If it quacks like a (D)uck...

I choose to highlight a story I read about a week ago that seemed innocuous on it's face but as I delved into it further, I saw a broader point and a very clear misuse of power.

Where to begin...

Let's start in Kinston NC and the story of hope and change brought to a grinding halt by Eric Holder and the DOJ.

Kinston is a town of 23,000 residents, of whom 14,000 (62%) are African-American and the town is overwhelmingly Democrat. A recent referendum to switch to non-partisan elections was approved by a 2 to 1 margin. This simply means that candidates would run without a party designation next to their names and win an election based on a simple majority. It's not some right wing tactic to skew election results or some liberal scheme to disenfranchise the voters. It's actually fairly commonplace throughout the country and especially in North Carolina. Several cities have switched to non-partisan elections with no adverse effects. Seems like the perfect answer to the negative connotation that party affiliation can sometimes breed and it allows the voters to view the candidates by stance, character and record. In Barak Obama's post-partisan, post-racial America, Kinston has seen the light and decided that character, not party affiliation, counts most to them.

Not so fast.

It would appear that while Kinston is a majority black town, that majority does not tend to vote as often as the DOJ thinks it should. This gives them a "technical minority status". The DOJ subsequently threw out the referendum and ordered the town to continue it's old way of electing candidates because,

"Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office."

Put another way, African-American voters would not be able to recognize a Democrat well enough thus diminishing their ability to be elected. Put even more simply, African-Americans are just not smart enough to know who to vote for unless we put a big, fat (D) next to a name.

This says two very important things about the DOJ.

One: They assume that all Democrat candidates are black.
Two: They assume that all black voters will vote Democrat.

One other stunning admission by the DOJ in their letter to the city council in Kinston that struck me as horrifying was this,

"In Kinston elections, voters base their choice more on the race of a candidate rather than his or her political affiliation, and without either the appeal to party loyalty or the ability to vote a straight ticket, the limited remaining support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more."

Did you catch that? Stunning isn't it?

In that one sentence, the DOJ acknowledges that elections in Kinston are primarily race based but they only seem to have a problem with whether or not white voters will vote for a black candidate, not the other way around, or both for that matter.

The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other locals as well.

Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department's decision "racial as well as partisan."

"On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election," he said. "That is un-American."

Not only is it un-American, it's just downright patronizing. It assumes far too much of the voting public in Kinston. Local residents blame voter apathy for the low turnout of African-Americans in municipal elections. The DOJ sees a darker, more sinister force at work in Kinston where none exists. The measure passed by a clear majority to hold non-partisan elections. The people spoke through a valid vote and were were summarily overruled by a government entity that thinks it knows better.

"To begin with, 'nonpartisan elections' is a misconceived and deceiving statement because even though no party affiliation shows up on a ballot form, candidates still adhere to certain ideologies and people understand that, and are going to identify with who they feel has their best interest at heart," said William Cooke, president of the Kinston/Lenoir County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Now, if the NAACP doesn't have a problem with it and the ACLU hasn't reared their ugly heads as of yet, then why would the DOJ even bother with the matter?

To protect the power base is why. To guarantee that the divide remains firmly in place so that they can point their bony fingers and say either, "That Republican is trying to harm you." or "That white person doesn't have your best interests at heart."

I chose to highlight this story simply to illustrate two very key points. One is the erosion of our basic liberties at an alarming rate and the other is to show the ability of our new President to crow loudly about leading the way to curing our ills where racism is concerned...

and then allowing it to continue.

Just the facts...

Here's another look at some simple stats from the first nine months of the anointed one's first...and only term... as President.

24 - Number of times Obama has played golf since taking office.

34 - Number of months it took for Bush to play 24 rounds of golf as President. That's 2 years and 10 months for you liberals with that "progressive" education.

1 - Number of vacations Obama has taken since being elected.

147 - Number of speeches Obama has given on health care/reform. (He's making one now.)

1 - Number of undeserved Nobel Peace Prizes awarded to a black President.

4 - Number of news networks that have gone in the tank for a political party.

2 - Number of times Obama has met with Gen. McChrystal about Afghanistan.

1 - Number of times Obama has blown our chances to have the Olympics in the USA.

679 - Number of times Obama has said, "Let me be clear" and then made no sense.

3 - Number of radical Communists/Maoists that have served in the administration.

??? Number of times Obama has lied about wanting single payer. (this number approaches infinity)

300 million - Number of people who will be completely screwed if Obama implements his wacko socialist agenda.

The Devil You Know...

If I hear one more talking head with a liberal bent tell me what the Republicans need to do to win an election I think I'll scream. Their careful, insightful analysis always ends with one conclusion:

Republicans need to be more liberal to win in the future.

Well there's a shocker. Now why didn't I think of that?

Is it just me or does the idea of making yourself more like the other guy seem like a really stupid thing to do? Beyond the fact that I doubt the media's true motives in trying to ascertain what might be a winning strategy for a party they openly despise, it just seems pointless to blur the lines between liberal and conservative in order to gain power. Know what happens when you do that? You wind up with Olympia Snowe...or Jim Jeffords...or Arlen Specter. You get what we on the right lovingly call R.I.N.O.'s--Republican In Name Only. Those members who, if they don't jump ship outright like Jeffords and Specter, vote almost overwhelmingly with the Democrats like Snowe and Susan Collins. Or the kind of Republican who, after seeing the political winds shifting, decides to embrace the other side to show how moderate and non-partisan they are.
Case in point--Lindsey Graham.

Graham, in a recent town hall meeting, said he didn't want the Republican party to be the party of "the angry white guy". Graham has spent the last year since his election in "08 making his constituents regret sending him back to the Senate. He voted for Sonia Sotomayor to be confirmed by the Senate despite having "serious hesitation as to her judicial fidelity regarding matters of race and the 2nd amendment". He was so spineless that he couldn't bring himself to cast a no vote for fear of looking like...a conservative. He voted for amnesty during the heated immigration battle near the end of Bush' final term. He partnered with John Kerry on climate change legislation that would raise taxes on every American who uses any kind of energy...which means every one of them. He talks incessantly of reaching across the aisle to the President to forge a coalition that will make America better. Better than what? Cuba? Venezuela?

He stands as a testament to what happens when you stop listening to the people and start worrying about keeping your power firmly in place.

Oddly enough, nowhere in the hallowed halls of ABC, NBC or CBS will you ever hear a pundit say that liberals need to be more hawkish on national defense or more fiscally sane when it comes to our skyrocketing national debt. You'll never hear them tell Barney Frank to tone down the rhetoric about how evil business is but they've got advice to spare for every conservative in D.C. who has a problem with government run health care.

Another case in point is a race in upstate New York that under ordinary circumstances would not rise to the level of national attention. Congressional District 23 has captured the eye of much of the nation partly because it was a seat vacated due to an Obama appointment but mostly because there are 3 challengers to the seat. A democrat a Republican...and a Conservative.

You read that right. As if it doesn't say enough about the fracturing of the Republican party, it gets worse. The RNC is currently running ads against...the conservative, Doug Johnson in favor of Dede Scozzafava, a moderate assemblywoman. I use the term "moderate" here because the RNC chose it for her. She's anything but moderate. She's embraced the Obama party line and has accepted an endorsement from ACORN. Yes...the same ACORN that has no trouble giving tax advice to pimps and hookers. She favors abortion rights and gay marriage and taxes like a liberal.

I wish I was joking here, I really do. I wish I could say that this is all just a dream starring John Podesta and James Carville, but it's not.

Instead of targeting the Democrat, lawyer Bill Owens, the RNC chose to target a conservative because he represents a serious threat to their choice. Johnson has won the backing of some fairly heavy hitters on the right despite his soft spoken demeanor and because of his staunchly conservative views. Names like Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson, Rush Limbaugh and the right leaning Club For Growth.

Newt Gingrich, when queried about why he has decided to back Scozzafava said, “Our best chance to put responsible and principled leaders in Washington starts here, with Dede Scozzafava.”

Really Newt? Our best chance? Calling Scozzafava a "moderate" is a kindness she doesn't really deserve. She's a liberal in a conservative district who's savvy enough to know how to get elected. Have no doubt she will show her true colors once there.

Gingrich said of his endorsement,

"My number one interest is to build a Republican majority. If your interest is taking power back from the Left, and your interest is winning the necessary elections, then there are times when you have to put together a coalition that has disagreement within it." In other words, "Ok, so she's more liberal than Bill Clinton but at least she might vote with the party once in awhile."

So Newt, what you're telling me is that I should sacrifice my principles just to get an (R) in office, consequences be damned?

I don't think so. I used to admire Gingrich for his clear delineation of what conservatism was. Now I think he's succumbed to the idiocy that strikes all power players in or out of D.C.

"Whatever it takes to get power. Then, whatever it takes to keep it. Principles, morals and voters be damned."

On this day, I am officially an independent conservative. I will wear the moniker of Republican no longer.

The Week In Review

This week in review is going to be a bit different. I'm breaking away from my usual dissection of the weeks events to talk about a few that I think are perhaps more important than poll numbers and who's the new communist in Obama's group of advisers, although we did learn of two new ones.

Instead I thought I might pose a simple question and expand from there.

Here it is:

Of the original ten amendments to the Constitution, which would you say is the most important?

The answer has always been easy for me personally but think for a moment before you answer for yourself. There are critical issues of freedom and liberty locked inside each one and choosing only one might be a tad on the difficult side at first. There are issues of search and seizure, fair trials, gun ownership, religious freedom etc. that appeal to each individual in a very personal way. One's own life experiences may make one more important than an another or perhaps being a hunter or a clergyman may inform that decision. I have several friends who are lawyers who might say that bit about a fair and speedy trial is the key to a polite and civilized, free society.

One has always stood out more plainly and grandly than all the others for me, for many years. I regard it with reverence and sanctity. I've written and spoken on it at length on many occasions, much to the annoyance of those who have been made to suffer through it. I love it for it's beauty it's simplicity, and it's strength. It is the iron upon which all the rest were built and there is a reason it was placed highest in order. So there would be no doubt as to the foundation of what constitutes freedom and liberty. It's tucked neatly between two other rights but it stands out as my favorite.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Freedom of speech and of the press to me is the keystone of freedom, even above the right to bear arms. While it's true that the framers intended to put freedom of religion, speech and assembly first, due largely to the horrors they had suffered under King George, it does nothing to diminish their importance in my mind. Leaving aside the history lesson that we're all familiar with, let's instead take a look at the right I consider to be the most important.

The right to free speech was arguably the most contentious of all of the original ten. The "Alien and Sedition Acts", signed into law by John Adams in 1798 was, on it's face, designed to prevent alien powers from interfering with a fledgling government and was intended to prevent such powers from speaking ill of the government. Thomas Jefferson allowed them to expire or repealed them in 1802. One, the "Alien Enemies Act" is still in force today and is meant to be used in times of war. This was the first attempt at silencing speech and drove a wedge between Adams and Jefferson that lasted for many years. Jefferson argued that the acts were designed to silence criticism of Adams and should never have been enacted at all. In the early years of the republic, speech was an important thing to the founders. They learned the hard way the consequences of not being allowed to speak out against what they perceived as a tyrannical king bent on forcing the colonies to submit to his mad whims.

Throughout the years, the burning of the American flag came to symbolize the ultimate in political speech. Agree or disagree with the idea, it is a form of expression of displeasure with the government that is protected. There have been battles over whether or not money can be construed as "speech" in todays modern society. It's logical to assume that in the media age, it takes money to get a message across any of the varied medium available today. The advent of the Internet has allowed the free flow and exchange of ideas but without the gravitas of the traditional media outlets. Remember, just because you read something online doesn't make it true.

Walter Cronkite once said, "Freedom of the press is not just important to democracy, it is democracy." Never has that been more true than today. You may argue the motives and the end effects but the recent attacks on speech send a chill up my spine. I call them attacks just as I would call burning or censoring library books in our schools attacks on free speech.

In the last few months, I've read article after article about those in government and on the periphery who seem to want to "level the playing field" where talk radio is concerned.

I personally despise that term. It presupposes that one concept should be lowered to allow a weaker concept to flourish. Too bad we can't level the playing field in baseball...then the Yankees wouldn't be such a threat come October. The idea of "leveling the playing field" is foreign to our republic insomuch as we applaud those who aspire to greatness.

But I digress...

Mark Lloyd wants to level the playing field in radio, the "Net Neutrality" rules are meant to level the playing field online. Both ideas are nothing more that a "fairness doctrine" meant to weaken what the market has determined is successful and replace it with an opposing viewpoint...that doesn't sell advertising. There's a reason that Al Franken ran for the senate...his radio show on Air America had no audience to speak of.

The website that the White House put up to rat on your neighbors about health care springs immediately to mind as well. That was a gem that the Pillsbury Spokesboy, Robert Gibbs had a hard time explaining. For being the smartest press secretary ever, this guy can really be a dunce sometimes.

John Morley, prominent British politician and thinker of the late 19th century once wrote, "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him."

The White House's recent attempts to marginalize Fox News and to call it "not a news organization" is another example of the assault on speech. Again, agree or disagree with Fox News, you cannot deny that they disseminate information for a vast number of viewers and listeners every day. Since the inception of the idea of a press pool, the shared responsibility of all the major news networks, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and FNC, never has the White House sought to exclude a member of the press from interviewing a member of the cabinet.

That is, not until last week when the White House decided that since they had determined that FNC is not a news outlet and should be excluded from interviewing the "Pay Czar" Kenneth Feinberg concerning his decision to cut the pay of the top execs at companies that took bailout money. President Obama sent out his pit bulls, David Axelrod, Anita Dunn and Rahm Immanuel to the Sunday shows to decry the unfair treatment the president had been subjected to at the hands of FNC. Rahm Immanuel even went so far as to issue a tacit yet understood warning to the other networks not to treat FNC as a news outlet, lest they suffer the same fate. Right after hearing Anita Dunn talk about the lack of journalistic fidelity of FNC, we learned that Mao Tse Tung was her favorite political philosopher.

Maosketeer Anita reporting for duty!

In the 70's and 80's the press used to act like a watchdog over government, skeptical of those in power and always asking the tough questions., Now they act like lapdogs cowering at the feet of power for a taste of the scraps after dinner. To their chagrin, the White House lost the short battle with FNC as the bureau chiefs decided that if FNC was excluded, then none of them would interview Feinberg. Perhaps they see the writing on the wall after all.

These attempts will fail in the end but the thought of seeing the government trying to silence speech fills me with such mistrust and disgust that at times all I can do is ask myself where my republic scampered off too. It was here last night when I went to sleep but it seems to have gotten misplaced when I wasn't looking.

I find the words of Jefferson comforting when all else seems to spin out of control.

"He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors."

There are days when I'm not sure which one I am.

Which one are you?