Category Archives: rights

Hotel Maryland

Posted on by
Reply

You can check in, but you can’t check out.

Netflix’ show, House of Cards, is about cut-throat politics at its worst, it’s hugely successful, and it’s filmed in Maryland.  And therein lies the rub.

The show’s producers, Media Rights Capital, now want a larger set of tax credits, given that success.  If they can’t get an increase, MRC says it’ll move its filming location to another state where it can get a better deal for its proven product.  Fair enough.  The filming produces income for the state’s economy and for the state, even with the current credit structure, and that success is expected to continue.

The state demurs.  That government wants to keep the credit levels where they are.  Also fair enough.  Those credits are their cost (regardless of what we might think about whose money those credits really is), and the state would like to minimize the cost of its own business-doing.

Such matters should be the stuff of negotiation between the two parties, and if they can’t agree on terms, the two parties should be able simple to part ways.

But the State of Maryland now has gone off the rails.

The House of Delegates now is threatening to seize MRC’s production studios under government’s eminent domain powers if they attempt to go somewhere else.  Never mind that there’s no public use—or even public purpose—to such a seizure; the taking would be nothing more than government-sanctioned theft of private property.

Folks might want to think twice about moving a business to Maryland, or keeping one there.  It’s a short step to a neighboring state, none of which seems inclined to keep businesses prisoner.

Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door.
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before.
“Relax,” said the Delegate,
“We are programmed to receive.
“You can check out any time you like,
“But you can never leave.”

 

With apologies to the Eagles.

Another 2nd Amendment Threat from DoJ

Posted on by
Reply

All for the very best of intentions, of course.

This time Attorney General Eric Holder wants to use bracelets that must be worn by lawful gun users as a means of electronically tying the firearm to its lawful owner.

I think that one of the things that we learned when we were trying to get passed those common sense reforms last year, Vice President Biden and I had a meeting with a group of technology people and we talked about how guns can be made more safe.

By making them either through finger print identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon.

(“Common sense”—they stayed up all night memorizing that phrase a few years ago, and now they’re doing their best to wear it out, including in places where their sense plainly is lacking.)

And he wants to spend $2 million of our hard-earned tax dollars on this…idea.

Such a mechanism is just one more point of failure in an American’s exercise of his fundamental right.  Any such linkage can be hacked, either to enable a criminal to use a stolen weapon or to enable a criminal to disable a weapon in the hands of its lawful owner trying to defend himself.

More importantly, though, such a mechanism is just another tool in the hands of an intrusive government to identify who owns firearms, and thus to get sub rosa registration; to track that owner as he legally uses his firearms; and—that hack—to disable the firearm whenever a legal owner/operator becomes inconvenient to that intrusive government.

In fact, such technology would be highly useful to us legal owner/operators.  It must, however, be a voluntary addition to our weapons, with the choice made solely by us.

The Progressives’ War on Freedom and Diversity

Posted on by
1

The forced resignation of (ex-)Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich over a viewpoint he held of which Progressives disapproved—in the name of diversity of opinion, yet.

(Ex-)Harvard President Larry Summers, forced out because he disapproved of a rap album that was liked by Progressives, and because he suggested the under-representation of women in science and engineering might be due to differences in aptitude—Progressives insist that equality includes identical capacity.

Mark Steyn, National Review, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute sued for defamation by Michael Mann for ridiculing Mann’s hockey stick and for disparaging the anthropogenic “aspect” of Global Warming—Progressives consider this settled science so much they even tout the efficacy of lying in support of it.

The Gannet newspapers—in particular, the Lower Hudson Journal News—published a map of names and addresses of registered New York gun owners and tried to sue for more such data—knowing as they did so that they were identifying those honest Americans (Conservatives, though, so not so honest, after all, eh?) as targets.

The Los Angeles Times closing off and refusing to accept further commentary disputing anthropogenic global warning—see above.

Chik-fil-A threatened with boycott because its owners held a view of marriage that is disapproved by Progressives.

The IRS targeting and actively suppressing the free speech of organizations of which our Progressive government disapproves—and which now is finalizing a set of rules that would formalize the abuse.

Conservative women routinely smeared for not toeing the Progressive womanhood line—with one Progressive “commentator” insisting that Governor Sara Palin should be tied down and defecated into her mouth.  Progressive approval of this behavior is demonstrated by their silence on the despicable nature of this insistence.

Conservative blacks routinely smeared as Uncle Toms, or worse, for not toeing the Progressive Black-American line (and notice that—not “Progressive black line:” that hyphen matters to Progressives).

The steady drumbeat of slurs against Tea Partiers as racists, tea baggers, and so on—because they hold opinions of which Progressives disapprove.

The routine smearing of those with tales of damage, even ruination, due to Obamacare as liars, as tellers only of “horror stories, all of them untrue”—solely because Progressives find these truths uncomfortable.

Vice President Joe Biden openly agreeing with Congressman Mike Doyle (D, PA) as the latter called Republicans terrorists for disagreeing with Progressive views of the Federal debt ceiling.

The list goes on, without end.  It’s time we Conservatives—and Independents, and middle-of-the-roaders, and anyone else—with an opinion, or a fact, we wish to speak without murderous assault responded.  With facts and logic, because most Americans aren’t as droolingly imbecilic as Progressives make us out to be.

 

h/t Belmont Club

Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

…especially, the aim of those clauses of the First Amendment, free political speech.  Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, had this to say in striking down aggregate limits to political contributions:

There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders. Citizens can exercise that right in a variety of ways: They can run for office themselves, vote, urge others to vote for a particular candidate, volunteer to work on a campaign, and contribute to a candidate’s campaign. This case is about the last of those options.

And

Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades—despite the profound offense such spectacles cause—it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.

And [bold added, italics in the original]

The Government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combatting corruption and its appearance.  We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption—quid pro quo corruption—in order to ensure that the Government’s efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them.  For the reasons set forth, we conclude that the aggregate limits on contributions do not further the only governmental interest this Court accepted as legitimate in Buckley.  They instead intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise “the most fundamental First Amendment activities.”

What he said.  The Supremes’ ruling can be seen here.

UCSB’s “Apology”

Posted on by
Reply

Recall a week, or so, ago when UCSB Women’s Studies Professor (her class: “Black Woman in Pornography”) Mireille Miller-Young objected to a pro-life demonstration that a 16-year-old girl and her 21-year-old sister were holding in the “free speech” (!) zone on the UCSB campus.  Miller-Young progressed from berating the girls for their demonstration, through stealing a sign they were using as part of their demonstration, to assaulting the younger girl, pushing her a number of times.

After considerable delay, UCSB’s Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, Michael Young, has issued a memo.  The meat of that memo comes near the end:

While urging you to engage with differing ideas and opinions in a civil manner, I also want to remind you that you have the option not to engage at all.  You do not have to listen to, look at, or even acknowledge speech or expression that you find provocative or offensive.  …  If you do not want to be confronted by certain materials or expressions, you should avoid the free-speech areas when you expect that you might encounter them, or simply ignore them.

And

If you feel that you must respond, hold a peaceful, thoughtful, civil, and dignified counter-demonstration, and show how students engage intellectually and politically at UCSB.

The “you” to whom Young is speaking are the UCSB students.  There’s not a word directed to his misbehaving professor.  There’s not a word of apology for his professor’s misbehavior.  Not a syllable.  The rest of the memo is given over simply to a sermon on the trials of tolerating the disagreeable speech of those with whom a UCSB student might disagree.

To date, there’s no indication that UCSB intends to discipline Miller-Young in any way for her misbehavior.

As an aside, Young also wrote this in his memo:

You also know that I hold equally strong views on the sanctity of free speech.

Yeah.  As long as it’s done in your carefully restricted pair of squares of the campus grounds and confines itself to the limits of your comfort zone.  “Free speech” zone, indeed.  You seem to have lost sight of the fact that every square inch of public ground in our great nation is a free speech zone.