Federal judge: Blacks need to be told who the Democrats are on the ballot

.

The plantation mentality is alive and well in the South, after all.

A U.S. District Court judge has rejected a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — filled when the Department of Justice barred the city of Kinston, N.C. from holding nonpartisan elections — reasoning that lack of access to party affiliation would discriminate against minority voters who otherwise wouldn’t know how to find Democratic candidates on a ballot.

The challenge was initiated after the Justice Department rejected a 2008 referendum vote in which the city of Kinston voted to stop listing candidates’ party affiliations on ballots.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department must approve changes to election law in regions with a history, however distant, of racial discrimination.

The Justice Department prevented the 2008 referendum change, arguing in part that “the elimination of party affiliation on the ballot will likely reduce the ability of blacks to elect candidates of choice.”

Advocates for nonpartisan elections including Republican state representative Stephen LaRoque and several other Kinston residents subsequently sued the Justice Department, challenging the constitutionality of Section 5.

If there is a better example of institutional bigotry with respect to voting rights in this country, we'd like to see it.

The statist desire to see minorities as wards of the state now extends to that of a single political party as well.

The assumptive reasoning behind this is rather absurd as local elections, particularly in smaller towns across the country are absent party affiliation and how does the flip side of this sound?: Republicans will be required to be identified on the ballot so that white voters will be better able to select their candidate of choice.



The Holder Justice Department: enforcing the soft bigotry of low expectations for minorities in America since 2009.

Great moments in the history of the ruling class vs. the country class

Alternate blog post title: "Great moments in the history of the ruling class and their miserable sock puppet mascots vs. country class.



Drive behind the Geffen Contemporary, an art museum in downtown Los Angeles, and you will notice that it has painted over the graffiti scrawled on its back wall. Ordinarily, that wouldn’t be surprising; the Geffen’s neighbors also maintain constant vigilance against graffiti vandalism. But beginning in April, the Geffen—a satellite of L.A.’s Museum of Contemporary Art—will host what MOCA proudly bills as America’s first major museum survey of “street art,” a euphemism for graffiti. Graffiti, it turns out, is something that MOCA celebrates only on other people’s property, not on its own.



MOCA's (Museum of Contemporary Art) board of directors and patrons read like a who's-who of Los Angeles's power elite so the truly maddening and disgusting thing about this is that graffiti affects disproportionately the citizens in working-class and poor neighborhoods - the very people these elites claim to champion.

As one would expect, the concepts of property rights and anti-social behavior are rationalized by the benefactors (again, the soft bigotry of low expectations held by the liberal-Left rears its ugly head) and explained away in contradictory leftist tropes by the "artists" themselves who will, naturally, spring at the opportunity to turn a buck for their "art".

As ones who continue to struggle against the blight-inducing effects of graffiti in our own neighborhood, we find MOCAs celebration of graffiti to be insulting and enraging.

It's enough to get you beaten

Many of you remember what has been roundly described as the worst piece of sports journalism in history when back in August of 2009, Mark Whicker of the Orange County Register "congratulated" Jaycee Dugard for having "left the yard", a yard in which she had been imprisoned for 18 years.

Well, thankfully for Whicker, it looks like he may have some company.

Earlier, last week, after a Dodgers-Giants game up in Los Angeles, Giant fan, Bryan Stow a paramedic from Santa Cruz, was badly beaten by two men in the parking lot. Stow has been in the hospital since that time and remains in a coma.

However, according to John Steigerwald of something called the Observer-Reporter out of Pennsylvania, Stow kind of had it coming to him because he was, get this... wearing Giants gear.

Maybe someone can ask Stow, if he ever comes out of his coma, why he thought it was a good idea to wear Giants' gear to a Dodgers' home opener when there was a history of out-of-control drunkenness and arrests at that event going back several years.

Remember when it was the kids who were wearing the team jerseys to games? It was a common sight to see an adult male coming through the turnstile dressed as a regular human being with a kid dressed in a "real" jersey holding his hand.

Cute.

Are the 42-year-olds who find it necessary to wear their replica jerseys to a road game, those kids who are now fathers who haven't grown up?

Are there really 40-something men who think that wearing the jersey makes them part of the team? It was cute when a 10-year-old kid got that feeling by showing up at Three Rivers Stadium in a Pirates jersey, but when did little boys stop growing out of that?

Here's tip for you if you actually think that wearing your team's jersey makes you a part of the team:

It doesn't.

We've never owned a team jersey as they tend to be too expensive and to Steigerwald's point, they just never seemed to make a whole lot of sense to us as game-day attire. But to suggest that wearing your team's gear leaves you fair game for some sort of comeuppance is pathetic as well as dangerous.

It's the equivalent of those in this country who blamed the massacre at the U.N. embassy in Afghanistan carried out by crazed Islamists on the Koran-burning pastor down in Florida which included reliable lefty and Time magazine contributor Joe Klein who said: "There should be no confusion about this: Jones’s act was as murderous as any suicide bomber’s.”

In both cases, be it drunk Dodger fans or unhinged Muslims, we see the soft bigotry of low expectations excuse the inexcusable.

So, congrats John Steigerwald. You've joined Whicker and Rick Reilly as generators of some to the worst sports-writing we have read in years.

Quote of the day

"We have a mentally unstable person in the class that scares the living crap out of me. He is one of those whose picture you see on the news, after he has come into class with an automatic weapon. Everyone interviewed would say, Yeah, he was in my math class and he was really weird. I sit by the door with my purse handy. If you see it on the news one night, know that I got out fast..."

That from Lynda Sorenson in an email regarding Jared Loughner of whom she was a classmate at community college in Tucson.

Thus far, any and all accounts of Loughner point to him simply being a deranged wacko but my oh my has the press tried to paint him as being motivated by something other than just his own lunacy.

Captain Ed has a good round-up of the media hypocrisy that exists with respect to how different shootings are handled, here.

Just remember that when jumping to conclusions, Loughner was a white male. That's about all you really need to know in order to get started.

Got incivility?

One wonders where the No Labels crowd stands on this bit of pique displayed by these people.

The frustration with President Barack Obama over his tax cut compromise was palpable and even profane at Thursday’s House Democratic Caucus meeting.

One unidentified lawmaker went so far as to mutter “f--- the president” while Rep. Shelley Berkley was defending the package the president negotiated with Republicans. Berkley confirmed the incident, although she declined to name the specific lawmaker.

“It wasn’t loud,” the Nevada Democrat said. “It was just expressing frustration from a very frustrated Member.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) was also overheard saying that “we can’t trust him” not to cave to Republicans and extend the tax cuts again in two years, according to a Democratic source.

The anger aimed at the bill was widespread. As Democrats moved to block the bill from coming up on the floor, chants of “Just say no!” could be heard by reporters outside the room.

Upset with the President's tax policy?

Racists.

Liberal woman disturbed by liberals' treatment of women

Kirsten Powers, no conservative she, pens a column for the Daily Beast on the recent outbreaks of misogynistic and bigoted behavior displayed by her fellow libs.


Before we get to Powers' pull-a-graph, however, we want to show you something that happened just after Powers' article was published proving that it's tough to keep current with all this stuff:



(If embed no worky, go here)





Dancing....? Masters...?


Damn, Larry. Why not just drop any pretext of subtlety and go straight to shuckin' and jivin'? Much more colorful, wouldn't you say?


Anyway, here's Powers and, unfortunately, a washed-up and irrelevant "feminist", Gloria Steinem:

Yes, sexism matters—as does gender. But whereas you never hear anyone claim that men should vote a particular way because of their gender, feminists have no trouble treating women like pre-schoolers who have to be herded into the right camp, a camp that is apparently preordained at birth. In an interview with Katie Couric last year, Gloria Steinem said that where conservative women stand “is squarely against what most women need and want. If [women] still vote for them, they are voting against themselves, which is quite tragic to me.”

The liberal-left is scared witless and this lashing out is not unlike a cornered animal emoting in basic survival mode. And what is at the core of this acting out is a plantation mentality that the liberal-left has towards women and minorities.

This hostility exhibited towards those that wander off reservation is borne of a mindset of intellectual and moral superiority. How else does one explain ObamaCare and the overall statist agenda of the liberal-left?:

You are too stupid and not to be trusted to make the proper health care decisions on your own.

You see, women and minorities owe their current standing to the liberal-left and to display any sort of independent thinking that is not in lock-step with the establishment is not showing the warranted fealty and is viewed as tantamount to an insurrection. The keeper/minder mentality is at the core of the liberal-left's treatment of women and minorities.

While we'll be looking hard for signs of extremism and bigotry at the tea party rally today up in Oceanside, we trust many of you will have a much easier time of it by simply turning on your T.V.

And where we forgot to provide a title to this post the first time around

(Updated. Please scroll down for update)

Via the Scratching Post:






This notion of assessing the moral standing of a movement by picking out the number of black faces in the assemblage makes a lot of sense. By this sort of easy button profiling we can surmise that the 22,000 or so fans that show up at Padre games downtown might do so as motivated by bigotry. To wit, we have almost sworn off hiking Cowles Mountain for concerns regarding the lack of specific hues out on the trail. Honestly, who would want to be associated with that lot?




We can't imagine what it is like to be a black conservative in this country, especially an older black who grew up in the South and now attends tea party rallies. That'd be like hitting for the cycle in defying the leftist narrative of how a good plantation negro in this country should be behaving.

As that person, you experienced discrimination and bigotry first hand. And now, some 40 or 50 years on, where we have progressed to the point in this country where we have a black President, you are marginalized still but this time around by the very same "progressives" that took up the cause of equality in the 50s and 60s.

Bizarre.


(UPDATE #1):

"The worst form of insidious racism in America is the institutionalized elite view where they treat African-Americans, including the president, with a patronizing attitude and condescension; where the press so blatantly expresses that the black guy can't do it on his own, we have to protect him,"

That from Democratic strategist/pollster Pat Caddell, no conservative he, whom none the less is one of those rare liberals out there who has been openly critical of the President particularly with respect to "process" and the administration's abject failure in changing "business as usual" in D.C.

Please read the entire article at the link as it is probably the best thing you will read all week.

One of the things that is discussed is how race and racism is viewed much differently in the South than in the North and how proximity drives these differences. We forgot where we heard it but this difference is summed up in the statement: In the North, the blacks could get powerful just not too close. In the South, the blacks could get close just not powerful.

Please do read it - we believe you will enjoy it.

When the usual district gerry-mandering just won't do.

We're surprised the following hasn't gotten much play, particularly in the righty blogosphere:

Arthur Furano voted early — five days before Election Day. And he voted often, flipping the lever six times for his favorite candidate. Furano cast multiple votes on the instructions of a federal judge and the U.S. Department of Justice as part of a new election system crafted to help boost Hispanic representation.

Voters in Port Chester, 25 miles northeast of New York City, are electing village trustees for the first time since the federal government alleged in 2006 that the existing election system was unfair. The election ends Tuesday and results are expected late Tuesday.

Although the village of about 30,000 residents is nearly half Hispanic, no Latino had ever been elected to any of the six trustee seats, which until now were chosen in a conventional at-large election. Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.

Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act, and he approved a remedy suggested by village officials: a system called cumulative voting, in which residents get six votes each to apportion as they wish among the candidates. He rejected a government proposal to break the village into six districts, including one that took in heavily Hispanic areas.

Furano and his wife, Gloria Furano, voted Thursday.

"That was very strange," Arthur Furano, 80, said after voting. "I'm not sure I liked it. All my life, I've heard, `one man, one vote.'"

Bless your little heart, Mr. Furano. One man - one vote is now apparently illegal and you should check yourself before speaking of it with such favorable sentiment.

Well, since Hispanic voter participation seems to be an issue here, we know of a couple of Black Panther "poll workers" in the Philly area, who instead of sitting behind bars have got some free time on their hands as the miserable hack who runs the Justice Department dropped their voter intimidation case.

Perhaps the judge and the miserable hack could've sent those two to Port Chester, billy clubs in hand, to roust voters with Hispanic-y sounding last names from their homes in order to get them to the polls thus better preserving our once-hallowed concept of one man - one vote. Just give them a phone book, a GPS and let'em do their thing.

That idea is all pretty quaint now as the governing concept of democracy circa 2010 is no longer equality of opportunity but rather equality of results.

Hooray! Finally, a just result. We voted in a Hispanic?

Combine this with the case in Kinston, North Carolina, where the Justice Department overturned the city's decision to forego putting party affiliation next to candidates' names as it was Justice's belief that the blacks in that community would not know who the Democrats were and thusly, would not vote for them and you have yet another example of the soft bigotry of low expectations of minorities held by liberals.

The paternalism sickens us and makes us wonder from what dark recesses of the liberal mindset this plantation mentality comes.