The Ross Kaminsky Show, March 18, 2012

On the show today:

In the 11 AM hour: We learned this week that the DoJ blocked Texas' proposed Voter ID law, as part of their outrageous efforts to keep our elections safe for (not from) voter fraud in their desire to get Democrats elected at all costs. We'll speak with Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote about the situation in Texas, why the law is needed, and what will happen now.

It is time for outrage against the DoJ and against the president who doesn't just all support this stuff, but encourages it.

More generally, what do you think of Voter ID laws and broader efforts to clean up voter rolls, and why are such efforts routinely opposed by liberals?

Also during the show: Is it OK for American Indians to get a waiver from federal law so they can kill American bald eagles for religious purposes? If so, how does that relate to Catholics not being granted a waiver from a new federal law requiring their institutions to cover abortion pills and contraception in health insurance?

Catherine Engelbrecht
  • jbc
    Comment from: jbc
    03/18/12 @ 12:38:37 pm

    Looks like there's a word missing: "...and against the president who doesn’t just all this stuff, but encourages it." Maybe "condone"? I'm having difficulty understanding how prosecutorial misconduct in the Ted Stevens corruption case can be laid at the feet of either Holder or Obama. Stevens' trial took place during the 2008 campaign, before Obama was president, and before Obama appointed Holder to be AG. In fact, one of the first major acts Holder took after his appointment was to push for the setting aside of Stevens' guilty verdict due to prosecutorial misconduct in the case. If one is outraged by the misconduct of the Stevens-case prosecutors, wouldn't that outrage be more properly aimed at the George W. Bush-era prosecutors who committed it, rather than the Obama-era team that helped clean up the mess? It seems like a stretch to argue that Obama either condones or encourages "all this stuff," if "all this stuff" is meant to include the Stevens trial misconduct. What am I missing here?

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in now!

If you have no account yet, you can register now...
(It only takes a few seconds!)