Posts

Is a Virginia County Inviting Non-Citizens to Vote?

Sure looks like it.  Big League Politics posted a story yesterday with a photo that may have been taken down, but was up until the 2018 Midterm elections, they say.

Sheesh, Virginia is for crooks and cheats!

Vote Virginia

If you have not heard of Big League Politics, an on-line news site that says it is much tougher than Breitbart, you need to learn about it.

Big League Politics is responsible for breaking the news about the hypocrites and the alleged sexual aggressor leading Virginia’s present-day Democrat Party.

Read what the New York Times has to say about the site. They charge BLP with promoting “conspiracy theories”—a favorite line of attack by the mainstream media against on-line conservative media.

Truth be told, it is sites like this that could ultimately finish the big newspapers.

Now here is a story from yesterday,

EXCLUSIVE: Sign At Virginia Election Office Says, ‘Responsibility Has No Borders. Vote’

A sign at the Arlington County Department of Voter Registration and Elections office in Virginia gives immigrants a clear message: “Responsibility has no Borders. Vote.”

The sign is in a public area of the office, visible to people at the counter as they are registering to vote or voting absentee. The photo is from 2016, but it was still up in the office during the 2018 midterm election. Our tipster inquired about it and was told that it’s part of a “historical display,” whereas other authorities just ignored it and said there’s nothing that can be done about Arlington County, which describes itself as a “welcoming” but not a “sanctuary” jurisdiction for illegal immigrants.

“I’m an Arlington county election officer. Arlington County VA is essentially a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants/noncitizens. These signs are posted at the Arlington County election office. Voter fraud is more likely to take place at the time of registration rather than at the polls, in my opinion,” our tipster told Big League Politics.

More here

Then be sure to visit BLP for more information including this below.

It is rare to see a site that so prominently appeals for hot news tips.

Screenshot (870)
This screenshot is at the end of the voter fraud story.  You need to go to the site for the hotlinks

What do you do?  Go around the mainstream media and tell your friends to do the same. Read as much as you can on sites like Big League Politics!  And, don’t rely on cable news!

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals with images is republished with permission. The edited featured image is by Pixabay.

CARTOON VIDEO: Hillary’s ‘Crime Isn’t Criminal’ Children’s Book

Jimmy Kimmel sure likes to lampoon but only for one side, well we think fair play is called for in this election. We whipped up a little Children’s Book of our own for everyone’s favorite political gangster, ole Machine Gun Clinton.

HAT TIP: Semi Respectable – Cartoons

This Is Why Republicans Continue to Lose the Black Vote

I am now beginning to question whether there is room for Blacks in this Republican Party. The recently ended Republican primary tells me the answer is “no,” but when party leaders are questioned about it, the answer is always “yes.”

Between the Republican National Committee (RNC), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the National Republican Campaign Committee (NCCC), all the state parties, all the 527 political action committees, the Republican Governor’s Association, etc., there are about fifty Black staffers that I am aware of and probably upwards of 90 percent of those work for a member of congress, thus most Republican entities have no Black staffers, advisors, or consultants.

Republicans will counter that Blacks are an insignificant part of primary voters (about 2 percent), which is factually true, but that should not prevent the hiring of Black staffers, advisors, or consultants during this process.

Implicit in this bogus argument is that Blacks should only be hired to engage with the Black community. I totally reject this approach. As a matter of fact, if a campaign has a limited budget, they are better served by hiring a Black staffer over a White staffer.

Blacks, out of necessity, are forced to live in two worlds simultaneously. We have to be able to live and function within the Black community (where most of us live); but we must also be able to navigate the white community (where most of us work).

Most whites could not navigate the Black community effectively since most have absolutely no relationship within the community. So, by hiring a Black staffer, you get a two-fer. I find this an extremely compelling reason to hire a Black staffer.

To my utter and total dismay, every Republican presidential campaign other than one gets a failing grade on the issue of Black staffers.

You never hear the few Black Republicans who have a media platform talk about the lack of Black staffers within every level of the Republican Party. They are too caught up waiting for the proverbial pat on the head from their overseers.

You rarely, if ever, see them take a principled stand against the party when it comes to the invisible Black man.

You see them on CNN mouthing all the words they are told to speak and not bringing light to a party that is lurking in the dark.

According to the Gallop, “almost two-thirds of blacks identify as Democrats, with most of the rest identifying as independents. Only 5 percent of Blacks nationwide identify as Republicans.” This means about 29 percent of Blacks label themselves as “Independent.” In business, this 29 percent is called a “target market.”

Did we really need an autopsy report after the 2012 election to tell us what needed to be done to diversity our party? This was a cheap political stunt to give the party cover, because they didn’t really want to address the reality starring them in the face.

In typical Republican fashion, they appointed two minorities, one Black and one Hispanic, as co-chairs (the other three being Whites) of the committee. Then they had a White as the national face of the report who did most of the media interviews after the report was released.

This little fact is exhibit “A” in how Republicans just don’t get it. Why would they not have the Black and Hispanic as the face of the report to engage with the media? Duh!

Even when they try to do the right thing, they do it the wrong way.

The one person who understands these issues is the one person the Republican establishment tried to defeat, Donald J. Trump. He constantly talks about engaging with the Black community, he constantly talks about how illegal immigration has devastated the Black community, he constantly talks about how the Obama administration has been disastrous for Blacks and he has hired “real” Blacks and put them in positions of power.

Trump has substantively talked about the Black community more than the sum total of the 16 candidates he defeated. Yes, you heard me correctly.

Trump’s national spokesperson, Katrina Pierson, is all over TV speaking on behalf of the campaign. The visual of a Black female being the face of a presidential campaign is unprecedented and very powerful. Neurosurgeon and former presidential candidate, Dr. Ben Carson, is leading Trump’s vice presidential search; I can’t recall a Black ever serving in this position for any other Republican nominee.

The Republican Party has no Blacks that ever speak for the various entities listed above, so please don’t get mad when the Democrats label our party as racist; visually and optically, we are; on policy, not so much.

Democrats and Republicans are trying to brand Trump as racist, sexist, and a xenophobe. If these claims are true, I hope he continues to live up to those characterizations; because if he does, he will be sworn in as the 45th president of these United States.

If you don’t believe what I am saying, maybe you will believe one of Trump’s long-time employees, Lynne Patton. This video says it all.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Black Press USA.

No, Women Are Not Obliged to Vote for Hillary by Sarah Skwire

“There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

It’s one of Madeline Albright’s most famous lines, and she’s brought it out on any number of occasions. Starbucks even put it on a coffee cup. I understand why. It’s eminently quotable and suggests a kind of tough-minded sisterhood that can be appealing. I can see its ready application, for example, when helping a drunk friend get home safely from a party or when holding another mom’s infant so she can use the restroom in peace.

But Albright should have been a lot more careful before she applied her signature line to what she sees as an obligation for women to vote for Hillary Clinton in the democratic primaries. Because the minute that you take her line out of the context of relationships among people and move it to the political context it loses whatever tough-minded charm it has, and it becomes a bullying, sexist, prescriptivist piece of obnoxious nonsense.

I don’t believe in hell, so threatening me with it has never had much purchase. But to the best of my understanding, for religions that do believe in hell, the things that get people sent there are sins against God or against other people. Taking a political action that someone doesn’t agree with (voting for someone other than Hillary Clinton) doesn’t seem to fit that bill in any way. Suggesting that it does mingles church and state in ways that sit uncomfortably with long American traditions.

And even if voting in a way that Albright thinks is wrong is a sin that leads to damnation, if Albright really is a believer in eternal torment and hellfire, she should probably be led by the many New Testament verses that counsel believers to use gentle correction and instruction toward those who have gone astray.

If Albright isn’t a believer in eternal torment and hellfire, she might be well advised to keep theology out of her politics entirely.

But even if we leave aside the myriad objections that arise when a bullying and inaccurate theology is dragged into the political realm, Albright’s insistence that women have a duty to vote for Clinton because she is also a woman remains moronic.

It is sexism of the oldest and most annoying type. With one comment, Albright managed to suggest the following:

  1. Women should shut up and vote the way they are told to vote.
  2. All women should vote the same way.
  3. All women have the same interests and objectives.
  4. Women who have made choices others disagree with have chosen incorrectly and must be brought back into line.
  5. Women cannot be trusted to recognize (and vote in favor of) their best interests.

Women have, over the centuries, gotten quite practiced at responding to these particular bits of idiocy. So while it’s disconcerting, at best, to hear this tosh from a woman of Albright’s stature and experience, it’s not particularly challenging to formulate an intelligent response. In fact, one thing that makes Albright’s comment so maddening is that, to many women, it seems so incredibly retrograde when applied to politics. It ignores the very real progress made by 21st century feminist thinkers in recognizing the different kinds of lives lived by different kinds of women — from different classes, of different colors, with different religions, of different sexualities, and in different bodies. By shouting right over that kind of nuance, Albright’s comment sounds like it’s stuck in the feminism of the 1960s.

But it’s worse than that. In its gender essentialism — its insistence that women are all women and therefore all alike — Albright’s comment could have been ripped right out of the first years of the 20th century. Or the 19th century. Or the 18th.

Happily, we have had Mary Wollstonecraft around for the past nearly 225 years to respond to that kind of nonsense. Albright would do better if, like Wollstonecraft, she would “consider women in the grand light of human creatures, who, in common with men, are placed on this earth to unfold their faculties.”

Telling a woman how she should vote because she is a woman is no less insulting than telling her that she shouldn’t vote because she is a woman. Both approaches deny an individual the opportunity to unfold her unique faculties as she sees fit. Both approaches reduce a complex individual to a single characteristic. Politics routinely does this to all sorts of groups — women, people of color, people of faith, gun owners — and it is in every case an insult to the dignity of the individual.

But Albright’s comment does something even worse. Or perhaps, for our purposes, it does something even better. Albright’s comment reveals the truth about politics. And that truth is that Clinton’s run for the White House, like Sanders’s run, or Trump’s, or Bush’s, or Cruz’s, or anyone’s, is not about serving the people.

We are told to vote for Clinton because we have a special duty to help other women. But Albright and Clinton do not mean that we have a special duty to the women standing next to us in line at the grocery store, or to the women who are suffering from poverty, or out of work, or abused by their spouses, or harassed by their bosses. They mean that we have a special duty to one woman: Hillary Clinton. It is our duty, as women, to help her to a spot in the White House, because no woman has done that before. Seeing her up there proves … something. And it will make us all feel … something.

That’s pretty weak tea, Albright.

But it is, at least, weak tea that exposes the fundamental truth about politics. It’s not about helping women. Or men. Or people of color. Or the unemployed. Or whomever we are told it is about helping.

It’s about helping the politician.

And I’ll be damned if I’m going to do that.

Sarah SkwireSarah Skwire

Sarah Skwire is the poetry editor of the Freeman and a senior fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis. She is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.

VIDEO: Terrorists to Register 1 Million U.S. Muslim Voters

Nihad Awad, Executive Director of the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), calls for Muslims to use their mosques for Voter Registration and Polling Stations with the aim of registering 1,000,000 Muslim Voters!

According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism:

Nihad Awad is among the founders of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and serves as its executive director. In that role, he has attained a degree of political clout, invited to stand beside President George W. Bush at the Islamic Center of Washington days after the 9/11 attacks. Before that, Vice President Al Gore appointed Awad to a civil rights advisory panel for the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security.

These are influential recognitions for a man with past ties to Hamas, designated a foreign terrorist organization by the United States in 1995. In fact, Awad publicly declared “I am in support of the Hamas movement,” during a March 1994 symposium at Barry University.

 

The aim of CAIR is to CHANGE the way AMERICA looks.

Click here to read the full dossier on CAIR.

Republicans Constantly Validate Black Democrats

I am fond of saying that many times Republicans try to do the right thing, but do it the wrong way.

Branch Rickey, former president and general manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, scoured the Negro Leagues in 1943 to find the best and brightest baseball players who he could sign to integrate baseball.  He wasn’t just looking for raw talent; he was also looking for the “right” person(s).

Jackie Robinson was not the only good ball player in the league back then; for sure he was definitely one of the elite.  But he also had the other skill-sets that would allow him to endure the racist taunts he was about to encounter as the first Black to play professional baseball with white folks.

Rickey chose Robinson not only because of his skill, but also because of his personality which would allow him to keep his composure under the strain of hostility he was about to face.  Rickey constantly validated Robinson specifically and constantly discussed publicly the need for diversity within baseball and ultimately America.

Where are the Branch Rickey’s of the Republican Party today?  There are none.  The last one was former N.F.L. quarterback and former congressman Jack Kemp who died in 2009.

I was plucked out of obscurity by the Bush family in St. Louis when I was fresh out of college from Oral Roberts University.  They had no prior relationship with me, but they, like Rickey, scoured Missouri politics to find the best person(s) with the right political background; but also with the right temperament to proudly represent the Bush family’s name as the then vice president was about to launch his presidential campaign in 1988.  According to them, “they had been following my career and noticing my work in the Republican Party in Missouri.”

My work got me noticed, but my relationships got me opportunity.  I didn’t have to run to be a delegate to our party’s national convention, I was told I would be a delegate; and thus it was so.

My point is very simple, I grew up in a Republican Party when relationships mattered and the party took care of their own.  This is no longer the case.

Republicans today spend more time rewarding their enemies versus rewarding their friends.

Why would Rand Paul have lunch with Al Sharpton last November in the Senate dining room?  By doing it in the Senate dining room, he meant for the media and other members of the U.S. Senate to see them together; thus validating Sharpton as someone to be sought out for private counsel.  I wonder why there is no account of Paul making a similar validation of a Black Republican with relevant party credentials.

Why would Jeb Bush meet with members of the Black Lives Matter group when he has never met with any relevant Black Republicans?  Are you kidding me?  When you have no Blacks in your inner circle you tend to make foolish decisions like this.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is the most recent example of validating Black Democrats and ignoring Black Republicans.  She was in town last week to speak before the National Press Club.  I thought the section of her speech about her accomplishments as governor was very good; but the speech was horrible when she began to talk about race relations and the Black community.  I also found it to be very offensive.

It was quite obvious that the speech was written by a White staffer.  Memo to Republicans, you cannot have a White person write a speech about Blacks and race relations!  Period.  End of discussion.  I found the speech like the tinkling cymbal or sounding brass, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The most offensive part of her speech was when she began to gush over her budding friendship with Jesse Jackson.  I have known Jesse since my high school days in St. Louis and will acknowledge that he has done some good things for America.

But again, why would she not use the occasion of her speech to validate some Black Republicans, not only from her state; but from around the country.  I will tell you why; because she doesn’t know any.  She doesn’t know Bob Brown, Harold Doley, Kay James, Shannon Reeves, Sarah Harper, or Buster Soaries.

When have you ever heard Obama effusively praise a Black Republican other than when someone like former Sen. Ed Brooks dies?  When have you ever heard Massachusetts Gov. Devall Patrick singing the praises of a Black Republican?  When have you ever heard DNC chair Debbie Wassermann Schultz ever praise a Black Republican.

But yet you hear our leaders showering praise upon known Democrats like Bob Johnson and Cathy Hughes; who are both good people and very accomplished.  Yet, their media empires constantly bash Republicans, especially those from the Black community.

If you can’t acknowledge Black Republicans in a speech, should we be surprised that we are not acknowledged in your staffing decisions or your consultant decisions?

As I often say, “the best way to get attention as a Black in the Republican Party is to be a Black Democrat.”

Obama Defends Iran Deal by Attacking Opponents

Instead of the issues, there is a shrill war of words against good faith opponents.

In a recent speech at American University, President Obama attempted to sell his Iran nuclear agreement to a skeptical American public, which according to all reliable polls opposes the deal overwhelmingly.  By making his pitch in a speech instead of a press conference, he avoided having to answer questions, clarify past inconsistent statements, and discuss the distortions that have been used to justify the deal.  Rather than allay concerns that are causing worry even among Congressional Democrats, he instead heaped scorn on Republicans, attacked his critics, derided Binyamin Netanyahu, and minimized the threat to Israel.  His speech was as self-congratulatory as it was detached from geopolitical reality.

And for once, liberal Jewish organizations disagreed with him publicly.

Mr. Obama attempted to woo Jewish groups into supporting the deal before his speech, but instead met with stiff resistance.  Although known more for lobbying than open confrontation, AIPAC strongly opposed the deal and urged Congress to reject it.  The Anti-Defamation League likewise objected, announcing in a public statement that:  “We are deeply disappointed by the terms of the final deal with Iran … which seem to fall far short of the President’s objective of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state.”  Underlying these statements is the realization that the deal will facilitate Iran’s nuclear program and encourage a regional arms race.

The concerns of the liberal Jewish establishment were perhaps best summed up in an August 5th op-ed by David Harris of the American Jewish Committee, which stated among many other things the following:

By abandoning the earlier negotiating posture of dismantling sanctions in exchange for Iranian dismantlement of its nuclear infrastructure, and instead replacing it with what is essentially a temporary freeze on its program, the P5+1 has indeed validated Iran’s future status as a nuclear threshold state, a point that President Obama himself acknowledged in a media interview.

Given the nature of the Iranian regime and its defining ideology, AJC cannot accept this prospect. It is too ominous, too precedent-setting, and too likely to trigger a response from Iran’s understandably anxious neighbors who may seek nuclear-weapons capacity themselves, as well as, more immediately and still more certainly, advanced conventional arms, adding an entirely new level of menace to the most volatile and arms-laden region in the world. Surely, this cannot be in America’s long-term security interests.

After fully articulating his organization’s fears and concerns in the piece, Harris wrote that “AJC opposes the deal and calls on Members of Congress to do the same.”

Irrespective of his past assurances that no deal would be preferable to a bad deal, he is attempting to force a very bad deal on the US and its allies.

Though the ADL and AJC were deferential in acknowledging the efforts of President Obama, John Kerry and their European partners in negotiating with Iran, they nevertheless concluded that the deal is bad for the United States and Israel.  This view echoes a growing concern that it accomplishes none of the goals used to justify negotiations in the first place, and the nagging realization that Iran will fulfill its nuclear ambitions even if it does comply.

Based on its history, Iran is unlikely to comply in the absence of effective monitoring procedures; and without truly verifiable compliance, it will likely continue enriching uranium clandestinely and may well have enough reserves to produce weapons before the deal expires.  Some intelligence experts believe that Iran already possesses a sufficient stockpile.

It is significant that Jewish criticism of the deal is not coming solely from conservative groups like the Zionist Organization of (ZOA), Americans for a Safe Israel and the Republican Jewish Coalition.  Liberal establishment organizations finally seem to grasp that Obama’s Mideast policies have promoted the growth of Islamic extremism and have threatened Israel’s safety and security.  They also understand that the deal will lead to nuclear proliferation in the region.  Accordingly, American Jews who had always supported the President and downplayed his hostility for Israel are now calling on Congress to reject the deal.

Senator Chuck Schumer, whom many predicted would support the deal to preserve his chance of being named the next Democratic Senate leader, announced that he would vote against it.  Though early reports predicted that Schumer would vote for the deal, he may have been swayed by the thousands of letters sent by alarmed constituents urging him to vote no.  As a consequence, he is being pilloried by the political left and the White House and has been the target of anti-Semitic slurs.

The President’s allies are responding to criticism by attacking those who oppose the deal, casting aspersions on their motivations, invoking classical anti-Semitic canards of undue Jewish influence and dual loyalty, characterizing Jewish dissent as unpatriotic, and accusing Israel of orchestrating the opposition.

Liberal criticism of the deal is usually couched in expressions of thanks to Obama and Kerry for their efforts – despite their clear animus for Netanyahu and mocking dismissal of Israel’s existential concerns.  Still, it cannot be disputed that many liberals now recognize that Obama’s stated goal of preventing Iran from going nuclear is inconsistent with the final agreement, which legitimizes and enables its nuclear program.  Irrespective of his past assurances that no deal would be preferable to a bad deal, he is attempting to force a very bad deal on the US and its allies.

Many Americans are concerned that the deal does not require Iran to destroy its nuclear infrastructure, submit to “anytime, anywhere” inspections, fully disclose all of its nuclear activities or cease subsidizing terrorism – former red-lines that American negotiators ultimately conceded.  They are also bothered that Obama agreed to lift ballistic and conventional weapons bans – against the advice of military advisers – and that Iran can beat monitoring efforts by evasion, misdirection or simply failing to disclose its covert nuclear facilities.  This is especially problematic in light of the existence of secret side agreements (which neither Kerry nor Obama disclosed to Congress) affecting the ability to monitor compliance by, among other things, allowing Iran to provide its own soil samples to inspectors.

A growing number of Jewish Democrats are also troubled that the deal places trust in an Islamist regime that remains unrepentantly anti-American and antisemitic, brazenly states that it will not honor agreements with infidel nations, and repeatedly threatens to destroy Israel and exterminate her people.  Contrary to the naïve claims of its supporters, the deal will only destabilize an already volatile region, provide Iran with funds to continue financing terrorism and regional unrest, and motivate the Sunni states to acquire their own nuclear arsenals.

Rather than assuage any of these concerns, Obama used his speech to belittle and disparage all who question the deal and to compare his Republican critics in Congress to Iranian hardliners.  Though he’s elevated combative, divisive politics to a high art since his first days in office, this comment troubled many Democrats for its insulting tone and moral vacuity.

The ease with which Obama compares good faith opponents to fanatical religious extremists is all the more disturbing in light of his seemingly compulsive aversion to offending Islamist sensibilities and his failure to condemn the pernicious doctrines used to justify terrorism.

The President’s war of words will probably grow shriller as the Congressional vote in September draws closer, especially if more Democrats reject the deal in advance.  He will continue to attack those who disagree with him, malign Netanyahu for speaking truth to power, and bully Israel by threatening her with isolation.  He will not be moved even if most liberal Jews end up opposing the deal.  They have acted as his apologists for more than six years; and if they no longer support him, he may simply lump them together with those assertive Jews who have always been critical of his policies and question their loyalty.

On the surface, President Obama remains unmoved by the domestic and international consequences of his ill-conceived foreign policy.  But if, as many believe, his real intent is to reduce American global influence, legitimize Islamist regimes, and treat Iran as the dominant power in the Mideast, he may be following a knowing strategy that accepts, and perhaps welcomes, the regional and global risks.

Mr. Obama’s agreement with Iran has been compared to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Nazi Germany.  The comparison may be inapt, however, because Chamberlain hoped that ceding territory would satisfy Hitler and prevent war.  The deal with Iran, in contrast, will give the mullahs a nuclear muscle that they have repeatedly vowed to flex.  Whereas Hitler lied in Munich about the prospect of peace in exchange for land, Iran has affirmatively promised terrorism, war and genocide when it gets what it wants.

Though Congress may not be able to trust the President’s hollow assurances, history suggests that it can certainly take the Iranians at their word.

Ideology, hidden obstacle to reason

I was recently surprised to note that a prominent British libertarian had sent out a bulk email suggesting that leaving the EU would not be much of a boon to the UK since such would not necessarily provide more “liberty” for Brits. Thus, he contends that UK “leaders” have the same totalitarian mindset as the EU “leaders” and the Brexit (exit of the UK from the EU) would not help matters. He mentioned that the UK government has at times exceeded even the legal limitations on power provided by the authoritarian EU and that offended Brits may occasionally benefit from European Court decisions that overturn excesses of UK authorities and judges. Since the European Court is an essential component of the EU, leaving the EU would therefore supposedly remove this supposed benefit.

This email did not contain the words Muslim or Islam. Yet the Islamization of the UK is one of the main concerns of those who support the Brexit.

I had tried to show my UK reader list how simply rolling over and playing dead, ie, not voting in the upcoming referendum or voting YES to stay in the EU was not an option, for one thing because it sends a signal to the EU top rank that the people of Europe have finally given up and are willing to acquiesce to total tyranny.

An article in The Atlantic reveals one very important reason why EU membership is a bad deal for the UK and all other industrial members, to whit:

“EU countries are legally barred from limiting immigration from other member states, a decision that has had a great effect on migration patterns on the continent.”

Now it is certainly true that the usurpers who have seized the internal UK reins of power (essentially Parliament and Downing Street) by deceit are, like the EU bureaucrats, also inclined to flood the UK with still more Muslims, a rapidly growing group that receives an inordinately high percentage of social assistance or welfare (as reported here and here) and which in polls is found to favor sharia law and jihad.

In 2014, Daniel Greenfield, discussing a recent poll in London, wrote:

“There are about 1 million Muslim settlers in London where they make up 12 percent of the population. These figures suggest that the vast majority of them, perhaps as high as 80 percent, support ISIS.”

A NO vote on the referendum would be a signal to the Brussels oligarchs that the people are no longer the lemmings they once were and will not take rampant Islamisation lying down.

It should not surprise anyone that libertarians tend to be more liberal on the issue of immigration. Their ideology teaches essentially that all humans must have the maximum freedom possible and is refractory to considerations of reality. The freedom to cross someone else’s border and gain access to another country’s welfare rolls could be seen as the ultimate in libertarian policy. US libertarians counter the fears of ordinary mortals by contending that welfare would be forbidden in a libertarian society, but their immigration positions ignore the fact that welfare is part of the current US reality, over which libertarians have little or no control, and the current socialist context is the one in which they propose to implement their immigration positions. Like their British counterparts, they therefore generally see even illegal immigration as either a non-threat or a boon. They believe that they could soon operate in a perfect world with no impediments whatsoever to individual freedom.

The trouble with this thinking — in case you are one of the few who need this pointed out to you — is that there really are two kinds of freedom, or liberty (liberté) as the French revolutionaries, ideological second cousins to today’s libertarians, called it.

ONE kind is individual freedom.

The SECOND is more subtle and easier to overlook, and that is, national sovereignty, ie, the freedom of a nation to chart and navigate its own course without interference from other nations or entities.

Today’s libertarians almost never talk about the second kind of liberty because to them, national sovereignty is an obstacle to individual liberty at all costs, which is the non-negotiable centerpiece of their creed. And non-negotiable here means reality be damned.

Ironically, however, this neglect of national sovereignty actually severely curbs individual liberty as well, at least in the real world down here beneath the rarefied stratosphere in which libertarianism thrives.

For example, if 80% of an indigenous population desires freedom of choice in its national lawmaking, then a rigid libertarian policy of legal residency for all and sundry may well lead to veritable inundation of this indigenous population with hordes of people who tolerate and even welcome totalitarianism. After all, to them, totalitarianism is their free choice. Once these hordes reach a critical percentage of the population, the tipping point will be passed and that one-time majority will now be subjected to the will of the newly arrived hordes. And here’s the real kicker: the libertarians who persuaded their unsuspecting countrymen to accept these hordes will now also be enslaved along with the rest. So much for liberté.

Worst of all, the above is not by any means just a hypothetical example. There is a projection that the UK will become a Muslim state by 2050, and while this has been poo-pooed by the Establishment media, The Commentator writes:

“This projection is based on reasonably good data. Between 2004 and 2008, the Muslim population of the UK grew at an annual rate of 6.7 percent, making Muslims 4 percent of the population in 2008. Extrapolating from those figures would mean that the Muslim population in 2020 would be 8 percent, 15 percent in 2030, 28 percent in 2040 and finally, in 2050, the Muslim population of the UK would exceed 50 percent of the total population.”

Thus the rigid and doctrinaire libertarianism with liberty as its Grail, is from the outset on a course of ineluctable self-destruction.

History presents us with a parade of ideologies, all of which have failed one after the other. Yet some flaw in the character of Homo sapiens leads us invariably to put aside our perception of reality, our built-in logic and reason, and even our sense of self-preservation in favor of untested ideologies propped up by high-sounding rhetoric. Somehow, our species never seems to notice that, precisely because ideologies supersede and subtly supplant reason and the perception of reality, all ideologies will eventually fail, always, just as they always have in the past.

The question is: Can we ever come to understand this simple fact and overcome this flaw in our DNA?

UN Security Council Nixes Palestinian Resolution

The following is a JTA report issued on December 30th, 2014:

U.N. Security Council vote on Palestinian statehood resolution fails

NEW YORK (JTA) — A Palestinian-backed U.N. resolution setting a deadline for a peace deal with Israel failed to garner sufficient votes for passage in the U.N. Security Council.

The resolution, which was voted on Tuesday, was aimed at achieving a full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank by late 2017.

Eight nations on the 15-member council votes yes, two voted no and five abstained. Nine votes were required for passage.

Had nine votes been obtained, the United States, which voted against the resolution, was expected to exercise its Security Council veto. The United States believes a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians must be negotiated by the parties themselves.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, called the draft resolution “deeply imbalanced” and slammed the council for the unusual move of putting the resolution to a vote without any debate.

“We voted against it because we know what everyone here knows as well: Peace will come from hard choices and compromises that must come at the negotiating table,” Power said.

“This text addresses the concerns of only one side,” she said. “It would undermine efforts to get back to an atmosphere that achieves two states for two peoples.”

The deadlines in the resolution, she said, “take no account of Israel’s legitimate security concerns.”

The vote took place shortly after 5 P.M. EST on Tuesday.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Republicans Can Make Headway with Blacks

Last week’s midterm elections were historic. Republicans regained control of the U.S. Senate, increased their majority in the House, and expanded their majority among governors. While these gains were historic and impressive, there was a bigger story that no one is talking about.

According to early polling figures, Black participation in this year’s midterm was 12 percent, down slightly from 13 percent in 2010. Eighty-nine percent of Blacks voted for Democratic congressional candidates and 10 percent voted for Republicans. This year’s figures match the 2010 midterm figures for Democrats and represents a slight increase in support for Republicans, up from 9 percent in 2010 to 10 percent in 2014.

In Illinois, incoming Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner received 6 percent of the Black vote. He actively courted the Black vote, but did it the wrong way. For example, how many people in Illinois know that Rauner has endowed a full professor’s chair at historically Black Morehouse College in Atlanta? There was no reason why he should not have earned upwards of 25 percent of the Black vote with his history in the Black community. But, as with many White Republicans, his White consultants and staff thought they knew more about the Black community than Blacks.

The exit polls further noted that 11 percent of Black millennials, 12 percent of Gen Xers, and 7 percent of those ages 45-64 voted Republican. The RNC, under the leadership of Reince Priebus, is the only Republican entity that “gets it” when it comes to the Black vote. The House and Senate campaign committees and the Republican Governor’s Association (RGA) are still living in the dark ages when it comes to the Black community.

I know Republicans are still in love with this idiotic notion of being “colorblind,” but if they can’t look around at their staffs and realize that they are surrounded by Whites, then they have a real problem. Either they are truly colorblind or just blind to people of color.

So while last week’s national elections were historic for Republicans, they were not transformative. However, what happened in Ohio was not only transformative, but it was also a tectonic shift in the political landscape of America.

Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich received 26 percent of the Black vote. He was endorsed by the Call & Post, Ohio’s leading Black newspaper. In their editorial of endorsement, they listed two specific examples of how Kasich addressed issues of concern to the Black community. Kasich expanded Medicaid coverage to low-income Ohioans and supported set-asides for minority contractors on the Opportunity Corridor construction project in Cleveland.

According to the newspaper, “Opportunities like the Opportunity Corridor usually means ‘inopportunity’ for us [the Black community]…Of the $267 million in construction contracts on the Corridor, Kasich set aside a staggering 20 percent for minority-owned and disadvantaged firms. That’s about $22.7 million dollars ‘specifically’ for Black-owned businesses, not to mention an additional half a million dollars thrown in for job training of area residents. And even this came with some maneuvering from him on our behalf with the federal government and Turnpike Board.”

Contrast that with Obama’s record of issuing fewer Small Business Administration (SBA) loans to Blacks than George W. Bush.

Ohio’s is home to the political story of the year.

So, to the House and Senate campaign committees and the RGA, now we have empirical data that shows Blacks will vote Republican if given a reason. But when GOP candidate continue to make racist insults or, in the case of Illinois governor-elect Bruce Rauner, fail to mention things they’ve done that will resonate with African Americans, the GOP will not attract Black voters who are disgruntled with the Democratic Party and looking for an alternative.

Obviously, left to their own devices, GOP candidates can’t do this on their own. That’s why they need to look beyond the White male consultant who offer bad advice on how to reach the Black community. I ask my Republican friends: When will you begin to hire Black consultants to cultivate this fertile movement in the Black community? When will you hire Blacks who are not ashamed of their Blackness for staff positions? When will you spend money with Black media buyers?

Republicans hire more Black Democrats to work their campaigns than they do Black Republicans. Years ago, I committed to never voting for or working with any Republican that didn’t have any Blacks on their staffs or as consultants; and I have made good on that commitment.

Republicans should make a public commitment to broaden their base to truly look like America. If Republicans transformed the way they interact with the Black community, especially by using Black Republicans and Black political operatives, that indeed would be both historic and transformational.

Light Off or On?

It’s “that” time of year again – when it gets dark well before dinner time and even before cocktail time! Daylight Saving Time ends tomorrow, so remember to change your clocks. Darkness will continue to come earlier every day for the next seven weeks when Winter officially begins on December 21, the shortest day of the year. But then the cycle will start all over again, and the days grow longer.

As the seasons change so do our environment and our community. About a year ago, I heard this humorous comment about seasonal changes: “Up North, you know Fall is approaching because the leaves change color. Here, you know Fall is approaching because the license plates change color.

Just look around. Every day you’ll see new colors. We accept those changes because there is nothing we can do about them as the pages of the calendar continue to move, and the planets continue to travel around the sun.

But there is another significant event at this time of year. And we can influence the changes that will occur. This coming Tuesday is Election Day. How we conduct our business, how we live our lives, and how we educate our children will be decided by what we do – by how we cast our vote.

Many people have already voted, but for most eligible voters that opportunity is still a few days away.

Unfortunately, many of those people will choose not to vote. What a shortsighted action to take!

Not casting a vote is abdicating responsibility to those who do vote. Non-votes often justify their decision by saying, “What difference does it make?” “They (the politicians) are all alike.” “I can’t be bothered.” “I’m too busy right now.”

But not casting a vote is like getting into the back seat of your car, handing the keys to a total stranger and saying, “Take me anywhere you want to go – and I’ll pay for the gas.”

I can’t think of anyone who would do that. But giving up one’s right to vote is precisely that. It’s giving other people control over what we want, like, plan for, and deserve. By not voting, we give other people our “car keys” and allow them to make decisions that influence our businesses, our finances, and our way of life – and we pay for all the gas. Not voting is abstaining, and in Robert’s Rules of Order an abstention is actually a vote that is given away. It is siding with the majority.

It’s interesting to note we have the Right to vote, but as we learned in school (hopefully) the other side of a Right is a Responsibility. As citizens and as businesspeople we have the duty to behave responsibly toward out society. When we don’t participate in the election process we have no license to complain about outcomes or about decisions.

If someone decides not to vote next week – so be it. That person has given up the option to criticize and to find fault with governing bodies and individuals. Those who shirk the responsibility in essence “give away the car keys.”

Centuries ago, in “Julius Caesar”, Shakespeare had Cassius say, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” That’s true today.
Actions count! Inaction counts just a strongly.

To some, this might sound like “flag waving” but I proudly believe we are fortunate to have the right to vote. Many paid a high price to assure we have that right and it’s irresponsible to ignore it. Too many places throughout the world don’t offer that right, and other places are fighting hard to remove it – to take it away from those who do have it.

I find it hard to understand how anyone can ignore or misuse our powerful weapon of self-determination. Abusing or ignoring that freedom has long tern implications for all of us personally and for our businesses.

Remember this adage next Tuesday, and consider its implications.

“The electorate gets what it deserves.”

In daylight or in darkness next week, I hope to see you at the polls.

Enterprise Florida: Economic Development or Corporate Welfare?

Today, Integrity Florida, an independent ethics watchdog group, in partnership with Americans for Prosperity – Florida, released a research report titled “Enterprise Florida: Economic Development or Corporate Welfare”.

According to co-authors Ben Wilcox and Dan Krassner, “The report illustrates Enterprise Florida’s apparent conflicts of interest, appearance of pay-to-play and its practice of picking of winners and losers in the marketplace.”

The report states:

“Floridians have entrusted Enterprise Florida, a public–private partnership focused on economic development, with significant public resources to deliver high quality job creation results, yet the organization has failed to accomplish its goals. Why has Enterprise Florida struggled as an economic development program? To better understand its operations, we take a close look at the incentive agreements executed by Enterprise Florida in the 2012 fiscal year. We selected 2012 because it presents the most recent data. It’s also a year that the Florida Secretary of Commerce has boasted of being an exemplar of success, referring to previous years’ efforts as “marginal at best.”

In addition to illustrating the failure to meet legislative expectations, this report documents Enterprise Florida’s apparent conflicts of interest, the appearance of a pay-to-play scheme for winning favorable treatment and its repeated practice of picking winners and losers in the marketplace through targeted business, favoritism, and selective incentive deals.” [My emphasis]

The report finds:

1. Enterprise Florida has failed to meet its job creation objective: In 1992, the Florida Legislature created Enterprise Florida with an initial objective of creating 200,000 high-wage jobs by 2005. After operating for twenty years and despite negotiating more than 1,600 transactions involving economic development incentive agreements worth more than $1.7 billion,iv Enterprise Florida reports that only 103,544 jobs have been delivered since 1995 – half of their original target and eight years beyond its original target date.

2. Enterprise Florida has failed to obtain its required level of private sector support: As a public-private partnership, Enterprise Florida is expected to obtain private sector support to help pay for its costs of operation. The Florida Legislature required Enterprise Florida to obtain 50% private sector contributions by Fiscal Year 2000-01. As of Fiscal Year 2010-11, more than 85% of Enterprise Florida’s funding comes from government and less than 15% comes from the private sector.

3. Enterprise Florida has the appearance of pay-to-play: Enterprise Florida, while subject to the dominion and control of the Florida Legislature,viii collects on average $50,000 each from corporate members for about half of the seats on the organization’s board of directors.ix Several Enterprise Florida board member companies received incentive agreements and vendor contracts following negotiations with Enterprise Florida staff during the 2012 fiscal year giving the appearance of pay-to-play.

4. Enterprise Florida has apparent conflicts of interest: The Enterprise Florida Board of Directors and the organization’s staff have a relationship that may be a conflict of interest. Enterprise Florida staff bonus pay of nearly $500,000 ($427,500 for staff, $70,000 for President/CEO) in 2012 was provided by Enterprise Florida board member companies that were also Enterprise Florida vendors and others that were recipients of incentive deals in the 2012 fiscal year.

5. Enterprise Florida is picking winners and losers: A number of executed agreements detailed in the 2012 Enterprise Florida Incentives Report demonstrate clear state government favoritism of some companies and industries. Enterprise Florida issues unnecessary benefits packages to entice businesses that should already be attracted Florida’s business friendly environment. These benefits are not necessarily enjoyed by competitors across an industry or all businesses moving to or expanding in Florida.

Click here to read the full report.

Florida Secretary of State releases voting recommendations, says nothing about voter fraud

Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner released his recommendations on voting. What is most notable is that the word “fraud” appears only once on page seven of a twelve page report.

The Detzner report states, “Additionally, some Florida counties continue to operate without utilizing technological advances, such as electronic poll books, which can shorten the time it takes to do voter intake and minimize the possibility of dual voting fraud.” No other mention is made of the numerous allegations, lawsuits and documented examples of voter fraud during the 2012 election cycle.

Why does the report not deal in more detail with voter fraud and voting transparency?

Because the mandate for the report from Governor Scott was, “… making recommendations to increase the accessibility and efficiency in Florida Elections.” The mandate was not to insure all votes cast are counted once and only once.

The report states:

“Secretary Detzner and a team of Department of State employees from the department’s Office of the Secretary, Office of the General Counsel and the Division of Elections’ Bureau of Voter Registration Services and Bureau of Voting Systems Certification traveled throughout Florida to meet with county supervisors of elections and their staffs and receive their input on how to improve Florida’s election system. Secretary Detzner also sought out and received valuable input from other elected officials and knowledgeable Floridians and organizations such as the Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections and the League of Women Voters. The Secretary also considered input from Florida voters, poll workers, Miami-Dade’s Election Task Force, the Miami-Dade Grand Jury report and Division of Elections’ staff.” [My emphasis]

Those consulted are those with a vested interest in, lobbyists for and those who control the voting system. The report states, “During Secretary Detzner’s fact-finding efforts, supervisors of elections and others agreed the 2012 General Election was a fair election as a whole.”

True The Vote has a different view of the St. Lucie County voting system . “This dramatic recount [in St. Lucie County] was an extraordinary example of how our elections can suffer systematic failure,” True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht said. “We run the risk seeing episodes like this becoming ordinary if citizens do not demand answers and hold election officials accountable. The American people own the voting system – we have the right to ask tough questions when we witness the failure of one of America’s core functions.

St. Lucie County is not mention in the Detzner report.

Patricia Mazzei in her Miami Herald column titled “Miami-Dade grand jury: Absentee voting fraud clouds confidence in tight election results” wrote, “To prove their point, grand jurors made an astounding revelation: A county software vendor discovered that a clandestine, untraceable computer program submitted more than 2,500 fraudulent, “phantom” requests for voters who had not applied for absentee ballots in the August primary.”

“With several narrow victories in races in the 2012 Primary and General Elections, the general sentiment that undetected fraud is occurring is a major problem for this Grand Jury and the citizens of this community,’’ the jurors wrote. “Can the public have confidence in the election results of those close races? We are not certain they can.” Read more here.

The Detzner report concludes that expanded early voting is the panacea. No where is voter fraud nor ways to prevent it addressed in any detail.

To read the full twelve page report click here.

Heritage Alliance Grades FL Republican Primary Candidates

Heritage Alliance has graded all the candidates with opposition in the Republican primary in Florida. Below are the grades for those contested primary races. At the bottom of the list are the criteria for the Heritage Alliances’ grades.

U.S. Senator – Republican

Long, Deon (R) Grade: C
Mack, Connie (R) Grade: B
McCalister, Michael (R) Grade: B
Stuart, Marielena (R) Grade: B
Weldon, Dave (R) Grade: A+

U.S. Rep., Dist. 3 – Republican

Jett, James (R) Grade: B
Oelrich, Steve (R) Grade: A
Stearns, Cliff (R) Grade: B+
Yoho, Theodore (R) Grade: B

U.S. Rep., Dist. 4 – Republican

Black, Bob (R) Grade: C
Crenshaw, Ander (R) Grade: B
Pueschel, Deborah (R) Grade: C

U.S. Rep., Dist. 6 – Republican

Clark, Richard (R) Grade: C
Costello, Fredrick W. “Fred” (R) Grade: A+
DeSantis, Ronald D. “Ron” (R) Grade: B
Kogut, William (R) Grade: D
Miller, Craig (R) Grade: A
Pueschel, Alec (R) Grade: B
Slough, Bev (R) Grade: B

U.S. Rep., Dist. 7 – Republican

Adams, Sandy (R) Grade: A+
Mica, John (R) Grade: C

U.S. Rep., Dist. 9 – Republican

Long, Todd (R) Grade: C
Melendez, Julius (R) Grade: C
Oxner, Mark (R) Grade: B
Quinones, John (R) Grade: D

U.S. Rep., Dist. 13 – Republican

Ayres, Darren (R) Grade: B
Vance, Madeline (R) Grade: B
Young, C.W. Bill (R) Grade: B

U.S. Rep., Dist. 14 – Republican

Adams Jr., Eddie (R) Grade: D
Otero, Evelio (R) Grade: C

U.S. Rep., Dist. 17 – Republican

Arnold, Joe (R) Grade: C
Rooney, Tom (R) Grade: B

U.S. Rep., Dist. 18 – Republican

Crowder, Robert L. “Bob” (R) Grade: D
West, Allen (R) Grade: B+

U.S. Rep., Dist. 19 – Republican

Aubuchon, Gary (R) Grade: B
Davidow, Joseph (R) Grade: C
Donalds, Byron (R) Grade: B
Goss, Chauncey (R) Grade: C
Kreegel, Paige (R) Grade: B
Radel, Trey (R) Grade: C

U.S. Rep., Dist. 23 – Republican

Bresso, Gineen (R) Grade: D
DeFario, Osvaldo (Ozzie) (R) Grade: C
Garcia, Juan Eliel (R) Grade: C
Harrington, Karen (R) Grade: B
Kaufman, Joe (R) Grade: B

About iVoterGuide.com

Volunteer Panelists

Panelists were selected after a Leadership Survey and a check of references that demonstrated conservative credentials and belief in limited constitutional government, free enterprise, strong national defense, and traditional Judeo-Christian values, such as the sanctity of life and marriage. Panelists include men and women from all walks of life who are committed to electing conservatives to public office.

Grading

After evaluating the data, panelists assigned a grade indicating what kind of voting record that candidate, if elected, would likely receive from a multi-issue conservative organization that grades on economic and social issues. Unless a candidate already has a legislative voting record, this is purely subjective. That is why the source data is provided so voters can more easily make their own evaluation.

A = 90% B = 80% C = 70% D = 60% F = below 60%
I = Insufficient information available for evaluation

A low grade does not mean panelists necessarily considered the candidate to be liberal. Rather, it may mean sufficient information was not available from public sources or from the candidate to give panelists the confidence that the candidate would govern conservatively if elected.  Sources of information considered the most important measure of conservative principles in governance are listed in descending order:

  • Legislative voting records if the candidate has recently held office
  • Financial contributions by the candidate to legislators with voting records
  • Record vote ratings for legislators to whom donors to the candidate have also contributed
  • Endorsements by conservative and liberal groups
  • Candidate Survey – less important because it represents promises rather than demonstrated action. However, no candidate can receive an A without answering the survey.
  • Statements on the candidates’ websites