Archive for August 2nd, 2011

Segregation by Law in California?

From elvisnixon.com 

California has just undergone a new redistricting plan intentionally designed to segregate voters by race.

This is known as segregation.

“Separate but equal” seems to inevitably result in “Separate but UNequal” in practice. That seems to be the holding of virtually every US Supreme Court case since Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Why is California creating distinct voting districts that are created to emphasize race?

Even Don Walters at the liberal San Francisco Examiner could not help but notice the racist redistricting plan:

We Californians have been less willing to discuss a particularly sensitive aspect of that diversity—the emergence of what can only be called segregation. …

The state’s new redistricting commission fully embraced the ‘community of interest’ concept and during countless hours of line-drawing, which reached a semifinal stage over last weekend, they bent over backward to accommodate demands from what its members called ‘COIs.’ …

Although the state long ago abolished legal segregation, we nevertheless tend to collect ourselves into enclaves, sometimes due to economic necessity but more often reflecting personal preferences to live among others with similar cultural, economic, linguistic, ethnic, generational or even political traits.

The geographic dividing lines among what are euphemistically called ‘communities’ can be very stark, especially in densely populated urban areas, reaching an extreme level in the block-by-block turf wars of street gangs. …

To some extent, they had no choice. The federal Voting Rights Act, as interpreted by their legal adviser, required them to create a certain number of “majority minority” districts to maximize Latino political clout and to protect the interests of other ethnic groups. …

The commission was created to stop politicians from drawing districts to benefit themselves and/or their parties, but in doing so, it gerrymandered another way. It gave official sanction to California’s evolution—or deterioration—from a coherent society with a core of common values into an incoherent collection of (racial) clans.

Let us review: The liberal San Francisco paper is saying that the plans are inherently racist and specifically designed to favor one racial group (“Latinos”) over others.

Can it be that the plans will favor even more Democrat controlled Districts?

Would this plan be Constitutional if it were based on promoting “White Communities of Interest”? Clearly not- therefore the “Latino Community of Interest” element should be banned as outright racial gerrymandering.

Where are Eric Holder and the Department of Justice?

Where are Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?

Why is ELVISNIXON.com probably the only place that you have heard about this blatant racism?

Read Full Post »

Republicans Break Pledge to Ensure Lawmakers Have Time to Review Major Bills

By Jerry A. Kane

Last year Minority Leader John Boehner and the Republicans were spitting mad at Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat-controlled House for passing bills without giving House members and the American people time to read them.

“Neither members of Congress or the public were given time to read the trillion-dollar stimulus before it passed. Nobody read the cap-and-trade bill. Nobody read the budget. And yet Democrats approved them anyway. Now this is no way to run Congress.”—John Boehner (R-OH)

Republicans argued that Americans should be allowed to know the contents of major bills before they are brought to a vote in the House, and they drew up the Pledge to America promising to do just that:

We will ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public square by publishing the text online for at least three days before coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives. No more hiding legislative language … Legislation should be understood by all interested parties before it is voted on.”—the Pledge to America

“Tammy Faye” Boehner echoed the promise saying that “Every major bill should be posted online and publicly available for at least 72 hours.”  

But that was then, and now it turns out that Boehner and House Republicans rushed Harry Reid’s hastily-written “crap sandwich” bill to the floor without allowing a legislative committee to review it or giving House members and the public the promised 72 hours/three days to read it.

“Americans have lost trust with their government, which has too often ignored the will of the people in favor of party loyalty and a desire to pass partisan bills at any cost. Backroom deals, phantom amendments, and bills that go unread before being forced through Congress have become business as usual. … Americans are demanding change in the way Congress works, and we are fighting to bring much-needed sunlight to the process and give the American people a greater voice in their Congress.”—Pledge to America

What is also noteworthy is that the House Republican Conference’s Web site has added language to the promise, which now reads “A Three Day Waiting Period on all Non-Emergency Legislation.” The words “non-emergency” or “emergency” were not included in the original Pledge to America.

Clover asked Benjamin to read her the Sixth Commandment, and when Benjamin, as usual, said that he refused to meddle in such matters, she fetched Muriel. Muriel read the Commandment for her. It ran: ‘No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.’ Somehow or other, the last two words had slipped out of the animals’ memory. But they saw now that the Commandment had not been violated …”— George Orwell, Animal Farm

I.M. Kane

For more on the story, see Debt-Limit Vote Breaks GOP Pledge to Post Bills Online for 3 Days Before Vote.

Boehner: Every Major Bill Should Be Posted Online and Publicly Available for at Least 72 Hours :48 Video

Rep. Chaffetz Ensuring Bills Will Be Debated At ‘Pledge To America’1:10 Video

Read Full Post »