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)

Advertisements

Obama cracks jokes about devastating Texas wildfires

September 26, 2011

You know, beneath the cool exterior of the basketball-playing hipster president, behind the facade of the partisan class warrior, there lurks a core truth — Barack Obama is a jackass:

While at a highdollar fundraiser San Jose, California, President Obama ridiculed Rick Perry.

“You’ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change.” Obama said to  laughter and applause, and added, “No, no, it’s true!”

Perry was understandably angered: Obama repeatedly refused to issue a disaster declaration for last spring’s wildfires, in which thousands of homes were destroyed. I bet the families whose houses have been reduced to cinders thought it was really funny. Just as Texan Bryan Preston:

Once again, Barack Obama has shown that he is unworthy of the office he holds. Droughts are just part of nature. They happen, no matter what mankind does. This year Texans have had 1,500 homes burn, thousands of acres torched, livestock and crops and even lives lost, and Obama turns that into a craven partisan hit on the state’s governor. What an idiot. What a partisan jacksnipe.

Leave aside Obama’s scientific ignorance (1) that ascribes all bad weather to the demon “Climate Change,” this need to use the genuine suffering of fellow Americans to mock a political foe is more than just callous or insensitive; it show a basic lack of empathy (2). In fact, referring to a recent foot-in-mouth moment the President had in front of the Congressional Black Caucus, PJM’s Spengler wondered, perhaps only half-satirically, if Barack Obama isn’t a sociopath, one of the marks of which is an inability to empathize with others.

I’ll leave that to people with psychology degrees; for me, this is just further proof that Obama not only is incompetent, he’s not even a likeable person.

Our president is a jerk.

Footnotes:
(1) As Preston says, drought happens. Far from being the fault of “greenhouse gases” and Man’s sins against Gaea, droughts in Texas are a normal part of the La Nina phase of the recurring El Nino/La Nina cycle in the Pacific.
(2) Ironic, for a guy who made a big thing about appointing judges with empathy.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Our Labor Secretary doesn’t know her job. Or does she?

September 4, 2011

Here’s another video from Naked Emperor News, this time of Secretary Solis at an event, perhaps a press briefing, at the end of last August. In it, she admits to not knowing that Texas has created the most jobs of any state in the last few years.

But that’s not all she doesn’t know. See if you can spot the real howler:

Solis admits to not having done a lot of research into why Texas has created the most jobs. Hello? She’s the Labor Secretary of a nation with unemployment mired at over 9% (and real unemployment at 16%) and she hasn’t been looking into why one of the 57 50 states is doing much better than the national average at job creation? She doesn’t have her department –the Department of Labor, for Pete’s sake– working night and day to find out why Texas can create lots of jobs, while the most recent report has the nation as a whole last month creating zero?

She can’t get on the phone and call Austin? She’s not the least bit curious?

Secretary Solis has been in her job for over two years, and we’ve had a lousy employment picture for longer than that. Just what has she been doing with her time?

Oh, wait. Instead of working to create jobs for all Americans, she’s fighting to protect the turf of labor cartels, a.k.a unions. So it figures she’d have no curiosity about what works in a right-to-work state, even if right-to-work seems to be a key.

Hilda Solis, United States Secretary of Labor Unions.

RELATED: Hilda Solis had problems with unions and conflicts of interest when she was a member of Congress.

PS: By the way, note how quickly she shifts the focus from the question asked to Administration talking points aimed to discredit Texas and, by association, its governor, who is running for her boss’s job. Coincidence, I’m sure.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Mexico: their pain is our gain?

August 13, 2011

Well, it apparently is at least in Deep South Texas in the Rio Grande Valley, whereto many Mexican businesses are relocating to escape the violence just south of the border:

“If you think about South Texas, we’re like a big thumb sticking into Mexico. We have access to the port, through rail; it’s an ideal place to be,” says state Rep. Aaron Pena.

Our thumb has a giant shield.

“It’s about security, and it’s about proximity to markets,” says Pena.

Pena says he has seen a change in the Rio Grande Valley. Manufacturing workers don’t want to go south of the Rio Grande.

“What’s great here is that we provide the security of our state, our military, our institutions. They’re all here. It makes it a better place,” says Pena.

“It is disturbing to go through this on a daily basis; it’s almost like working for a funeral home,” says Miguel, who worked at a maquiladora.

The cost of business is more than what is in the bottom line. Cartels cut off supply routes and hijack drivers. Companies have to pay different organizations to move their goods. It’s no longer worth the risk.

“They think that maybe the things will get better over in Mexico, but in the meantime, they’re put their roots here,” says state Rep. Veronica Gonzales.

Even the lower cost of labor in Mexico is less and less able to make up for the lack of security. And while it’s to the benefit of McAllen and other parts, it also points to a spiraling problem in Mexico: as the jobs leave, those left without work will either have to go to other parts of the country to find a job, come north (probably illegally), or make what money they can in their own region, perhaps by working for the cartels.

I honestly don’t think this is to the long-term benefit of the American side of the Valley, either. If you think of the border region as a neighborhood with the actual boundary being the street running down the middle, then “broken windows” on one side are eventually going to degrade the other. And we’re already seeing plenty of incidents of cartel crime and violence on “our side of the street.”

The failure of the Mexican state to provide security along their northern border leaves the gunmen as the only real winners.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


One reason why visiting Mexico may be a not-good idea

August 12, 2011

That little problem of being caught in the middle:

A Valley mother says night terrors and fear are all she has left after armed men stole her sense of security. The woman says she’s trying to stay strong for her seven children.

She ran the gates, breaking them, at the Donna International Bridge to get away. The hardest part for the mother is that her 8-year-old daughter watched as a man pointed a rifle at her. She promised the girl they weren’t going to die.

“My life changed and I want to be the same person that I was, you know?” the woman says.

Apparently Mom and daughter had stumbled across a gang robbing the bridge crew. Wisely, the mother decided not to wait around to see if there was a “no witnesses” policy in force; she jumped the median and crashed her van through the gates on the US side of the bridge. My assumption is that surprising the Mexican gunmen like this probably is what saved her and her child’s life.

Though I have to ask: For what reason, barring an emergency, would anyone cross the border into Mexico these days, when violence is rampant and government authority barely exists in the border region? And why on Earth take your child?

(Guessing: She has relatives on the other side and thought it would be safe.)

Take a look at this map: the bridge is just east of McAllen, site of the Border Patrol station that was the subject of an excellent book, Patrolling Chaos. On the other side is the, to put it nicely, “troubled” city of Reynosa, a primary battleground between the Zeta and Gulf cartels, and occasionally the Mexican military. There have been grenade attacks; a nearby town was abandoned because of cartel violence.

Pardon me, ma’am, but while I admire your bravery and while I sympathize with your fear, your common sense leaves a little to be desired.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Dear United Nations: shove it where the sun of your sanctimony doesn’t shine

July 8, 2011

You have absolutely no moral authority to lecture us about breaking international law.


God bless Texas

June 21, 2011

…for telling the federal government to take their incandescent light-bulb ban and shove it:

Texas could soon be in a position to turn the lights off on a federal plan to phase out certain light bulbs.

State lawmakers have passed a bill that allows Texans to skirt federal efforts to promote more efficient light bulbs, which ultimately pushes the swirled, compact fluorescent bulbs over the 100-watt incandescent bulbs many grew up with.

The measure, sent to Gov. Rick Perry for consideration, lets any incandescent light bulb manufactured in Texas – and sold in that state – avoid the authority of the federal government or the repeal of the 2007 energy independence act that starts phasing out some incandescent light bulbs next year.

“Let there be light,” state Rep. George Lavender, R-Texarkana, wrote on Facebook after the bill passed. “It will allow the continued manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs in Texas, even after the federal ban goes into effect. … It’s a good day for Texas.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council, a New York-based environmental group, is calling on Perry to veto the bill.

I suspect Perry will sign the bill, since it would be popular given the increasingly “small l” libertarian mood of the country these days, and those folks would be Perry’s core audience in a presidential run. The article goes on to quote an NRDC spokesman arguing that the bill cannot be implemented in a practical manner (What? They can’t build a light bulb plant in Texas?) and that it wouldn’t be in the “best interests” of Texans.

How… patronizing and condescending. We can’t let people decide for themselves what kind of lighting is best, after all. That’s better left to bureaucrats and panels of experts. That’s the “progressive way.”

To which I reply,  “go Texas!” 

Anyway, this law poses interesting constitutional issues, and I fully expect it to wind up in the courts. There’s the much-abused Commerce Clause, which has been stretched into near-meaninglessness to allow Washington to do whatever it wants. If the federal Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 rests even in part on regulating interstate commerce (i.e., because the bulbs are manufactured in one state and shipped to another), then strict constructionists could argue that, since the economic activity (manufacturing and sale) takes place within one state, Congress has no power to regulate it. Under the 10th amendment, therefore, the power to do so is reserved to the states, and Washington can take a hike.

Given the legal history of Commerce Clause interpretation, and especially with horrible precedents such as Wickard v Filburn, I doubt this argument would win, but it sure would be interesting to watch. I will note, however, that a refining of the Commerce Clause to clearly prohibit Congress from regulating intra-state activity is one of the amendments in Professor Randy Barnett’s proposed Bill of Federalism.

Meanwhile, I may be looking at a quick trip to Texas to pick up a case of 100-watts.

via The Jawa Report

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)