Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Racist and anti-democratic mandate by Obama's Justice Dept.

KINSTON, N.C. -- Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.

Several federal and local politicians would like the city to challenge the decision in court. They say voter apathy is the largest barrier to black voters' election of candidates they prefer and that the Justice Department has gone too far in trying to influence election results here. Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department's decision "racial as well as partisan." "On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election," he said. "That is un-American."

The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other locals as well. They bristle at federal interference in this city of nearly 23,000 people, two-thirds of whom are black.

In interviews in sleepy downtown Kinston - a place best known as a road sign on the way to the Carolina beaches - residents said partisan voting is largely unimportant because people are personally acquainted with their elected officials and are familiar with their views.

More here


The State of Joblessness

The tragedy of Jennifer Granholm's Michigan

State lawmakers will soon face large budget deficits again, perhaps as much as $100 billion across the U.S. Here's some free budget-balancing advice: Steer clear of the Michigan model. The Wolverine state is once again set to run out of money, and it is once again poised to raise taxes even as jobs and businesses disappear.

In 2007 Governor Jennifer Granholm signed the biggest tax increase in Michigan history, with most of the $1.4 billion coming from business. The personal income tax—which hits nonincorporated small businesses—was raised to 4.2% from 3.95%, and the Michigan business tax levied a surcharge of 22%. The tax money was dedicated to the likes of education, public works, job retraining and corporate subsidies. Ms. Granholm and her union allies called these "investments," and the exercise was widely applauded as a prototype of "progressive" budgeting.

Some prototype. Every state has seen a big jump in joblessness since 2007, but with a 15.2% unemployment rate Michigan's jobs picture is by far the worst. Some 750,000 private-sector payroll jobs have vanished since the start of the decade. For every family that has moved into Michigan since 2007, two have sold their homes and left.

Meanwhile, the new business taxes didn't balance the budget. Instead, thanks to business closures and relocations, tax receipts are running nearly $1 billion below projections and the deficit has climbed back to $2.8 billion. As the Detroit News put it, Michigan businesses are continually asked "to pay more in taxes to erase a budget deficit that, despite their contributions, never goes away." And this is despite the flood of federal stimulus and auto bailout cash over the last year.

More here


Is Obama Turning the USA into the Next Evil Empire?

When Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" in 1983, he was articulating in the boldest terms what had always been an American understanding. The Kremlin had long been fomenting communist revolution the world over, and we had long pursued our policy of "containment."

Thus did we fight wars in Korea and Vietnam, facilitate coups d'├ętat against people such as Salvador Allende and support anti-communist rebels such as the mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Of course, plans didn't always come together. There was the Bay of Pigs debacle, and the covert Iran-Contra operation getting front-page exposure. The "police action" in Korea ended in a stalemate and Vietnam just became stale, losing the public and political support necessary for victory.

Many also questioned the wisdom and even the legality of some of these foreign interventions, and other people, often for ignoble reasons, refused to wrap their minds around the fact that there is such a thing as the lesser of two evils and that it is virtually always the anti-communist option. As for any mistakes or moral lapses -- which ever plague endeavors of mortal design -- for now I'll just steal a concept from Otto von Bismarck and say that sometimes foreign policy is like sausage, in that it may look good when it's served, but you wouldn't want to be there when it's made. Other times, though, viewing it in its totality is like being presented with whole octopus. The only way it can be stomached is if you keep your eyes closed.

But although the dishes did vary, American presidents had always served the same cuisine. John Kennedy didn't flinch during the Cuban missile crisis, and, although he stumbled dreadfully, at least could contemplate a Bay of Pigs. Lyndon Johnson might have had a dark heart, but he certainly seemed to have it in opposing the Viet Cong guerrillas. Even Jimmy Carter, the poster-boy for peanut policy and appeasement, signed an order approving aid for the mujahedeen. But now, finally, we may have turned a corner.

Barack Obama's support for the Honduran ex-president who would be king, Manuel Zelaya, is without American precedent. Zelaya is Hugo Chavez' mini-me, as he, like the vitriolic Venezuelan, sought to subvert his nation's constitution and extend and expand his power. And of this there is no doubt. The Honduran constitution prohibits a president from serving more than one term, and Zelaya, aided and abetted by Chavez and a mob of thugs, was using illegal methods to circumvent the prohibition. This is why Honduras' supreme court ruled against him; it's why he was opposed by the nation's congress, the majority of its people and the Catholic Church. It's why Zelaya was removed from office.

In taking the wrong side, Obama has turned what could have been a temporary crisis into a protracted one, a situation that could devolve into bloody civil war. And what's so tragic is that supporting the interim government of Roberto Micheletti likely would have diffused the situation and yielded long-term stability. After all, there was no reason to think that Honduran authorities who enforced the law in removing Zelaya would depart from this and not hold the planned November elections. As for Micheletti, he is from Zelaya's own Liberal Party and shows no strongman tendencies. So what is the bottom line? It's plain that Honduras was bucking the banana-republic stereotype in upholding the rule of law. And now Obama is giving us banana-republic foreign policy in promoting the rule of the lawless.



Shut Up, They Explained

The administration's war against Fox News has reached something of a low point: "[White House Communications Director Anita] Dunn also criticized Fox's Chris Wallace for referring to the administration as filled with "crybabies." ("We kept ourselves from ... responding, 'I am rubber, you are glue,'" Dunn said)".

Of course, if she had actually "kept herself from responding" with that elementary-school riposte, she wouldn't have responded with it. Sort of like if I were to keep myself from pointing out that Dunn is an ignorant Communist sympathizer.

The assault continued on this morning's news shows, with David Axelrod claiming that Fox is "not really a news station (sic)."

Actually, Fox is nowhere near as consistently pro-Republican as CNN is pro-Democratic, which is one reason it has a more bipartisan audience. As to MSNBC, of course, there is no comparison. And broadcast television is monolithically Democratic--NBC, CBS, ABC, the View, the Today show, Good Morning America, 60 Minutes--the list goes on and on.

One might wonder why the Obama administration is so outraged that a single network fails to toe its line. The administration acts as though it deserves a monopoly on the news. Isn't that unreasonable?

Maybe, except the fact is that the Democrats do need a monopoly. Their problem is that controlling almost all news outlets isn't quite enough, because without a complete monopoly, inconvenient news still gets out--ACORN, Van Jones, Anita Dunn, and so on. If it weren't for Fox, criticism of the Democrats wouldn't be illegal, it would just be nonexistent. Or invisible, anyway. Hence the administration's frustration.

While that frustration is easy to understand, it is a little hard to see what Obama hopes to gain by constant railing against Fox News. Presumably the Democrats don't seriously believe they can intimidate Sean Hannity et al. into shutting up. Maybe they think their attacks will damage Fox's credibility with the public, but most independents are so skeptical of government that the attacks are likely to boost Fox in their eyes.

Free speech--it's an inconvenience the Democrats haven't yet figured out a way to deal with.


Rupert is smiling: "FOX News has again been attacked by the White House, with Barack Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, declaring the President did not want "the CNNs and others in the world" to be led by Fox. He told CNN yesterday that Mr Obama regarded the channel as providing not so much news as "a perspective". Mr Obama's chief adviser, David Axelrod, told ABC that programming at Fox - owned by News Corporation -- was geared towards making money. "It's not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming, it's really not news," he said. "It's pushing a point of view." Fox News's senior vice-president of news Michael Clemente said the White House had failed to distinguish between news and commentary. At Friday's annual general meeting, News Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch told shareholders: "There were some strong remarks coming out of the White House about one or two of the commentators on Fox News ... it has tremendously increased their ratings."



Maoist in the White House: "Anita Dunn, is described by the online encyclopedia Wikipedia as ‘one of the major decision makers of the Obama campaign’ and as one of Obama’s ‘four top advisers (along with David Axelrod, David Plouffe, and Robert Gibbs).’ She currently holds the position of ‘White House Communications Director.’ She is married to the President’s personal lawyer, Robert Bauer. In 2008, Newsweek named Dunn and Bauer the new ‘power couple’ in Washington, D.C. This last June, at a high-school commencement exercise, Dunn had this to say: the third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers Mao Tse-tung and Mother Teresa …”

White House boasts: We 'control' news media: "President Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was "controlled," White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference. "Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," said Dunn. "One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters," said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama's chief campaign manager. "We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it," Dunn said."

While Rupert Murdoch is looking forward to GROWING revenues .... : "The New York Times newspaper plans to cut 100 newsroom jobs by the end of the year through buyouts and might resort to layoffs as it reels from the advertising revenue drop endangering US newspapers. The news, delivered in a memo to employees by Times executive editor Bill Keller, came after the newspaper's workers already took a five per cent pay cut for most of this year and a similar program last year. "When we took our five per cent pay cuts, it was in the hope that this would fend off the need for more staff cuts this year," Mr Keller wrote. "But I accept that if it's going to happen, it should be done quickly. The Times posted the news on its website. It said the paper's news department had 1250 employees, down from 1330 at its peak. It added that no other US newspaper had more than about 750 journalists. The Times, which plans to report its third-quarter results on Thursday, has been dealing with declines in advertising and mounting debt that have forced it to slash costs and sell assets."

Backers of £3million prize rewarding good governance in Africa say they can't find anyone to give it to this year: "The backers of a $5 million prize celebrating good governance in Africa said Monday they cannot find anyone to award this year. Sir Ketumile Masire, former president of Botswana, said the committee could not select a winner for the prize, which aims to recognise African leadership that will improve the prospects of people in the continent. Billed as the largest annually-awarded prize in the world, the Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership consists of $5million (£3.1 million) over 10 years and $200,000 (£123,125) annually for life thereafter. Contenders include democratically-elected former African heads of state or government who have left office in the last three years. Sudanese mobile phone entrepreneur Mo Ibrahim set up the prize as part of his foundation designed to support good African leadership that will improve the prospects of people in Africa. But, announcing the decision in central London, he said: "This is an award for excellence. The jury meets and sets a bar somewhere. "There's no way for us to know the reasons behind the decision. It's tough." Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, was one of the members of the panel who made the decision."

Justice blocks names in gay rights ballot case: "Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has temporarily blocked Washington state officials from releasing the names of people who signed a ballot measure on gay rights. Kennedy’s ruling Monday temporarily blocks a federal appeals court ruling last week that ordered the release of the names. Kennedy said his order would remain in effect while he considers a request by a pro-marriage group that asked him to reverse the appeals court ruling.”

Cash for clubbers: "We thought cash for clunkers was the ultimate waste of taxpayer money, but as usual we were too optimistic. Thanks to the federal tax credit to buy high-mileage cars that was part of President Obama’s stimulus plan, Uncle Sam is now paying Americans to buy that great necessity of modern life, the golf cart. The federal credit provides from $4,200 to $5,500 for the purchase of an electric vehicle, and when it is combined with similar incentive plans in many states the tax credits can pay for nearly the entire cost of a golf cart.”

Judge KOs shelter kickback scheme: "Every time we turn around, it seems, we hear of an abuse shelter being accused of discrimination, fraud, or other head-shaking irregularities. And now a judge has ruled the entire abuse shelter industry in the state of West Virginia is wracked by conflict of interest, gender bias, and financial kickbacks. The menage a trois involves a government agency, a well-heeled trade organization, and 14 domestic violence shelters located around the state. Here’s how the scratch-your-back scheme works …”


List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here


The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)


No comments: