Tag Archives: freedom

A Judge Got One Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

Recall Florida’s citizens, by a 2:1 margin, voting up a State constitutional amendment restoring to convicted felons (except murderers and sex offenders) their right to vote on completion of their criminal sentences.

Recall, further, Florida’s government passing a law that required these felons to pay off their outstanding fines, fees or restitution—in other words, actually to complete their sentences, including court-imposed financial requirements.  This law went further: it provided mechanisms for relief from those financial penalties so the felon could complete their sentences more quickly after release from jail:

  • payment of the financial obligation in full
  • a court’s dismissal of the debt
  • conversion of the debt to community service

That last is instructive: community service is one of several sanctions, whether in addition to or in lieu of jail, applied on felony conviction. Community service in this guise thus stands as the State’s explicit recognition that a felon has not completed his sentence until he has completed all of it, including financial penalties.  That community service also is used to sanction misdemeanors and civil wrongs in no way alters that simple truth.

Now Federal District Judge Robert Hinkle has chosen to overrule the will of the citizens of the State: he’s issued an injunction that bars Florida’s Secretary of State and County Supervisors of Elections

from preventing plaintiffs from registering to vote solely because they can’t pay a financial obligation. He cited an appellate court ruling that held that “access to the franchise cannot be made to depend on an individual’s financial resources.”

Never mind that the law does not bar a right to vote based on a voter’s financial resources but on a felon’s having completed his sentence.

Never mind, either, that the law provides two means of relief from the financial portion of the felon’s sentence.  With his injunction, Hinkle has both removed the possibility of relief from financial distress, thereby making even more difficult an already arduous journey back to society, he’s removed much of the incentive for the felon to try.

This is another example of activist judges making political decisions in direct contravention of the political arms of a government, for all that this injunction is temporary, pending next year’s trial on the merits.

Warren, Again

Posted on by
Reply

At last Thursday’s CNN-hosted Equality Townhall attended by many of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s Presidential candidates, Senator and candidate Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) had this exchange with a townhall questioner:

Townhall Questioner: “Let’s say you’re on the campaign trail … and a supporter approaches you and says, “Senator, I am old-fashioned, and my faith teaches me that marriage is between one man and one woman.” What is your response?
Warren: Well, I’m going to assume it’s a guy who said that, and I’m going to say, “Then just marry one woman.  Assuming you can find one[.]

Now, the question appears to have been planted by Warren or her staff, but that just emphasizes the matter: this is the utter contempt with which she, and by extension, Party, view ordinary Americans.

Keep this in mind next summer and fall.

A Senate Impeachment Trial

Posted on by
Reply

Against the possibility that articles of impeachment might pass out of the Progressive-Democrat House, The Wall Street Journal wondered whether the Senate should—or could, given a handful of Republican Senators’ misgivings over the Trump-Zelenskiy telecon—simply vote to dismiss the articles “without a trial.”

The path to a successful dismissal vote is uncertain but eminently possible, even somewhat more likely than not.  I’m not convinced, though, that a successful vote to dismiss actually would be a success: dismissing the articles out of hand would do nothing but feed the Progressive-Democrats’ and the NLMSM’s conspiracy theories.

No, the Senate with (especially with) its Republican majority, should hold the trial. That way they can examine the Progressive-Democrats’ witnesses and call their own, which would let the Progressive-Democrats examine those witnesses in their turn.

Such an obviously balanced approach, which I believe would lead to a bipartisan acquittal on all articles (not all of the Senate Progressive-Democrats are in Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s hip pocket), would greatly mitigate the Progressive-Democrats’ and NLMSM’s efforts to delegitimize the 2016 election and to interfere with the 2020 elections up and down the ballot.

That last, after all, is the real purpose of the House Progressive-Democrat caucus. That’s why Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) is refusing to put the question of a formal impeachment proceeding to a House floor vote and why the chairmen of the three Committees are holding, instead, their secret inquisitions in their separate Star Chamber hearings.  The Star Chambers and the’ selective leaks emitted by them are solely intended to keep the smear going in a naked attempt to prejudice those irredeemably deplorable and amazingly ignorant Americans who will be voting.

On acquittal, the remaining objectors, and there will be some both in Party and in NLMSM, would be (further) exposed for the TDS-ridden personages that they are, to the politicians’ detriment in a few months.  Ordinary Americans, in the end, aren’t what Progressive-Democrats and the NLMSM project onto them.

Courage Under Fire

Posted on by
Reply

Republic of China’s President Tsai Ing-wen, against the background of the People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping’s abuse of Hong Kong citizens through his Hong Kong police, his functional abrogation of the solemnly agreed treaty with Great Britain governing the handover of Hong Kong to the PRC, and his parallel functional reneging on his government’s “one country, two systems” pretense vis-à-vis that city, has spoken against the PRC’s pretense of that toward her nation.

That framework, she noted, has brought Hong Kong to the brink of disorder.

Speaking from the presidential office building in the center of Taipei, Tsai accused China of using that same program to threaten Taiwan’s “regional peace and stability.”

Tsai went on:

We must stand up in defense. Rejection of “one country, two systems” is the biggest consensus among Taiwan’s 23 million people across parties and positions.
Over 70 years, we’ve endured all sorts of severe challenges, and not only do none of these challenges knock us down, they make us stronger and more resolute. One offensive after another, they’ve not made Taiwanese people yield.

This comes in the face of increasing international isolation inflicted on the RoC by the PRC.

Would that some American athletes and athletic associations had the same courage, especially given their far greater relative power and their complete safety from PRC actions.

Attack on Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

[Heads up: long post]

By American enterprises, no less.  And, no, this time I’m not talking about American social media like Facebook or Twitter.  Keep in mind the NBA’s ongoing assault on free speech in the form of openly rejecting one team General Manager’s tweet supporting freedom in Hong Kong. The NBA’s response—from individual players on up, through team coaching staff and front office personnel, to the NBA’s head office and its commissioner, Adam Silver—was to reject the GM’s tweet in sum and substance and to apologize to the People’s Republic of China’s government and sports authorities so meekly as to be, metaphorically, in deep bows while doing so. And that GM abjectly deleted his own tweet—he didn’t even have the courage of his conviction.

Now we get an American game-making company kneeling and kowtowing to the PRC.  Activision Blizzard, maker of Hearthstone E-sports, an on-line multi-player card game, has banned one of its Hong-Kong players for his heinous crime of speaking out against the PRC’s abuse of Hong Kong during the present ongoing crisis in that city. Activision Blizzard

banned Ng Wai Chung, who plays remotely from Hong Kong, from competing in the company’s online multiplayer card game Hearthstone E-sports for one year. The 21-year-old known online as “Blitzchung” had just won $10,000 in the Hearthstone Asia-Pacific Grandmasters tournament when he declared in a livestream video interview in Mandarin: “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times.” He was wearing a gas mask and goggles, the same equipment worn by Hong Kong’s pro-democracy demonstrators, when he made the statement[.]

This company also forced the man to forfeit those $10,000 (HK$78,444.80).

These are American companies that are saying the approval of the PRC government and the flow of the PRC’s money into their coffers are more important than upholding American values.  Senator Marco Rubio (R, FL) is on the right track in his tweet, although he has the order of emphasis reversed:

Recognize what’s happening here. People who don’t live in #China must either self censor or face dismissal & suspensions. China using access to market as leverage to crush free speech globally. Implications of this will be felt long after everyone in U.S. politics today is gone.

The PRC isn’t so much using its market power to crush free speech as American companies are voluntarily surrendering free speech and kowtowing from their knees to PRC pressure, favoring PRC money over liberty, preferring personal and company wealth over American values.

Senator Ron Wyden (D, OR) is more direct in his tweet:

Blizzard shows it is willing to humiliate itself to please the Chinese Communist Party. No American company should censor calls for freedom to make a quick buck.

Activision Blizzard issued a statement that said this, in rationalization of its ban on Chung:

we have found [Chung’s] action has violated the 2019 Hearthstone Grandmasters Official Competition Rules…”Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damages Blizzard image.”
…
While we stand by one’s right to express individual thoughts and opinions, players and other participants that elect to participate in our esports competitions must abide by the official competition rules.

Think about that statement for a moment.  Standing for a people’s right to their own liberty, acting on one’s own right to speak freely, are acts that bring[] you into public disrepute, offend[] a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damage[] Blizzard image.  It’s disreputable to defend others or to speak freely. What Blizzard considers damaging to its own image is offending the men of despotic governments.

 

It’s not just Blizzard, though.  That NBA thing also censors calls for freedom in order to fill its bank boxes with PRC money.  In the league’s ongoing assault on free speech and PRC favor-currying, this happened during a Washington Wizards home game against the PRC’s Guangzhou Long-Lions:

[P]rotesters, who said they were from Freedom House, held up signs that read: “Shame the NBA,” “South Park was right,” and “Memo to the NBA: Principles over profit! No censorship! USA loves Hong Kong.”

Arena security confiscated those signs and others in the same vein addressing Tibet and the Uighurs.  Because free speech is only that speech that doesn’t offend the PRC.

In addition, Apple, after coming in for PRC opprobrium for having an app, HKmap.live, in its store that could allow Hong Kong protestors to track police movements, has meekly removed that app. Apple also has obeyed the PRC’s demand that its news app, Quartz, be deleted from the Apple PRC app store.

More: Alphabet’s Google subsidiary has removed from its Google Play store The Revolution of Our Times,

 a mobile game that allowed players to role-play as a Hong Kong protester.

Alphabet did this on the demand of the PRC’s Hong Kong police.

As an aside, this also happened at the Wizards-Long-Lions game:

After the Chinese national anthem was played, one person shouted: “Freedom of expression! Freedom of speech! Free Hong Kong!”

Notice that: after their national anthem, not during it.  Would that American athletes had that much respect for our own national anthem.

This comes alongside Alphabet’s long-standing refusal to support our defense establishment, for instance on artificial intelligence projects, while enthusiastically working on AI projects in the People’s Republic of China.

Ben Franklin wrote that our Constitution was written for a virtuous people, as that’s what it would take for effective self-governance.  The people who run our businesses are losing that virtue.