Category Archives: rights

Why the Left is so Anxious to Govern

Posted on by
Reply

Adam Schrager and Rob Witwer have a book out describing how the Left got control of the State of Colorado as recently as 2008, titled The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado.

Early in this book, Rob Stein, who is among other things the founder of the Democracy Alliance, laid out why the Left wanted control of Colorado and why especially they want control of our Federal government.

The reason it is so important to control government is because government is the source of enormous power,” Stein continued. “One president in this country, when he or she takes office, appoints…5,000 people to run a bureaucracy, nonmilitary nonpostal service of 2 million people, who hire 10 million outside outsource contractors—a workforce of 12 million people—that spends $3 trillion a year. That number is larger than the gross domestic product of all but four countries on the face of the earth.”

So the reason we’re doing what we’re doing…and the way we get progressive change, is to control government,” Stein said. “That’s what this is about.”

Get out and vote.

 

h/t Power Line

Regulation of Speech

Posted on by
Reply

The Democrats on the Federal Election Commission want to extend it.

The top Democrat [Vice Chairwoman Ann Ravel] on the Federal Election Commission strongly suggested Friday that regulators look at extending their authority to election-themed Internet videos—an area that for years has been largely hands-off for the government.

This woman, in line to become the FEC Chair, is beefing among other things that the FEC ignores the Internet’s influence on politics. Meanwhile, she seems to be ignoring the print, broadcast, and cable media’s influence on politics.

Oh, wait—speech already is regulated there. Those media and the ad generators on them are required to report, among other things, the cost of their political advertisements and to include in the ads “disclaimers” identifying who’s “responsible” for “the content of this ad.”

Ravel has insisted that rules applicable to these ads should apply to Internet ads, also.

That last is a fair beef. Here’s a proposal, then: how about deregulating speech in the other venues?

Nah. No Democrat is willing to do that.

In Which the IRS Gets Away with It

Posted on by
Reply

Judge Reggie Walton, of the DC District Court, dismissed all counts brought by the conservative non-profit, True the Vote, against the IRS for the IRS’ harassment of the organization when it tried to register as a 501(c)(3). The IRS had, on receiving that application

IRS was subjecting [True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht] to multiple rounds of abusive inquiries, with requests to provide every Facebook and Twitter entry I’d every posted, questions about my political aspirations, and demands to know the names of every group I’d ever made presentations to, the content of what I’d said, and where I intended to speak for the coming year.

Under the law defining a c3 organization, none of this information is relevant to the IRS’ application investigation. Indeed, Walton’s ruling explicitly makes no reference to the legitimacy of Engelbrecht’s charges.

Walton dismissed the counts because the IRS—eventually, but before this lawsuit was resolved—registered True the Vote as the c3 for which it had applied.

Unless an actual, ongoing controversy exists in this case, this Court is without power to decide it….

Because

The defendants’ grant of tax-exempt status to the plaintiff, and the defendants’ suspension of the alleged IRS targeting scheme during the tax-exempt application process, including remedial steps to address the alleged conduct, coupled with the reduced “concern about the recurrence of objectionable behavior” government actors….

Never mind that this is a purely voluntary “suspension,” subject to removal at IRS whim, conservative speech remains chilled, other attacks against other conservative entities remain (think Wisconsin), and so on. The present assault has stopped, so there’s nothing for a good judge to decide.

Let me see if my understanding of this is correct. If I stop beating my wife, wholly voluntarily and on my own initiative, I’m home free? My wife has no recourse? Never mind that I’ve only voluntarily suspended the beatings, never mind that my wife remains intimidated and vulnerable, I’ve got nothing to worry about from any court?

Walton’s ruling can be seen here.

Racism in Eric Holder’s “Justice”

Posted on by
Reply

In Federal District Judge Thomas Schroeder’s Middle District of North Carolina court, where he heard a DoJ beef against that state’s voter ID law last July, US Attorney General Eric Holder’s witness, Charles Stewart, a political scientist, testified bluntly about the inability of America’s blacks to follow the voter registration process, especially when compared with their white counterparts. This…inability…is, supposedly, a result of North Carolina’s elimination of same day registration in that law [emphasis added].

…people who register to vote the closer and closer one gets to Election Day tend to be less sophisticated voters, tend to be less educated voters, tend to be voters who are less attuned to public affairs. That also tells me from the literature of political science that there are likely to be people who will end up not registering and not voting. People who correspond to those factors tend to be African Americans, and, therefore, that’s another vehicle through which African Americans would be disproportionately affected by this law.

And that’s because [emphasis added]

it’s less likely to imagine that these voters would—can figure out or would avail themselves of other forms of registering and voting.

Because, according to this witness, this Holder-selected witness, blacks are just too dumb to keep up. Because, according to this witness, this Holder-selected witness, blacks just aren’t as cultured or learned as their white counterparts. Or their Hispanic counterparts. Or their Asian counterparts. Or their Middle-eastern counterparts.

Here’s* President Woodrow Wilson in a similar vein to black journalist William Monroe Trotter.

[S]egregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen.

Holder and his fellows plainly think blacks still need special protections.

That’s disgusting.

The full testimony can be accessed here; Stewart’s testimony is near the end.

 

*Quoted by Mary Beth Norton, Carol Sheriff, David M. Katzman, David W. Blight, Howard P. Chudacoff in A People And A Nation: A History of the United States, Since 1865

Evil Foreigners

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the claim of Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, Leung Chun-ying, regarding the current protests against Beijing’s usurpation of Hong Kong’s right to elect their own Chief Executive from a ballot of their own choosing. All of the kerfuffle is coming at the instigation of Evil Foreigners. Carefully unnamed ones, too.

Because it couldn’t possibly be the result of misbehavior (or simple error) by the government of the People’s Republic of China. It couldn’t possibly be that the PRC government has lost the consent of the people of Hong Kong to govern them (if that government ever had that consent).

Sure. That’s his story, and he’s sticking to it.