Friday, June 27, 2014

Black Mississippi Democrats Bamboozled by the GOP

Who could ever believe that black Democrats could be led to vote for a Republican candidate in Mississippi?

Well, on Tuesday they did just that.  Black Democrats in Mississippi were wound up in the Republican primary runoff election with robocalls that warned them not to vote for conservative state senator Chris McDaniel, six-term incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran’s opponent, because he is a racist Tea Party candidate who opposes President Obama.  You heard me correctly.  Black Democrats jumped across party lines and voted in a Republican primary on the premise that a Republican candidate was racist.  What ever happened to the belief that ALL Republicans are racists and hate President Obama?  I had no idea black Democrats could be that easily led around by their noses.  (By the way, there was no credible evidence of racism in this race.)  

The robocall said, “The time has come to make a stand and say ‘No!’ to the Tea Party, ‘No!’ to their obstruction, ‘No!’ to their disrespectful treatment of the first African-American president.” “Vote against Tea Party candidate Chris McDaniel next Tuesday. Say ‘No!’ to the Tea Party.”

What is most notable is that the black voters were essentially tricked by this robocall and Republican Cochran who used the ‘tried and true’ Democrat strategy of race baiting.  How na├»ve can these voters be?  On the other ‘Right’ side of the coin, Cochran committed the cardinal sin of using false claims of racism to get votes particularly in a state with such a history of racism.

Mississippi carries the stain of its Jim Crow (Southern Democrat-led) past and is believed to be the most racially polarized electorate in the country. Consequently, Mississippi blacks overwhelmingly vote Democratic, with only 2 percent participating in the 2012 Republican primary.  To Cochran’s benefit, Mississippi allows anyone, regardless of party affiliation, to vote in its GOP primary, as long as they didn’t previously vote in that year’s Democratic primary.  Cochran’s move to court the black vote in a primary runoff was unprecedented and he beat McDaniel by 6,625 votes with most of the credit for the win given to the black Democrat voters.

Rev. Jesse Jackson said this week of the Cochran win, “Our voting determined the outcome. Our not voting determined the outcome.” And most would say Jackson is right.  Unfortunately, Jackson and the Mississippi black voters don’t seem to know what or who to vote for.

Mississippi carries the stain of its Jim Crow (Southern Democrat-led) past and is believed to be the most racially polarized electorate in the country. Consequently, Mississippi blacks overwhelmingly vote Democratic, with only 2 percent participating in the 2012 Republican primary.  To Cochran’s benefit, Mississippi allows anyone, regardless of party affiliation, to vote in its GOP primary, as long as they didn’t previously vote in that year’s Democratic primary.  Cochran’s move to court the black vote in a primary runoff was unprecedented and he beat McDaniel by 6,625 votes with most of the credit for the win given to the black Democrat voters.

1.    The unemployment rate of blacks in Mississippi is 14.3%, more than two and a half times that of whites (5.4%), and has been at least twice the white rate (and at times triple the white rate) for much of the last five years.
2.    Of the 24 states with large enough African American populations to track with unemployment data, Mississippi has the 9th highest African American unemployment rate.
3.    Mississippi’s white unemployment rate has declined steadily, though slowly over the last 3 years to 5.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012. Mississippi’s white unemployment rate places it among the states with relatively low unemployment rates for white workers.
4.    The black-white gap in unemployment rates in Mississippi is 2nd largest in the nation.
Mississippi’s economy seems to be doing just fine for whites.  Meanwhile, black Democrats don’t vote their own interest in Mississippi; they do as they are told.  It seems to me that this demonstration of black electoral might should be turned toward voting for candidates that will reverse the economic conditions blacks face in the state.  Unfortunately, as with many black Democrat voters, they make no connection between the candidates they elect and the impact those candidates have on their economic condition.  Black support for President Obama’s re-election is a perfect example.


Undoubtedly, Mississippi blacks will vote against Cochran in the General Election and vote for his Democrat opponent Travis Childers.  I can’t wait to hear the robocall Childers uses against Cochran.  What goes around, will come back around.

Friday, June 20, 2014

Cross Here for U.S. Voter Registration

What’s love got to do with it?

Amnesty to President Obama is defined by an “open border” policy.  Jeb Bush seems to agree.  Crossing the border is a matter of love, he said.

Unfortunately, since January 2014, 47,000 unaccompanied minors entered the U.S. illegally (double the number of last year) from Central America and are still being flown and bused between U.S. cities (specifically Arizona and Texas) and dumped by the federal government with no plans to stop or deport.  130,000 more are expected to arrive next year and $2.2 billion has been allocated by our government for their care. It’s their plan.  Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona said, “This is a crisis of the federal government’s creation, and the fact that the border remains unsecure-now apparently intentionally-while this operation continues full-steam ahead is deplorable.” 

The failure to secure the border is “de facto amnesty”, said Stu Harris, Vice President of the National Border Patrol Council.   Those who would have run away from the border patrol are now looking for agents to surrender to because they know they will be released into the United States, said Harris to Breitbart Texas.  This is a sham of monumental proportions but President Obama did say that the arriving migrants would not be eligible for legalization under proposed immigration reform legislation. Now this would be comforting if not from the man who promised, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

Beyond the insanity of this administration’s open border policy, amnesty for illegal aliens has an economic impact that seems ignored. The Cato Institute reported in its Cato Journal (2012) on the Economic Consequences of Amnesty for the Unauthorized Immigrants that “Tax revenue is likely to increase, an important consideration in an era of large deficits. There are costs as well: an amnesty entails losing the benefits of having a relatively cheap flexible workforce; there may be a negative labor market impact on competing workers; and government transfers to the legalized population may rise.”

In other words, tax revenue will increase but so will unemployment and entitlement programs like welfare and food stamps. Why would we provide amnesty that will directly grow our already massive entitlement complex that is unsustainable while also virtually eliminating cheap labor-until the next wave of illegal immigration?

We would pass amnesty because we allow our leaders to promote a political agenda at our expense. Without securing the borders, amnesty is merely a perpetual Voter Registration Drive for Democrats. It’s a set up to grow Democrat voters as evidenced after amnesty in 1986 under Ronald Reagan.  We are repeating the mistakes of our past.

We must be credible with our system of legal immigration; after all, that is a contributing factor of what makes this country so great.  It is founded and governed by the rule of law.  Conversely, we must not promote the flagrant violation of United States law.

"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave." "...for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process, " said (former) Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX) in1995. That is still the gospel today.
Sorry, Jeb Bush, it’s not a matter of love, it’s a matter of law.   

Friday, June 13, 2014

Hope for California

There is hope for failing public education across the U.S. and it’s not Common Core.

The Golden State that gave the country the transgender bathroom movement shone a bright light this week but the light was overshadowed by multiple national and global crises.  One judge in California boldly bucked the system and delivered a judgment for California’s students that could change the trajectory of public education in this country.

The problem with our public educational system is complicated.  It cannot be fixed with nationalized standards as attempted with Common Core.  The Common Core “one size fits all” approach will never fit. 16 states have either dropped the standards or have paused participation to set their own standards.  4 states never adopted Common Core at all.  The problem with public education is not that it needs nationalization.  The problem with our system includes, but is not limited to, the effects of poverty on learning, standardization that ignores the culture, student-to-teacher ratios, language, parent engagement and accountability, federal dollars controlling school districts, the school boards, district administrators, and of course the focus on pay and seniority by the teachers unions and (some of) the teachers themselves.  One of these factors was dealt a blow this week in California.

On June 10, 2014, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu struck down the California teacher tenure and seniority system as unconstitutional on the grounds these protections harmed predominantly low-income, minority students by allowing incompetent instructors to remain in the classroom.  This system of protecting teachers “impose[s] a real and appreciable impact on students’ fundamental right to equality of education,” he wrote. 

This decision effectively ends the process of laying-off teachers based solely on their hire date and ends job security traditionally obtained by a teacher who has only taught for 18 months.  Judge Treu stayed his opinion until the state exhausts its remedies.  Surprisingly, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan sees this decision as a “mandate to change similar laws, practices and systems that fail to identify and support our best teachers and match them with our neediest students.”

Now if Students Matter, the Silicon Valley group that brought Vergara v. California, can survive an appeal by the state and then focus on ripping Common Core out of California by its root, we may be on our way to real public education reform in this state if not across the whole country.  The challenges cannot be fixed in one blow but it is refreshing to see real change in a state whose legislators and judges (i.e. (Retired) Judge R. Vaughn Walker) too often lead the nation in tomfoolery.  Good decision Judge Treu.



Friday, June 6, 2014

Selective Citizenship

I wrote last week about the plight of Meriam Ibrahim who has been sentenced to death in Sudan for adultery and apostasy.  Ibrahim has two children who languish in jail with her and await her death; their fate is uncertain after her execution.  What is certain is that the Sudanese government will not give the children to their biological father because he is a Christian and not a Muslim.  Daniel Wani is an uncontroverted U.S. citizen (has dual citizenship) has lived in the U.S. since 2005 and wants his children; he is crying out for the right to parent them and bring them home to the U.S.  The United States State Department has done very little to help.


This is not a complicated issue which raises larger questions about the motives of this Obama administration.  Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] which states, in part, the following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years. Under this U.S. law, Wani’s children (Martin-20 months old and newborn Maya) are clearly U.S. citizens.

Under U.S. law, children born to a husband and wife are presumed to be children of the union.  DNA is not required to establish paternity but is presumed.  Here, the opposite appears to be the case. Paternity is not presumed but rather must be proven.  The State Department is requiring evidence of paternity, typically reserved for children born to an unmarried couple.  This genetic testing process has proven onerous for his family.

Instead, it seems the State Department is deferring to Islamic-based Shariah Law which simply does not recognize the marriage at all – thus the DNA testing to prove parentage.  Meanwhile, Martin and Maya’s obvious status is being denied and they suffer daily.

It’s not enough that the U.S. welcomes thousands of illegal immigrants across our borders daily who do not belong in the U.S.; it’s not enough that in 2010 the Obama Justice Department sued the State of Arizona for enforcing its own federal immigration laws so that the influx of illegal immigrants would go unabated;  it’s not enough that the president passed a version of the Dream Act through Homeland Security in 2012 that makes illegal immigrants under 30 years old who have been in the U.S. since they were 16 and have lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years eligible for deferred action which amounts to a suspension of deportation. This group would then be eligible for work permits.  It’s not as if this Obama administration is hard on illegal immigration.

To bend over backwards to deny entry by U.S. citizens whose mother is being executed for being a Christian is simply inexplicable.  Might this administration be Islamic sympathizers afraid to clash with the implementation of Shariah Law against U.S. citizens?  It is a sad day when the State Department abdicates its essential role to protect Americans abroad and leaves Americans and children in particular in harm’s way when their status as citizens is not even a close call. This cannot stand in America!