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.


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)


Department of Injustice: diluting a citizen’s vote

November 9, 2011

"...but some animals are more equal than others"

Found this post by Christian Adams over at the Election Law Center: the Department of Justice wants illegal and legal non-citizens counted as part of redistricting:

In the City of Irving case, the Department of Justice has asked for permission to make oral arguments that illegal aliens and noncitizens should be counted for state and local redistricting purposes.  As reported earlier at ELC, this position has the effect of diluting the legislative power of American citizens and shifting power to noncitizens and illegal aliens.  In areas with high citizenship, 100,000 citizens (for example) would have one legislator.  In contrast, areas with high illegal alien populations (say 20,000 illegal aliens, 10,000 green card holders and 70,000 citizens) would also get a single legislator.

ELC’s earlier discussion of vote-dilution is here. In essence, since districts must be of equal size in terms of population, that means a district with 100,000 people who are all citizens will receive less representation than a district of 100,000 people, only 70,000 of whom are legal citizens and 30,000 are illegal aliens or legal (non-citizen) residents. Apparently the courts require counting all people for House races, but haven’t spoken about state and local races.

This is clearly an attempt by DoJ to extend its power over states’ and localities’ ability to draw their own electoral districts. This is already done in some parts of the country under the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts, but those laws are meant to protect the rights of citizens to a fair vote. Justice’s argument in Texas is an effort to dilute citizen’s votes.

Like Operation Fast and Furious, it is a perverse inversion of what the Department of Justice is supposed to be doing.

On reflection, DoJ’s push to count non-citizens seems to be an effort to create more “minority-majority” districts, many of which would likely turn into safe seats for the Democratic Party, which is nearly moribund at the state level in Texas.  The DoJ is using a racial spoils system to favor one party by diluting the votes of some citizens.

And that stinks.

RELATED: I recently reviewed Adams’ new book, “Injustice: exposing the racial agenda of the Obama Justice Department”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Sunday Book Review: Injustice — exposing the racial agenda of the Obama Justice Department

November 6, 2011

Fundamental to the American system of self-government is trust on the part of the public that votes will be counted fairly, elections will be run fairly, and the laws protecting our right to vote will be applied equally to all. Absent that trust, the system cannot stand: a citizen’s vote will be seen as worthless, elections meaningless, and the law as a tool for oppression and tyranny. It’s the risk of the latter that J. Christian Adams, a former career attorney with the Voting Rights section of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, wants to warn us about.

In “Injustice: exposing the racial agenda of the Obama Justice Department,” Adams asserts that, for years, leftists and liberals in the Voting Rights Section allied with and coming from what he calls the “racial grievance industry” have resisted enforcing the provisions of the Voting Rights Act when the victims are White and the oppressors are Black. To these attorneys, civil rights laws were meant to protect Blacks and other “national racial minorities,” not White voters. When Black and other groups corrupt an election, that’s merely “payback” for decades or even centuries of oppression by Whites — indeed, some lawyers of the Civil Rights Division feel they should facilitate this.

As Adams tells it, the problem goes back at least into the Clinton administration and becomes more of a problem under Democrats because they are generally allied to and supported by the various groups comprising the racial grievance industry, such as the NAACP and ACLU, among others. Under the Republican administration of George W. Bush, and contrary to the charges of “politicization” screamed by the Left, the political appointees at the DoJ who oversaw the career attorneys would either block ridiculous, unjustified legal action or force reluctant left-liberal lawyers to enforce the law in a race-neutral manner. They also made sure to hire attorneys of all political backgrounds — conservative, liberal, and non-political.

This all changed with the coming of Barack Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder: no conservatives have been hired since 2009, even though the Division has been greatly expanded. Indeed, left-liberal civil rights activism became a prerequisite even to be hired at the Civil Rights Division, and new attorneys were regularly hired from leftist advocacy groups. Leftist career attorneys were promoted to supervisory political appointments that gave them the power to set policy. Instead of political appointees being a brake on the racialist instincts of the career attorneys, they became their facilitators and enablers. As one leftist attorney told Adams when asked why he opposed suing in an obvious case of intimidation by radical Blacks directed toward White voters, “I didn’t come here to sue Blacks.”

Adams illustrates his charges of ethical corruption at the Civil Rights Division with specific examples. Among them:

  • Noxubee County, Mississippi, and its Democratic “boss,” Ike Brown, who with his partisans engaged in blatant electoral corruption to elect Black allies and disenfranchise Whites and those Blacks who wouldn’t play along.
  • The infamous New Black Panther Party intimidation case from Philadelphia in 2008, to which Adams devotes two chapters. Not only does he show the Holder DoJ throwing out a case it had won by default, but he also explores a possible explanation via a political payback to the NBPP for support given to Obama when he was an obscure candidate in 2007.
  • The case of the New Haven fire department, which radicals at the Department tried to force to promote Black firefighters over White and Hispanic candidates who had clearly done better on the promotion exams. This went to the Supreme Court as Ricci v. DeStefano.
  • Suing the city of Dayton to force it to hire Blacks onto its police force, even though those applicants had flat-out failed the entrance exams.

And there are many others, including shocking examples of unprofessional conduct, some of which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines against DoJ attorneys.

Adams concludes with a chapter of recommendations to reform the Department of Justice, some as simple as a ban on political activity by DoJ staff (a limited one had been in place, but it was regularly ignored by leftist attorneys from 2008 on), others as radical as breaking up the Civil Rights Division and distributing its duties among other departments that could ensure professional, race-neutral conduct. While not all DoJ/CRD lawyers engage in racialist behavior, Adams makes it clear the problem is widespread and only massive reform will fix things. Naturally, we can’t expect these to be acted on by President Obama and AG Holder; if it is to happen at all, it will have to be under a future Republican administration.

“Injustice” is an important book, one that exposes how far the Civil Rights Division has gone from being a neutral enforcer of the law, to being a partisan of a racial spoils system that misuses the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts to pursue a racialist, radical leftist agenda. And he leaves us with a reminder and a warning: these same people will be supervising the 2012 elections.

As Adams writes, it’s up to us to keep our eyes open and call-out corrupt behavior whenever and wherever we see it, and to make sure real reformers come to power in 2013.

Summary: Highly recommended, appalling yet essential reading, but be prepared to get angry.

RELATED: Adams has also written about the DoJ’s, I kid you not, “secret internal redistricting plans to try to force states, counties and cities to maximize the number of black elected officials resulting from redistricting” — meet “Max Black.” He writes often for PJMedia and also blogs at the Election Law Center. If you have any concern at all for the integrity of our electoral system, you should put him on your reading list.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The anti-democratic Democrats

September 28, 2011

Governor Bev Perdue (D-NC) said the most amazing thing yesterday:

Speaking to a Cary Rotary Club today, N.C. Gov. Bev Perdue suggested suspending Congressional elections for two years so that Congress can focus on economic recovery and not the next election.

I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that,” Perdue said. “You want people who don’t worry about the next election.”

The comment — which came during a discussion of the economy — perked more than a few ears. It’s unclear whether Perdue, a Democrat, is serious — but her tone was level and she asked others to support her on the idea.

(via Big Government)

Forget for a moment the odd spectacle of a state’s chief executive suggesting that elections be called off at all –something that’s never been done, even during the Civil War and World War II, the two greatest threats to our national existence, ever– the terms of the House and Senate are specified in Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the the Constitution; before those terms expire, elections must be held. By suggesting elections for Congress be suspended and the term of Congress be extended in defiance of Article I, Governor Perdue was suggesting suspending the United States Constitution, itself.

Naturally, Governor Perdue’s people tried to pull her foot out of her mouth by claiming she was joking and engaging in hyperbole, as reported by my blog-buddy, ST.

Whatever. Whether she meant it as a joke or a serious suggestion, it is a sentiment that should never, ever be uttered by any elected official, because elections are the sole source of legitimacy for a democratic government. To call off elections and extend the term of Congress in defiance of the Constitution would be to destroy utterly that legitimacy. Perdue’s suggestion, joking or not, was madness; I wouldn’t at all blame the North Carolina legislature if it voted to censure her or even consider impeachment. A governor who can so cavalierly suggest doing away with elections is unworthy to hold office.

But Governor Perdue’s Kinsleyan gaffe is really representative of a larger problem within the Democratic Party, a problem with democracy, itself. In this case, I’m not talking about contempt for free speech shown by the 2008 Obama campaign or by the president after taking office, part of what Michael Barone has dubbed the “thugocracy.”

No, the problem is more fundamental and it dominates the thinking of those who are its leaders — they are Democrats who don’t like democracy. It’s messy and it keeps them from doing the things they want to do that they know are best for us. Consider, for example, President Obama’s first Budget Director, Peter Orszag:

To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.

(…)

Virtually all responsible economists agree that we should be aiming to reduce the deficit in the long-term but not in the short-term. We need an even larger deficit in 2011 and 2012, to support a weak economy—but a much smaller deficit in 2020 and 2050, to put the nation back on a sustainable fiscal course. Yet our polarized political system has proved incapable of reaching a consensus on this common-sense approach.

What we need, then, are ways around our politicians. The first would be to expand automatic stabilizers—those tax and spending provisions that automatically expand when the economy weakens, thereby cushioning the blow, and automatically contract as the economy recovers, thereby helping to reduce the deficit.

Or how about President Obama, who lamented having to deal with Congress and a political process and wished he could go around it:

“As I mentioned when I was at La Raza a few weeks back, I wish I had a magic wand and could make [immigration reform and the DREAM Act] all happen on my own,” Obama told a meeting of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. “There are times where — until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again — I’d like to work my way around Congress.”

Maybe Governor Perdue was auditioning to replace Biden on the ticket in 2012?

These aren’t the only instances where we’ve seen impatience, frustration, and even contempt for the democratic process coming from Democratic Party leaders. We’ve encountered it in the reaction to the rise of the Tea Party — a loose populist coalition calling for less power for the federal government, more fiscal responsibility, and adherence to the Constitution as written — implying that they’re fascists (1) and un-American, simply for exercising their right to free speech to peacefully oppose a policy proposal. Here in California, where Democratic Party dominance is nearly total, then-Assembly Speaker and now Congresswoman Karen Bass referred to people making their opinions known to their legislators and promising to hold them accountable for their votes as “terrorists.”

This isn’t a new phenomenon by any means. It’s old, going back to the roots of American progressivism in the 19th century, what we now call, incorrectly, “liberalism.” It’s fundamental thesis is that the modern world is too complex for a governing system designed in the 18th century for a rural, isolated republic; that legislatures were too fractious and trapped by partisan interest to do what was best; and that these complexities were best handed off to boards of experts and technocrats who could make the correct decisions with scientific dispassion — Orszag’s “depoliticized commissions.” Woodrow Wilson crystallized this contempt for democratic governance when, before becoming president, he argued in essence that the Constitution was obsolete. (See also Goldberg’s excellent “Liberal Fascism.”)

While initially a bipartisan fad (I’m sorry to say TR, one of my favorite presidents, was a progressive), progressivism and its preference for bureaucratic technocracy over constitutional democracy has become the bailiwick of the Democratic Party. Sometimes it was muted, as under Truman or Carter, sometimes it roared loud and proud, as under FDR, LBJ, and Obama. And the impatience with democracy, usually hidden behind the standard vocabulary of American politics, becomes open when progressives encounter opposition and don’t get what they want. Then we hear the cries of “Washington is broken” and how the nation is “ungovernable.” No longer given their way as the natural governing party (unlike from 1933-1981), Democrats look more and more to activist courts or to bureaucratic fiat — “working my way around Congress” — to get what they cannot achieve through an uncooperative electorate.

To put it bluntly, the elite core of the Democratic Party –its leadership, not the rank and file average voter– is anti-democratic.

Which is why we must defeat them in every election we can, until they either reform or go the way of the Whigs.

LINKS: Ed Morrissey calls Governor Perdue’s comedy act a total bust.

Footnote:
(1) An almost Orwellian misuse of the word on their part.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Pelosi: “Elections shouldn’t matter”

April 13, 2011

Well, at least she gets points for being honest about her elitist, anti-democratic, nigh-on fascist* values. While speaking to students at Tufts University last week, the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives**, the woman who not too long ago was second in line to be President of the United States, had this to say:

To my Republican friends: take back your party. So that it doesn’t matter so much who wins the election, because we have shared values about the education of our children, the growth of our economy, how we defend our country, our security and civil liberties, how we respect our seniors. Because there are so many things at risk right now — perhaps in another question I’ll go into them, if you want. But the fact is that elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do…But when it comes to a place where there doesn’t seem to be shared values then that can be problematic for the country, as I think you can see right now.

“Elections shouldn’t matter.” We’ve seen this time and again since last November: at the national level, the President and the Democratic leadership regularly act as if they hadn’t suffered a total repudiation at the polls, still pushing an agenda the nation clearly rejected. And at the state level, they’ve brought out their allies in Wisconsin, Ohio, Washington, New Jersey, Idaho, and soon in Sacramento to intimidate the elected representatives of the people and overturn the results of a democratic election. Tells you all one needs to know about the leadership of the Democratic Party — and why they should never, ever win another election in our lifetimes.

via Lance

LINKS: Real Clear Politics has the video. Historian Steven Hayward analyzes this and shows how it represents a continuity in Progressive thought from its foundations to the present.

*Trust me, I’m not exaggerating — Read Goldberg’s book. This appeal to “shared values,” a unity that rises above politics, a “third way” — it’s all straight out of the Progressive/liberal fascist manual and has a history stretching back more than 100 years.

**You know, the chamber often called “The People’s House,” whose frequent elections are supposed to better reflect popular will. But, if elections “shouldn’t matter as much as they do,” then who are they representing?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Oh, those naughty little Michigan Democrats!

March 17, 2011

Caught creating fake Tea Party candidates to dilute the conservative vote in the last election:

Two former leaders of the Oakland County Democratic Party are facing a total of nine felonies for allegedly forging election paperwork to get fake Tea Party candidates on November’s ballot.

“It is not a partisan statement, and we need to make that very clear,” said Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper.

Former Oakland County Democratic Chair Mike McGuinness and former Democratic Operations Director Jason Bauer face up to 14 years in prison if convicted.

“Some of the people didn’t even know they were on the ballot till they began receiving delinquency notices of filings that were required as a candidate,” said Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard.

The sheriff says 23 statewide races had questionable Tea Party candidates on the ballot and the investigation may go beyond Oakland County.

Bad liberals, bad! No biscuits for you!

Try 14 years in prison, instead.

Ed Morrissey notes that the grand jury is still investigating this, even those these two cheating weasels Democrats have been indicted. That hints at further indictments, maybe at a statewide level.

Oh, and you know what the cherry on top of this Scandal Sundae is? It was all for nought! Try as they might to rig the election*, Democrats lost control of the legislature and the governor’s office, turning the state bright Red.

Great job, guys. That should make your prison experience that much more meaningful.

OBSERVATION: In his book Stealing Elections, John Fund notes that Republican electoral corruption tends toward voter intimidation, while Democrats are more likely to engage in voter fraud (dead voters, double voting, &c.). Looks like they’re staying true to form.

(By the way, that is an essential book for anyone concerned about the health of our electoral system.)

*And I don’t for a minute think this was just a local matter.

via Hot Air

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Refudiation Day +1: California Screamin’

November 3, 2010

(This is the second of two posts. In the first I gave my impressions of the nationwide results. In this one, I’ll discuss results specific to California.)

There’s no way around it: this was a bad day for California, from the sea to the Sierras, and from Calexico to Crescent City. The cry of “California, here I come!” is more and more turning into “Flee! Save yourselves!

In statewide offices, it was a near-wipeout with Democrats winning all, except maybe a seat on the obscure State Board of Equalization. (Yippee.) Attorney-General Jerry Brown was elected to a third term as governor (his first two being from 1975-83), while Barbara Boxer won a fourth term as US Senator. And yes, it hurt to type that. Kamala Harris completed the Trifecta of Terror by moving from the San Francisco DA’s office, where she ran an incompetent and scandal-plagued operation, to Jerry’s old seat in the AG’s office. Democrats similarly won all the other state executive posts. (State Education Supervisor is technically non-partisan, so I don’t know the winner’s affiliation.)

Meanwhile, our state legislature oligarchy remains largely unchanged, thanks to gerrymandered safe seats, leaving a large Democratic majority dominated by progressives from the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles. Few legislative seats changed hands, as apparently happened with our congressional delegation. I was very sorry to see Van Tran lose to the race-baiting idiot Loretta Sanchez in district 47, while former Marine Nick Popaditch lost his battle against Democrat incumbent Bob Filner in the 51st district on the Mexican border.

State propositions were a mixed bag: Prop 19, the marijuana decriminalization initiative, lost. I was inclined to vote in favor it on personal liberty grounds, but concerns about employer vulnerability to discrimination suits lead me to vote no. The big disappointments were Props 23, which would have suspended the job killing AB 32, and Prop 25, which allows the passage of a state budget on a simple majority vote. In other words, the Democrats can run riot with the budget and the Republicans have no influence. Fine then. Vote no on every budget measure and make them own the mess.

The propositions also provided the few bright spots of the night. Proposition 20, which takes the power to draw congressional district lines and gives it to a citizens’ commission, passed. At the same time, Prop 27, which would have disbanded the commission and returned power to the legislature, failed. That means gerrymandering, or at least its worst excesses, is dead in this state. Anyone who’s read my posts on California’s arrogant legislature and gerrymandering know I welcomed this. The oligarchs may have ensured their reelection this time, but, in the next cycle, they have to face competitive races. While I think that’s great for the long-term health of my state’s politics, it’s a subtle change that will take time -several years- to play out.

In the short and medium term, however. I can’t sugarcoat it: we’re screwed, and we did it to ourselves. Instead of looking coldly at the policies that got us into the mess we’re in, the majority voted for a governor who took money from terrorist supporters and admitted he runs for office with no plan of what to do. He’s a reactionary left-liberal dinosaur who has no idea how jobs are created or businesses made successful. And now he’s governor-elect. The same with Boxer, who’s not only a reactionary, but adds a mind-numbing stupidity to the mix. And I’ve made clear my contempt for Harris. How they were able to win, I don’t know, since my votes were decided long ago and I didn’t follow their races.

In short, with a liberal Democrat governor beholden to the public employee unions that got him elected, a progressive legislature freed of any political restraint, and an attorney-general who sees herself as a crusader for every progressive cause under the sun, but won’t seek the death penalty for cop-killers,  we’re well on our way to becoming “Greece on the Pacific,” and America’s first failed state. Things may get better in the future, but I suspect they’ll have to get much worse, first.

LINKS: Good off the cuff analysis at Flash Report, while CalWatchdog has an interesting theory about why Republicans have such a hard time winning here in recent years. Also from Power Line and especially Maggie’s Farm.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Jerry Brown is either a fool or a swine

August 21, 2010

I’m old enough to remember when Jerry Brown was last governor of California. I can’t say much about his term of office, though, because I was in college and not paying much attention to state politics at the time. My impression, though, was that, his personal eccentricities aside, he was mostly a standard issue California liberal: support for government solutions in preference to the private sector, a strong alliance with labor unions, and a willingness to hike taxes. On the plus side, though he opposed Proposition 13, which limited property taxes, once it passed, he worked within its limits and actually cut state spending. So, a generally center-left record, albeit pragmatic.

As Mayor of Oakland he continued to chart a pragmatic course, seeking to lure businesses to the city and trying to revitalize the downtown area. He even invited the Marines to hold wargames at the closed US Army base in Oakland. You can imagine how that was greeted by the local Lefties.

Leaving Oakland, he ran for and won election as Attorney General, though everyone knew this was just a stepping stone back to the governor’s office. And, indeed, his policies drifted more and more back toward those that would please the Left. For example, he tried desperately to ignore the scandals surrounding ACORN. When that was impossible, his investigation found they had broken no laws. On the other hand, he was eager to investigate Sarah Palin’s appearance at Cal State Stanislaus. That, too, turned up no law-breaking. Overall, the Competitive Enterprise Institute rated Brown as one of the worst state attorney generals in the nation (PDF)

Now it appears that transformation from the pragmatic Center-Left to full-blown tool is complete. Fearful that he hasn’t the money to compete with Republican nominee Meg Whitman, Brown has sunk to prostituting and prostrating himself before the most vile hard-Left, anti-American groups in the state. Tonight, just a couple of miles from Public Secrets Global HQ, Jerry is the guest of honor at a fundraiser at the home of Jodie Evans, one of the heads of Code Pink:

Brown fan Jodie Evans between Cindy Sheehan and Hugo Chavez

Many of the Los Angeles glitterati will be there, too, at the home of a Hamas supporter. Evans and her crew even once told a mother whose Navy son was killed in Iraq that her boy deserved to die “for being stupid enough to go there.”

A serious candidate for Governor of the State of California is taking money from these pigs? Bear in mind that the “once and future” Governor Brown would be commander in chief of California’s National Guard and that, to date, 599 Californians, Guardsmen and regulars, have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And you’re letting a group that admires dictators and terrorists and spits on grieving mothers host a party for you, Mr. Attorney General?

So, which is it, Jerry? Fool or swine? Or is it that we know what you are and, after tonight, we’ll know the price?

RELATED: If you’re as appalled as I am, how about making a small contribution to Jerry’s opponent, Meg Whitman?

LINKS: More from Power Line, which reminds us of Jerry’s double-dipping scandal. Moe Lane has several questions for Jerry.

UPDATE: Code Pink got a taste of its own medicine last night. Hah!

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Credit Sharron Angle with a sense of humor

August 5, 2010

Sharron Angle‘s campaign to unseat Harry Reid in Nevada has stumbled badly in the first few weeks since she won the Republican nomination, making what should have been a runaway victory over the unpopular Senate Majority Leader a tight race, instead, with Harry enjoying a small lead.

But, I’ll give her this: whether her own people are coming up with them or she’s getting help from the national Republicans, her commercials are funny:

And effective. Reid’s tenure has been a disaster for Nevada, and the progressive policies he’s pushed in the face of strong national opposition have only made a bad situation worse. The stimulus package was sold a way to keep unemployment from rising above 8%, but the national rate is around 9.75% and Nevada’s is much worse than that. But, don’t worry, Silver Staters; at least the chimps are happy.

The Angle campaign is smart to keep hammering Pinky Reid on the economy; it’s where he’s the weakest and avoids some of Angle’s more controversial social-policy positions. And I’ve always said satire is one of the most effective weapons in the fight against a crappy politician.

Keep them laughing at him, Sharron. It’s Pinky’s glass jaw.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Department of Injustice: “Don’t enforce the Voting Rights Act.”

July 9, 2010

I linked to this in an update to the previous post, but this really deserves a post of its own: In November, 2009, the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice was told not to enforce the law regarding the integrity of voter rolls:

A lesser-known provision also obliged the states to ensure that no ineligible voters were on the rolls — including dead people, felons, and people who had moved. Our current Department of Justice is anxious to encourage the obligations to get everyone registered, but explicitly unwilling to enforce federal law requiring states to remove the dead or ineligible from the rolls.

In November 2009, the entire Voting Section was invited to a meeting with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes, a political employee serving at the pleasure of the attorney general. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Motor Voter enforcement decisions.

The room was packed with dozens of Voting Section employees when she made her announcement regarding the provisions related to voter list integrity:

  • “We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law. It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it.”

Jaws dropped around the room.

Yeah, I bet they did. What’s next, mandatory registration at all cemeteries?

No Cabinet officer has been impeached since Secretary of War William Belknap under President Grant. It will never happen under a Democratic Congress, but Eric Holder is a shining example of someone who deserves to be the next.


11 reasons to vote for Democrats next November

July 4, 2010

Heh. Good one.

Keep these in mind when you go to vote. (Should have had twelve for that even dozen, though. )

via Moe Lane


A perfect contrary indicator

June 9, 2010

Oh, my. Judging by the results in last night’s elections, my record as a kiss-of-death endorser from 2008 continues. Of five races in California and one in Nevada, I’m a perfect… 0-6.

Forget bellweather states; this is a “for whom the bell tolls” blog.  Blushing

Wait, I’ve got it! The Obama administration should offer me a federal job in return for not endorsing any Democrat in November! I think US Consul in Bermuda would do just fine – for starters.  Big Grin

Oh, well. Commiserations to the losers and congratulations to the winners. It’s on to November. Remember:

Vote Whitman.

Vote Fiorina.

Vote Fein.

Oh God! What have I done?? Nailbiting


And if you believe that one…

May 25, 2010

It’s the maybe-scandal that just won’t die. With Congressman and Democrat Senate nominee Joe Sestak still insisting that someone in the Obama administration offered him a bribe job to quit the primary race, now even the White House marketing department New York Times is getting sick of the stonewalling:

For three months, the White House has refused to say whether it offered a job to Representative Joe Sestak to get him to drop his challenge to Senator Arlen Specter in a Pennsylvania Democratic primary, as Mr. Sestak has asserted.

But the White House wants everyone who suspects that something untoward, or even illegal, might have happened to rest easy: though it still will not reveal what happened, the White House is reassuring skeptics that it has examined its own actions and decided it did nothing wrong. Whatever it was that it did.

The administration goes on to clear itself of any wrongdoing:

“Lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said Sunday on “Face the Nation” on CBS. “And nothing inappropriate happened.”

“Improper or not, did you offer him a job in the administration?” asked the host, Bob Schieffer.

“I’m not going to get further into what the conversations were,” Mr. Gibbs replied. “People that have looked into them assure me that they weren’t inappropriate in any way.”

Via Jennifer Rubin, who observes:

It is a measure of how frustrated the press has become with the perpetual stonewalling and outright contempt this president has shown the media that the Times and other outlets are now aligned with a conservative Republican (nominee Pat Toomey -PF) in demanding that one of the most liberal Democrats on the ballot come clean.

The Los Angeles Times’ Andrew Malcolm, whose “Top of the Ticket” column is must reading, has too much fun in his headline regarding Team Obama’s self-absolution:

Obama White House probe of Obama White House finds no Obama White House impropriety on Sestak

It’s getting to be a habit with these guys.

Meanwhile, upping the ante in the “No, he’s the liar” department, the White House trotted out chief political adviser David Axelrod to say that there’s no evidence to support Sestak’s allegations:

Senior adviser to the president David Axelrod said Monday evening that there is “no evidence” that White House officials tried to keep a Democratic congressman from entering the Pennsylvania Senate race by offering him a high-ranking government job.

“When the allegations were made, they were looked into. And there was no evidence of such a thing,” Axelrod said on CNN’s “John King USA.”

So now we have Sestak insisting he’s telling the truth but refusing to name names, while the Democratic White House says the Democratic nominee for the US Senate is a liar. They can’t both be telling the truth….

Finally, in the “If it had been George W. Bush’s White House” category, we have Archy Cary at Big Journalism wondering why the media has been so slow to demand a special prosecutor?

Um, it’s just a guess, but… Maybe it’s because the Democrats won the election and the media is a bunch of hypocrites?

Nah.   Oh go on


Barone: Top 5 lessons from yesterday’s elections

May 19, 2010

Several primary and special elections were held yesterday, and almost all of them were looked at as potential omens for the November midterms. At the Washington Examiner, Michael Barone looks at these races and offers five lessons. Here’s one, be sure to click through to read the rest:

Three. The unambiguous 53%-44% victory of Democrat Mark Critz over Republican Tim Burns in the Pennsylvania 12 special election should be a caution to Republicans.

Lesson: anti-Obama sentiment will not automatically be transformed into votes for Republican candidates. Critz carried by solid margins the district’s portions of Fayette and Greene Counties, steel-and-coal areas ancestrally Democratic areas that voted (narrowly) for John McCain in November 2008. Ditto Cambria County, Critz’s home base and that of the late 36-year incumbent John Murtha for whom Critz was a staffer, which gave Obama a very narrow margin.

Critz was helped by his conservative stands on health care, guns and cap-and-trade, he was helped by the refusal of 2008 Republican nominee and primary contender Bill Russell’s refusal to endorse Burns, and he was helped by the fact that there was a serious statewide contest in the Democratic primary but not in the Republican primary. But in November 2008 a lot of registered Democrats here voted Republican. In May 2010 a smaller proportion of registered Democrats did so. It’s true that Republicans don’t need Pennsylvania 12 for a House majority; it’s about number 60 on their list and they need 40 seats. But Republican strategists shouldn’t believe their election night spin. This was a loss.

Personally, the fact that PA-12 kept reelecting a disgusting corruptionist such as Murtha and then elected his toady to take his place tells me there’s something deeply wrong in that district, whatever the weaknesses of Mr. Burns. If they were to consider secession, I might not object.

Barone’s right, however, that this was a loss. However, I think several things mitigate it a bit: aside from the intensity among Democrats generated by the Specter-Sestak primary (and thank you, Joe, for sending Benedict Arlen home) and the fact that Critz “ran to the Right” in a culturally conservative region, the Democrats have a 2-1 ratio in registration. That Critz won by only 9 points (large, but not 2-1 in the vote tally) shows some inroads were made into Democratic territory. So, a loss, but not without hope for November.