Tag Archives: freedom

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

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

A Number of Misunderstandings

Posted on by
Reply

Los Angeles passed an ordinance requiring hotel operators to give up data in their guest registers to the police, even when they don’t have a warrant.

The ordinance, approved by the city in 2006, requires hotels to collect and maintain guest information such as name and address, the number of people in the guest’s party, vehicle information, arrival and checkout dates, room number, and method of payment. Hotel operators who fail to comply with it face as many as six months behind bars and a $1,000 fine.

A motel operator demurred, and at this point, the 9th Circuit agrees: they struck the ordinance as unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment.

There are a couple of fundamental misunderstandings, though. One is in the 9th‘s ruling, paraphrased by Joe Palazzolo at the above link:

[H]otels have an interest in keeping guest records private, even if the guests themselves have no such privacy rights because they willingly give their information to a third party.

Guests do have a legitimate expectation of privacy regarding “their information,” though. They’re not giving their information to “a” third party; they’re giving it to a particular third party as a necessary thing so that the particular third party can provide the contracted service. Moreover, much of the information that is given over is not necessary for the transaction to occur; it’s mandated by a different third party—a government entity, for the government’s convenience.

A second misunderstanding is in the argument offered by LA’s lawyers.

These laws expressly help police investigate crimes such as prostitution and gambling, capture dangerous fugitives and even authorize federal law enforcement to examine these registers, an authorization which can be vital in the immediate aftermath of a homeland terrorist attack[.]

Say that’s all true. Get a warrant. Time hardly seems of the essence in these hypotheticals, even with the apocalyptically offered “homeland terrorist attack:” the cops are unlikely to be near the hotel or motel when an attack goes in. If time really is of the essence, come armed with a warrant in the first place; they’re disappointingly easy to get.

A third misunderstanding is in Judge Richard Tallman’s dissent, again summarized by Palazzolo.

[T]he hoteliers challenging the ordinance failed to show that police were applying the statute in an unconstitutional way.

The hoteliers had no requirement to do so. The law must be constitutional in the first place; its application by the police is wholly irrelevant after its unconstitutionality is shown.

The matter now is before the Supreme Court, and we’ll learn later who’s right. Legally, anyway.

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.

Even the Brits

Posted on by
Reply

This is an amazing development for the authors of the Magna Carta. That charter, recall, codified for the first time in Anglo-American history, limits to government’s (king’s at the time) right to intrude into a man’s private affairs and possessions except under some severely constrained conditions: due process of law.

This is that amazement:

Registered gun owners in the United Kingdom are now subject to unannounced visits to their homes under new guidance that allows police to inspect firearms storage without a warrant.

The new policy from the British Home Office went into effect Oct 15, permitting police and constabularies to conduct surprise home visits to legitimate gun owners.

Why else, it turns out, have a gun registry, except to identify those honest citizens in the best position to resist excessive government—like the barons and others who resisted King John’s excesses? Like those later colonial Americans who resisted King George III’s excesses?

And this is where our own gun control lobby and the Progressives in our own government are headed.