracy 21.”  Instead of getting marching orders from the White House like Journolist does, Democracy 21 listens to Geore Soros.  They also spend his money.

Their response to the Tea Party harassment?  It was a good thing and there should be more of it.

I will be on Detroit’s blowtorch WJR-AM 760 Thursday in the 11 a.m. hour talking about how the IRS targeted election integrity groups with the active assist from voter fraud deniers, academia and the Soros funded groups.

“DOJ’s Witch Hunt against True the Vote,” Town Hall.

Salon.

Washington Times: A Texas group dedicated to combatting voter fraud applied for tax-exempt status in 2010 and has suffered three years of delays, been through four different IRS agents, undergone six FBI inquiries and submitted thousands of pages of documentation — and it still hasn’t been approved.

Houston Chronicle: “Advocacy” Group Sues.  (I doubt they ever list a left leaning litigation shop as an advocacy group. Indeed, they don’t.)

The Blaze.

Washington Times: “Faced with a firestorm of questions about his shifting narrative on the IRS targeting of conservative groups, as well as the White House’s involvement in changing Benghazi talking points and snooping on reporters’ phone records, Mr. Carney abandoned the narrative that the targeting is no longer active. . . .  When asked why she is still employed at the IRS, Mr. Carney said he thinks “it’s important to find the facts before you hold people accountable.”  [Of course we know in this administration, even after the facts are found, people aren’t held accountable.]


Red Alert Politics.  “While the federal government investigates the Internal Revenue Service, one targeted organization isn’t waiting around for the ruling.”

New York Newsday.

Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal opinion page:

“Whatever one’s perspective on voter ID, this delay – now nearly two full election cycles – is unreasonable. As the front page story in today’s paper notes, Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann submitted the required guidelines of how the state planned to administer the law in January 2012. The state should have had an answer, one way or the other, by now.”

What is happening is that DOJ is gathering information, information willingly turned over by Mississippi, on which to base an objection to the law.  If the submission were before the United States District Court instead of the DOJ, the Rules of Evidence would limit what the Justice Department could obtain, and how it could be used.  For example, in the South Carolina voter ID case, the Justice Department used evidence obtained throughout the administrative review process to object to the law.  But the federal court later ruled that the evidence was not relevant to an objection.

This is the fundamental problem states subject to Section 5 face: the lawyers in the Voting Section see the same set of facts differently than does a federal court.  What they consider to be evidence of racial discrimination, courts do not.  That’s why submitting voter identification laws to DOJ are a step best not taken, unless you are simply willing to litigate the case in the end, and with DOJ having a big head start on your evidence.

One News Now link.