Let’s dispense with the myth that liberals are really against voter fraud; Voter fraud is actually an essential part of their election strategy

When the Reverend Al Sharpton embraced felonious vote fraudster Melowese Richardson he embraced her crime

writes Benny Huang.

Harlem’s own race-hustling clergyman appeared at a political rally in Cincinnati in support of the “Ohio Voters’ Bill of Rights,” that would make it illegal to ask voters for ID at the polls, when Ms. Richardson, freshly sprung from a prison she should not have left, was called up to the stage for a heartfelt “welcome home,” complete with thunderous applause and big hug from Reverend Al.

Ms. Richardson, a county poll worker, pleaded no contest in 2013 to four counts of voter fraud. The previous year she voted five times for President Obama—once for herself, and four times illegally. She has also admitted to voting illegally in 2009 and 2011, though those charges were excluded as part of her plea deal. She was then sentenced to five years in prison, though she served only eight months before the same judge that sentenced her in the first place re-sentenced her to parole.

“In the interest of justice, it is time for her to go home,” said Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters, a Republican. He offered no objection to Ms. Richardson’s resentencing.

Apparently eight months in prison was punishment enough for depriving (at least) four other citizens of their franchise. That’s what voter fraud is—disenfranchising voters. Each illegitimate ballot cast nullifies a legitimate one. Her fraud was no different than reaching into the ballot box and removing four ballots, or physically blocking four people from the polling place.

 … Any talk of voter fraud elicits swift backlash from the Left. A series of billboards reading “Voter Fraud is a Crime” created quite a stir In the Buckeye State in 2012 and were quickly condemned by the “civil rights establishment” who demanded to know who they were “targeted at.”

Answer: vote fraudsters, of course. Who else?

But misnamed “voting rights” groups didn’t see it that way. They asserted that the billboards were intended to intimidate minorities and felons, who are permitted to vote in Ohio. How someone might have interpreted “Don’t vote illegally” to mean “Don’t vote,” is beyond me. It would be like claiming that advertisements against drunk driving dissuade people from driving sober.

But I wasn’t born yesterday so I can see through their transparent objections. Liberals weren’t concerned that the billboards would send the wrong message. They were concerned that it would send the right message, thus stymying their efforts to cheat. No one honestly believes that the billboards were designed to intimidate legitimate voters from voting only once. They were aimed at the Melowese Richardsons of this world who think nothing of voting five times in a single election.

Leave Melowese alone!

 … So let’s dispense with the myth that liberals are really against voter fraud. If they were, they wouldn’t object to billboards that warn against it and they wouldn’t make a martyr out of Melowese Richardson, who served only eight months in prison when she could have spent decades.

Voter fraud is actually an essential part of their election strategy. They know what the law says but the law is, in their eyes, unfair. So they flaunt it. They recruit noncitizens to vote, some of whom aren’t even in the country legally. They get felons to polls, even though felons are ineligible to vote in some states. They comb the voter rolls for people who have recently died, and they never allow anyone to clean up voter rolls, even if they contain more registered voters than a precinct has eligible citizens.

This isn’t an argument between two groups of people who both care about the integrity of our elections but disagree about how best to ensure it. It’s an argument between people who think that elections should be clean and well-ordered, with sensible safeguards to ensure that only eligible voters vote and only one time each, and those who think that cheating is okay so long as it is done in the service of a just cause. And really, there is no cause more just than electing saintly liberals and defeating evil conservatives.

In the Wake of Crimea, What Lands Does the Kremlin Have Its Heart Set On?

After Crimea — whose historical ties to Russia are discussed by the BBC's Ruth Maclennan — will other territories be coveted by Moscow, ask Le Monde's Jules Grandin, Flavie Holzinger, Benoît Vitkin, and Mathilde Gérard.

Historic Defeat for Hollande's Ruling Socialists in France's Municipal Elections

On Sunday, François Hollande's ruling socialists suffered a defeat without precedent in France's 2014 municipal elections (spoken about in all of Europe), leading to the opposition UMP becoming the nº1 party (on a town-hall level, at least, with the emergence of a new generation of right-leaning mayors, some under 40 years of age) and to the capture of several town halls by Marine Le Pen's Front National.

Marine Le Pen Proves Yet Again that America's Conservatives Are No Equivalent of Her Front National

While François Hollande's ruling socialists suffer a defeat without precedent in France's 2014 municipal elections (spoken about in all of Europe) — leading to the opposition UMP becoming the nº1 party along with the capture of several town halls by the Front National — Marine Le Pen proves, yet again, that America's conservatives, Tea Partiers, and Republicans are no equivalent of her movement.

The FN leader, who once said that “Obama is way to the right of us”, does not refute the idea of being the incarnation of a sort of "Peronism à la française" (in an interview by Abel Mestre and Caroline Monnot), all the while speaking of starting over at the year 0 (evoking Robespierre, Pot Pol, et al) and rejecting the "ultra" free market.

M^me Le Pen appelle de ses vœux à la naissance d'un « grand mouvement patriote, ni droite ni gauche », s'opposant à un autre bloc politique qui serait composé de l'UMP et du PS. Une sorte de « péronisme à la française », définition que l'eurodéputée ne rejette pas.

Votre positionnement « ni droite ni gauche » n'est-il pas une impasse qui vous empêche de passer des alliances ?

Pas du tout. C'est ce qu'attendent les Français. Dans notre électorat, il y a des déçus de l'UMP et des déçus du PS. Nous sommes à l'année zéro d'un grand mouvement patriote, ni de droite ni de gauche, qui fonde son opposition avec la classe politique actuelle sur la défense de la nation, le rejet de l'ultralibéralisme, de l'européisme, capable de transcender les vieux clivages pour poser les vraies questions : est-on dans une vision nationale ou postnationale ? J'espère que cela apparaîtra de manière claire lors des élections européennes.

 … Votre positionnement « ni droite ni gauche » n'est-il pas une impasse qui vous empêche de passer des alliances ?

Pas du tout. C'est ce qu'attendent les Français. Dans notre électorat, il y a des déçus de l'UMP et des déçus du PS. Nous sommes à l'année zéro d'un grand mouvement patriote, ni de droite ni de gauche, qui fonde son opposition avec la classe politique actuelle sur la défense de la nation, le rejet de l'ultralibéralisme, de l'européisme, capable de transcender les vieux clivages pour poser les vraies questions : est-on dans une vision nationale ou postnationale ? J'espère que cela apparaîtra de manière claire lors des élections européennes.

Le Front national ne fait pas partie du bloc de droite ?

Non, pas du tout. Le bloc droite-gauche ne correspond plus à la réalité. On ne peut plus classer les électeurs dans deux camps droite et gauche, la réalité est bien plus complexe que cela.

The World’s 10 Most Beautiful National Parks

From Womanitely, the World’s 10 Most Beautiful National Parks

Le Figaro Director Shot by Finance Minister's Wife and Killed

M. Gaston Calmette, director of the ‘‘Figaro,’’ was yesterday shot and killed by Mme. Caillaux, wife of the Minister of Finance, in his bureau in the offices of that newspaper

writes the New York Herald in a special section.

Mme. Caillaux called at the ‘‘Figaro’’ offices about five o’clock in the afternoon and asked to see M. Calmette. After waiting a while, she was shown into M. Calmette’s office and immediately drew from her muff an automatic pistol and shot him three times. The shooting was the sequel to the campaign recently waged against M. Caillaux by M. Calmette in the columns of the ‘‘Figaro.’’ At the police-station, Mme. Caillaux declared that she did not intend to kill M. Calmette, but wanted to ‘‘teach him a good lesson.’’ She explained to the police commissary that the affair arose out of a letter which M. Caillaux wrote in 1901 to a woman, a photographic reproduction of which appeared in the ‘‘Figaro’’ last Friday. Mme. Caillaux said that she was very shocked by the publication of such a letter, and declared that she wanted to prevent any more letters of the kind being published. An eye-witness of the tragedy declared later that M. Calmette, as he was being carried downstairs, preparatory to being removed to hospital, said, in a fainting voice: ‘‘I have never done anyone any harm, but I have merely done my duty.’’

In Our Pages, 100 Years Ago (1914)

Check out Herbert Mitgang's book review of
Edward Berenson's The Trial of Mme. Caillaux

Racism on French Campuses on the Rise

 … [French] campuses are more and more the targets of bullying actions from extreme right groups; racist, homophobic, and nationalist graffiti; and even sometimes blows

While America and the world bemoan the dark racism that allegedly exists throughout America, Isabelle Rey-Lefebvre writes in Le Monde that French university campuses are permeated with racist acts

 … les campus sont de plus en plus souvent la cible d'actions d'intimidation de groupuscules d'extrême droite, tags racistes, homophobes, nationalistes et parfois même coups de poings. …

« UN ACTE ANTIRÉPUBLICAIN »

Les étudiants de l'université de Dijon ont découvert, mardi 4 mars, sur le mur extérieur de l'établissement, deux tags d'une même main : « Vive la France » et « A mort LGBT » (pour lesbien, gay, bi et trans). Le président de l'université de Bourgogne, Alain Bonnin, a dénoncé sur son compte Twitter un « acte antirépublicain ».

L'incident n'est pas isolé : en novembre 2013, une statue du campus était vandalisée avec le slogan « Hollande démission » signé « ONLR » pour « On ne lâche rien », mot d'ordre des partisans de la Manif pour tous. « Les manifs anti-mariage pour tous ont donné des ailes à ces extrémistes », juge Jean-Baptiste Bourdillon, de l'UNEF Dijon. …

INCIDENTS À ANGERS, POITIERS, BORDEAUX, RENNES

A Strasbourg, le 9 février, on pouvait lire, sur les murs de la bibliothèque de l'université « Alsace nationaliste » et « La France aux Français », assorties d'une fleur de lys stylisée, symbole du Renouveau français, mouvement se disant « pour la renaissance nationale ». « Ce n'est qu'un incident d'une longue série, et ils vont crescendo », témoigne Flavie Linard, présidente de l'UNEF Strasbourg, qui se souvient des tags « A mort les socialistes », des autocollants et affiches siglés GUD ou encore des distributions de journaux Action universitaire française. « On ne voit jamais les fauteurs de troubles, ce qui me conduit à penser qu'il s'agit d'éléments extérieurs », confirme l'étudiante, à l'origine, avec d'autres associations, d'un comité de vigilance.


 … les militants UNEF et RUSF se sentent toujours menacés, puisque, début février, les murs de la faculté de lettres ont été graffités de slogans « Europe jeunesse génération » et « Pasaran quand même », référence au régime franquiste.

No word, yet, on whether, like their American counterparts, many if not most of these "racist" incidents turn out to be hoaxes.

Huffington Post's AOL Uses Airliner Tragedy Story to Make a Sarah Palin Joke

Credit a leftist organization like Huffington Post and/or AOL to use the main, "front-page" article currently on the site (1st out of 35), the one written by ADAM GELLER and KRISTEN GELINEAU on a pretty serious subject — the disappearance of the Malaysian airliner, Flight MH370 — to… make (or to relay, rather) a Sarah Palin joke.

 … when a fake news story showed up online supposedly quoting Sarah Palin as saying she believed the plane had flown directly to heaven, its plausibility hinged not on the former Alaska governor, but on the fact that just about anybody could and seemingly did have an opinion on the flight's fate.

Sending a Strong Signal to Russia

Master of the Universe
by Alex in
La Liberté
(Switzerland)

Xavier Gorce

 • Okay, let's take a vote: Who's in favor of the embargo?

• Perfect, that will send a strong signal: a full halt to chewing gum exports towards Russia

Smart Diplomacy: what is happening in Eastern Europe now is as much Obama’s fault as it is Putin’s

Now we know just how little Vladimir Putin and the government behind him cares about what the world thinks 

writes Onan Coca regarding the latest entry in the annals of the Apologizer-in-Chief's smart diplomacy

– and particularly what America thinks … it seems that every step the Obama administration has taken over the last 5+ years has led us to this point. Whether it was Hillary Clinton’s “Reset” button, Obama’s pledge of flexibility once the 2012 election was over, Obama’s recalcitrance on Syria, or Obama’s impotence on Iran… every foreign policy misstep has brought us down this road. In fact, I think it’s fair to say that what is happening in Eastern Europe now is as much President Obama’s fault as it is Vladimir Putin’s.

Meanwhile, James Rosen points out how,

among ethnic Russians, and in the heart of the former Soviet Union, a palpable anti-American sentiment is discernible -- and it is, to some extent, the product of determined efforts by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin apparatus he controls. 

No Pasarán wrote about this in October 2012 after the third debate when a New York Times piece, of all places, provided fodder for the post Moscow's current tone is "reminiscent of Soviet days"; If anyone is stuck in the Cold War mentality, it is the Russians. James Rosen, again:

"Friends of mine who have been in Moscow for the past, say, two years tell me you cannot understand the amount of propaganda, anti-U.S. propaganda, that is being fed to the Russian people on Russian television -- nothing like it, unprecedented," said Daniel Henninger, deputy editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, in an appearance on Fox News' "Happening Now." "They didn't even do this sort of thing back during the Cold War."

Fox Butterfield, Est-ce Vous? "Coincidentally, perils in Ukraine are on the rise at a time when the U.S. is announcing a reduction in military personnel"

"Coincidentally" are the first words of Corine Lesnes's article, as the Le Monde writer seems to be channeling Fox Butterfield (Renard Champdebeurre in French?) when she says that by coincidence perils are on the rise at a time when America is disarming, disarming to a level prior to World War II.

Coincidentally, the increasing perils in Ukraine come at a time when the United States is announcing a reduction in military personnel. In the 2015 budget presented on March 4, Barack Obama included a realignment of the armed forces that reflects its major strategic choices: an end to deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, adapting to new types of missions, a pivot towards Asia. According to the proposals presented to Congress by the Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, the army should decrease from 522,000 men to 440,000 or 450,000 before 2017, the lowest level since 1940.

"Coincidentally"!

Corine Lesnes:

Par coïncidence, la montée des périls en Ukraine intervient à un moment où les Etats-Unis annoncent une réduction de leurs effectifs militaires. Dans le budget 2015 qu'il présente le 4 mars, Barack Obama a inclus une réorientation des forces armées qui traduit ses grands choix stratégiques : fin des déploiements en Irak et en Afghanistan, adaptation aux nouvelles missions, pivot vers l'Asie.
Selon les propositions présentées au Congrès par le secrétaire à la défense, Chuck Hagel, l'armée de terre devrait passer de 522 000 hommes à 440 000 ou 450 000 avant 2017, soit le niveau le plus bas depuis 1940.

Tenth Anniversary of My First Post for No Pasarán

A few weeks after the founding of No Pasarán, 10 years ago, I was invited to join as the blog's fourth blogger (after Douglas, Jonathan, and Liminal aka U*2, and prior to N Joe). Today is the anniversary of my first contribution:

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

Growling for Colombani

Any of you who have seen me over the past 10 days knows how furious I get anytime I read or hear the French media trying to stuff down our throats their self-serving lying charges (those against Aznar, Bush, and Blair, i.e., anybody whom they don't feel any sympathy with).

So when I read that the Mémorial de Caen was organizing a conference with Jean-Marie Colombani, among others ("QUELLE LIBERTÉ POUR L'INFORMATION DANS UN MONDE INQUIÉTANT ?", organized in tandem with Les Amis de l'hebdomadaire La Vie and Reporters sans Frontières), I knew I had to attend. I wanted to give Le Monde's director a piece of my mind (in a diplomatic manner, natch). Three hours before it started at 7 pm on March 23, 2004, I jumped into my trusty jalopy, and drove the 260 km to Caen, arriving just in the nick of time.

And sure enough, the first thing any of the five intervenants did (with a constant wry smile on his face) was to attack the lies of politicians, ridicule the partisanship of the media, and bemoan the jingoism of the population (meaning those of the US, the UK, and Aznar's Spain exclusively, bien sûr). It was Jean-Marie Charon, "Sociologue des médias" (whatever that means), who opened the débat — the others being (left to right on the admittedly unclear photo) Colombani, Walter Wells, Directeur de l'International Herald Tribune (beard), Jean-Jacques Lerosier, Grand reporter à Ouest-France, and Jacqueline Papet, Rédactrice-en-chef de RFI, with the moderators answering to the names of Daniel Junqua, Journaliste et Vice-président de RSF, and Jean-Claude Escaffit, Journaliste à La Vie et Directeur des Amis de La Vie.

Before I left Paris, I'd reviewed and written down (in telegraph-style) a handful of arguments: these ranged from the Iraqis quoted in Reason, on Iraq the Model, and in Le Monde itself, to Doug's post on Le Monde's partisan mistranslation of Michael Ignatieff's piece in the New York Times.

The only problem was a rather big one, I learned as a I headed for my seat: questions would not be permitted, except in written form on small pieces of paper handed over to one of the animators. So I knew I had to pay close attention if I wanted to find an appropriate moment when to jump in. And I would obviously not have time to develop any of the arguments (especially since Eskaffit seemed to be a control freak).

It happened towards the end. There was a brief lull as Wells was about to make his last extensive remarks. Suddenly everybody turned to me as I let out : "Je pense que nous devons tous remercier les médias français pour leur admirable abilité à détecter les mensonges. Mais je ne comprends pas pourquoi ces spécialistes en la matière ignorent des sujets qui ont été traités dans le Herald Tribune, par exemple." (This was punctuated by Eskaffit's protests on his mike, you realize.) "Nous avons pu y lire des articles détaillant ce qu'on pourrait taxer de mensonges dans le camp de la paix, comme le fait que les Allemands, les Russes, et les Français avaient pas mal d'affaires avec les autorités baasistes, et que Total devait avoir un contrat exclusif avec Saddam Hussein. Pourquoi les médias français n'en font-ils pas autant état que de ce qui concerne les Ricains, les Rosbifs, et les Espagnols?"

Eskaffit was growing increasingly more vocal in asking/telling me to keep quiet (shades of Chirac?) — he claimed that "de toutes façons", nobody could hear me — so seeing the end approaching (and having a hard time competing against a microphone), I pulled out my final ace — the final ace being a book, which I held above my head. (Yes, there did seem to be a somewhat theatrical element to this scene; why do you ask?) "Et en matière de mensonges, il y a ce livre d'un rédacteur de La Croix, qui a été licencié pour l'avoir publié, qui s'appelle Comment la presse nous a désinformés sur l'Irak. Et qui raconte les partis pris des Français pour diaboliser Bush, pour sanctifier Chirac, et pour communier avec les partis de la 'paix'."

Even a few audience members had by now started to tell me to keep quiet, but that seemed an appropriate place to end anyway, so with that I sat down.

As for Eskaffit, he went on talking to the intervenants… ignoring completely what I had said. (While a couple of people behind me asked to see the book.) Well, I felt I had done my blogger's duty, so to speak, so I sat back, pretty content with myself.

Then, as Junqua made his last remarks, I understood that some people had heard me; the RSF moderator surprised me by pulling out his own copy of Alain Hertoghe's book (which he had in his briefcase), and explained that it provided a negative view of the French media during the Iraq war. But then he added that there was another book, detailing the French press's doings during the first Gulf war, with a positive slant, and that one could not read the first book without comparing it to the second. He tried to conclude that Hertoghe's book was a partisan "brûlot" that was not very friendly to his colleagues. (This from a colloque which had just declared that, happily, the old tradition in the press of refusing to criticize one's colleagues had now become "caduc"!)

I wasn't going to let him get away with that as the final word, so I let out another comment: "Les médias ont complètement censuré ce livre!" (But Eskaffit immediately started interrupting again.)

Afterwards, I went up to speak to some of the intervenants. Wells asked to see Hertoghe's book, which he wanted to check out. As for Junqua, he admitted it was news to him that the La Croix editor had been fired as a result of the book's publication.

So, all in all, a satisfying 10 minutes. (But hardly worth doing again, not at that distance. At least not without a couple of chums to have a drink with, afterwards.)

P.S. This is my first post for ¡No Pasarán! Muchas gracias, amigos, for inviting me to participar.

Posted by Erik at 20:03

The Two Big Losers in the Crimea Crisis Are Merkel and Obama, Writes Le Monde Columnist

Putin 1, Merkel and Obama 0

is Alain Frachon's verdict in Le Monde.

The West checkmated. SuperPutin triumphs.

… There are two big losers: Barack Obama and Angela Merkel … The two most important leaders in the Western family failed miserably. They did everything to "appease" a Russia said to be "humiliated" by the disappearance of its empire. They went along with numerous requests. They petted the bear. WIthout obtaining a single thing in return.

En Français :

Echec et mat à l’Occident. Super Poutine triomphe.

  … Il y a deux grands perdants : Barack Obama et Angela Merkel. … les deux dirigeants les plus importants de la famille occidentale se sont lourdement trompés. Ils ont tout fait pour « apaiser » une Russie que l’on disait « humiliée » par la disparition de son empire. Ils ont accédé à nombre de ses demandes. Ils ont caressé l’ours dans le sens du poil. Sans rien obtenir en retour.

A peine arrivé à la Maison Blanche, en janvier 2009, Obama annonce un « nouveau départ » dans la politique russe des Etats-Unis. Moscou voit alors d’un mauvais œil le projet américain d’installer un bouclier antimissile en Pologne et en République tchèque. Obama l’abandonne aussitôt et le remplace par une version plus réduite, en Roumanie. A aucun moment, le président américain n’a cherché à revenir sur la décision prise par l’OTAN, en 2008, de rejeter les candidatures de l’Ukraine et de la Géorgie.

Dans sa rhétorique comme dans ses actes, Obama a gommé l’empreinte néoconservatrice qui marquait l’administration de George W. Bush : plus question d’exporter les valeurs de la démocratie jeffersonienne où que ce soit. Concentré sur le retrait des forces américaines d’Irak et d’Afghanistan, il sait l’immense perte de crédibilité morale subie par les Etats-Unis du fait de ces interventions répétées à l’extérieur. Il a mesuré les limites de ce que peut accomplir la machine militaire américaine ; il a mesuré aussi ce que ces guerres ont coûté au statut de l’Amérique. Il est le président d’un certain désengagement américain en Europe – objectif traditionnel de Moscou. Il s’est gardé d’intervenir militairement dans la guerre syro-syrienne, et s’est rangé à l’initiative du Kremlin sur le démantèlement des armes chimiques de Damas.

Meanwhile, Sylvie Kauffmann takes on an optimistic viewpoint, opining that this crisis will see the United States return to Europe. But isn't it too late, Sylvie?

Selon les propos rapportés par M. Djemilev aux médias ukrainiens, le président russe a fait valoir que la déclaration d'indépendance de l'Ukraine en 1991, par un vote du Parlement suivi d'un référendum, n'était « pas conforme à la procédure soviétique prévue pour quitter les structures de l'URSS » … l'idée qui s'est répandue aussitôt est qu'à ses yeux, le démantèlement de l'URSS était illégal. Cela impliquerait que Vladimir Poutine veut rétablir l'Union soviétique.

L'annexion de la Crimée bouleverse l'ordre international de l'après-guerre froide. De fait, elle a déjà provoqué plusieurs renversements de tendances et fait deviner des réalignements.

Lire : Un référendum en Crimée pour dire "oui" à la Russie

Le plus visible est le retour des Etats-Unis en Europe. Soucieux de « pivoter » vers l'Asie, découragés par les échecs de l'ère Bush au Moyen-Orient, les Américains avaient laissé les Européens gérer la sécurité de leur continent et même au-delà, de l'autre côté de la Méditerranée, en « menant depuis l'arrière ». La crise ukrainienne les voit revenir en première ligne.

Exactly who or what will take over the DNS from the US government? And will it make the Internet better or worse?

On March 14, 2014, the United States announced its intention to turn over control of the Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS) to someone else

writes Bob Rankin.

But exactly who or what will take over? And will it make the Internet better or worse? Here is my analysis of what’s really happening…

Is the U.N. Taking Over the Internet?

Despite what you may have heard about the recently announced changes in Internet governance, it's not exactly "new news," it's not going to happen any time soon, but it could affect how people in some countries access the Internet (or not). Here's what you need to know.

…/…

Some Concerns About Human RIghts

What unsettles some is that Russia, China and other countries with less-than-stellar human rights policies are making the most noise about moving Internet governance out of the USA. They would like the U.N. to be in charge, giving them more power to censor online political speech and dissent. And given the U.N.'s track record of putting dictators in charge of things, one can understand these concerns. Last November, Russia, China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia were chosen by secret ballot to serve on the UN's laughable Human Rights Council.

Typically, whoever controls the purse strings controls everything. If the new Internet governance body is funded by member contributions, then power will concentrate in the factions that contribute the most money. ICANN will have to come up with a different, politically neutral funding mechanism. Selling IP addresses and domain names may be a workable option, but provisions will be needed to prevent any entity or faction from cornering the market.

The news that the U.S. is giving up control of the Internet is being painted as a reaction to current events, including the NSA’s spying activities. In reality, it’s a long-anticipated step in what has been planned for the Internet since 1998. Before NTIA and ICANN, control of the Internet was held by DARPA. In fact, at one time a single person held the power to decide who got a domain name and who didn’t. His name was Jon Postel and his power was so awesome that his nickname within the geek community was simply, “God.”

The transfer of power from a military agency to the Commerce Department, which serves broad commercial interests, was a step towards openness and inclusion of more stakeholders. Delegating power to the non-governmental ICANN was a further step. Taking the U. S. government entirely out of the picture is the final step, and it won’t be taken until another suitable custodian of the Internet is available.

Bottom line, the Internet isn't likely to fundamentally change (at least in the USA) once this transition is complete. You'll still be able to find cat videos on Youtube, and spew the most private details of your life on Facebook, if you choose to do so. Users in China, Russia, and other totalitarian regimes may not be as lucky.

Here’s the unfortunate truth: There are a number of problems with Rand Paul’s formula for a GOP victory

Senator Rand Paul thinks he has a recipe for a GOP comeback

writes Benny Huang —

Republicans should agree to disagree on social issues.

… According to this argument, after a mutual agreed-upon truce on social issues, a slew of disaffected voters will flock to the GOP and the party will be able to tackle the debt crisis that plagues us.

There are a number of problems with Paul’s formula for victory. Let’s start with the fact that Republicans have already agreed to disagree on these issues. Come to Massachusetts and you’ll find nary a trace of social conservatism in the state GOP. Even outside of New England there are pro-abortion Republicans like Chris Christie and and pro-same sex marriage Republicans like Rob Portman. The party even has turncoats who think that religious business owners should be forced by law to take part in same-sex weddings—John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Jan Brewer, to name a few. So there’s plenty of room in the Republicans’ “big tent” for people who hate religious liberty and love violence against the unborn.

“Agreeing to disagree” can’t be what Paul really means. I think what he’s saying is that all-around conservatives should let the fiscal-policy-only conservatives do all the talking so the party will stop looking so mean and exclusive. This will be accomplished by punting all social issues to the Democrats, who have most certainly not agreed to disagree.

And they will win. Every time.

The only way this could possibly grow the party is if the ostracized social conservatives continued to faithfully cast their ballots for Republicans; just for old time’s sake or something. I guess it never occurred to Senator Paul that those conservatives who don’t like the new GOP might just stay home, thus shrinking the party.

But there’s another problem with the Paulian plan for a rejuvenated Republican Party: the demographic groups the senator is hoping to reach by focusing on budget issues are probably the least receptive to the message.

Try preaching fiscal conservatism in an inner-city neighborhood where the population is disproportionately young, non-white, and Democratic. Here’s a message that will get you nowhere with them: “Hi, I’m running for office on a platform of lower taxes and less government.”

 … Less government terrifies them because they understand the term to mean fewer social programs. And they’re right. They might even ask what parts of the budget Republicans plan on cutting, which is a fair question. What will Republicans say?

Consider for a moment Generation Y and its priorities. A 2012 Pew poll found that among eighteen- to twenty-nine year olds socialism had a nice ring to it. Forty-nine percent of this age group reported a positive reaction to the word, while 47% had a negative view of capitalism.

Among blacks of all ages, 55% had a positive reaction to the word socialism, and among Hispanics of all ages it was 44%. If Rand Paul thinks he can win these people over by kicking Phyllis Schlafly to the curb he’s wrong.

The reason the cost of government is perpetually growing is because our elected officials don’t know how to say no to any constituent group or “good cause.” Every program is someone’s lifeblood, whether it’s HUD or farm subsidies, and every agency is someone’s employer, whether it’s the turnpike authority or TSA. Making a cut anywhere will generate pushback, often from exactly the people Rand Paul thinks he can attract.

If the pivot from social policy to fiscal policy is compelled by a burning desire to be liked, the effort can only fail. Congressman Paul Ryan experienced this last week when he recommended a change in work ethic as an antidote to welfare dependency in inner city communities. In short order, Congresswoman Barbara Lee played the race card. “My colleague Congressman Ryan’s comments about ‘inner city’ poverty are a thinly veiled racial attack and cannot be tolerated,” Lee said. “Let’s be clear, when Mr. Ryan says ‘inner city,’ …what he really means [is]: ‘black.’”

Don’t think you can get off with just being called racist either. Welfare benefits are paid out primarily to women, which means the Left can also call accuse fiscal conservatives of opening a new front in the War on Women™. And since the Left does everything “for the children,” fiscal conservatives will be accused of stealing food from the mouth of babes too.

If Republicans are going to be throwing principles overboard for the sake of giving their party a facelift, they needn’t stop, or even start, with the social issues. The MSNBC lineup will be delighted for a short time to learn that the Republicans have agreed to shut up on certain issues, but they will never stop calling Republicans bigots. Ever.

Which isn’t a reason to abandon fiscal conservatism. I’m a fiscal and social conservative, or what used to be called, um…conservative. Here’s the unfortunate truth: leftists are never going to stop calling us bigots, and certain segments of the population are never going to stop believing them. So if you believe in something, be prepared to suffer a few slings and arrows. If opinion polls are trending the wrong way then work to change those polls. Fight the battle of ideas.

Does Rand Paul understand that? I don’t think so. If he did, he would understand that sacrificing conservatism for the sake of growing the Republican Party is a good deal for the Republican Party but a rotten deal for conservatism. My party loyalty at this point is at about zero, so I don’t see the advancement of the GOP as a goal worth pursuing.

More from Josh Richman (thanks to Instapundit); meanwhile, the Huffington Post's intro to a Sabrina Siddiqui column suggests that Rand Paul is… a racist — because, you know, the only people who are ever allowed to broach the subject of race are Democrats and progressives…

Meanwhile, Ann Coulter chimes in, saying that she has

been reading that same column in The New York Times every few months for the last 20 years. Whether it’s abortion, gays, God or drugs, Times reporters are like bloodhounds in sniffing out Republicans — often kids — who are “pro-free market on fiscal issues and libertarian on social ones.” If something has been trending for decades without ever really catching on, it’s probably not about to sweep the nation.

Ann points out that

young people are idiots. I love them, I was one once myself -– but they’re idiots. We’ll be interested in their opinions on the basic rules of civilization as soon as they have one of three things: a household to run, a mortgage or school-aged children. Being in college is like living in Disneyland.

  … In 2012, the Times produced this gripping headline: “Young in GOP Erase the Lines on Social Issues.” Yes, apparently, people with no responsibilities, no families to provide for, no children to worry about, and who had recently experienced their first hangovers, didn’t care about the social issues.

As with every generation, the kids always think they’re saying something fresh and new. “Social issues are far down the priorities list,” Matt Hoagland told the Times, “and I think that’s the trend.” (How far down the list compared to “global warming”?)

So I guess, in addition to sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll, we can add to the list of “Things Young People Didn’t Invent” the bright new idea of being “pro-free market on fiscal issues and libertarian on social ones.”

Interestingly, when the Times reports on actual election results, rather than the opinions of 20-year-olds, the paper admits that the social issues are a huge boon to Republicans.

In 2004, for example, when traditional marriage initiatives were on ballots in dozens of states, the Times admitted that the measures “acted like magnets for thousands of socially conservative voters in rural and suburban communities who might not otherwise have voted” and even “tipped the balance” in close races. (“Same-Sex Marriage Issue Key to Some GOP Races,” Nov. 4, 2004.)

Luckily, like every generation before them, someday, young people will eventually grow up and discover that you can’t have conservative economic policies without also having conservative social policies. Imagine their embarrassment when they realize that a free society is impossible without lots of stable, married, two-parent families raising their children in safe, drug-free neighborhoods.

How about not letting them vote until they’re at least old enough not to be on their parents’ health insurance?

Russia — a producer of almost nothing except for hydrocarbon, weapons, and vodka

Putin has every reason to be satisfied

writes a Le Monde editorial, which calls Russia a producer of almost nothing except for hydrocarbon, weapons, and vodka.

The Europeans' reaction to the deed committed by the Russian president in Crimea was one of minimalism.

 … The result? For the second time, following Georgia's in 2008, Russie has modified the continent's borders by force without having to pay a price.

Plantu's cartoon, meanwhile, brings Vladimir's arch-enemy, the semi-nude Femen protesters, into the equation.

En français :

Poutine a tout lieu d'être satisfait. Les Européens ont réagi a minima au forfait que le président russe vient de commettre en Crimée. … La Russie, qui, hormis des hydrocarbures, des armes et de la vodka, ne produit presque rien, est aussi un formidable débouché pour les exportateurs européens.

Résultat : pour la deuxième fois après la Géorgie en 2008, la Russie a modifié les frontières du continent par la force sans en payer grand prix. Cela impose aux Européens, au minimum, de se tenir aujourd'hui fermement aux côtés de Kiev.

 … l'affaire a été menée dans une ambiance de surenchère ultranationaliste entretenue à Moscou par les médias russes au service du pouvoir. Comme s'il fallait préparer l'opinion à d'autres aventures militaires – en Ukraine, dans les régions russophones de l'est du pays, par exemple.

The U.S. and the Venezuelan administrations couldn’t be more similar: Chávez was the Obama of South America, and Maduro was his Biden

Joe Biden almost sounded like he meant it when he rebuked Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro over his government’s repressive reaction to the recent protests that have beset the South American nation

writes Benny Huang.

“The situation in Venezuela is alarming,” [the Vice President] wrote. “Confronting peaceful protesters with force and in some cases with armed vigilantes; limiting the freedoms of press and assembly necessary for legitimate political debate; demonizing and arresting political opponents; and dramatically tightening restrictions on the media.”

The Latin American quasi-dictator could be heard snickering all the way from Caracas. While the description certainly fits Venezuela in the Chavez/Maduro era, it isn’t a half bad description of the US in the Obama/Biden era either.

Okay, so armed vigilantes aren’t literally clubbing the Tea Party in the streets. Here in America we have a more gentle touch. Weaponizing the IRS to bludgeon opponents works far better without providing the news media with a gory scene to show on the evening news.

Not that they would show it anyway. With the possible exception of the Kennedy White House, no administration in the history of this country has gotten such fawning coverage from the media as has Team Obama, and none has been less grateful. This White House is paranoid in its secrecy and lashes out at the few honest reporters who still think it’s their job to report the news without fear or favor.

 … In Venezuela, CNN was stripped of its press credentials because it didn’t cover the Caracas protests in a light favorable to the government. (The government later relented.) The Obama Administration merely tries to isolate its bête noire, FOX News, refusing it access, excluding reporters from media events, and attempting to turn other news agencies against it. The White House’s excuse for excluding the news outfit most likely to ask a tough question is that FOX is “not really news,” as David Axelrod, former Senior Advisor to the President once said. Interestingly, Maduro said the same about CNN. In fact, every despot who ever tried to restrict press freedoms has used the same justification.

 … The Obama Administration also likes to arrest its opponents, including Dinesh D’Souza, producer of “2016: Obama’s America,” the second highest grossing political documentary of all time. I think the left might have found it a tad suspicious if Michael Moore had been arrested during Bush’s second term. D’Souza stands accused of violating campaign finance laws and has pled not guilty. The charges wreak to high heaven of being trumped up by an administration furious over D’Souza’s movie.

 … These two administrations couldn’t be more similar. Chavez was the Obama of South America, and Maduro was his Biden. They’re like two pairs of twins separated at birth. Welcome to the banana republic.

Tourists like to complain that Parisians are rude and unfriendly, but, of course, this is nonsense

 

Tourists like to complain that Parisians are rude and unfriendly, but, of course, this is nonsense

writes the International Herald Tribune, tongue-in-cheek.

Paris boasts an annual courtesy crusade during which people are urged to be polite to each other for an entire week, and only last November [1963]  a club for the promotion of niceness, Le Club de la Gentillesse, was founded. The group’s aim is ‘‘to gather those who appreciate the need of teaching the benefits of niceness, which is the key to a balanced life and world harmony.’’ Membership is already up to nearly 100, and one man recently offered to go to Madagascar as France’s Ambassador of Niceness.

50 Years Ago: 1964: Paris Club Promotes Niceness

You do not install one mistress at the Élysée when you have another mistress; That is simply bad form

  … we face another Gallic paradox, like the one about red wine and foie gras keeping you thin

writes Maureen Dowd in the New York Times.

“The whole problem with this Hollande scandal is that he is not married,” says Jean-Marie Rouart, the French novelist. “Had he been married, this affair would never have been revealed.”

He observed that, as an “elected monarch,” the president has to maintain appearances. “In France, having a mistress is not considered cheating,” he says. “We are not a puritanical country. France is Catholic. We accept sin and forgiveness.”

It’s bad enough to hide under a helmet and dismiss your security and go incognito on an Italian scooter to have a tryst in an apartment that is a stone’s throw from the Élysée Palace and has some tenuous connection to the Corsican Mafia. But everyone here except François Hollande seems to agree: You do not install one mistress at the Élysée when you have another mistress. That is simply bad form.

Why should the tabloids stick to the rule of the French press to ignore the private lives of presidents if Hollande breaks the rule of French presidents to lead an “exemplary” public life, which means having a real wife to cheat on?

 … “The concept of the first lady doesn’t exist in France, and even less the first mistress,” sniffed Olivier de Rohan, a vicomte and head of a foundation that protects French art. “The protocol in France is very strict. It is not a question of choice or pleasure. The wife of the president of the republic was always seated as the wife, never paraded as the first lady. I don’t care with whom Hollande sleeps. But the whole thing is totally ridiculous, the head of a great state exhibiting mistresses, one after the other.”

Or as one French journalist murmured, “All this, in the place where de Gaulle was.”

 … The French have spent centuries making fun of us for our puritanism, and now they feel the unbearable sting of our mockery, as our press and comedians chortle at a mediocre pol caught up in a melodrama with all the erotic charge of week-old Camembert. (Maybe that’s why the French got so swept up in the ridiculous but glamorous rumor about Obama and Beyoncé.)

All those French expressions we siphon because English isn’t nuanced enough — finesse, etiquette, savoir-faire, rendezvous, je ne sais quoi, comme il faut — Hollande flouted.

In the minds of many here, the French president is a loser because he’s so unrefined he might as well be American.

The only subjects schools seem to be good at teaching are environmentalism, critical race theory, and queer studies

There’s a reason why only one out every thousand Americans can name all five rights guaranteed by the First Amendment 

writes Benny Huang regarding the recent scholastic achievement test cheating scandals.

It’s because our schools fail to teach civics, just the same way that they fail to teach history, foreign language, and nearly every other subject. The only subjects they seem to be good at teaching are environmentalism, critical race theory, and queer studies. If kids today graduate school knowing anything it’s that humans are poisoning the earth, white people are evil racists, and homosexuality is an unqualified good.

When I juxtapose the multi-state cheating scandal next to the Long family’s legal battle to homeschool their children, I can come to only one conclusion: there’s something fundamentally backwards here. Parents have to prove, to the satisfaction of the state, that they can educate their children, when it should really be the other way around. Year after year public schools award diplomas to twelfth graders who can’t perform at a twelfth grade level and yet no one removes the captive children from their custody.

 … Maybe it’s time for the government-run school systems to start proving to parents that they are up to the task of educating children. The way we do it now is backwards—parents groveling for permission from the state to educate their children at home.