Illinois signBy John Ruberry

Four years after Wisconsin became the chief battleground in the war of taxpayers versus public sector unions, a new front is developing south of the Cheese Curtain in Illinois.

With the possible exception of California, no where else in America are government unions so powerful. And of course it should be no surprise that both states are fiscal basketcases.

My fellow Land of Lincoln taxpayers and I are burdened by over $100 billion in unfunded public worker pension debt. Over $150 million has been contributed by just six government unions to Illinois pols in addition to countless hours of volunteer time by unionized state employees. Illinois’ new reform governor, Republican Bruce Rauner, has proposed banning public sector unions from donating to Prairie State political campaigns. Major state contractors are already prohibited from doing so.

“After you win, let’s negotiate our pension and work rules and healthcare,” Rauner says is the longtime game plan of the government unions, one that has been successful for them–but toxic for everyone else in the state. AFSCME represents the most state workers, its contract in July and there is speculation that there will be a first-ever strike by state public servants. Their is much for taxpayers to dislike in the current AFSCME contract, for instance, workers can play hooky from work twelve separate times before getting fired. At my job, I’d be fortunate if I got away with that once.Rauner sign

Four years ago Wisconsin’s reform governor, Scott Walker, fought the unions and won. But Walker had Republican majorities in both chambers of the state legislature, while thanks to gerrymandering, the Democrats in Illinois enjoy veto-proof majorities in the General Assembly. On the other hand Rauner has a $20 million PAC, much of it self-funded, to promote his case, and unlike his predecessor, the self-made multi-millionaire is not deeply unpopular.

Rauner has another ally in his upcoming fight against the unions: mathematics. Unlike the federal government, states can’t print money. And the great majority of Illinoisans are not union members or public sector employees.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

There are two things that never cease to amaze me.

First that the left keeps telling the right this:

Ohio Gov. John Kasich will roll out “responsible” tax plans that protect against revenue gaps. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Arizona’s new Republican governor are delaying big dreams of nixing the income tax as they face budget shortfalls. And Missouri Republicans, once jealous of their neighbor Kansas’ massive cuts, are thankful they trimmed less.

Call it the Brownback effect.

What’s the Brownback effect?  The decision to seriously cut taxes including eliminating taxes on small business and apparently a lot of people are trying to contrast themselves to this:

In Missouri, Republicans like Kraus proudly noted that while Kansas eliminated taxes on small businesses, they did only a 25 percent tax deduction to lower their taxes. And their income tax cuts were much smaller, he said: only half a percent, phased in over five years starting in 2017.

“We’re trying to protect the core levels of funding so we don’t disturb … state government,” he said.

Because God forbid big Government actually become smaller.  But here’s the thing that really jars my gears, why are these guys all trying to be not Brownback?

The left poured money into Kansas, activists entered the state in their full force a year before the election targeting Brownback, in fact many on the left expected Brownback to be the reason why Pat Roberts would lose re-election because of the collateral damage for those ousting the governor who constantly behind in the polls.  Take a look at the Wikipedia chart of polls was behind in the polls the whole time.  There were 9 polls in the course of the year where he was ahead vs 30 that showed him behind and the media & left were feeling their oats:

NPR:

the governor’s mansion has switched parties often in the past 60 years, and Democrats may take it back this November.

Republican Gov. Sam Brownback is running for re-election, and for months now, polls have shown him consistently running well behind his Democratic challenger.

This isn’t your typical incumbent-in-trouble story, though. In office, Brownback has done exactly what he said he would. But many, many voters aren’t happy, including a lot of Republicans.

Big tax cuts that Brownback championed have left Kansas with a serious budget problem.

Washington Post:

Gail Jamison, a lifelong Republican, voted for Sam Brownback for governor in 2010 believing he would restore school funding that had been greatly reduced by the recession.

Four years later, she has joined with more than 100 prominent Republicans in publicly throwing their support behind Brownback’s Democratic opponent — because, she said, Brownback pursued a hefty tax cut for the rich that deprived schools of needed resources.

“I am shocked by what’s happened,” said Jamison, president of the Board of Education in this Wichita suburb. “I find it personally a very extreme stance.”

KSHB:

Davis retains strong leads among moderate voters and Independents, while taking 27 percent of the Republican vote from Brownback. He also has double-digit leads in the state’s two largest television markets, making a Brownback comeback a more difficult and potentially more expensive proposition.

Susan Page called Brownback’s record as Governor “Devastating” In fact the Daily Kos said Brownback’s ads:  “reeks of desperation.”  Yet note this line from the Politico story hitting Kansas’ policies:

By contrast, Kansas’ cuts to education as a result of the revenue hit was a contentious issue in Brownback’s near defeat to Democrat Paul Davis last month.

the key word in that sentence is NEAR.

Do you know what another word for a “near defeat” is?  VICTORY!

Even with a libertarian candidate grabbing 4% of the vote in the end Brownback still won by 3 1/2 pts, yet like with the government shutdown stuff the left continues to insist that the all of this will destroy the GOP, even as it failed to do so.

That’s pretty amazing, but not as amazing as one other fact.  That some on the right continue to fall for it.

When will we ever learn?

Update: GOP here is how the GOP should react when the left tells us to be so very afraid of our principles

Olimometer 2.52

If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below.

If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

 

Jazz Shaw at Hotair brings up an election story that should surprise nobody:

Senate Majority PAC, a Democratic super-PAC run by former political advisers to Majority Leader Harry Reid, sent about $1.5 million to two super-PACs that promoted businessman Greg Orman, who was running as an independent and refused to identify with which party he would caucus. Orman was ultimately unsuccessful in his campaign to unseat Republican incumbent Pat Roberts.

Senate Majority PAC sent $1.31 million to Committee to Elect an Independent Senate in five installments beginning on (you guessed it) Oct. 16, the start of the veiled disclosure period. The Reid-aligned PAC also sent $151,000 on Nov. 3-4 to Kansans Support Problem Solvers, which also backed Orman…

What you mean that the same party that when all in for “independent” Charlie Crist went all in for an independent in Kansas?  I’m shocked SHOCKED.

This is a worthwhile story and Jazz is right to give it prominence but I have to take issue with his conclusion:

the big story here is that Harry Reid was dumping some mad cash into a push to elect Orman, who is not even a member of his party. I can already hear some of you saying, hold on… he can’t do that! But actually he can. And he did. That’s a rather dangerous game to be playing, though. When people were donating to Senate Majority PAC, was it with the understanding that their donations would be going to someone who flatly admitted that he might caucus with the Republicans if they took control of the Senate? Or were they intending to have their money spent on Democrats?

A full accounting of all these contributions will be forthcoming. Harry Reid may have a bit of explaining to do to both his big dollar donors and his base at large.

I submit and suggest that the only people who believed Greg Orman was an “independent” were those voters the MSM were trying to deceive, just as that same media tried to convince Floridians in 2010 that Charlie Crist was an independent.  They are the same folks to that Jonathan Gruber hoped to fool as well.

Jazz is a fine reporter but here’s wrong here.  The big money democrats might have an issue with Harry Reid’s strategic decisions because those decisions as I noted likely cost Democrats the Senate but let’s not for one moment pretend that any of those donors who funded that campaign of deception believed it.

***********

The year is almost over but I’m still hoping to make enough from my own niche market to salvage 2014 but it will take $4500.

Olimometer 2.52

If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below

If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

 

I wish we could sell them another hill at the same price

General Nathanael Greene referring to the Battle of Bunker Hill 1775

Yesterday morning the cry went up again bout how the GOP is trying to make deals with democrats to foil their own caucus.

Republican leaders on Wednesday also considered changes that would mollify conservatives further, like setting Homeland Security funding to expire in mid February instead of March.

But Boehner may still need the help of Democrats to get his plan across the finish line, making the White House’s current position a positive sign that he could get his package through the House.

And the media & the GOP establishment keep insisting that a Government shutdown will cause all kinds of trouble for the GOP

All of this sounds very familiar:

CNN Oct 21 2013:

GOP, Boehner take shutdown hit in new CNN poll

“The midterm election is a year away. There’s plenty of time for Republicans to work on the brand, but they’ve taken a bit of a beating here. They’ve got some work to do. They need a bit of a makeover,” King said.

The Roosevelt Institute:

 

Yesterday the federal government shut down for the first time in two decades due, in part, to the GOP’s growing opposition to contraception. Republicans are intent on rolling back women’s rights, and this time they are holding the federal government hostage in an attempt to advance their agenda.

 

And when they weren’t complaining they were laughing

Aug 27 2014 Think Progress:

 

Seriously? Republicans Threaten ANOTHER Government Shutdown Over Obamacare!

 

And all that was before the election, an election that not only increased the GOP majority in the House but gave them a much larger majority in the senate than expected, yet we are still hearing this nonsense:

This GOP strategy is ideal for a party that has developed a reputation of not governing in the recent past. In October 2013, the House of Representatives and the Senate could not agree on an appropriations continuing resolution, or a bill to fund the government. This government shutdown was largely caused by conservatives who wished to defund or delay the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare.”

This move was largely considered to be a total disaster for the GOP. Shutting down the government severely damaged the Republican brand.

 

Maybe if it’s just me but if I had the type of election after standing up to Obama & the Democrats by shutting down the Government that the GOP did I’d not be all that afraid of opposing them again.

******************************************

***********

The year is almost over but I’m still hoping to make enough from my own niche market to salvage 2014 but it will take $4500.

Olimometer 2.52

If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below

If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

 

After seeing this article concerning Occidental College’s involvement in the political process for school credit

The results were the first for Occidental’s biannual program, in which students spend the beginning of a semester working in the field and then return to campus, studying campaign tactics and political theory, discussing their experiences and the results of the election.

In addition to talking about the finer points of voter engagement and campaign donations, the students also talk about the more unsavory aspects of democracy: negative ads, doors slammed in your face and what it’s like to live on pizza for weeks at a time. And, for this group, what it’s like to feel depressed and cry after your candidate loses.

Which included this line:

All of the students worked for Democratic candidates;

and this one:

The two professors teaching the course — Peter Dreier and Regina Freer — were concerned enough that they asked the religious counselor to visit the class.

 

My questions are these:

1.  If a college is giving full time credit for working for these campaigns is this not an “in-kind” donation to the candidates and parties by the school that much be reported as such?

2.  How is this college preparing folks for the real world when you have people who are so freaked out by losing a campaign that you have to summon “religious counselor” visit the class after an electoral defeat?

I’m glad nether of my kids went there.

 

I had to laugh when I saw this at Twitchy:

It produced some interesting exchanges such as this one:

Meanwhile at the same time that Landrieu is trying to run from her base by pretend she is something she is not Barack Obama is running toward his by being what he is:

Obama has pledged to use his executive powers to alter the immigration system before the end of the year, though it remains unclear exactly when he will act. He has asked senior aides and Cabinet secretaries to present him with options but has not formally huddled with them to make a final decision, according to administration officials.

This has produced a lot of shock of argument from the right and talk of a big fight, with many figures arguing that the president is making a huge mistake by ignoring the will of the electorate.  Why can’t they be more like Mary Landrieu & try to pivot toward the electorate.

They have it exactly backwards.

Not in terms of policy, the idea of a mass amnesty is a horrible policy that is going to hurt the country tremendously for years to come, and both the building of the Keystone pipeline and defending life iar the right things to do.

But politically the President has it exactly right and Mary Landrieu has it wrong

Absolutely nothing he may do is likely to expand his popularity among the people who just rejected his agenda and after six years of president Obama in office it’s highly unlikely he’s going to earn any new followers among the general public.

Politically The only thing he can do is to play to his base that has stuck with him, and since said base, and while some of his media base would like to play up to the candidates running in 2016 they are still afraid of the race or the sex cards being played on them.

The President may not have any gumption in dealing with Putin or Syria, but when it comes attacking his political foes he’s a tiger. This is exactly the type of thing that’s necessary for him to be relevant not only in terms of the remainder of his term but in terms of the next presidential election. Bill Clinton is right:

He also said Obama should maximize his pulpit and not give in to being a “lame duck,”

Mary Landrieu on the other hand is making a mistake.

Now in fairness to the senator from Louisiana she is in a horrible position. Her odds of winning a runoff in a red state where President Obama is highly unpopular are long to begin with and her opponents are smelling blood in the water.

If she had been given proper support from Harry Reid over the last 18 months she might have had time to separate herself from the White House and be in a better position, but with only a few weeks to go she doesn’t have that luxury. She has no good options, only a series of longshot options and her best longshot option is to completely energize the base, that is the black vote.

She needs to go whole hog for Obama, she has to remind every single person that she ever pulled a sting for, crooked or straight of every single favor she ever did for them and bluntly tell them their choice is simple, someone who will pay off and someone who won’t.

Running as pro-life isn’t going to win a single pro-life voter any more than Scott Brown running as pro-choice was going to win a single abortion friend while going after positions dear to her base is only likely to prompt them to stay home in a race they figure is lost anyway.

In the public service business you have to decide if you want to be a statesman or a politician. It’s kinda late for either Obama or Mary Landrieu to pretend to be a statesman so they might as well be a politician who plays to win.

Speaking of winning the only way I can end this year a winner is if you consider hitting DaTipJar

Olimometer 2.52
If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

 

It’s been a week since election days which produced a lot of big losers in Election 2014 on the left.  In all the noise here is one that you might have missed:

Political candidates backed by the controversial Middle East advocacy group J Street were trounced at the polls on Tuesday, with J Street’s endorsees losing in almost every competitive race.

You remember J-Street they are the Jewish lobby that somehow never seems to fail to back the enemies of Israel.

This included races that they once described as “Must win“:

The controversial liberal advocacy group J Street has launched a fundraising blitz for two of its “strongest allies on the Hill,” Rep. Bruce Braley (D., Iowa) and Sen. Mark Udall (D., Colo.).

“We can’t afford to lose these two races,” J Street political director Dan Kalik wrote in a recent email to supporters, urging them to donate at least $18 dollars to Udall and Braley.

And remember these were incumbents with all the advantages of incumbency in their hands.  Oddly enough they have been trying to spin this as a win but observers are not fooled:

“J Street does this after every election,” said one senior official with a pro-Israel organization. “They endorse dozens of no-risk candidates so that when their competitive picks get crushed, which they almost always do, J Street can still claim victory.”

“But it’s a dumb game that they’ll always lose,” the source said. “The American people are overwhelmingly pro-Israel and elect overwhelmingly pro-Israel candidates. Pro-Israel groups have sort of the opposite problem but for the exact same reason. It’s hard to cram more pro-Israel lawmakers into Congress, given how it’s almost already completely maxed out.”

But the defeat might not be a surprise when you consider this poll mentioned at Haaretz :

The poll asked respondents to rate their feelings of warmth towards various personalities and institutions on a scale of 0-100, and the results, in descending order of their mean score were: Netanyahu (61), Jon Stewart (58), Clinton (57), Democratic Party (51), Barack Obama (49), Malcolm Hoenlein (45), Sheldon Adelson (28), Republican Party (28), John Boehner (25) and the newly elected and soon to be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (24).

That’s right the same Jews who embrace the opponents of the state of Israel love them some Bibi.

Perhaps that’s why there is a tad of a dip:

the 69% figure of Jews voting Democrats represents some loss in Jewish loyalty. Back in 2008, Obama received 78% of the Jewish vote.

Via Elder of Ziyon who wasn’t fooled by J-street’s spin either.

The latest in our series of posts that will not surprise any person who has been paying attention.

Today’s installment comes a post from Granite Grok & a tweet from Boston Bridget on the Elections in NH.

While the GOP was winning Governorships in Illinois, Maryland and even Massachusetts and Republican Senate Candidates were winning every senate seat in sight at the very same time Maggie Hassan was beating Walt Havenstein holding the Governorship and Scott Brown was losing to Jeanne Shaheen.

Mind you they managed to do this at the same time that Republican increased their majority in the state Senate and won the House in the state going from 40 seats down to 70 seats up

So How did Havenstein manage to lose when the GOP was winning statewide? Granite Grok provides a clue

I can now tell the story – a meeting was set up, like back in 2010 with the leaders of the L&F wing of the Party with Papa Smurf (John Sununu Sr), for Havenstein. Walt arrived – and only 4 people were there instead of the scores that had been invited. Each and every one of them, including me, said “No apology, no support. We will not be used as cover; we will not be there”. It is my understanding that Havenstein was PISSED – he was the Nominee so how DARE he not get that support and stomped out redfaced when told the reasons. He assumed that votes would be there – you know what “assumed” means. A lack of Consistency.

 

Oddly it appears that if you use sexual slurs to describe your base and refuse to apologize said people choose not to show up and vote for you.

Unlike Haverstein Brown didn’t directly insult his voters but he did choose to emphasize positions his base hated:

Brown especially with his absolutely pandering in on-bended-knee-running to Shaheen’s Left on being “I’m more Pro-Choice than her!!!!” told another large group of normally Conservative Republicans “I don’t need you at ALL” – that would be the large Pro-Life voters to whom this issue IS their top issue if not their SINGLE issue when voting.

 

Mind you there were pragmatic people who tried for him. Boston Bridget is as pro-life as they come yet there wasn’t a person who worked harder to try and elect him north of the border but that didn’t move the faithful:

The Groksters come to a conclusion:

In each of these candidates, not maintaining a Consistency with their base cost them. It should show that trying to replace that base with another, and being very untransparent about it, failed to create a Trust and you both lost votes.

 

Yeah but a lot of high paid GOP consultant said otherwise, and we all know they know a whole lot more than a blogger in a Fedora and scarf.

**************************************************************

There are less than 60 days to the year and to say things are tight financially around here is to say the Titanic had a bit of a leak but there isn’t a lot of money in telling GOP candidates things as they are rather than what they and the establishment want them to hear.

Olimometer 2.52

If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below

If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

 

On Tuesday two historic events took place involving black running from office.

In Utah a land where over 60% of the population is Mormon (a religion that has an ahem, interesting history with black Americans) elected Mia Love to congress. She becomes the first black republican woman ever elected to the house of representatives.

Meanwhile 2000 miles to the east in South Carolina, the birthplace of Secession, Republican Tim Scott because the first black Senator of either party, to be elected from the south since reconstruction.

If one wanted to trace the history of progress of the Black community in America these would both be notable events.

However the NAACP apparently doesn’t agree:

There is no mention of Tim Scott or Mia Love’s historic wins this election cycle in the statement. As you can see, it’s mostly about the Voting Rights Act.

Townhall has reached out again via email to see if the NAACP will like to specifically comment on Love and Scott’s wins last Tuesday, which made history.

Michelle Nealy, who works in the organization’s communications office, said in an email:

The NAACP is a nonpartisan organization that looks forward to working with the new Congress.

A spokesman from the RNC wasn’t amused

However Rep James Clyburn was blunt:

But in an interview with the Washington Post back in May, Congressman Clyburn thought this was nonsense.

“If you call progress electing a person with the pigmentation that he has, who votes against the interest and aspirations of 95 percent of the black people in South Carolina, then I guess that’s progress,” Clyburn told the Post.

You might recall he had little better to say about Clarence Thomas.

Now I’m sure that the people would argue that it’s not the color of the skin but the content of one’s character that matters therefore the NAACP has an argument about not acknowledging Scott or Love in a public way, that is of course if they consider being a member of the GOP beyond the pale.

The only problem with making that kind of argument is that I seem to recall back in the days when my traffic was better, the type of politicians the NAACP feel are worth defending:

The NAACP, New England Area Conference (NEAC), respectfully requests that the Massachusetts House of Representatives abstain from voting in the matter of the expulsion of Representative Carlos Henriquez, expected to come before the House today. In the alternative, Members of the House are asked to vote against the expulsion of their colleague.

Carlos Henriquez? Hmmm  Carlos Henriquez?  If you are a regular reader of the MSM you might not recall who he is.  Let me inform you that Carlos Henriquez is the son of Son of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing for the Obama administration who ran for the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 2012,  the year of the war on women.  However five months before the election

in July of 2012 he was charged with Kidnapping and assault of a woman. In Sept the kidnapping charge was dropped but the other charges remained pending.

Strangely enough this took place at the height of the entire “War on Women Meme” was being advanced by the press however as Mr. Henriquez has a (D) next to his name the media didn’t find those charges reflective of the War on Women meme so not only did it get very little press, but even with the charges hanging over him he ran for re-election and won by 46 points! in his overwhelmingly Democrat Boston district.

As my former co-host Joe Mangiacotti said during an interview with Kirsten Hughes Chairwoman of the GOP:

According to police he choked and punched Catherine Gonzalez in the Summer of 2012 that was his, he took her for a ride and took her cell phone she was, drove her to Boston she was able to escape the vehicle and call the police

He was then convicted of the charges with the judge saying at sentencing:

“When a woman tells you she doesn’t want to have sex, that means she does not want to have sex.”,

However Rep Henriquez refused to resign and continued to work from his jail cell:

DaSilva said Henriquez’s office is fielding four or five constituent calls a day, mostly from people concerned about cuts to unemployment benefits. She said Henriquez also has been reviewing budget amendments, though she would not say which.

But it wasn’t until a month later that the Massachusetts House, overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats finally decided to vote on expelling him from their body.

And it was then that the NAACP decided to spring into action. They wrote in his defense to the Great & General Court (the Massachusetts House) imploring them not to expel the convicted representative:

Why on earth would they do this?

There are two basis on which NEAC makes the request. Firstly, the matter of expulsion is premature since Representative Henriquez’s case is under appeal. The House of Representatives must respect the Massachusetts judicial process and let Representative Henriquez’s case before the Appeals Court proceed, without jumping to judgment before the appellate decision is rendered.

Seriously? A conviction isn’t good enough, he has to lose the appeal as well. Cripes with a good set of lawyers to delay the process he could stay long enough to become speaker.

Secondly, while NEAC respects the jury’s decision, there is currently no rule for expulsion that applies to misdemeanor convictions. Representative Henriquez was duly elected by the electorate and there is no legal basis upon which the House of Representatives can properly act.

While the MSM never bothered to cover this story, the internet is forever.

So let’s recap.  Massachusetts State Representative Carlos Henriquez:  convicted of assaulting a women, admonished by a judge about no meaning no who is a democrat and the son of an Obama secretary, worthy of a written defense by the NAACP to keep him in his seat.

US Senator Tim Scott & Mia Love, both elected winning historic elections in areas where blacks had been suppressed or diminished, not worth a mention.

This is the what the NAACP has become.

**************************************************************

There are less than 60 days to the year and to say things are tight financially around here is to say the Titanic had a bit of a leak.

Olimometer 2.52

If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below

If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

 

by baldilocksbaldilocks

I’m guilty of many things, but one is talking about race and Things Black too much.

The reputational demise of public astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson elicited a great deal of Schadenfreude, but it depressed me for one reason: I liked seeing a black person talk about something other than race, being black, or crime–the last of which is all too often a byproduct of race. Finding out that Mr. Tyson is a bit of a charlatan made me sad.

That said, in this post, I will be again guilty of discussing race, but only to point to three pockets of hope on the subject.

The mindterm election this past week saw the turning of the U.S. Senate to the GOP and GOP gains for the House. Among these are Senator Tim Scott (SC), Representative-Elects Mia Love (UT-4), and the much-less heralded, but no less significant Will Hurd (TX-23). That these three people are black and Republican is remarkable in itself, but some might also find it equally remarkable that the majority of each constituency is non-black. (Mr. Hurd’s district consists of mostly of Americans of Mexican ancestry.) However, this shouldn’t be surprising at all.

Most (all?) U.S. congressional districts represented by black Democrats–Congressional Black Caucus members–have long been carved out for them. I contend that each one of them has been planted by the Democrat Party and the party heavily funds all of their campaigns.

It is a method of keeping each of these districts voting Democratic, keeping the voters quiet about economic progress, and it feeds on the indoctrinated notion that having a representative who looks like you somehow elevates you. That same notion explains why virtually all black American voters voted for Barack Obama, especially in 2012. And I need to repeat: it keeps each of these districts voting Democratic. This is how the fallacy of black=Democrat was born.

An inverse anecdotal example: I live in a district with a majority-black voting base–formerly represented by Maxine Waters and recently re-carved in order for Karen Bass to retain her place at the table–and have watched, cycle after cycle, as Republicans–usually black, but not always–have haplessly run, including the locally famous homeless activist Ted Hayes in 2008. These brave people get no publicity and, usually, little funding, though Mr. Hayes got a great deal of the latter.

Also related: the National Association for the Advancement of Communist Principles (NAACP) ignored the elections of Scott, Love and Hurd while nattering on about voting rights in its November 4 election statement. This omission is the very embodiment of the aforementioned indoctrination. Take a bow, LBJ!

Back to the newly elected black Republicans, the demographics of these pockets of post-racialism is the real progress: that three people who do not look like the majority of their constituents can be elected by them and that three black politicians can base their campaigns on issues other than race.

And, please, save it about the election of Barack Obama. We all know that his election and his subsequent two terms have not represented the onset of post-racialism. Remember, being black equals being a Democrat, according to the brainwashing.

However, I think that the ascent of these three legislators will make a difference. Maybe.

After all, wasn’t that what the Civil Rights Movement was really about, conflating public and private property notwithstanding?

(Thanks to Instapundit and to Twitchy)

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2009; the second edition in 2012. Her second novel, Arlen’s Harem, will be done in 2015.

Please contribute to Juliette’s Projects: Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or contribute to Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>