Wednesday, May 30, 2012
The Fifth column...Obama's friends
ALLAH WILL ‘BRING DOWN’ AMERICA’S SKYSCRAPERS: HORRIFIC NEW FARRAKHAN AUDIO PRAISING SHARIA LAW AND THREATENING ‘DEATH’ UNLESS ‘AMERICA SUBMITS’
- Farrakhan erupts in fervent conclusion to nearly three-hour speech
- Speaks favorably of sharia law and seems highlights violent actions within it
- Says that if the U.S. bombs Iran, Allah will “take out” U.S. cities “with earthquakes”
- Farrakhan promises that Allah will “kill a lot” and bring calamity until “America submits”
The Blaze’s Benny Johnson contributed to this report.
The Minister Louis Farrakhan isn’t one to avoid controversial language. In his Sunday address in San Diego, the Nation of Islam leader slammed Israel, lamented Mexico’s loss of land at the hands of American “trickery” and derided President Barack Obama for his endorsement of same-sex marriage. But that’s only a portion of what was uttered in his nearly three-hour address. During the last 10 minutes, the fiery Farrakhan erupted with fervency, applauding the violence of sharia law and giving some cryptic warnings to America regarding Iranian intervention.
In speaking to his “Arab brothers,” Farrakhan said that they should not kill their children who shame them. But rather than merely lambasting those who participate in honor crimes, he turned the discussion into a referendum on America (in all fairness, while making these comments, he did say that “Islam needs reform,“ and that his Arab brothers need ”mercy from God“ so they can get ”strong enough to live sharia” — but both statements came without proper explanation).
“To my Arab brothers, you should not kill your children in this honor killing after you bring yourself and them into a country that is a modern Babylon and they get sucked up into the culture of decadence,” he said. “They you’re angry with them because they brought shame on the family. Let me tell you, shame on you for looking to America for your health and bringing your children into this and not creating a world for them to revolve in that will keep the decency that you taught them in the old country.”
From here, the conversation turned into a rant about what goes on in the Islamic holy city of Mecca. Farrakhan explained that, following Jumu’ah prayer on Fridays, if someone is guilty of stealing something, locals don’t wait for that individual to go to jail where he or she will be fed and cared for. Instead, he says the offender has his or her hand cut off in the middle of the prayer square and in front of everyone.
If the man or woman steals again, the other hand is lopped off, he said. This would essentially serve as an example of the punishment that one would encounter if entering into crime. Farrakhan then moved on to another story in which he discussed a Filipino man who apparently raped a Muslim woman in Saudi Arabia. This man, too, faced a harsh retribution for his alleged actions. Here’s his commentary on the matter:
“Oh they couldn’t wait. I mean after they find you guilty ain‘t nobody that’s law-abiding feeding a guilty person. I don’t know what the hell is wrong with you people. The taxpayers gotta come out of their pocket to feed murderers, thieves, cutthroats. ‘Ah Farrakhan now that is kind of harsh.’ Yeah, but what you do to people — if you’re innocent that is harsh — but if you’re guilty, brother — see, you expect mercy, but you don’t show it to those whom you rob and kill and rape — see. So, in our world, that man that raped that sister, his head came off. Oh it was quick too. They called it poke chop, that’s right…and when that head goes off, it rolls down the street, you know…”
Farrakhan went on to claim that stealing, fornicating and committing adultery “blinds the eyes, deafens the ears and dumbs the tongue.” Committing such actions, he contends, is as if one’s “head is gone,” as this is indicative of destroying the family — an action that is “worthy of death.”
Then, Farrakhan’s tough message for America was weaved into his closing, as the faith leader warned of potential calamity if the United States decides to take military action against Iran. This danger, he contends, would be thrust upon America by Allah.
“So, America I close. I tell you, you’re on your way to war and if you declare war on Iran at the behest of Israel and you bomb Iran and some of you are saying we should invoke Hiroshima again on Iran, meaning drop an atomic bomb on Muslims — I have even heard that they’re talking about even bombing Mecca…,” he continued.
Of course, there was no mention of where Farrakhan heard that Mecca, a city in Saudi Arabia, was on the U.S.’s list of bomb targets, but that didn’t stop him from making the allegation. He progressed, going on to explain how important it is that someone warn Mecca of the potential danger and that “somebody gotta do what God needs done.” Then, Farrakhan went on to say that he’s willing to give his life, if needed, to properly warn of the danger that will befall the world if America attacks Iran. His words for the U.S. were cryptic.
“So I’m warning you, America, if you bomb Iran, I’m looking at San Diego, I’m looking at your beautiful cities — the God that I represent is going to take out some of your cities with earthquakes,” he proclaimed. “You live in the city, I live in the city, but some of us are going to die, because we agree with them, agree with evil. So the God of judgement and justice, he’s going to kill a lot.”
And he wasn’t done there. Farrakhan continued:
“I’m sorry to have to tell you, but I’m saying this to our president and the warmongers [at another point in the speech 'warmongers' was used to describe Israel]. We can‘t stop you from bombing Iran if that’s what you want to do, but as you take out somebody else’s cities — as you destroy the lives of innocent people like you did in Baghdad on the basis of a lie — then what are you doing for the American people? You’re sentencing them in the weight of justice to the same death you have dealt to other people in other nations.
I am warning you: Take it or let it alone. He will take down cities and when I look at the skyscrapers in some of these major metropolis. He’s not going to take the big ones down first. He’s going to show you his power. In the meantime, one calamity after another until you submit, America, and know that judgement is here. You can escape it but you gotta do right by this people. And if you don’t do right by them, you can’t do right by the people outside of America, if you won’t do right for those who have…built your country.”
This, of course, was the conclusion to his conflagrant speech, as he showcased his distaste for America and the impending wrath he believes the nation is going to potentially face. While it’s not surprising to hear extreme rhetoric coming from Farrakhan, there are certainly some troubling — and new — tidbits embedded here.
Race baiting, vote fraud enabling AG
Holder to black leaders: 'Sacred' right to vote under attack
Attorney General Eric Holder told a council of African American church leaders Wednesday that the "sacred" right to vote is under assault nationwide, with federal lawsuits and at least a dozen state laws that could hinder - or block – minorities’ access to the ballot box this fall.
"In my travels across this country, I’ve heard a consistent drumbeat of concern from citizens, who – often for the first time in their lives – now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up to one of our nation’s most noble ideals,” Holder said in a speech before the Council of Black Churches. The threats of legal assaults and lingering discrimination, he added, means that “some of the achievements that defined the civil rights movement now hang in the balance.”
As if to underscore the point, however, a voting rights group is worried that Holder and the Justice Department aren’t acting quickly enough to stop Florida’s Republican governor from continuing a purge of registered voters from the state’s rolls because they lack proof of U.S. citizenship.
(Also on POLITICO: Voting Rights Act under siege)
The Advancement Project accuses Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican, of taking an end run around Voting Rights Act provisions to keep minorities from voting, and calls on Holder to immediately block it. “We are particularly concerned about the impact of this election year’s voter removal practice on eligible voters of color protected under the Voting Rights Act, given Florida’s documented history of erroneous discriminatory purges in the past,” according to the May 17 letter.
“The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy and every eligible citizen deserves an opportunity to participate,” said Judith Browne Dianis, co director of Advancement Project, a civil rights organization that works to protect voting rights. “Overly broad purges during election years are dangerous in that they can wrongfully deny access to the ballot to large numbers of American citizens who are eligible voters. This process unfairly targets Latino voters and must end immediately.
In Florida, “there’s a history of preventing eligible citizens from voting in presidential election years,” Dianis said. “In 2000 and 2004, the state used a flawed method to come up with a listing of people believed to be ineligible to vote due to past felony convictions and sought to purge them from the rolls. Tens of thousands of voters were illegitimately disenfranchised including those listed who had been granted clemency and had their rights fully restored.”
Access to the polls is becoming a highly contentious issue ahead of the 2012 election between President Barack Obama and his GOP challenger, Mitt Romney – a contest most political analysts believe will be decided by a razor-thin margin. Republican governors and lawmakers at the state level have pushed through numerous laws and executive orders designed to eliminate voter fraud, proposals which Democrats say are unnecessary and will effectively suppress turnout among minorities and others.
With new laws and old struggles as a backdrop, Holder’s speech before the Council of Black Churches was a call to arms, reminding the audience of its history fighting for equal voting right for minorities.
The attorney general told them his office is "aggressively" taking on the task of protecting that right, including challenging several state lawsuits that would overturn key provisions of the Voting Rights Act involving redistricting in Southern states and strict new voter ID laws that strips away the guarantee of equal access to the ballot box in the 2012 election.
Ensuring that everyone who is qualified can vote "is one of our highest priorities," Holder told the council, adding that during his watch the Justice Department has taken on more than 100 cases involving voting within the past year, "a record number." Since President Bush re-authorized the Section 5 provision of the Voting Rights Act, which requires some Southern states to get federal approval before making broad changes to laws involving voting, "it has consistently come under attack by those who say it is no longer needed."
Holder also rejected conservatives' contention that making it easier to vote invites fraud, a key argument in calling for tougher voter I'd laws. Recalling that protesters and faith leaders faced violence and death to gain that right during the 1960s civil rights movement, Holder called on black churches to mobilize as an ally of the Justice Department, informing the larger community and pushing back against restrictive proposals.
"We have to honor the generations that took extraordinary risks" to guarantee equal access to the polls, Holder said. The nation has made tremendous progress, he added, but "this fight must go on."
Another progressive myth destroyed
Obama signs reauthorization of Export-Import Bank despite earlier opposition
President Obama on Wednesday reauthorized the Export-Import Bank, raising its lending authority 40 percent to $140 billion by 2014, one day before the 78-year-old federal bank would have been shut down had he not signed the bill.
Increasing the bank's lending power ensures "that we're not just known as a nation that consumes," the president said at a signing ceremony. "We've got to be a nation that produces."
Republicans quickly accused the president of hypocrisy, pointing out that he had called the bank "little more than a fund for corporate welfare" during the 2008 campaign and promised to eliminate it.
They also reminded voters that despite Mr. Obama's longtime disdain for corporate jets and corporate jet owners, the bill includes $1 billion in subsidies for jet manufacturers, which have experienced a steep decline in demand in recent years.
"I'm sure you all remember the good old corporate jets the president used to rail against on the stump - he must have forgotten about that bright shiny object already because the reauthorization includes $1 billion for corporate jet manufacturers," a Republican National Committee spokeswoman said in a release. "Goes to show you it's more rhetoric and less principle when Obama is on the stump."
As part of his jobs proposal last year, Mr. Obama wanted to raise taxes on corporate jets by decreasing the number of years their owners could depreciate their cost from seven to five years, a plan the White House estimated would have raised $3 billion in revenue.
The Export-Import Bank's supporters in the business community cheered the president's action.
"Great news for thousands of American workers and businesses of all sizes," said John Murphy, vice president for international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The National Association of Manufacturers also supported reauthorizing the bank. It pointed out that last year the bank supported nearly 290,000 American jobs.
"Small and medium-sized manufacturers will greatly benefit, helping them reach new markets with their exports and create jobs," said Lauren Airey, director of trade facilitation policy at NAM.
The bank provides working capital guarantees, export credit insurance and loan guarantees, as well as direct loans to companies that send a significant portion of their products to overseas markets.
The Boeing Co. is a major beneficiary of Ex-Im Bank funding, with the airplane manufacturer's foreign carrier customers using the bank to finance the purchases of modern passenger jets.
In 2011, the bank generated $700 million in revenues from fees charged for its loan guarantees. It brought in a total of $3.4 billion between 2006 and 2010.
Supporters argue the bank keeps American companies competitive overseas by offering loans and credit guarantees to international customers who otherwise could not afford to buy American products, but some free-market conservatives argue the bank distorts the market and is little more than another hand in taxpayers' pockets.
Mr. Obama has set a goal of doubling U.S. exports to $3.14 trillion by the end of 2014, up from $1.57 trillion in 2009. The Ex-Im charter would have expired at the end of May without congressional action.
During Wednesday's signing ceremony, Mr. Obama cited the bank's reauthorization as an example of the type of bipartisan compromise Washington can accomplish to bolster the economy even in a highly charged election year.
"I hope this ends up being a model of the kind of work we can get done," he said.
Continuing to push an economic "to-do list" on Congress, Mr. Obama used the occasion to call for several pet initiatives, including eliminating tax breaks for companies who move operations and jobs overseas, making it easier for more Americans to refinance their homes, extending tax breaks for clean energy companies, and creating a returning veterans jobs corps.
"We've got to treat our heroes with the respect and dignity they've earned," he said. "These are Americans who want to keep serving now that they're back. [EnLeader] We need to ensure they come home to a job and security."
Let the avalanche begin....
Artur Davis, former prominent Obama backer, leaves Democratic Party
In a post published Tuesday on his website, Davis was vague about his future political endeavors, but declared: “If I were to run, it would be as a Republican. And I am in the process of changing my voter registration from Alabama to Virginia, a development which likely does represent a closing of one chapter and perhaps the opening of another.”
Davis, who represented Alabama’s 7th Congressional District from 2003 to 2011, was notably the first member of Congress outside of Illinois to endorse then-Sen. Obama’s 2008 presidential bid. And it was Davis who seconded the official nomination of Obama at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Along with making hints at the future, Davis reflected on his experiences as a Democrat, and condemned the path he believes the party is taking.
Renouncing the party “is no light decision on my part,” he wrote. “Cutting ties with an Alabama Democratic Party that has weakened and lost faith with more and more Alabamians every year is one thing; leaving a national party that has been the home for my political values for two decades is quite another.”
But “wearing a Democratic label no longer matches what I know about my country and its possibilities,” he said.
“On the specifics, I have regularly criticized an agenda that would punish businesses and job creators with more taxes just as they are trying to thrive again,” he said. “I have taken issue with an administration that has lapsed into a bloc by bloc appeal to group grievances when the country is already too fractured: frankly, the symbolism of Barack Obama winning has not given us the substance of a united country.”
Given Davis’ previous stances on pivotal Obama policies, his departure from the party can’t be too much of a surprise. Davis was the sole member of the Congressional Black Caucus to vote against Obama’s healthcare reform legislation in 2010. He also ran a relatively conservative campaign for the governorship of Alabama in 2010, but failed to win a primary battle against then-Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, losing by a margin of 25 percentage points. After the loss, Davis declared he would no longer seek public office.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign has heralded Davis’ retreat from the Democratic Party as evidence of “mounting opposition among Democrats to President Obama’s campaign message and tactics,” in a release sent out Wednesday.
Renouncing the party “is no light decision on my part,” he wrote. “Cutting ties with an Alabama Democratic Party that has weakened and lost faith with more and more Alabamians every year is one thing; leaving a national party that has been the home for my political values for two decades is quite another.”
But “wearing a Democratic label no longer matches what I know about my country and its possibilities,” he said.
“On the specifics, I have regularly criticized an agenda that would punish businesses and job creators with more taxes just as they are trying to thrive again,” he said. “I have taken issue with an administration that has lapsed into a bloc by bloc appeal to group grievances when the country is already too fractured: frankly, the symbolism of Barack Obama winning has not given us the substance of a united country.”
Given Davis’ previous stances on pivotal Obama policies, his departure from the party can’t be too much of a surprise. Davis was the sole member of the Congressional Black Caucus to vote against Obama’s healthcare reform legislation in 2010. He also ran a relatively conservative campaign for the governorship of Alabama in 2010, but failed to win a primary battle against then-Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, losing by a margin of 25 percentage points. After the loss, Davis declared he would no longer seek public office.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign has heralded Davis’ retreat from the Democratic Party as evidence of “mounting opposition among Democrats to President Obama’s campaign message and tactics,” in a release sent out Wednesday.
He's not a socialist but all his heros are
Obama took 'Yes, we can' from Dolores Huerta
President Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Dolores Huerta, a labor union founder whom he credited with coining the "yes, we can" that marked his 2008 campaign.
"Dolores was very gracious when I told her I had stolen her slogan, 'Si, se puede.' Yes, we can," Obama said during the Medal of Freedom ceremony today. "Knowing her, I'm pleased she let me off easy, because Dolores does not play," he joked.
Huerta, with Cesar Chavez, founded the United Farm Workers. "Without any negotiating expertise, Dolores helped lead a boycott that forced growers to agree to some of the country's first farm worker contracts," Obama said during the ceremony today. "And ever since, she has fought to give more people a seat at the table."
Huerta is also an honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), asHeritage Foundation's Lachlan Markay notes. DSA's website explains that its "policies require the support of a majoritarian coalition of trade unionists, people of color, feminists, gays and lesbians and all other peoples committed to democratic change" in order to begin "transforming the power relations of global capitalism."
Obama's 2012 campaign slogan, "Forward," provoked stories about the history of this word as a socialist mantra, but the president has increased his efforts this year to dispel the idea that his policies amount to socialism.
"We should have a commitment to our seniors and to the disabled," Obama said in early April. "That’s not socialism." He often invokes President Lincoln's government financing of railroads, for instance, and certain tax increases passed during President Reagan's administration to demonstrate the American heritage of his ideas.
The DSA sees a relationship between its work and that of the Democrats. "Many socialists have seen the Democratic Party, since at least the New Deal, as the key political arena in which to consolidate this coalition, because the Democratic Party held the allegiance of our natural allies," the DSA says. But contemporary circumstances require a tactical change, per the DSA, which called for "realignment within the Democratic Party" and perhaps the rise of a third party, as well.
But it's not as if Obama lifts his policy positions from DSA pamphlets, or vice versa. The DSA made clear that it opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement for instance. Obama, notably, signed free trade agreements with three different countries earlier this year.
"We believe in the free market," Obama said at fundraiser in California last week. "We believe in risk-taking and innovation. This whole area is built on risk-taking and innovation. But we also understand that it doesn't happen in a vacuum. It happens because of outstanding schools and universities. It happens because of a well-regulated financial market. It happens because we have extraordinary infrastructure. It happens for a whole host of reasons."
She's also a friend of and admirer of Hugo Chavez.
Newspeak...so choosing is not choosing, phew.
Obama camp: Country 'prospering' on green jobs
Obama Deputy Dampaign Manager Stephanie Cutter defended President Obama's investment in green energy companies like Solyndra, and said that because of his investments, the "country was prospering."
"Politics did not play any role and thats a known fact," she said about the investment in Solyndra, adding that president was "not picking winners or losers" but making "strategic investments" for the country "on behalf of the American people."
Cutter claimed that Obama's green energy investments created over a quarter of a million green jobs for America.
"The president was making investments for the country, because he's not going to cede an entire industry to China and India," Cutter said. "And as a result the company - country is prospering."
Cutter said that Romney went into investment deals to make profits for himself and his investors, not create jobs.
"Politics did not play any role and thats a known fact," she said about the investment in Solyndra, adding that president was "not picking winners or losers" but making "strategic investments" for the country "on behalf of the American people."
Cutter claimed that Obama's green energy investments created over a quarter of a million green jobs for America.
"The president was making investments for the country, because he's not going to cede an entire industry to China and India," Cutter said. "And as a result the company - country is prospering."
Cutter said that Romney went into investment deals to make profits for himself and his investors, not create jobs.
"Looking tough"
Krauthammer: Obama Denounced Enhanced Interrogation; Now He's Judge, Jury And Executioner
"We can understand why Obama is doing this," syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said about the president's 'kill list.' "Why they clearly leaked this to the press. They want obama to look tough, hawkish and part of that is what is happening around the world. You look at massacres in Syria, he is standing by. You look at negotiations with Iran over it nukes, they're going nowhere. There is a collapse in Baghdad. Look at the way that the Russians are treating the United States. Putin dissing Obama personally by not showing up at the G8 summit or the NATO summit as a kind of way to slap Obama in the face and he does this without any reaction."
"So here's a story that shows he is a tough guy, he kills by remote control. There are a few problem with this. Number one, is as a military strategy, we aren't getting any intelligence, this is the past of least resistance. And some of the intelligence people are telling you we are living off the intelligence of the Bush years and soon it will not be useful because it will be outdated. Second is a moral argument. Obama went around preening, particularly in '08 and even after he's elected he went around the world preening about how there is a new direction and a moral direction of the United States. How we had lost our way with Iraq with these enhanced interrogations and he's going around and killing people where he is judge, jury and executioner," Krauthammer said on FOX News' "Special Report" tonight.
"I'm not against it, but if you take the moral argument and the preening that the Democrats did, about how terrible the Bush administration was for enhanced interrogation, well they didn't go around killing people from the air, and if necessary and often happens, the families as well. So they kind of lost the moral high ground here. But I understand why he is doing it. It makes him look tough," Krauthammer said.
Will we hear from the leftist anti war types who would have been all over this if it were anyone other then one of theirs? Moral hypocrites!
The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate
The rest here.
Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more skeptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens, a U.S. National Science Foundation-funded study has found.The results of the survey are especially remarkable as the researchers were doing so from the position that the “scientific consensus” (carbon-driven global warming is ongoing and extremely dangerous) is a settled fact, and the priority is now to find some way of getting U.S. voters to believe in the need for urgent, immediate and massive action to reduce CO2 emissions.As scientific/tech knowledge and numeracy appears to be more common among what the study called “hierarchical individualists” than among “egalitarian communitarians,” this meant that in the sample as a whole, the effect of more scientific knowledge and numeracy was to increase skepticism.
"Meaningful Work"
Thomas Sowell explains the real world to those sheltered from it:
Read the rest here."Education" is a word that covers a lot of very different things, from vital, life-saving medical skills to frivolous courses to absolutely counterproductive courses that fill people with a sense of grievance and entitlement, without giving them either the skills to earn a living or a realistic understanding of the world required for a citizen in a free society.The lack of realism among many highly educated people has been demonstrated in many ways.
When I saw signs in Yellowstone National Park warning visitors not to get too close to a buffalo, I realized that this was a warning that no illiterate farmer of a bygone century would have needed. No one would have had to tell him not to mess with a huge animal that literally weighs a ton, and can charge at you at 30 miles an hour.
No one would have had to tell that illiterate farmer's daughter not to stand by the side of a highway, trying to hitch a ride with strangers, as too many college girls have done, sometimes with results that ranged all the way up to their death.The dangers that a lack of realism can bring to many educated people are completely overshadowed by the dangers to a whole society created by the unrealistic views of the world promoted in many educational institutions.It was painful, for example, to see an internationally renowned scholar say that what low-income young people needed was "meaningful work." But this is a notion common among educated elites, regardless of how counterproductive its consequences may be for society at large, and for low-income youngsters especially.What is "meaningful work"?The underlying notion seems to be that it is work whose performance is satisfying or enjoyable in itself. But if that is the only kind of work that people should have to do, how is garbage to be collected, bed pans emptied in hospitals or jobs with life-threatening dangers to be performed?Does anyone imagine that firemen enjoy going into burning homes and buildings to rescue people trapped by the flames? That soldiers going into combat think it is fun?In the real world, many things are done simply because they have to be done, not because doing them brings immediate pleasure to those who do them. Some people take justifiable pride in working to take care of their families, whether or not the work itself is great.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
parasitic unions and politicians feeding on the public
More perks for California's ruling class
SACRAMENTO – Democrats and Republicans in the California Legislature once again have broadcast this troubling fact: They are far more concerned about the ever-expanding demands of a relatively small group of public-sector union members than they are about the welfare of the citizens of our state.
On May 17, the Assembly voted 68-0 to support the most despicable piece of legislation that's come through the halls in a while, which is saying a lot, given the foolhardy proposals routinely trotted out in Sacramento.
Assembly Bill 2299 allows a broad swath of public officials – police, judges and various public safety officials – to hide their names from public property records. It is based on the unproven hypothesis that criminals use such records to find the homes of law enforcement officers, then track them down to do them harm. This theoretically could happen, but even the most overheated advocates of the bill can't point to specific instances. Lots of things can happen, theoretically.
The Sacramento Bee editorial page, hardly a font of anti-government-worker thinking, made the obvious point: "None of the testimony presented in committee indicated criminals seeking to harm law enforcement officials actually got information about where their targets lived from property records. Most just followed them home from work."
The state is about to destroy the most significant source of public records, and create an open invitation to fraud and theft, in order to combat a phantom threat. The bill was introduced by a legislator who ought to know better, Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles. Not long ago, Feuer argued that openness is the key to stopping abuse in his city's terminally troubled children's court system, but now he is the champion of secrecy.
"AB2299 would bar journalists and the public from investigating the situation unfolding in Los Angeles where the [county] assessor is accused of collecting campaign contributions from property owners in exchange for lowered property assessments," the California Newspaper Publishers Association's Jim Ewert said in a letter to Feuer. "The bill would completely insulate and protect any public safety official who might be involved in this type of scheme."
Public officials and their family members will be able to hide their identities, which will undermine the reliability of property transactions. Dirty officials will pull off real estate scams without scrutiny. If an assessor did mistakenly release a record, those officials could receive financial judgments paid by the taxpayers. As the Bee asked, "If names are redacted, could law enforcement officials prevent their estranged wives or husbands from asserting a legitimate legal interest in the property?" The property system will become far less reliable. Buyers will be less able to guarantee that the title they receive is free and clear.
What a mess we are creating, and all because union officials are constantly pushing for new and expanded privileges for their members, and because legislators never have the courage to say no. Law enforcement advocates constantly trumpet the dangers their members face, but they often exaggerate the true risk. They ignore that many other people who work outside government face dangers, too. Bail bondsmen face potential dangers from criminals, as do various attorneys and average citizens going about their lives.
It's not right to bolster the idea that public officials belong to a separate caste with rights and protections that exceed those enjoyed by the citizenry at large.
It's fundamental to our democratic society that government officials are held to the same standards as the rest of us. Yet we see many scandals involving public officials, many crimes committed by duly sworn officers. Do we really need yet another privilege that exempts "them" from rules that apply to the rest of "us."
You can be sure that the number of protected categories will expand rapidly and quietly. Even the original list is fairly broad. Within weeks, lobbyists for other public-sector unions will insist that code enforcers, billboard inspectors and milk testers, for instance, receive the same protections given the dangers these officials supposedly face.
If you think I'm hyperbolizing, consider that lobbyists for the same employee groups made that same argument to gain them expanded "public safety" pensions.
Many officials will abuse this perk, just as police and their families routinely abuse the "professional courtesy" granted by other officers to evade traffic tickets and DUIs. In 2008, the Orange County Register published an investigation about a special license-plate program "designed 30 years ago to protect police from criminals, [that] has been expanded to cover hundreds of thousands of public employees – from police dispatchers to museum guards – who face little threat from the public. Their spouses and children can get the plates, too.
This has happened despite warnings from state officials that the safeguard is no longer needed because updated laws have made all DMV information confidential to the public.
The newspaper found that these public servants often run red lights and drive on toll roads without paying because the agencies cannot access the drivers' addresses, which are in a restricted database. When these scofflaw government employees are pulled over by police, the newspaper reported, they often are let go with a warning because their protected-plate status signals that they are part of the law enforcement fraternity.
After the Register article, the Legislature actually voted to expand the number of categories of employee eligible for the program.
Now this two-tier craziness will expand to our property-ownership system, undermining public records and allowing corrupt public employees to exploit other people. We know from history that free and open societies are the ones least susceptible to corruption. Yet the California Assembly has decided to cast aside that time-tested wisdom and put the demands of unions above the needs of the public.
So what else is new?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
