Tag Archives: freedom

Ballot Box Stuffing the Chicago Way

Posted on by
1

From the city so democratic even the dead get to vote to the nation so democratic even illegals get to vote.  This is the goal of the Progressive administration, led by that Chicago community organizer.  Ballot box stuffing is so critical to this administration that it’s even suing states for trying to protect the sanctity of an American’s vote by eliminating the ineligible from the roles so that a citizen’s vote is not diminished or canceled by vote fraud.

Progressives even go so far as to argue, with a straight face, that there is no voter fraud, it’s a phantom problem.  We didn’t hear that, though, about the Florida Presidential election outcome a while back.  We saw the power of it in a Minnesota US Senate race in 2008, and in a recent Washington Governor election, where the recounts were repeated until the right candidate won.  And in some jurisdictions, it’s simply a way of life.

And so, we have the Obama jurisdiction suing Florida for trying to remove Mickey Mouse from the voter rolls.  Certainly, in a massive effort like Florida’s we get the occasional outlier case like the war vet whose citizenship was questioned in that same Florida drive.  However, this just demonstrates the cynical hypocrisy of Obama’s administration: the Department of Homeland Security refuses to let Florida officials bounce their list off the DHS databases—the most current we have—as another check of who is a citizen and who is not eligible to vote.

Permitting ballot box stuffing by allowing anyone to vote—even white guys claiming to be Eric Holder—is the broadened Chicago Way to preserve Progressive incumbency.

Government Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

Readers know that I’m no fan of the NLMSM.  However, now we hear of a naked attempt to turn the press—that erstwhile bastion of freedom—into an arm of the Federal government, all at the behest of President Obama’s Labor Department.

Labor officials have put forward a plan to require reporters who analyze and write about economic data which Labor provides in its “lock up” room to use government—Labor—computers, software(!?), and Internet accesses so the government, they claim, can protect itself against potential security hacks.

I have some beachfront property in central New Mexico on offer for those who believe this claim.

This is nothing but the government’s attempt to dictate to the press what they will be permitted to see and what they will be permitted to say about what they will see.  Bloomberg News Executive Editor, Dan Moss, testifying before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has the right of it:

This proposal threatens the First Amendment.  The government would literally open the reporters’ notebooks.

(As an aside, it’s interesting to note that the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee isn’t conducting any hearings on the matter.)

Carl Fillichio, a Labor communications specialist, told committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R, CA) after Wednesday’s hearing that he, Fillichio, would provide “some flexibility” on a June 15 deadline for the plan’s implementation.  Notice that: a communications specialist, not a Labor official with actual authority, claims to be in a position to commit the Department.  Fillichio did then send an email to Bloomberg, The Washington Examiner, and others, saying in part

Per my commitment to Chairman Issa’s request, we are going to move the effective date on changes to the lock up[.]

Notice this, too: there’s no commitment by this underling—or by anyone in authority at Labor, or by anyone in Obama’s White House—to eliminate this plan; there’s only a “commitment” to move its effective date.

Fox News‘ headline in the linked article is naïve.  This isn’t a backing off.  This is just cynical delay and a weasel-wording of a pseudo-change made by a junior functionary.  This obfuscation is of a piece with the HHS contraceptive, sterilization, and abortifacients insurance coverage “compromise.”  The plan will go into effect essentially unchanged, unless there’s more outcry and more pressure put on our Congressmen to withdraw by legislation this plan’s attack on our freedom (which also will force Obama’s explicit veto).

Regulations and Foreign Law

Posted on by
Reply

The Fed wants to put our own banking system under the aegis of international banking regulators.  Not directly, but by requiring all American banks—including even our smallest institutions—to meet the capital requirements of Basel III.  Basel III is an international standards “agreement” carrying international bureaucrats’ view of what constitutes a bank’s capital adequacy; those bureaucrats’ view of proper stress testing of a bank; and those bureaucrats’ view of the adequacy of a bank’s liquidity, apart from its capital adequacy.

There’s more: the Fed intends to impose on each bank a 1%-2.5% surcharge on its (increased) capital—because the Fed has a better understanding of how the bank’s capital should be used than does the bank.

Aside from whether US businesses should be under the control of foreign quasi-governmental agencies—a meme this administration is increasingly embracing—smaller financial institutions will have trouble meeting the additional requirements.  This is apparent from the results, in market share and profit margin, of this sort of intervention.  Lenders with $1 billion or less in assets have seen their market share fall to the neighborhood of 10% from the 31% they held in the early ’90s, and smaller banks had a return on assets of 1.22% for the first quarter of this year, compared with 1.52% for those with more than $1 billion in assets, just from the existence of the Fed’s domestic regulatory requirements.  So much for too big to fail.  The Fed is busily instituting too small to survive.  (And as an aside, notice those profit margins.  So much for fat cat bankers.  Those are the margins of chain grocery stores.)

There’s yet more.  The Fed doesn’t want banks to rate their riskiness in any effective way.  It intends to  force banks to stop relying on credit ratings when looking at their own assets’ riskiness.  Instead, the risk classifications of another foreign entity, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, are to be used.  The OECD Knows Better.

Hmm….

How is this Not a Firing Offense?

Posted on by
Reply

The principal of Brooklyn’s Coney Island PS 90–the Edna Cohen School–Greta Hawkins, has cancelled her kindergarten’s scheduled performance of Lee Greenwood’s “Proud to be an American” at their moving-up ceremony.

Her excuses?

We don’t want to offend other cultures

and the lyrics are “too grown up” for five year olds.  The opening lines, the “too grown up” lines, are these:

If tomorrow all the things were gone,
I’d worked for all my life,
And I had to start again,
With just my children and my wife,
I’d thank my lucky stars,
To be livin’ here today.

But  a Justin Bieber song was “age appropriate” for these same five year olds, and they were allowed to sing this song in the their ceremony.  This song opens with

Are we an item?
Girl, quit playing.

And the President Obama approves of this.  His Department of Education agrees with Hawkins.

The lyrics are not age-appropriate.

I’d like to hear his definition of “age-appropriate,” since he thinks patriotic lines are not, but Bieber’s lines are, for these children.

And those offended cultures?  The school has a significant immigrant student population, and so the neighborhood has a significant immigrant parent population.  Those parents, many of whom are immigrants from Pakistan, Mexico, and Ecuador, to name a few, “love” the song, which used to be performed annually by the kindergartners.  When last year’s fifth graders—who seem to be old enough to handle both patriotism and Bieber on the same day—sang “Proud to be an American” at their year-end ceremony, the parents of those fifth-graders gave it a standing ovation.

Yet, even though the school does have its students recite the Pledge of Allegiance and sing a stanza or two of “God Bless America” each morning, kindergartners aren’t allowed to be patriotic at their year-end ceremony.

Because patriotism is an “age-appropriate” topic.  And American patriotism might offend other cultures.

Update:  Now Hawkins has decided to can the Bieber song, too.  She’s not reinstating “Proud to be an American,” though; patriotism remains offensive at her school.  Congressman Michael G. Grimm (R, NY), whose district includes Brooklyn and this school, had some thoughts on the matter.

I am outraged that NYC’s Department of Education is standing by the decision of PS 90’s principal to pull the song “Proud to be an American” from the upcoming kindergarten ceremony, for fear of offending other cultures.   The only thing offensive about any of this is the anti-American message being engrained in our youth.  We all should be proud to be American and we should never ever apologize for it!

And Lee Greenwald had this about Hawkins’ banning of his song:

I think [Hawkins is] confused between allegiance and worship.  I don’t think it’s a religious issue to salute the flag.  You always respect the flag.  That’s just simple for me.  A religion that says you can’t do that is out of place

Duplicity in Government

Posted on by
Reply

No, I’m not talking about leaking the nation’s secrets for personal political gain, or personally approving, individual by individual, the execution of…individuals…by remote control.  I’m talking about duplicity aimed at maintaining incumbents’ positions in government, and so their personal power.

Here is an example of incumbents increasing the dependency of Americans on government. Here’s an example of falsifying “green” jobs data (as part of a larger investigation into the Labor Department’s “trouble” producing reliable labor data generally.  Select Part 2 from the tabs below the video and either listen to the whole thing, or skip ahead to 49:45 to hear the money part of the duplicity.

Here are a couple of examples that the government allows its unions to perpertrate on people:

  • Sally Coomer: Denied the Right to Choose by SEIU Leaders
  • Claire Waites: Denied the Right to Choose by Teachers Union Leaders