San Francisco middle school principal disrupts student election for not being “diverse enough.”

October 21, 2015
Lena Van Haren, Educator and Elections Commissar

Lena Van Haren, Educator and Elections Commissar

If California is leading the way toward the nation becoming a banana republic, then San Francisco is the drum major at the head of the parade. Case in point: the Everett Middle School there recently held elections for student government. Great! The kids learn public speaking skills, how to hold office, and participate in a democratic process. One small step in the creation of future good citizens.

Except in progressive San Francisco, where the principal of Everett withheld the election results because the outcome wasn’t racially diverse enough.

The results had been withheld immediately after the election because the principal felt that the winners weren’t diverse enough.

We’ve learned that the majority of the winners were white, despite the fact that the student body is 80% students of color.

The incident happened at Everett Middle School in San Francisco’s Mission District. The voting was held Oct. 10, but the principal sent an email to parents on Oct. 14 saying the results would not be released because the candidates that were elected as a whole do not represents the diversity that exists at the school.

The email went on to say they were thinking of ways to value the students who won, while increasing the diversity of the group.

In other words, the candidates all went out and campaigned, and the voters made their choices. That should be the end of it, right? Content of character, per Martin Luther King, mattering more than the color of one’s skin, right? The student body, 80% of which are “students of color,” freely chose a student government that’s majority White. But ethnicity shouldn’t matter, right? RIGHT??

Wrong answer, class. Just ask the principal:

According to Principal Lena Van Haren, Everett Middle School has a diverse student body. She said 80 percent of students are students of color and 20 percent are white, but the election results did not represent the entire study body.

In other words, democracy and personal preference be damned, it’s the color of skin that really matters. One cannot truly be represented, unless it’s by someone of the same genetic background. Just as the Founders intended, of course.

Some parents, unsurprisingly, were incensed:

Todd David, whose son, Noah, is an eighth-grader at the school, said the principal undermined the democratic process in the name of social justice.

“I think it sends an unfortunate message to students when you say that the people you elected, they’re not representative of you even though you’re the ones who chose them,” he said.

Yeah, such as “the will of the people is important only so long as it delivers results acceptable to progressive elites,” such as middle school principals and other victims of modern teacher-training programs.

More Van Haren wisdom:

“That is concerning to me because as principal I want to make sure all voices are heard from all backgrounds,” Van Haren told KTVU.

Call me hopelessly old-fashioned, but isn’t that what participating in an election does? Again, the minority-majority of the school apparently freely voted for the winners, who just happened to be White. The voters’ voices were heard. And those who didn’t vote expressed their voices, too: they didn’t care.

Message to the administration of Everett Middle School: San Francisco is part of California, and California is a state in the United States of America, not Venezuela. When election results happen, you announce the results and live with it. And you never, ever teach American children that they can be fairly represented only by their own “race.” Leave that racialist, tribalist garbage on the ash heap of history, where it belongs.

And, as for Principal Van Haren, I’m not going to call for her firing, but she definitely needs re-education in democratic politics, Civics, and the rule of law.

Advertisements

California Screaming: Welcome to drive-up voter fraud

October 11, 2015
Send help

Send help

I’m sure you’ve got one in your life, too: that person you love for all he or she has done in the past, the good times you have together, but who still drives you bat-sh… er… drives you batty for all the stupid and self-destructive things they do. Sometimes it even gets to a point where you think you want to end the relationship and move on, but you can’t. You keep hoping your loved one will come to their senses, but you know in your heart they never will.

Like me and my beloved California:

After a record low turnout in last year’s election, Gov. Jerry Brown of California signed legislation on Saturday designed to increase electoral participation by automatically registering eligible state voters when they obtain a driver’s license.

The law, which allows Californians to opt out of registering at the Department of Motor Vehicles, was the most prominent of more than a dozen bills relating to elections that Mr. Brown signed on Saturday. It puts California at the forefront of efforts across the country to increase electoral participation at a time when many states have added new hurdles, like voter identification laws. (1)

The new law will “help improve elections and expand voter rights and access in California,” the governor’s office said in a statement.

Pardon my language, Governor, but your bald head has been out in the sun too long. Are you forgetting that other bill you signed a while back?

Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday signed a bill that will allow hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses.

Let’s see. “Hundreds of thousands illegal immigrants” will be given driver’s licenses. And now the state will start registering people to vote automatically when they get their licenses. Does anyone really expect the ponderous, bloated, inefficient California state government –through its DMV, no less!– to keep illegal aliens off the voter rolls?

Don’t bother with the show of hands; we all know the answer.

This is an extension of the “motor voter” nonsense enacted federally in a 1993 bill that has turned into a godsend for groups seeking to rig elections by registering people who shouldn’t vote. As election law expert Hans von Spakovsky wrote on ACORN and the 1993 Motor Voter Act:

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the registration list in Indianapolis/Marion County still has large numbers of ineligible voters – people who have died or moved away, are registered more than once, are not citizens or perhaps don’t even exist given ACORN’s activities there. After all, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID law this year, it cited the lower court’s finding that Indiana’s voter rolls were inflated by as much as 41.4% in 2004. One of the main reasons for the inflated voter rolls was the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 or Motor Voter, which was the first legislation signed into law by newly sworn-in President Bill Clinton. As the Supreme Court recognized, Motor Voter has provisions “restricting States’ ability to remove names from the lists of registered voters.” In fact, its restrictions and notice provisions are so strict that many states simply stopped doing anything to clean up their voter rolls after Motor Voter became law.

I predict California will see Indiana’s experience on steroids. There will be no push here to clean up those lists, or to challenge the eligibility of those being automatically registered. And the whole shebang will become ripe for fraud, probably to the benefit of progressive Democrats, desperate to regain their two-thirds majority in both houses of the legislature so they can raise taxes to their hearts’ content without asking for public approval.

Keep it up, California. I love you, but you’re making Idaho look awfully tempting by comparison.

Via several people on Twitter, all of whom knew how I’d react.

RELATED: More at Hot Air from Jazz Shaw, who writes:

The second highlighted section of the bill should be a major red flag as well. Under traditional paths to voter registration it has been accepted that the aspiring voter would proactively prove that they are an eligible citizen. This new system is precisely the opposite. The default condition will be the registration of the document holder and it is then incumbent upon the state to prove that they are not eligible. Given the already strained resources of agencies in every state, how carefully do you think they’ll be scrutinizing them?

Read the rest.

Footnote:
(1) What the heck is this guy talking about? How does this new law in anyway ameliorate the “problem?” States that require voter ID (we don’t) generally require a driver’s license, a state ID (for those who don’t drive), or some other form of easily obtainable ID. So how, then, is going to get a driver’s license or state ID (often obtainable at that same DMV) in any way burdensome or an insurmountable “hurdle?” How does that suppress the vote? Someone discouraged from voting every two or four years by having to spend an hour or so in their local DMV and paying a few bucks probably isn’t that motivated to participate in the “democratic process” anyway.


The real reason North Korea has mandatory voting

July 21, 2015
The only vote that counts.

The only vote that counts.

You might think it’s because the world’s largest prison camp masquerading as a nation thinks this is genuine democracy: after all, even though there’s just one candidate (Party-approved, natch) for each post, you can still vote your disapproval by putting your ballot in another box for “no” votes. But nobody does that, probably because of the obvious wisdom of the Party’s choices, guided as they are by Juche spirit and the wisdom of Kim Jong Un.

You might also be a bit more cynical and think it’s so they can boast a 99.7 percent turnout to prove how enthusiastic the people are about their People’s Democracy life in Hell.

But you’d be wrong. Per the CNN article, here’s the real reason the “mountain bandits” have compulsory voting:

The compulsory universal turnout, analysts and defectors say, serves another important purpose for the government.

The election acts as an unofficial census, allowing the government to discover who has defected or otherwise gone missing. And that spells big trouble, not only for the missing voter, but also for his or her family.

Get it? If you don’t vote, your family probably gets sent to Kim’s gulag.

President Obama, who has himself shown authoritarian tendencies, has expressed interest in mandatory voting.

Let’s not encourage him, okay? (1)

Footnote:
(1) To the humorless Left — I kid! I kid! Maybe.


And may Obama have as much success in Canada as he did in Israel

March 27, 2015
x

In the crosshairs?

Via Kathy Shaidle, it looks like Obama wants to interfere in yet another ally’s elections:

When it comes to Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, like Netanyahu, is a political conservative, considerably to the right of Obama.

Harper’s staunch support of Israel — he has replaced Obama as Israel’s strongest defender and ally in the West — can’t have made Obama happy.

Another significant irritant in Canada-U.S. relations has been Obama’s refusal to approve the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta’s oilsands to U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast, which has put Harper and Obama at loggerheads.

Many Americans are perplexed by Obama’s opposition to the pipeline, with both the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal noting recently that Obama’s major arguments against Keystone are simply untrue.

Obama ally and billionaire investor Warren Buffett has said the U.S. should have already approved Keystone, both because it makes economic sense and in recognition of the close relationship between Canada and the U.S.

As for what Obama might be thinking, our media have reported some of his campaign operatives are already working with the Liberals and NDP to help defeat Harper and the Conservatives in October’s election.

(While the Harper Conservatives have used Republican strategists for Canadian elections, that’s obviously not the same as Obama strategists working to help defeat the prime minister of a foreign country.)

The worrisome thing for Harper is that, unlike in Israel, Obama is popular with Canadians.

Yes, we’ve tried to influence elections before, notably in Italy in the 1940s, when it was an urgent necessity to stop the Stalin-aligned Communist Party from coming to power, which would have been a strategic disaster. But, in the case of Israel and Canada, we’re talking about the sitting PMs of allied states whose only offense has been to disagree with Obama on policy.

What am I saying? With Obama, daring to disagree with Him is the greatest sin of all.

Jeez, but this guy is a petty, childish, immature, narcissistic embarrassment.

And those are his good points.


Why do Democrats fight voter ID?

October 20, 2014
"I get to vote twice? Gee, thanks, pal!"

“No ID needed? Gee, thanks, pal!”

Writing at PJ Media, former DoJ election law attorney J. Christian Adams argues that it isn’t so much because they want to cheat (1), but that there are other, more subtle reasons. He describes three. Read the article for the first and the last, but I want to highlight the second:

2. Voter ID Opponents Have the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations.

Leftist opponents of voter ID truly think minorities are less able to function in American life. I learned this when a Department of Justice Voting Section lawyer opposed to voter ID told me he thought blacks were more likely to forget their photo identification than whites were. Their lives “were more disorganized,” he said. This is a lawyer currently still working in the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department. This is a perfect example of the “soft bigotry of low expectations.”

And it isn’t just one crank lawyer at DOJ. The plaintiffs challenging voter ID and election integrity laws actually hired an expert to testify in federal court in voter ID cases that blacks were less capable of functioning efficiently in a daily routine and photo ID laws have a disparate impact on them. The expert called this idea the “calculus of voting.” For example, they have to take the bus more. Taking the bus, naturally, makes it harder to get photo ID.

The plaintiffs argue that voting “is largely a product of habit,” and blacks, well, their habits just don’t brook any interruptions to their habits, so they argue.

This is another perfect example of the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” Opponents of voter ID are genuinely afraid that forcing blacks to get photo ID will impose a burden on them they just can’t handle.

This is a subset of the Progressive belief that modern society is too complex for the average person to handle, and so we need (in the early 20th century formulation) boards of experts to run the economy and manage social relations for us. Hence the Democrats’ eagerness, which has infected many Republicans, to hand off legislative functions to administrative agencies run by supposedly expert bureaucrats.

What Adams describes, though, is essential to the victim-culture that pervades the Left. Blacks and other minorities have so suffered from both blatant and structural racism that they simply can’t overcome life’s obstacles on their own, so they have to be excused from what would otherwise be a reasonable requirement. Never mind that one has to show an ID to write a check or board a plane.

It’s also blatantly patronizing and offensive toward minorities.

RELATED: Mr. Adams has written a book exposing the blatant racialism at the Justice Department, including its battle against voter ID laws. Also, for the dirty history of the Democratic Party on race, be sure to read “Wrong on Race.”

Footnote:
(1) Here’s I’ll disagree with Mr. Adams a bit. John Fund has written an excellent book on (mostly) Democratic election fraud, and the conviction of ACORN in Nevada, the probably fraud in the 2004 Washington gubernatorial election, and the confirmed fraud in the 2004 presidential balloting in Milwaukee all show that at least some Democrats and their allies on the left have a strong interest in benefiting from fraud.


Putin claims Hillary responsible for Russian unrest

December 9, 2011

Okay, it’s no secret I’m not a fan of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. I think she’s as much of a Leftist as Barack Obama (if made more cautious by her drubbing in HillaryCare); she was nothing more than a moderately competent senator who carpetbagged her state; she only stayed married to Bill after his serial infidelities because he was her road to power; her conduct of our foreign policy has been mostly incompetent, and she’s given to Biden-esque fantasies. In other words, she is less than the dust on my boots.

And yet I may have to change my appraisal of her.

I mean, she scares Vladimir Putin:

Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin accused Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday of inciting unrest in Russia, as he grappled with the prospect of large-scale political protest for the first time in his more than decade-long rule.

In a rare personal accusation, Mr. Putin said Mrs. Clinton had sent “a signal” to “some actors in our country” after Sunday’s parliamentary elections, which were condemned as fraudulent by both international and Russian observers. Anger over the elections prompted a demonstration in which thousands chanted “Putin is a thief” and “Russia without Putin,” a development that has deeply unnerved the Kremlin.

Speaking to political allies as he announced the formation of his presidential campaign, Mr. Putin said that hundreds of millions of dollars in “foreign money” was being used to influence Russian politics, and that Mrs. Clinton had personally spurred protesters to action. The comments indicate a breakdown in the Obama administration’s sputtering effort to “reset” the relationship between the United States and Russia.

“I looked at the first reaction of our U.S. partners,” Mr. Putin said. “The first thing that the secretary of state did was say that they were not honest and not fair, but she had not even yet received the material from the observers.”

“She set the tone for some actors in our country and gave them a signal,” Mr. Putin continued. “They heard the signal and with the support of the U.S. State Department began active work.”

Oh, that wily Hillary. With just a toss of her poorly-coiffed locks, she can send Russians into the streets to protest against the new Tsars. Such power she has! A former KGB operative quakes before her might! The guy who flattened Chechnya in a brutal campaign reminiscent of Stalingrad now quails before the threat posed by the former First Lady of the United States.

Yeah, right.

I may refer to her as “Lady Macbeth” (and accurately so, I claim), but what’s happening in Russia is a reflection of Russian disgust with yet another corrupt, rigged election. (Our problems are minor in comparison.) Putin is doing what comes naturally to tyrants, especially paranoid Russian rulers: looking for outsiders to distract his people from his own failings.

But, somehow, I don’t think the Russian people are buying it this time.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


NAACP begs United Nations to block US voter ID laws

December 6, 2011

Because efforts to ensure electoral integrity are, per the UK’s Guardian newspaper,  all a racist plot:

The largest civil rights group in America, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), is petitioning the UN over what it sees as a concerted efforted to disenfranchise black and Latino voters ahead of next year’s presidential election.

The organisation will this week present evidence to the UN high commissioner on human rights of what it contends is a conscious attempt to “block the vote” on the part of state legislatures across the US. Next March the NAACP will send a delegation of legal experts to Geneva to enlist the support of the UN human rights council.

The NAACP contends that the America in the throes of a consciously conceived and orchestrated move to strip black and other ethnic minority groups of the right to vote. William Barber, a member of the association’s national board, said it was the “most vicious, co-ordinated and sinister attack to narrow participation in our democracy since the early 20th century”.

In its report, Defending Democracy: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America, the NAACP explores the voter supression measures taking place particularly in southern and western states.

Fourteen states have passed a total of 25 measures that will unfairly restrict the right to vote, among black and Hispanic voters in particular.

Note that highlighted sentence, by the way. That’s apparently not a quote from the NAACP’s report, but the words of “journalist” Ed Pilkington parroting the party line of the anti-voter ID Left as if it were established fact. Not that UK papers make any pretense of objectivity, anyway (in that regard, they’re more honest than US papers), but it would be nice if Pilkington and his colleagues would at least try not to be little more than hired flacks.

Back to the NAACP, it might surprise you to learn I have a small amount of sympathy here. Very small, but it’s there nonetheless. A lot of tricks were pulled under Jim Crow, such as literacy tests and other swindles, to cheat Blacks of their right to vote. So I can sympathize with a reflexive suspicion on the part of the average Black or Hispanic voter.

But the leadership of the NAACP surely knows better. We present ID for all sorts of things, from buying groceries with a check to picking up items being held for us. If we can do that when writing a check at Wal-mart, why not when doing something far more important, such as voting? And if the law is applied equally to all, where’s the discrimination?

(And don’t tell me poor minorities can’t afford state identification cards. In California, it’s $26 — or $7 under certain circumstances. If someone can’t afford that, they have more pressing problems than needing to vote.)

We have a serious and growing problem with vote-fraud in the US (1), with the spread of “reforms” such as same-day registration and voting, the increased use of mail-in ballots, and the resistance to requiring identification all contributing to the problem. Both John Fund and Christian Adams have written books about this that should leave American’s concerned about the honesty of our elections very worried. ACORN, an organization closely aligned with the Democratic Party and President Obama, was recently convicted of voter-registration fraud.

(I’ll mention what Fund points out: registration and vote fraud are largely Leftist and Democratic schemes, as they seek to enlarge the pool of voters who lean their way. Republicans in the past have more often resorted to intimidation tactics to restrict that same pool.)

Presenting valid identification is a simple way to cut down on fraud. The leaders of the NAACP, the Democratic Party, and the various anti-identification groups all know this, so there’s only one real reason they oppose voter ID laws: they want to make fraud possible.

As for the United Nations Human Rights Commission… Don’t make me laugh. Moe Lane points out the UN’s lack of legal and moral authority. If that’s not enough, consider this: among the members of the UNHRC are those paragons of free elections, China, Cuba, Libya, Russia (2), and Saudi Arabia — the last of which did not even allow women to vote until this year.

Somehow, I doubt we need them to tell us how to run fair elections. In fact, over our history we’ve done a damned fine job correcting the problems that did exist.

And we especially don’t need the NAACP, the Democratic Party, and the voter-fraud advocacy industry sullying the legitimate defense of legitimate civil rights with cheap plays of the race card.

RELATED: Ed Morrissey and Bruce McQuain. Also Jeff Dunetz at Yid With Lid.

via Election Law Center

Footnotes:
(1) For example, the Washington State governor’s race in 2005.
(2) Hey, Russia just had parliamentary elections! How’d those go? Yeah, we need their help.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)