Civil Liberties

Many Americans don't know that there is such a place as the US Territory of American Samoa, or that American Samoa sends a Delegate to the House of Representatives. Amata Aumua Coleman Radewagen is the GOP candidate for that office, and as a long-time Republican she is the 5th ranking member in seniority in the Republican National Committee, and the National Chairwoman to the RNC from Am. Samoa.

Amata is a small government, traditional values, constitutional rights, fiscal conservative, grassroots political activist.

She is basing her campaign on Five Principles that resonate with true conservatives and with "Ron Paul Republicans":

1. The centrality of God in our lives and the primacy of the family are the inextricably intertwined, fundamental building blocks of our society...

2. The sanctity of life is inviolable. As part of our belief system, Samoans view all life as being precious in the sight of our Lord. Life, which is God’s greatest gift to Mankind, begins at conception. I oppose any efforts by outside forces to undermine our values, interfere with our customs or impose on us any beliefs that are inconsistent with our traditional practices.

3. The preservation of private family property rights is the foundation of our culture...The fabric of our society was founded on the principle of family ownership of private property. Private land taken by government for the common good must be minimized and our property rights must be safeguarded by enforcing the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which requires just compensation whenever private property is needed for a compelling public purpose.

4. A strong national defense is essential for the protection of our freedoms under the American Flag. I believe the freedoms we enjoy, which are granted by God and guaranteed by the United States, are best preserved by a strong national defense...

5. The American principle of federalism, which limits the intrusion of the federal government into the lives of the people, is central to preserving our way of life. I believe strongly in the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which limits the powers of the federal government to those enumerated in the Constitution.

Amata continues-- The right to self-government and the right of the people to control their own lives is central to the preservation of our proud and ancient culture and our relationship with the United States. Our self-government has evolved over the 108 years of our membership in the American political family. Efforts to refederalize American Samoa weaken the underpinnings of our self-government and erode our ability to preserve our culture. I oppose any effort to expand federal authority over American Samoa without the consent of the people. Problems within our system are resolved best not by uprooting it, but by guiding it effectively by qualified leaders chosen by the people through the democratic electoral process.

About the composition and factions in the GOP Amata says: "What some people fail to appreciate is that our party is not a monolith. As we like to say, we are the party of the big tent...There is no national litmus test on what makes a Republican...This is about American citizens who are reaching out to us to become Republicans and we should include them because we have a big tent. There's plenty of room for everyone and we should be proud that they want to join us..."

Google Amata Aumua or see her website http://www.amata.as

She is running for office against a big government collectivist and can use our support.

Her husband Fred Radewagen is from the Chicago area and used to work for some candidates in the Illinois GOP such as Jim Thompson.

My post yesterday about the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Act highlights what many consider to be an important point about Barack Obama.  In three years in the Senate, he’s left virtually no footprint.  But it goes beyond that because of the choices that Obama has made in that short Senate career.

The  Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Act is intended to stop people from using nefarious tactics to keep people from voting.  It passed without dissent in the House while basically being killed by Obama’s inaction in the Senate. 

But it’s not as if Obama hasn’t done anything in his Senate career regarding the voting rights of minorities.  In June of this year, right in the middle of his campaign, he managed to find time to get Senate Resolution 600 passed.

A resolution commemorating the 44th anniversary of the deaths of civil rights workers Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, and Michael Schwerner in Philadelphia, Mississippi, while working in the name of American democracy to register voters and secure civil rights during the summer of 1964, which has become known as "Freedom Summer".

If, as Obama claims, there are thousands of voters who are kept from voting this election because of intimidation, this Senate Resolution is filled with bitter irony.  Obama takes the time to honor three men on the 44th anniversary of their deaths in the name of voting rights and doesn’t take the time to call a bill to protect voting rights of people alive today.

“Don’t tell me words don’t matter” was the theme of one of those great Obama speeches.  Perhaps.  But one thing is certain.  Senate Resolutions honoring civil rights workers mean little if you aren’t willing to take action as well.

From today's Tribune:

The 2007 statewide data show that compared with whites, police agencies searched blacks three times more often and Hispanics more than twice as often. But police discovered illicit goods roughly twice as often when whites agreed to searches.

"Officers are more trusting of whites than they are of blacks, and they are particularly suspicious of Hispanics," Grossman said of state police. "It's clear from the data that officers require less certainty when they ask Latinos to be searched than they do whites, there are more stringent standards for whites."

Key points to take away from the study and its background:

1. The study is based on police data.
2. The study clearly shows a disparity in who is asked to be searched and in the opposite direction who is caught carrying contraband.
3. The study shows insignificant difference in rate of agreement to being searched.
4. Even if you are uninterested in racial issues, it demonstrates a clear inefficiency in policing--it wastes resources when we unnecessarily search people who do not have contraband in their cars.
5. If the police had not been compelled by law to compile this data, we probably wouldn't have know about this problem.
6. It does not demonstrate intentional bias on the part of law enforcement officers.
7. The study was made possible by the sponsorship of legislation by a particular state senator.

Educate Thyself. 

Don't talk to the police.  Don't talk to the police.  Don't talk to the police.

http://www.hackaday.com/2008/06/16/dont-talk-to-the-police/

http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2007/11/19/Illegal-Immigration-Ruling

"Should the Department of Homeland Security be able to use Social Security records to crack down on illegal hiring? The department issued a new rule allowing it to do so; labor unions filed suit. A preliminary injunction, issued by a judge in October, means D.H.S. is stymied for now. No trial date has been set."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/washington/08immig.html

"The expected regulations would give employers a fixed period, perhaps up to 90 days, to resolve any discrepancies between identity information provided by their workers and the records of the Social Security Administration. If workers’ documents cannot be verified, employers would be required to fire them or risk up to $10,000 in fines for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

Immigrant rights groups and labor unions, including the A.F.L.-C.I.O., predicted the rules would unleash discrimination against Hispanic workers. They said they were preparing legal challenges to try to stop them from taking effect."

I find this really interesting the the unions and the US Chamber of Commerce are on the same side on this one. It all seems straight-forward to me. If I am understanding this situation correctly, employers would be forced to fire employees if their records don’t check out.

Is anyone else surprised it didn’t work this way to begin with? In the current state, before this ruling, an employer must collect an acceptable form of of ID and collect their social security number. I’m very surprised that was the extent of their obligation...until now.

Portfolio’s analysis that this new ruling might tempt companies to pay workers off the books seems weak to me. My analysis is that this ruling closes a giant loophole in the system. Before, the employer only had to have the paperwork in good order to prove they collected the paperwork correctly. I would fight this if the employer is forced to manage the discrepancy during the 90 day window, other than confirming that the information was collected correctly. That burden should be on someone else besides the employer.

A recent example of how this plays: During the Florida debate we watched Rudy slam Romney because a contractor he used employed an illegal alien at his mansion. Romney came back and argued that he has to assume the company has done their diligence. It would be unrealistic and inappropriate for the consumer to have to check papers off all the employees of a contractor that you hired. Romney was correct and Rudy lost my vote that day.

This is today's News-Gazette editorial.

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/opinions/editorials/2007/12/07/campus_free_speech_at_issue

THE NEWS-GAZETTE
Campus free speech at issue
Friday December 7, 2007

Cheers for the University of Illinois undergraduate students who took a stand for free speech at an Urbana campus Senate meeting earlier this week.

It's clear that some older people on campus could learn a thing or two from the youngsters. The Senate's equal opportunity committee attempted to pass a resolution that would have dissociated the university administration from future homecoming displays.

More significantly, it also would have put the Senate on record as saying that any effort to display Chief Illiniwek imagery at a campus event jeopardizes the authority of the administration to condemn free speech expressions that also "are legitimately read as negative stereotyping of members of underrepresented, historically disadvantaged or marginalized groups" on campus.

In other words, some sort of police officer should be able to single out examples of speech and expression that certain people don't agree with, and those "offenders" should be censured.

But two students correctly called the resolution what it is – an effort to squelch free speech, on a university campus of all places.

Paul Schmitt, president of the student group Students for Chief Illiniwek, said the resolution "adds nothing to the academic mission of the university." He added that a true marketplace of ideas – which a campus should strive to be – has different customers. Another student, Frank Calabrese, hit the nail squarely on the head: "The university should embrace free speech, not run away from it like a bunch of cowards."

Some say with age comes wisdom. But we'd suggest that's not the case all the time. Sometimes the younger people are wiser.

Our Representative from the 15th district voted AGAINST the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).  To be specific, Mr. Johnson voted against a law that ...

Makes it an unlawful employment practice for covered entities (employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees) to discriminate against an individual on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, including actions based on the actual or perceived sexual orientation of a person with whom the individual associates or has associated.

Even after his conservative cohorts amended the bill in several ways.  Like an amendment that ...

Prohibits construing this Act to require a covered entity to treat a couple who are not married in the same manner as the covered entity treats a married couple for purposes of employee benefits.

Declares that, in this Act, the terms "married" and "marry" refer to a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

We don't know Mr. Johnson's reasoning for voting against this bill because, as usual, he didn't say anything on the floor.  As a side note, Johnson has actually sponsored seven bills during the 110th Congress, which is a bit of a burst of energy for the guy.  Unfortunately, like most of Tim's bills, all are currently languishing in committee.

We are represented in the US Congress by a man who has voted against employment protections for gays and lesbians.  Personally, I am embarassed for our district.

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/26717

Naturally, I think there's a pretty good case for racial profiling, or at least desperant treatment here, but I'm more interested in the response of the officer here. Under no circumstances should an officer EVER refuse to give a badge number. In fact, any officer on the scene who supported the officer who refused to get her badge number should lose their badge too.

We always talk about accountability for public servants. Nowhere is this more important than in law enforcement. There is no reason that a non-undercover officer should ever have to conceal their identity from a citizen who simply is asking to indentify the officer.

Venezuelan dictator Hugh Chavez should be emulated:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened on Monday to close or take over any private school that refuses to submit to the oversight of his socialist government as it develops a new curriculum and textbooks.

"Society cannot allow the private sector to do whatever it wants," said Chavez, speaking on the first day of classes.

All schools, public and private, must admit state inspectors and submit to the government's new educational system, or be closed and nationalized, with the state taking responsibility for the education of their children, Chavez said.

A new curriculum will be ready by the end of this school year, and new textbooks are being developed to help educate "the new citizen," said Chavez's brother and education minister Adan Chavez, who joined him a televised ceremony at the opening of a public school in the eastern town of El Tigre.

The president's opponents accuse him of aiming to indoctrinate young Venezuelans with socialist ideology. But the education minister said the aim is to develop "critical thinking," not to impose a single way of thought.

This article http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/post-11.html#more  discusses how Alberto Gonzales has undermined federal prosecutions and undermined the effectiveness of the Justice Department.   

Recently the US Military confirmed that it sought to build a "gay bomb".

The theory apparently is that they would drop this hormone bomb on enemy troops to "turn them homosexual", and thereby make them more interested in sex than fighting.

Our tax dollars at work, I guess...

Just a story I saw in which a law enforcement officer attacked a decorated veteran for parking a van in his driveway. He tossed in some ignorant AND false racial epithets for good measure (not that "true" racial epithets would be any better :P)

From Angry Asian Man:

Heard about this from SALDEF... They're calling for the Joliet Police Department in Illinois to investigate an violent incident involving an officer patrolling a local neighborhood last month. The cop allegedly assaulted a Sikh American man while yelling racial epithets, right in front of his wife and six-year-old child:

On Friday March 30, 2007 at around 3:00pm , Mr. Kuldip Singh Nag, a Sikh American who was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in the U.S. Navy during the first Gulf War, was at his home in Joliet , IL when a local police officer noticed that a van parked on Mr. Nag’s private property had expired registration tags. Upon being confronted with this, Mr. Nag’s wife, Vera Kaur Nag, informed the officer that the van is parked on their driveway and was inoperable.

Mr. Nag then came outside to answer the officer’s questions regarding the van. The Joliet police officer then demanded that Mr. Nag park the van inside his garage and not on the driveway, to which Mr. Nag responded to the officer that it was not possible and that regardless, the van is parked on his private property and he has a right to park it on his driveway.

At this moment, the officer pulled out his pepper spray and attacked Mr. Nag. As Mr. Nag screamed in agony, the officer removed his baton and violently struck Mr. Nag numerous times until he fell to the ground. While the assault ensued, the officer was reported by both Mr. and Mrs. Nag as saying, "You f****** Arab! You f***** immigrant, go back to you f****** country before I kill you!"

The assault landed Mr. Nag in the hospital for five days, with complaints of intense pain and head trauma. And the whole thing happened right in front of his wife and kid. All this, because Mr. Nag parked a van with expired tags in his own driveway. Police brutality alone is unacceptable, but this clearly crosses the line as a hate crime. This incident needs to be investigated, and this officer needs to be taken down. That's racist!

Since this closes Sunshine week, I thought I'd give a plug for a seminar we are hosting and which the Illinois AG's office will conduct on the Open Meetings Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

Sometimes you hear an item on a piece of legislation and you almost can’t believe it’s true.  That was my first reaction when I heard that labor unions were proposing, and Democrats were almost universally voting for, legislation that would eliminate the secret ballot.  Unfortunately, it’s true.  HR 800 passed the House of Representatives and is now headed to the Senate where it probably faces a filibuster.  But this will give Democrats plenty of opportunity to show labor just how much they love them.

It will also give the public an opportunity to see just how much Democrats disdain democracy.  Is there another way to put it?  Take all the arguments for the bill and they fall in the face of one.  A secret ballot is a fair way of deciding issues in American society.  In an Orwellian twist, the bill is called the “Employee Free Choice Act.”

Currently, if union workers collect signatures of 30% of a workforce stating that they want to unionize, the National Labor Relations Board conducts a secret election of all workers to decide whether a union is certified.

The new law would allow union workers to collect 50% and avoid the election altogether.  Of course, eliminating the secrecy of the decision leads to incredible pressure on workers from both sides.   In fact, Illinois law already recognizes the potential for undue influence by both unions and employers by preventing either of those people from providing assistance to an employee at the polling place.

Apparently, labor unions feel that their efforts to unionize companies are receiving too much resistance from the companies.  You know, kind of like elections.  All across the world we’ve had leaders who have had the same reaction to the election process.  They stage a coup, eliminate the elections, and stay in office for as long as they want.  Maybe that Pinochet wasn't so bad after all.

I can understand why labor unions want this.  What I can’t understand is how Democratic politicians can so readily buy into this.  Is there anyone involved in unions out there who can actually justify this bill?  Anyone who can tell me why it is more fair to deny secrecy to workers?

I’m reminded of PJ O’Rourke’s book Give War A Chance.  He relates how shocked the media were when the Sandanistas were kicked out of office in the first elections in Nicaragua.  Geez, the media polling said that the Sandinistas would win.  As O’Rourke put it, when you’re asked by a stranger whether you’re going to vote for the Sandinistas (who control every facet of your life and have been murdering your friends and neighbors) or for the other guys, guess who you’re going to say?

Where there’s smoke . . .

The Minot Daily News, Minot, North Dakota -

Once again, smoking is a hot topic at the North Dakota Legislature.

Senate Bill 2164, which was defeated 30-15 by the Senate on Thursday, would have banned smoking in bars and truck stops. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Ralph Kilzer, R-Bismarck, came two years after the Legislature approved a smoking ban in most buildings to which the public has access. Bars were exempt, as were separate, walled-off areas in truck stops where children were not allowed.

We were in favor of the smoking ban in all restaurants, and we still support that ban. But supporters of this bill had a tougher fight on their hands. They couldn’t use the health of children as one argument for banning smoking, since bars are a controlled atmosphere, with no one under the age of 21 allowed.

We do agree with the supporters of the ban on at least one point: There’s clear evidence that smoking and secondhand smoke contribute to or cause a wide array of health problems.

But we also agree with opponents of this bill on this point: If smoking would have been banned in bars, what’s next? Some states are considering whether to ban smoking in outdoor public places and whether to prohibit adults from smoking in a vehicle when children are present. Where will the fight against smoking end? It likely won’t end until smoking is banned everywhere – indoors and outdoors.

Just because something is bad for your health doesn’t necessarily mean the government should ban its use. Candy, donuts and soda all have proven health risks, but are still available. There should still be some personal responsibility in life.

Certainly smoking rises to a slightly different level, because of the health risks of secondhand smoke. But if the smoking ban supporters were truly concerned about public health issues, why weren’t they proposing a state ban on the sale of alcohol, which would eliminate the need for bars altogether?`

Jim Eykyn, Publisher; Bryan L. Obenchain, Editor

I just received today the invoice paid by Champaign County to settle the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.  The County paid the Gazette $3,187.87 in legal costs.  The County of course was all but certain to pay something because they ended up turning over the documents that the Gazette had filed suit over.  The dollar amount is less than I would have imagined, but is inexcusable since the County's legal case was indefensible.

Someone passed on to me the letter from the City of Urbana regarding enforcement of the smoking ordinance in bars which takes effect on January 1.  Good luck to all you bartenders in enforcing this.  But the worst part of the letter is suggesting that people call 911 for enforcement.  Do we really want the same people who are dispatching people for murder calls, domestic abuse, rape, and heart attacks spending their time answering calls about people smoking?

The City ought to reissue the letter and come up with a more reasonable way for bar owners and employees to deal with this issue that doesn't involve our emergency response system.

After the tragedy of losing a gifted young man, Matt Wilhelm, who was riding his bike (with helmet) along Rt. 130 on Sept.2 when he was hit by a woman using her phone, there is a renewed call to ban the use of cell phones in automobiles.

I'm no expert on the many studies done to assess the perceived or real dangers that cell phones pose, as opposed to children arguing in the back seat, Rolling Stones on the radio, or spilled Pepsi. I do recall that studies show the hands-free option isn't any safer than holding the phone. It is the distracted mind that causes accidents, regardless of the type of distraction.

Many of us have cell phones now and often use them in our cars. Should local governments take up the issue of cell phone use in vehicles (as the city of Chicago has done)?

Maybe Rush Limbaugh is on to something.

First, we hear the news that former prez Jimmy Carter stood up for the terrorist group Hezbollah in an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel.

Then, we find out an effective means of monitoring terrorism, the foreign wiretapping program, was ruled unconstitutional by a liberal activist, nutjob judge.

Third, this ACLU mouthpiece judge was appointed by none other than...oh yeah, you guessed it...Jimmy Carter.

While I think Jimmy Carter can go and say whatever he wants to say, I have real problems with the suit the ACLU won. If a terrorist or potential terrorist plotter is calling ANYBODY in this country, I want the CIA to know about it. I would rather the CIA listen to my phone call to Baghdad on Friday and stop my plane from being blown up on Monday compared to the alternative. Right?

This should be fun.

This is old news by now.

State elections officials voted Friday to keep a gay marriage referendum off the November ballot, but supporters of the measure want a federal court to intervene.

The State Board of Elections agreed with a hearing officer's findings that there weren't enough valid signatures to put on the ballot an advisory referendum asking voters if the state constitution should be amended to ban gay marriage.

I doubt the courts will intervene and reverse the SBE decision.  Illinois is of the states with election laws most hostile to citizen-iniated ballot measures, even advisory ballot measures.

That said, I agree with Rich Miller about the inappropriateness of asking for court intervention to allow a ballot measure that seeks to prevent court intervention allowing gay marriage.