Category Archives: rights

When the Shoe’s on the Other Foot

Posted on by
Reply

Progressives spent $741 million on their 2008 Presidential campaign, and President Obama announced a goal of $1 billion for his spending on the current campaign.  Candidate John McCain spent all of $228 million on his.

Today the Republicans are competing on even ground—even leading the Progressives in some areas—in campaign funding, while Obama’s $1 billion goal is at risk.

The Progressives’ response?  They’ve petitioned the Federal Election Commission with a formal complaint, demanding that the Republican donors to those SuperPACs that don’t side with the Obama camp be revealed; in particular, they’ve complained out the Crossroads GPS SuperPAC.

Never mind that Crossroads, and the other SuperPACS, is organized under a section of the tax code that allows it, and all SuperPACS—conservative and liberal—to keep its funding sources private.

Robert Bauer, a lawyer for the Democratic National Committee, wrote in the complaint to the FEC, in all seriousness

There has never been any doubt about its true purpose: to elect candidates of its choice to the presidency and Congress.  Crossroads has tried to shield its donors—wealthy individuals, and corporations who may be pursuing special interest agendas that are not in the national interest.

They make this complaint even though there’s no requirement for donors to SuperPACs to lose their anonymity.  Never mind what the law says.  The law is what Progressives say it is, as Obama has already made clear in another matter.  Never mind what the national interest is.  The national interest is whatever the DNC says it is.

That this is simply a dishonest attempt to stifle campaign donations by the wrong side (in the manner of the KeepingGOPHonest Web site, among others), and so to stifle the political speech of those who are saying things of which the Progressives disapprove.  That there is no legitimacy at all to this beef is demonstrated by the Progressives’ decision to file their “complaint” first with a newspaper (The New York Times) and only after that with the Federal Election Commission.

Oh, yeah—the Progressives have Priorities USA, which is organized under the same tax code section as is Crossroads.  And whose donors are carefully kept secret, as is entirely appropriate under the law.  But Priorities isn’t having the same fund-raising success as Crossroads.

It’s no fair the other side is doing well—we’re supposed to win, dammit!

Free Speech and the UN

Posted on by
Reply

There is a carefully sub rosa international attack on free speech in progress, and unless our government takes a more active role than it has been, that attack is going to have very serious negative repercussions right here at home.  Gordon Crovitz described this in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.

The UN’s International Telecommunications Union is hosting a World Conference on International Telecommunications this December, which will be attended by all 193 of the UN member nations, including the US.  This meeting has been utterly devoid of publicity, and any knowledge we have about the agenda and goals have come to us only through leaks.  But here’s what we know, according to Crovitz.

A 200+ page “planning document” indicates the UN’s goals for the conference, and Eli Dourado, a George Mason University researcher, summarized the document’s contents thusly:

These proposals show that many ITU member states want to use international agreements to regulate the Internet by crowding out bottom-up institutions, imposing charges for international communication, and controlling the content that consumers can access online.

The proposals include the following:

  • give countries authority over “the information and communication infrastructure within their state”
  • require that online companies “operating in their territory” use the Internet “in a rational way”

Since these proposals come from the People’s Republic of China, this means government authorities and government definitions of “rational way.”

Other proposals would actually let the UN regulate Internet content:

  • “protect” against computer malware or spam
  • inspect private communications
  • measure Internet traffic along national borders and bill the originator of the traffic
  • give the UN authority over allocating Internet addresses, replacing ICANN, the self-regulating body that presently ensures the stability of the Internet

These proposals come from Russia and Iran; although amazingly, Europe supports the billing drive (perhaps not so amazingly considering the penchant for government controls that EU member nations have).

So far, our government’s reaction to this assault on free speech—and on American free speech—has been…muted.  The best the Obama administration has been able to do is to mumble about

“unnecessary and beyond the appropriate scope” of UN regulation

and

the text [of the planning document] suggests that the ITU has a role in content-related issues.  We do not believe it does.

This is a far cry from the bolder response we took took when the UN’s UNESCO became too ideological and not enough concerned with science and education: we cut off funding to the organization.

This administration needs to become a whole lot more forceful in opposing this attempt to grab the Internet and to use that control to stifle free speech.

Illegal Aliens and Amnesty

Posted on by
1

Late last week, President Obama signed an Executive Order wherein he announced his decision to shirk his Constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  This also violates his personal promise to do so—not a campaign promise, but his oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

His EO does this: it protects from immigration law enforcement those illegal immigrants who came to the US before they were 16, are younger than 30, have committed no major criminal offenses, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, and have a US high school diploma or a GED or served in the US military.

This seems like a good idea, and it even has elements of Congressman Luis Gutierrez’ (D, IL) and Senator Marco Rubio’s (R, FL) plans for handling the children of illegal aliens.

However.

John Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Bush the Younger administration, had this to say about the Obama Amnesty Program:

President Obama’s claim that he can refuse to deport 800,000 aliens here in the country illegally illustrates the unprecedented stretching of the Constitution and the rule of law.  He is laying claim to presidential power that goes even beyond that claimed by the Bush administration, in which I served.  There is a world of difference in refusing to enforce laws that violate the Constitution (Bush) and refusing to enforce laws because of disagreements over policy (Obama).

Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president has the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  This provision was included to make sure that the president could not simply choose, as the British King had, to cancel legislation simply because he disagreed with it.  President Obama cannot refuse to carry out a congressional statute simply because he thinks it advances the wrong policy.  To do so violates the very core of his constitutional duties.

As  Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales notes, the move is both “political” and “well short of what we need as a country.”  He told Fox News in a recent interview,

Substantively…it fails to deal with securing the border, visa over-stayers, enforcing tougher work place enforcement, and the millions of adults that came into the country illegally as adults.

Procedurally…it’s bad timing because it’s being done during what [Gonzales] calls “political silly season.”

“Rightly or wrongly, it is viewed as political, given the fact that we’re in an election season, and this is something that he could have done, certainly, well before now,” he said.

It is political, though; it doesn’t only look like one.  It’s naked vote pandering.  This “fix” is only temporary, as Obama himself admits; one President’s EO can be rescinded by another.  Moreover, what is it that Obama is saying to Americans and to those who come here from other countries?  He’s saying, as Gonzales emphasizes, that laws are what Obama says they are:

…by selectively failing to enforce the law faithfully he’s not doing his job making sure all laws are faithfully executed.

There’s that violation of a promise thing, again.  And

…there are things that should be done in conjunction to reassure everyone that not only are we a compassionate nation in taking care of these kids, but we’re a nation of laws, and that we enforce our laws.

Gonzalez is being polite, though.  Obama’s vote pandering by giving amnesty to some illegal aliens does nothing actually to address wither of the nation’s problems in this context: our immigration difficulties or our problem of what to do with the existing population of illegal aliens.

No effort has been made at all by Obama to address that overall problem of immigration into America: securing our borders (although, he is actively suing states to prevent them from doing so within the framework of existing Federal law); making it easier for foreigners to enter our country legally, and to stay here longer (e.g., once they’ve graduated from college, they have to leave; when the time limit on any other entry permit has expired, they must leave; when their work visas have expired, they must leave; etc.  In the meantime, it takes weeks to months to get a green card or to convert an existing visa to one, and other visas are shamefully quota-ed); or to deal with the existing population of illegal aliens—a problem for which Congressman Gutierrez and Senator Rubio, as I mentioned above, have good beginning ideas.

Nor does this address the millions of Americans—citizens all—who are out of work today, or are badly underemployed.  This Obama Amnesty Program adds an additional roughly 800,000 individuals to that pile (they are “required” by his Amnesty Program to apply for work permits, which are good for two years; although, in truth, there seems to be no requirement actually to apply for work with those permits)—where will they fit in the millions-long queue?  If they go to the end of the line, what good will the work permit do them beyond allowing the fiction of their remaining in the US “legally?”  Will the work permit then make them eligible for 99 weeks (nearly those two years) of unemployment insurance (or the reduced duration, should the Democrats actually allow the current 99 weeks to expire without extension)?  On the nickels of the states forced to harbor these people?

And there’s more.  Whose definition of “significant misdemeanor” will apply, and what is an example of such a thing?  The illegal aliens already have committed one significant illegal action: they’re in the country illegally.

In the context of this post, that they were brought here without the capacity to decide for themselves whether they wanted to commit this offense certainly might be cause for mitigation.  But we can’t forget that, having reached their age of majority, they certainly did have the capacity to decide for themselves whether they wanted to continue the (now their own) offense.  However, we also cannot forget the power of family ties, the developed community ties, their childhood histories, and so on.  Plainly, for the children and young adults in this situation, a solution will not be easy.  But that puts a premium on solving the illegal alien problem as a whole, and not just layering on epicycles of special case treatments whose aggregation will doom the whole orrery to catastrophic failure.

Finally, as Senator Lindsey Graham (R, SC) said,

I think it’s pretty clear there are 10 million illegal immigrants not affected by this.  What about them?  I don’t think it’s a brilliant move for a president of the United States to tell a federal agency to stop enforcing a law.

And as Governor Mitt Romney pointed out, in an echo of Gonzales,

If he felt serious about this he should have taken action when he had a Democrat House and Senate, but he didn’t.

In the end, though, I don’t think Americans of Hispanic heritage are as stupid as Obama thinks they are.

Ballot Box Stuffing the Chicago Way

Posted on by
1

From the city so democratic even the dead get to vote to the nation so democratic even illegals get to vote.  This is the goal of the Progressive administration, led by that Chicago community organizer.  Ballot box stuffing is so critical to this administration that it’s even suing states for trying to protect the sanctity of an American’s vote by eliminating the ineligible from the roles so that a citizen’s vote is not diminished or canceled by vote fraud.

Progressives even go so far as to argue, with a straight face, that there is no voter fraud, it’s a phantom problem.  We didn’t hear that, though, about the Florida Presidential election outcome a while back.  We saw the power of it in a Minnesota US Senate race in 2008, and in a recent Washington Governor election, where the recounts were repeated until the right candidate won.  And in some jurisdictions, it’s simply a way of life.

And so, we have the Obama jurisdiction suing Florida for trying to remove Mickey Mouse from the voter rolls.  Certainly, in a massive effort like Florida’s we get the occasional outlier case like the war vet whose citizenship was questioned in that same Florida drive.  However, this just demonstrates the cynical hypocrisy of Obama’s administration: the Department of Homeland Security refuses to let Florida officials bounce their list off the DHS databases—the most current we have—as another check of who is a citizen and who is not eligible to vote.

Permitting ballot box stuffing by allowing anyone to vote—even white guys claiming to be Eric Holder—is the broadened Chicago Way to preserve Progressive incumbency.

Progressives, Unions, and Taxpayers

Posted on by
Reply

James Sherk and Todd Zywicki described, in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, a rather shocking and blatant sweetheart deal between this administration’s Progressives and the United Auto Workers, at the expense of two car companies’ other unsecured creditors and us taxpayers.  I’ll just summarize the numbers; RTWT.

The UAW were unsecured creditors of GM and Chrysler via the UAW’s Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association: the two companies owed VEBA $20.6 billion and $8 billion, respectively, stemming from why VEBA was created—to transfer to the union responsibility for its pension fund.  Other unsecured creditors also were owed some $29 billion by these two companies.  Under bankruptcy law, these two sets of creditors would have received equal shares of the bankrupts’ assets in situations where the assets were insufficient to make everyone whole.  But under the Obama bailout, the UAW’s VEBA got 17.5% of the new GM and $9 billion in preferred stock and debt obligations, while the other creditors got 10% of the new GM and warrants to purchase 15% more in preferred stock.  At today’s stock prices, that’s over $12 billion more than the other creditors got.  With Chrysler, the imbalance was even greater: Chrysler’s non-union unsecured creditors were completely shut out—they got nada while the union got half the company and billions of dollars in a 9% promissory note.  So much for equal treatment.

It gets “better.”  Bankruptcy law allows bankrupts to improve their post-bankruptcy competitiveness by renegotiating union contracts to competitive rates.  The Obama bailout didn’t allow this.  New hires will come in, for now, at reduced wages, but the existing union employees retain their old highest-in-the-industry wages—higher by $9 an hour than their nearest competitor.

One outcome of this sweetheart deal is that, together with a little understood decision by GM to throw $1 billion at another company’s (Delphi) pension obligations, Sherk and Zywicki estimate the bailout cost was

increased…by $26.5 billion.

and

The Treasury expects the auto bailout to ultimately cost taxpayers $23 billion.  The funds diverted to the UAW account for the taxpayers’ entire net loss.

Hmm….