“You will not be a burden to society. You will give back.”

January 10, 2012

Mia Love, the mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, is running for the House from Utah’s newly created 4th congressional district. Here’s her introductory video:

An African-American woman who’s a conservative Republican and a Mormon? I hope she’s ready for the trash that’s going to be thrown at her by race-baiting liberal Democrats and their support groups (such as the NAACP) should she succeed. Nothing is more threatening to their stranglehold over the Black vote than a minority man or woman who rejects the culture of entitlement and dependence on government. Just ask Allen West.

From Mia’s bio:

In November 2011, Mia Love filed to run for Utah’s newly formed 4th Congressional District based on her demonstrated leadership on conservative principles. She credits her parents with providing the foundation for her ideals. After many years of living in the unstable, regime-torn socialist island country of Haiti, her parents immigrated legally to the United States with $10 in their pockets in hopes of achieving the American Dream.

Mia was born in Brooklyn, New York and eventually moved to Connecticut. Mia recalls both parents working hard to earn a living, her father at times taking on second jobs cleaning toilets to pay for school for their three children. On the day of Mia’s college orientation, her father said something to her that would become the ethos for her life:

“Mia, your mother and I never took a handout. You will not be a burden to society. You will give back.”

I don’t know who else is running in the district, nor has Ms. Love posted on issues, yet, so this isn’t an endorsement. But, if this is an illustration of her character and beliefs, then I will say that she is the kind of person we need many more of in Congress.

Her site.

via The Jawa Report

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Advertisements

Because, you know, secret ballots are bad things

January 16, 2011

From the Department of Government Stupidity: the federal government has threatened to sue four states should they dare to guarantee secret ballots in union elections:

The National Labor Relations Board on Friday threatened to sue Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah over constitutional amendments guaranteeing workers the right to a secret ballot in union elections.

The agency’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said the amendments conflict with federal law, which gives employers the option of recognizing a union if a majority of workers sign cards that support unionizing.

The amendments, approved Nov. 2, have taken effect in South Dakota and Utah, and will do so soon in Arizona and South Carolina.

Business and anti-union groups sought the amendments, arguing that such secrecy is necessary to protect workers against union intimidation. They are concerned that Congress might enact legislation requiring employers to allow the “card check” process for forming unions instead of secret ballot elections.

In letters to the attorney general of each state, Solomon says the amendments are pre-empted by the supremacy clause of the Constitution because they conflict with employee rights laid out in the National Labor Relations Act. That clause says that when state and federal laws are at odds, federal law prevails.

Solomon is asking the attorneys general in South Dakota and Utah for official statements agreeing that their amendments are unconstitutional “to conserve state and federal resources.”

In other words, “play along and we won’t bankrupt you in court.”

I’m no expert in the Supremacy Clause, but labor relations have traditionally fallen under a state’s police powers, though that’s been eroded over at least the last 80 years, since the New Deal, as the Fed has claimed a greater role.

But, really, does anyone seriously think this is anything other than an attempt force card-check through via regulation, instead of legislation, where it’s dead in the water? This is another case of arrogance on the part of unelected bureaucrats against the elected representatives of the peoples of four states, and I hope these states fight it tooth-and-nail.


David Brooks has a problem with democracy

May 9, 2010

Really, now. How dare those peasants in Utah refuse to renominate Senator Bob Bennett, just because he didn’t vote the way they liked? Don’t they know their place?

This is a damn outrage, to be honest. This is a guy who was a good Senator and he was a good Senator and a good conservative, but a good conservative who was trying to get things done. The Wyden-Bennett bill, which he co-sponsored — if you took the health care economists in the country, they would probably be for that bill, ideally. It was a substantive, serious bill, a bipartisan bill, with strong conservative and some liberal support. So he did something sort of brave by working with Democrats which more Senators should do and now they’ve been sent a message to him don’t do that.

The second thing is the TARP. Nobody liked the TARP. But we were in a complete economic meltdown and sometimes you have to do terrible things. And we’re in a much better economic place because of the TARP. So he bravely cast a vote that nobody wanted to really cast and now he’s losing his career over that. And it’s just a damn outrage.

Uh, David, old boy? Brooks is a senator from Utah. That means he’s supposed to represent the interests and desires of the people of Utah while tending to national matters. He was also seeking the Republican nomination; to do so generally means you have to convince the party faithful you represent their beliefs and interests. (And in Utah, Republicans and general-election voters largely overlap.) He failed to do the latter, so he was dropped from consideration for the nomination. How is that anti-democratic? How is it a coup? How is it an outrage?

The essence of what you’re saying is “Bennett knows better than you what is good for the nation, you flyover-country bumpkins! So sit down, shut up, and vote as your superiors tell you!

David Brooks is nothing but an effete pseudo-intellectual and cocktail conservative who spends his time getting felt up by senators and contemplating Obama’s pant-crease. And now we know he doesn’t much like democracy, either.

Somehow, I sense an Iowahawk essay by T. Coddington van Voorhees VII coming soon….

(via Allah Pundit)

PS: I would have voted reluctantly for TARP, too, as it was originally presented: a plan to buy the toxic mortgages off the market, because the government helped create them (and the problem) in the first place. But, after passage, the money seemed to be used for anything but. Unlike Brooks, apparently, I would expect the voters to hold me responsible for my vote.

LINKS: More from Hot Air.