NYT Defends Wrong Way To Defend Voting Rights



Opinion/Editorial

 

  Is it me or should the New York Times just shut up when talking about the rights of others and first of all understand what they are supposedly defending. Most often they don't even understand what they're Opining about.

  This mornings lead OPED entitled "A New Defense of Voting Rights" is just an example.

  It begins "On Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. took an important step toward repairing the damage from last month’s Supreme Court ruling striking down a central element of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He is right to adopt an aggressive approach to defending the most fundamental right in our democracy."

  Yeah please like the NYT believes in any fundamental rights when it comes to a democracy,they only want to defend rights of those who buy into their warped socialist political leftist agenda.

  It goes on "In a federal lawsuit first brought by black and Hispanic voters against Texas over its redistricting maps, the Justice Department relied on a rarely used provision of the act, Section 3, to ask a federal court to require Texas to get permission before making any voting changes in the state."

  In true left wing fashion if all else fails bring a law suit. Asking permission of who the Big HUGE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT how about the 10 the amendment. On another point I would be willing to bet that the Hispanic voters most of them are probably illegal immigrants (oh for you idiotic liberals out there your favorite politically correct term "undocumented immigrants")

   The remainder of the hyperbull "Until last month, Texas already had to get such permission under the act’s “preclearance” process. This process had long been the most effective means of preventing racial bias in voting laws in states with histories of discrimination. It required state and local governments that wanted to change the laws to first show there would be no discriminatory effect. In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the act as unconstitutional; that provision laid out the formula that determined which jurisdictions had to get permission.

In theory, the court’s ruling allows Congress to update the list of nine states and parts of six others identified by Section 4. But given the dysfunction of Congress, that will not happen anytime soon.

This is why Mr. Holder’s decision to rely on Section 3 in the Texas case is so significant. Section 3 — also known as the “bail-in” provision — may be the most promising tool we have to protect voting rights after Shelby. It allows courts to identify jurisdictions that are passing intentionally discriminatory voting laws and then “bail” them in as needed — that is, require them to get permission before establishing new voting rules.

This is functionally similar to the system the court struck down last month, but Section 3 has several distinguishing features. It does not contain a preset list of jurisdictions, and it is forward-looking: instead of relying primarily on historical evidence of discrimination, it allows individual voters or the government to ask courts to zero in on any jurisdiction, like Texas, that continues to try to impose racially discriminatory voting laws.

Section 3 is also flexible. The period of coverage for preclearance under Section 3 is determined by court order, and may last for only as long as a federal judge deems it necessary to overcome voting discrimination in that jurisdiction.

These features make Section 3 a useful provision, but it has its weaknesses. The preclearance may be imposed only if a federal judge determines that the jurisdiction’s laws are intentionally discriminatory. When the Voting Rights Act was passed, such laws were much easier to identify. But lawmakers have since discovered countless ways to discriminate on the basis of race without saying so explicitly, and will continue to do so.

In the Texas case, a Federal District Court in Washington found that state redistricting maps showed intentional discrimination — among other things, black and Hispanic lawmakers were excluded from the map-drawing process, and districts were drawn to minimize the power of minority voters in ways that “could not have happened by accident,” including one district shaped like a lightning bolt. While the Texas record is full of clear evidence of discriminatory intent, in most places such a claim is harder to show. To address that problem, the Congressional Black Caucus has called for Section 3 to be amended to apply to voting laws that have a discriminatory effect, whether or not intent can be proved. If Congress is serious about protecting voting rights, it should pass this amendment immediately.

Some Republicans, like Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, have spoken out recently in favor of Section 3 as a method of protecting voting rights after Shelby. But Republican support for any amendment is uncertain at best, and some party members have vowed to oppose any fixes to the Voting Rights Act in light of the Justice Department’s filing.

Texas remains a hothouse of voter discrimination, where laws of dubious legality seem to sprout every day. The Justice Department’s brief cited four instances in the last three years alone in which local jurisdictions failed to show that proposed voting changes did not have a discriminatory purpose. That’s not including either the redistricting case or a separate suit filed over Texas’s new voter ID law, which will also be put on hold if the Section 3 request is successful.

Gov. Rick Perry has complained that the Justice Department’s action was an “end run” around the Supreme Court and cast “unfair aspersions” on his state. He should be more concerned with reversing Texas’s long run of discriminatory voting laws."

  Does the NYT think we are stupid apparently this is so.But as Constitutionalists such as those of you who follow this blog know that the only reason why the NYT picked Texas because it isn't a politically correct blue leaning state and a state that believes in it's constitutional rights.

 

 

 

 
 

Neither One Of These Idiots For Massachusetts 6th Congressional District

US Rep.John Tierney
 

Richard Tisei

 
  Neither one of these hack liberals are any good with Tierney as a far far way out left Democrat and Tisei one of the most RINO of Massachusetts members of the establishment Republican party both of these idiots are one in the same where they stand on the issues.
 It's time for those who live in the Mass 6th especially the tea parties in that district to band together to support a CONSTITUTIONAL GOD fearing type candidate to run and defeat these two life long members of the establishment.
 I know that the Constitutional tea parties will but not a particular group who supported Tisei that being the Greater Boston Tea Party who poke their noses into everything even when it doesnot involve their own district they need to mind their own business but they never do.
 I mean the Massachusetts Republican Party have never and never will support anything that is CONSTITUTIONAL or for that matter conservative they are trying to be like Democrats all the time.



NYT Fixation With Race Continues

Opinion/Editorial



 

  I could not wait for the New York Times to run their perversion of the George Zimmerman verdict. Well here it is DUMB ASSERY at its finest. The title of the lead OPED in the MONDAY morning BS is "Trayvon Martin’s Legacy" or in the proper terminology legacy of a criminal.

 All of us knew that it would only be a day or two before the NYT sunk to the levels that they always do especially with their Communist editorial board on a opinion like this. They never fail at putting their heads up their collective asses.

 The biased race laced garbage begins "It may not be possible to consider the case of George Zimmerman, who was acquitted Saturday of all charges in the killing of Trayvon Martin, as anything but a sad commentary on the state of race relations and the battle over gun rights in America today."

 For the record NYT Zimmerman was found NOT GUILTY but hey what's the TRUTH to you morons. Hey got to give it to them they hit a big miss on this one hitting both race and guns rights in one big swing and a miss. Oh for you liberals that baseball lingo.

 The swill goes on already coming to their holier than thou conclusion "Certainly it is about race — ask any black man, up to and including President Obama, and he will tell you at least a few stories that sound eerily like what happened that rainy winter night in Sanford, Fla.

 While Mr. Zimmerman’s conviction might have provided an emotional catharsis, we would still be a country plagued by racism, which persists in ever more insidious forms despite the Supreme Court’s sanguine assessment that “things have changed dramatically,” as it said in last month’s ruling striking down the heart of the Voting Rights Act. (The Justice Department is right to continue its investigation into whether Mr. Zimmerman may still be prosecuted under federal civil rights laws.)"

 Maybe to you stupid braindead asses at the NYT our country is plagued by racism because of you in the lame stream media and the NAACP and the RINOS and Demorats  in this country still harping on the issue of race.

 Here is the rest of this bile crap from the NYT "The jury reached its verdict after having been asked to consider Mr. Zimmerman’s actions in light of Florida’s now-notorious Stand Your Ground statute. Under that law, versions of which are on the books in two dozen states, a person may use deadly force if he or she “reasonably believes” it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm — a low bar that the prosecutors in this case fought in vain to overcome.

These laws sound intuitive: who would argue that you may not protect yourself against great harm? But of course, the concept of “reasonable belief” is transformed into something deadly dangerous when firearms are involved. And when the Stand Your Ground laws intersect with lax concealed-carry laws, it works essentially to self-deputize anyone with a Kel-Tec 9 millimeter and a grudge.

It has been a bad year so far for gun control. But if anything, cases like this should be as troubling as the mass killings that always prompt a national outcry and promises of legislative remedy. We were heartened that President Obama, in his statement after the verdict was issued, took the opportunity to denounce once again “the tide of gun violence” sweeping the country.

In the end, what is most frightening is that there are so many people with guns who are like George Zimmerman. Fear and racism may never be fully eliminated by legislative or judicial order, but neither should our laws allow and even facilitate their most deadly expression. Trayvon Martin was an unarmed boy walking home from the convenience store. If only Florida could give him back his life as easily as it is giving back George Zimmerman’s gun.

 For the record and I mean this from my heart I will pray for the family of Trayvon Martin for their loss but that doesnot remove the fact that he was a punk kid with a record a mile long.

 This has nothing to do with race but once again for the record Mr.George  Zimmerman is a registered DEMOCRAT and he is a Hispanic man.But of course that is forgotten by the NYT and everyone else how convenient.

 

 

 

 

Racism Is Not The Answer

These are pictures of racists and race baiters

Al Sharpton

Jesse Jackson

Ku Klux Klan

  

To me it does not matter what one's

political affiliation is whether you are a democrat,

a republican, independent or even a tea party member. These three photos have one thing in common
and that is the disgusting hatred of anyone who does not see things their way and God forbid someone doesn't see things their way.
 Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton both socialist left wing ideologues want to blame all the world's problems on white people and the KKK want to blame black people.
 Jackson and Sharpton who over and over again use the term African American to push their crap filled political agenda thus using hatred. No difference for the KKK who hide cowardly behind these white bed sheets pushing their venomous hatred for Jewish people along with the hatred for other races of people other than their own.
 I am putting up this post on my blog to show that we as a nation have put up with the issue of race long enough. We are a better country than this WAKE UP AMERICA!
 Please WAKE THE HECK UP!





 

I want to issue a challenge to all my fellow AMERICANS let us be united not divided as a nation

Same Old Same Old In Massachusetts

   Latest EBT scandal: Hoarding handouts... including $12,088 in 1 food stamp account

By: Chris Cassidy, Matt Stout

 Nearly 1,800 welfare recipients are carrying taxpayer-funded food stamp balances on their EBT cards in excess of $1,500 — with one account topping $12,000 — the latest twist in a state welfare scandal that now has a former Massachusetts inspector general 
 calling for a sweeping probe.A Herald review of a seven-month tally of EBT accounts also showed 37 welfare recipients have separate cash balances in excess of $1,500 — with one of more than $4,600. Unlike food stamps, which are federally funded, these payments are paid for by state taxpayers.“There should be an investigation by the 
administration and an investigation by all of the law enforcement agencies — including the IG’s office — to look at the question of integrity with the income reporting of people on welfare who 
receive food stamps,” former Inspector General Gregory Sullivan, now of the Pioneer Institute, told the Herald. “Massachusetts, in my view, has a very poor system.”
 The Herald review comes 
after state Rep. Shaunna O’Connell paid $800 to pry the welfare data on sky-high benefit balances from the state Department of Transitional Assistance after a store owner in Pittsfield sent her a receipt showing a customer’s alarming $7,000 EBT balance.Among the shocking totals in the DTA data:• Of the state’s 550,000 food stamp,
 or SNAP, recipients, 1,794 have balances of more than $1,500, and another 45 are carrying more than $5,000.• One balance in March hit $12,088, the highest from any of the seven months of data the Herald reviewed.• For those receiving state taxpayer-funded cash assistance, one EBT cardholder had a $4,622 balance, and another $4,320.On average, state households receive $230 a month in food stamps and $450 in cash assistance, meaning some of these EBT cardholders are going months, even years, without using their accounts.“It’s even worse than I thought it was going to be, what we’ve seen at this point,” O’Connell said, adding she needs more time to dig deeper into the numbers. “Once again, this is the tip of the 
iceberg.”Less than two hours after 
delivering the data to 
O’Connell’s office, officials at the Department of Transitional 
Assistance announced new rules to curb high balances. However, those officials denied the timing of the new initiatives was meant to blunt outrage over these 
bloated EBT balances.For those receiving cash assistance from the state, officials will now close EBT accounts exceeding a $2,500 balance and expunge all accounts not used for 90 days. Officials said they also will contact all those with more than $1,500 on EBT cards, asking them to call DTA to explain their cash kitty.As a federally administered program, there is no limit to how high SNAP accounts can soar. But DTA officials plan to deactivate any account not used after six months and then erase the balances after 12 months of no use. When balances reach $5,000, only then will caseworkers start a case review.DTA Commissioner Stacey Monahan refused a Herald 
request for an interview last night but said in a statement that high balances are “inconsistent with the department’s goal of helping vulnerable individuals meet their most basic and immediate needs, and that’s why we are taking this action.”O’Connell scoffed at the welfare agency’s new rules, calling them “one sorry excuse” for 
reform.“If you’re letting people accumulate thousands of dollars,” she said, “that flies in the face of any kind of genuine concern about fraud and any actual real reform.”

Joe Dwinell contributed 
to this report

Commentary

As the old saying goes the More things change the more they stay the same

Massachusetts Republicans Are DOOMED!

 

               Massachusetts Republicans regroup after defeat in U.S. Senate special election

Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Gabriel Gomez, left, is seen across from former Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown in this composite of Associated Press file photos. Gomez had hoped to achieve in 2013 the same feat Brown pulled off in 2010- defeating a democratic frontrunner in a special U.S. Senate election in liberal-leaning Massachusetts

 

 By Shira Schoenberg, The Republican masslive.com

 

  BOSTON - When Democrat Edward Markey defeated Republican Gabriel Gomez in the June 25 special election for U.S. Senate, it was only the latest loss for the Massachusetts GOP, and the string of defeats is leading some Republicans to rethink the party’s strategy.
“A lot of the folks being defensive right now, saying we have to keep doing things the way we’ve done things, are obviously mistaken,” said Paul Moore, a long-time Republican political strategist, pointing out that Republicans have only won one statewide election since 2002.
In past years, Republicans have had some success winning the governor’s seat. There have been three Republican governors elected since the 1990s – William F. Weld, A. Paul Cellucci and Mitt Romney. But, there has been only a single Republican U.S. senator from the Bay State since 1979: Scott Brown, who won a 2010 special election to fill the seat left vacant by the death of U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy but then lost last year to Democrat Elizabeth Warren in a race to hold onto the post.
A Republican has not represented Massachusetts in the U.S. House since 1997.
Several viable Republican candidates have lost in recent election cycles – Gomez, Brown and congressional candidate Richard Tisei in 2012, and gubernatorial nominee Charles Baker in 2010.
There are just four Republicans in the 40-seat state Senate, and 30 Republicans in the 160-person state House. On Beacon Hill, Democrats hold all constitutional offices, and all but one seat on the eight-member Governor's Council.
Part of the dynamic is due to demographics – Democrats outnumber Republicans three-to-one in Massachusetts.
Other experts say, however, problems with organization and its message are at the core of the GOP’s difficulties.
Thomas Whalen, a political historian and associate professor of social science at Boston University, views part of the problem as structural, saying the GOP in Massachusetts has never figured out how to organize at a grassroots level.
“The leadership at the top more or less look out for themselves, but don’t look strategically at the long term for the party and the state,” Whalen said. “The old cliché is Massachusetts Republicans always want senator or Congress but never local water commissioner or dog catcher.”
The losses at the top, Whalen said, then contribute to other candidates’ hesitancy to run. “Because of the recent losses, there might be Republicans who promised they’d sit it out or give it up entirely,” Whalen said. “There’s a loser mentality that might prevent talented people from jumping into the fray.”
Others point to problems with messaging.
Moore said Republicans should learn from the Gomez campaign that it takes more than a candidate with a “nice biography” to win an election. That must be combined, he said, with a strong, topical message – which Gomez’s campaign did not have. “With so many huge, critical issues facing the country, the idea that most of the campaign seemed devoid of a discussion of these things, voters have to scratch their heads and say what planet are you living on?” Moore said.
Moore said the Republican Party needs to back off from talking about social issues like gay marriage and focus instead on areas like the economy.
“If political candidates spent time around strangers’ kitchen tables to listen instead of talking, most people don’t give a rat’s behind about what other people are doing in their bedrooms,” Moore said. “They’re concerned about jobs, the economy, crime, are we going to get into more wars, what about the people still dying in Afghanistan.”
Janet Leombruno, a Republican state committeewoman from Framingham who was active in the Gomez campaign, said part of the challenge is that Republicans disagree on why Gomez lost.
“He lost because he was too liberal or he was too conservative. This is what you’re hearing,” Leombruno said.
Massachusetts Republicans need a better way of getting their message out, rather than letting themselves be defined by the national Republican Party or the Tea Party, Leombruno said. She points out that Brown lost among women after Democrats tied him to two Republican senators who made controversial comments about rape and abortion.
“It’s just frustrating,” Leombruno said. “I saw a lot of it in this race with Gabriel. They tried to define him as just another Republican.”
Leombruno said a candidate in Massachusetts must be moderate to appeal to independents and be successful. Leombruno believes Republicans must stop talking about abortion and gay marriage, and focus on pocketbook issues like college affordability and taxes.
“We have to agree to give up a little something,” she said. “It may not be our perfect candidate but there’s never any one perfect candidate out there.”
Not everyone agrees that moderation is key.
Paul Santaniello, a Republican political activist and Longmeadow selectman, said one problem the GOP faces is that candidates like Gomez act too much like Democrats, and have lost their own vision.
“You try to run in the middle of the street, you tend to get run over,” Santaniello said. “That’s what’s happening to Republican Party.”
Santaniello said he believes it is a mistake for Massachusetts Republicans to distance themselves from Tea Party activists. “Those are the same kind of folks who will stand out for you in the rain or a driving hail storm to hold your sign,” he said.
Despite the recent losses, some Bay State Republicans remain hopeful, looking toward 2014 when there will be races for governor and U.S. senator.
"Gabriel Gomez did extremely well in a lot of different pockets of the commonwealth,'' said state Rep. Todd Smola, R-Warren, and one of only four GOP legislators from Western Massachusetts. "There's a lot of red territory in the state of Massachusetts after that election."
Gomez, in his first statewide election, won large swaths of Bristol, Essex, Hampden, Worcester and Plymouth counties, though he lost key cities such as Brockton, Gloucester, Lowell and Quincy. In Middlesex County, home to almost 23 percent of the state's voters, Gomez won 21 of 54 communities, but was crushed in swing communities such as Lowell and Waltham, which Brown had won in 2010.

Smola said Gomez's victories in certain communities are a good sign for a Republican statewide candidate in 2014 such as Baker or Brown. "Next year will be a good chance for the Republican Party to make some gains," Smola said.

State Rep. George Peterson, R-Grafton, who serves as assistant minority leader in the state House, said the GOP should continue to emphasize the need for more balance on Beacon Hill.
Republicans can win, Peterson said, by emphasizing a need for lower taxes and more reforms in state government. Such a platform could appeal to independents, who might be eager for change next year, he said.

With state spending at record levels and the economy still sluggish, "That's going to be a huge argument for the Republican Party and a very good one for us," Peterson added.

Peterson is among those who expects Baker to be the frontrunner for the party's nominee for governor. He said 2014 could be like 1990 when Weld won the corner office; that year, the Democrat-controlled Legislature raised the income tax to 6.25 percent when the state's economy was in poor shape.

Now, Democrats on Beacon Hill are poised to raise the gas tax by 3 cents a gallon and impose the sales tax on computer design services.

"A lot of people are going to be pretty upset," Peterson said.

 

Commentary

As I said in the title of this post they are DOOMED!

Liberal ULTRA ULTRA Hypocrisy At It's Finest

                                            University Bans Religious Necklaces

 

 

     There is no better example of political correctness and religious intolerance run amok than the liberal bastion that is our colleges and universities. Long a breeding ground for what was supposed to be “tolerance” and the acceptance of opposing viewpoints, a large number of our academic institutions have become the epitome of the intolerance they supposedly abhor. A perfect example of this intolerance is the recent controversy at Sonoma State University where a female student was asked to remove her cross necklace because a school supervisor thought other students would find it offensive. The resulting controversy, according to news reports, was characterized by “political correctness that got out of hand”.
  The student, Audrey Jarvis, was forced by the University to seek a “religious accommodation” to be able to wear the cross. Rightfully she has asked for an apology from the University.
  According to Ms. Jarvis’s attorney, Hiram Sasser, it’s “amazing in this day of diversity and tolerance on university campuses that a university official would engage in this type of religious discrimination.”
  Mr. Sasser likely means well, but in this case is sorely mistaken.  University campuses have become a bastion of intolerance, specifically in regards to anyone who holds Christian and/or conservative beliefs.  For decades the liberal establishment has been doing their best to indoctrinate university students into their leftist worldview. As a result the push for “equality” and “tolerance” has created an atmosphere where any opposition to the preferred liberal, pro-abortion, anti-religious, pro-gay rights mindset is not tolerated by the establishment whatsoever. The sad fact is the concept of our universities as a model for open debate and multiple viewpoints is an antiquated notion.
  In the Sonoma State example Ms. Jarvis was told that she could not wear her cross necklace because it might “offend others and it might make incoming students feel unwelcome.” This pathetic mindset, not unusual among the liberal elite, is a sad reminder of the point we’ve reached as a country when it comes to political correctness. The idea that an incoming freshman would somehow be offended by a Christian symbol that’s been around for two-thousand years and something they’ve seen numerous times before is indicative of how weak our culture has become in the endless quest never to offend anyone. Of course a gay pride symbol or a pro-abortion sign is as offensive (or more offensive) than a Christian cross. Good luck getting Sonoma State to tell a student to remove a gay pride symbol from anything. In the process of trying not to “offend” other students the university effectively discriminated against a student who has every right to display the symbols of her personal belief system. While Sonoma State moves to dismiss the case as an isolated incident it’s a perfect microcosm into the mindset of a good number of our liberal college professors and academic staff.

Commentary

I never ever want to hear some blovating big mouth on MSNBC, CNN or even the NYT on tolerance diversity and acceptance its all bullshit



 
 
 
 
 

A NYT OPED From July 4,2013

Opinion/Editorial




 

 Normally I would take an oped from this mornings New York Times and the error of their ways but I figured I would look at the one published on our nations birthday to see what they wrote.

 This is the second lead OPED from three days ago "Every Ordinary Fourth" is the title.

 It begins "Here we are in the high seas of summer, rounding the corner called the Fourth of July. Most years, it seems, we barely get a glimpse of it before changing tack and sailing on toward all those months that end in “ber.” It would be nice to anchor here, to stretch the day into a week or a month, to see what the waves wash up and to learn the tides before the current carries us away.Do we, as a nation, eat more hot dogs on July Fourth than any other day of the year? What about potato salad and deviled eggs? Are there still legions of children hand-cranking ice cream, watching the pale gray slurry of rock salt and ice with appalling impatience while the grown-ups stand by recalling their own apprenticeship at the crank? This is a day for the historical re-enactment of Fourth of Julys past, if only the ones we remember from childhood. In a way, that is the point of fireworks in the dark, to recapture a childlike sense of awe and surprise. We watch with our reflexes, vulnerable to the boom and sizzle in the night sky.

   Wow the NYT waxing in a poetic fashion this is a first.
   It continues "There is something self-evident about the Fourth of July. We know its origin and its meaning. Its iconography is straightforward, even if the text behind it — the Declaration — is complex. It retains a simplicity that resembles no other major holiday. It celebrates a vital principle, but it is lacking in rites and ritual. We set aside the day, which seems to include a bit of everything — family, patriotism, parades, and simply doing nothing. Yet you could say its significance can be found in the doings of any ordinary American day — something that’s all too easy to forget until July Fourth comes along as a reminder.
 Here we go it is not complex the Declaration of Independence you make it that way you morons at the NYT editorial board because you all don't understand or give a dam about what it means.
 Again it celebrates a vital principal but it is lacking in rites and ritual because you idiots embrace political liberal/socialism with the far left in this country for so long you dumb asses at the NYT which has nothing whatsoever to do with our nation or it's founding principals and even what our God Blessed founders believed in.