Liberal Fascism is a new book by Jonah Goldberg, a writer for National Review.
Goldberg examines the concept of fascism. Fascism is an ideology of a unified third way merger of left and right, a "pragmatic" program, the cult of the leader, and the overturning of traditional morality, capitalism, and traditional religion. Properly understood, it is clearly an ideology of the left, not the right.
This was widely understood at the time when Mussolini came to power. He was widely revered by America's liberals of the day. Fascism was only seen as being on the right due to communist propaganda during and after World War II.
Hitler was also a "man of the left", an atheist who hated traditional religion, a socialist who hated free market capitalism, a vegetarian, environmentalist, animal rights supporter, "health Nazi", pro-abortionist, gun-banner, and statist. Even Hitler had American liberal admirers before the war.
Goldberg shows that the American progressive movement was an American version of fascism. It was racist, eugenicist, nationalistic, imperialist, socialist, and hostile to tradition. It was fascism with American characteristics.
Goldberg recounts the tyranny of Woodrow Wilson's war socialism, complete with jailing political opponents by the thousands. FDR enacted similar policies, including economic policies copied from Italian fascism. He also suppressed political dissent.
In perhaps the most valuable chapter of the book, Goldberg shows that the eugenics movement was a project of the progressive left. It was hailed as the progress of science, and opponents were accused of opposing science, just like opponents of abortion and embryonic stem-cell research are today. Eugenics was opposed by traditional conservative, including the Catholic Church. This is a great answer to liberals who attack religion as harmful and laud "science".
Fascist economics can be called state capitalism, or corporatism, which is defined by "public-private partnerships" between government and big business that benefit both at the expense of small business and consumers. But this is exactly what liberals today support when they demand licencing schemes and restrictive regulations that hurt small businesses more than big ones.
The later chapters of the book are somewhat weaker. Goldberg discusses "liberal fascism", which he defines as a milder, nicer version of the same fascist phenomenon. He discusses JFK, the 1960's, and Hillary Clinton's It Takes a Village and politics of meaning in this context.
There are two serious flaws in the book, which consume only a few pages. The first is criticism of Senator Joe McCarthy, which is entirely based on the conventional wisdom, without any documentation. The truth about McCarthy can be found in the book Blacklisted by History by M. Stanton Evans.
The second flaw is a gratuitous attack on Pat Buchanan, which seems to be part of the contract for National Review writers.
Despite these flaws, Liberal Fascism is a very interesting book with lots of good information on liberal icons, the progressive movement, and fascism.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
Economic Facts and Fallacies
Economic Facts and Fallacies is the latest book by Thomas Sowell. Like all of Sowell's work, it is a solid piece of work.
The title is somewhat misleading. A book that was strictly focused on economic fallacies would parallel a standard introductory economics book. Instead of explaining the truth, it would state and debunk fallacies about the various topics.
This book is different. It does not mention such common fallacies as "price gouging". Instead, it focuses on six types of "facts and fallacies": urban, male/female, academic, income, racial, and third world. It extensively debunks liberal notions on these subjects.
The book amounts to a thorough destruction of egalitarianism. The fact is that races, sexes, nations, urban and rural dwellers, workers, and students are not the same. There is no reason to expect them to be the same. When results between different groups are not the same, egalitarians blame discrimination. While this can happen in particular cases, Sowell provides the facts to show that it cannot explain group differences.
Sowell's book is an interesting and profitable read.
The title is somewhat misleading. A book that was strictly focused on economic fallacies would parallel a standard introductory economics book. Instead of explaining the truth, it would state and debunk fallacies about the various topics.
This book is different. It does not mention such common fallacies as "price gouging". Instead, it focuses on six types of "facts and fallacies": urban, male/female, academic, income, racial, and third world. It extensively debunks liberal notions on these subjects.
The book amounts to a thorough destruction of egalitarianism. The fact is that races, sexes, nations, urban and rural dwellers, workers, and students are not the same. There is no reason to expect them to be the same. When results between different groups are not the same, egalitarians blame discrimination. While this can happen in particular cases, Sowell provides the facts to show that it cannot explain group differences.
Sowell's book is an interesting and profitable read.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
POLITICAL UPDATE--United Nations
This update focuses on the United Nations. The UN continues to promote world government.
Arthur Robinson: The Science of the UN
Oliver North: UN-Believable
Thomas Kilgannon: Renovating the Great Hall of American Hatred
Thomas Kilgannon: The Nanny State Goes Global
Thomas Kilgannon: Globalist Governator
More information:
Get US Out of the UN
Eagle Forum: United Nations
Arthur Robinson: The Science of the UN
Oliver North: UN-Believable
Thomas Kilgannon: Renovating the Great Hall of American Hatred
Thomas Kilgannon: The Nanny State Goes Global
Thomas Kilgannon: Globalist Governator
More information:
Get US Out of the UN
Eagle Forum: United Nations
Friday, July 11, 2008
Local Election News
Local news stories about elections.
K-Township supervisor job draws three GOP hopefuls
(Those are not flattering pictures.)
Voters to choose two District Court candidates
Cooper Township supervisor Sorensen faces challenge from first-time candidate in GOP primary
Greg Moore, Susan Baldwin and I head to court
Incumbent candidates for St. Joseph County drain commissioner and register of deeds face challengers in August primary
K-Township supervisor job draws three GOP hopefuls
(Those are not flattering pictures.)
Voters to choose two District Court candidates
Cooper Township supervisor Sorensen faces challenge from first-time candidate in GOP primary
Greg Moore, Susan Baldwin and I head to court
Incumbent candidates for St. Joseph County drain commissioner and register of deeds face challengers in August primary
Constitutional Convention? No!
Dennis Lennox has an article on RightMichigan advocating a constitutional convention in Michigan. This is a terrible idea.
What would such a convention accomplish? Lennox lists two things. One is his pet project, the constitutional clean-up. A previous post in this space demonstrated that nothing in the clean-up is necessary, and some of the items would constitute surrenders to judicial activists, who have ruled some parts of Michigan's constitution (federally) unconstitutional.
The other cause he advocates is lengthening or repealing term limits. But a constitutional convention is unnecessary to do this. The legislature could vote on a term limits amendment any time it wants to. Or there could be a petition drive for a ballot initiative. There are plenty of moneyed special interests and self-serving politicians who would like to repeal term limits. The reason that they haven't done so is that, rightly or wrongly, term limits are still popular with Michigan voters.
But if we have a constitutional convention, wise people can get together and act for the common good to improve Michigan's constitution, right? This is the fool's view of democracy. Democracy is really special interests and coalitions of voters fighting for power. Clout matters more than truth in determining results.
Could Michigan's constitution be improved? Sure. It this the likely result of a constitutional convention? No.
In reality, the same liberal special interests that have been trying to hijack Michigan's constitution for years would seize the chance to turn a constitutional convention to their own advantage. Elections to the convention would be unregulated, and delegates would be accountable to no one, creating a situation ripe for special interest meddling.
In 2002, a coalition of medical groups tried to write funding for themselves into the state constitution. They failed. In 2006, the MEA tried to write funding for itself into the constitution. It also failed. Now, through the RMGN proposal, the democrats are trying to rewrite the constitution to seize the courts and rig the rules to their own advantage.
Then there was the Citizens for Michigan, a bipartisan group of liberal democrats and liberal Republicans, mostly washed up former politicians who advocated a 2010 convention to implement a grab-bag of anti-reforms, including "to raise taxes, make it easier to raise taxes, eliminate ballot initiatives, eliminate election of Supreme Court Justices, eliminate election of education boards, lengthen term limits, increase politicians salaries automatically, and make it harder to recall politicians". Their website has since been deleted.
These folks will be sure to show up to any constitutional convention. Such a convention could threaten provisions of the constitution that the liberal establishment hates, from the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, to the marriage amendment, to the Headlee amendment, to the right to keep and bear arms provision.
Constitutional conventions are very dangerous, at both the federal level and the state level. Just say no to con-cons.
What would such a convention accomplish? Lennox lists two things. One is his pet project, the constitutional clean-up. A previous post in this space demonstrated that nothing in the clean-up is necessary, and some of the items would constitute surrenders to judicial activists, who have ruled some parts of Michigan's constitution (federally) unconstitutional.
The other cause he advocates is lengthening or repealing term limits. But a constitutional convention is unnecessary to do this. The legislature could vote on a term limits amendment any time it wants to. Or there could be a petition drive for a ballot initiative. There are plenty of moneyed special interests and self-serving politicians who would like to repeal term limits. The reason that they haven't done so is that, rightly or wrongly, term limits are still popular with Michigan voters.
But if we have a constitutional convention, wise people can get together and act for the common good to improve Michigan's constitution, right? This is the fool's view of democracy. Democracy is really special interests and coalitions of voters fighting for power. Clout matters more than truth in determining results.
Could Michigan's constitution be improved? Sure. It this the likely result of a constitutional convention? No.
In reality, the same liberal special interests that have been trying to hijack Michigan's constitution for years would seize the chance to turn a constitutional convention to their own advantage. Elections to the convention would be unregulated, and delegates would be accountable to no one, creating a situation ripe for special interest meddling.
In 2002, a coalition of medical groups tried to write funding for themselves into the state constitution. They failed. In 2006, the MEA tried to write funding for itself into the constitution. It also failed. Now, through the RMGN proposal, the democrats are trying to rewrite the constitution to seize the courts and rig the rules to their own advantage.
Then there was the Citizens for Michigan, a bipartisan group of liberal democrats and liberal Republicans, mostly washed up former politicians who advocated a 2010 convention to implement a grab-bag of anti-reforms, including "to raise taxes, make it easier to raise taxes, eliminate ballot initiatives, eliminate election of Supreme Court Justices, eliminate election of education boards, lengthen term limits, increase politicians salaries automatically, and make it harder to recall politicians". Their website has since been deleted.
These folks will be sure to show up to any constitutional convention. Such a convention could threaten provisions of the constitution that the liberal establishment hates, from the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, to the marriage amendment, to the Headlee amendment, to the right to keep and bear arms provision.
Constitutional conventions are very dangerous, at both the federal level and the state level. Just say no to con-cons.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
How Carl Levin Helped Hike Gas Prices
With the nation struggling under record-high gas prices, Americans are demanding answers. Who is responsible for these prices? There is plenty of blame to go around, but a share of the blame must fall on Michigan's senior senator, Carl Levin.
Levin has consistently promoted bad energy policies and opposed good ones.
Levin has promoted government meddling in the energy sector, increased government regulations, ineffective 'alternative energy', and poverty-increasing 'conservation'. He supported the 2007 energy bill which included a bundle of bad regulations, including banning traditional light bulbs. 'Alternative energy' is inefficient and ineffective, and only exists due to government spending of taxpayer money.
Levin supported CAFE fuel economy standards that lead to thousands of additional car crash deaths per year. This is because mandating higher gas mileages forces people into lighter cars. They are less safe, and lead to more traffic fatalities. CAFE standards also hurt Michigan's already struggling auto industry, and lead to more Michigan job losses.
Levin has been a leader in promoting conspiracy theories of oil company price manipulation. Investigations have repeatedly debunked these claims.
Levin also voted for higher gas taxes. The so-called 'windfall profits tax' would have reduced the profit motive, thus discouraging energy production and increasing gas prices.
Levin supported cloture on the Lieberman-Warner bill to raise taxes via a 'cap-and-trade' system to fight the supposed threat of global warming. He said that he would have voted against final passage, however.
Meanwhile, Levin was opposing increasing energy production, the only policy that can really reduce energy prices.
Levin has repeatedly opposed new drilling for oil in Alaska. Drilling in a tiny portion on ANWR could produce millions of barrels of American oil, lowering gas prices and creating jobs. This would not hurt the environment at all. But time after time, year after year, Carl Levin opposed drilling for oil in Alaska.
Anyone who wants lower gas prices should help to remove Carl Levin from office.
On the Issues: Carl Levin on Energy & Oil
Core Principles: Carl Levin: We Can't Drill Our Way Out
Levin has consistently promoted bad energy policies and opposed good ones.
Levin has promoted government meddling in the energy sector, increased government regulations, ineffective 'alternative energy', and poverty-increasing 'conservation'. He supported the 2007 energy bill which included a bundle of bad regulations, including banning traditional light bulbs. 'Alternative energy' is inefficient and ineffective, and only exists due to government spending of taxpayer money.
Levin supported CAFE fuel economy standards that lead to thousands of additional car crash deaths per year. This is because mandating higher gas mileages forces people into lighter cars. They are less safe, and lead to more traffic fatalities. CAFE standards also hurt Michigan's already struggling auto industry, and lead to more Michigan job losses.
Levin has been a leader in promoting conspiracy theories of oil company price manipulation. Investigations have repeatedly debunked these claims.
Levin also voted for higher gas taxes. The so-called 'windfall profits tax' would have reduced the profit motive, thus discouraging energy production and increasing gas prices.
Levin supported cloture on the Lieberman-Warner bill to raise taxes via a 'cap-and-trade' system to fight the supposed threat of global warming. He said that he would have voted against final passage, however.
Meanwhile, Levin was opposing increasing energy production, the only policy that can really reduce energy prices.
Levin has repeatedly opposed new drilling for oil in Alaska. Drilling in a tiny portion on ANWR could produce millions of barrels of American oil, lowering gas prices and creating jobs. This would not hurt the environment at all. But time after time, year after year, Carl Levin opposed drilling for oil in Alaska.
Anyone who wants lower gas prices should help to remove Carl Levin from office.
On the Issues: Carl Levin on Energy & Oil
Core Principles: Carl Levin: We Can't Drill Our Way Out
On the Ballot?
The deadline has passed for ballot propositions in Michigan.
The embryonic stem cell research petition turned in 570,000 signatures, making it very likely that it will be on the ballot in November.
The "Reform Michigan Government Now" petition turned in about 490,000 signatures. They need 380,000 valid signatures, so it is unclear whether they will have enough. There will be plenty of groups looking to challenge this petition, and if it has enough signatures, there will certainly be a lawsuit based on the language. Don't expect to see this on the ballot in November.
Saul Anuzius: The unconstitutional amendment
The embryonic stem cell research petition turned in 570,000 signatures, making it very likely that it will be on the ballot in November.
The "Reform Michigan Government Now" petition turned in about 490,000 signatures. They need 380,000 valid signatures, so it is unclear whether they will have enough. There will be plenty of groups looking to challenge this petition, and if it has enough signatures, there will certainly be a lawsuit based on the language. Don't expect to see this on the ballot in November.
Saul Anuzius: The unconstitutional amendment
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Politics News
More revelations about the RMGN proposal. Many democrat legislators were left out of the loop.
Michigan Democrats express concern about government reform proposal
Ballot signatures to spark battle
Three jockey for GOP nomination in bid to replace Hoogendyk
Octogenarians square off for rematch of '06
Every now and then you find an article full of little gems.
Candidates push transparency
Michigan Democrats express concern about government reform proposal
Ballot signatures to spark battle
Three jockey for GOP nomination in bid to replace Hoogendyk
Part of that, he [Larry DeShazor] said, is fostering a climate where businesses are not overburdened by taxes. He, too, has qualms with the Michigan Business Tax and favors repealing the 22 percent surcharge associated with it.Qualms??
Octogenarians square off for rematch of '06
Every now and then you find an article full of little gems.
Thompson, admittedly one of the most eccentric members of the current board of commissioners, has had a few health issues in recent years, including a stroke, and back and eye surgeries. But he said he is not slowing down.Open 59th District seat draws 4 hopefuls
"I want to make a mark on this community,'' Thompson said. "Plus, I need the money.''
Candidates push transparency
Saturday, July 05, 2008
POLITICAL UPDATE--North American Union
This update focuses on North American Union. As Americans celebrate Independence Day, many elites are working to merge independent nations. Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty to further merge Europe into the European Union. A part of the NAFTA superhighway system has been canceled. The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) has been renamed.
Susan Easton: The Mouse That Roared
Dennis Behreandt: Transatlantic Two-Step
Brenda Walker: U.K’s Gordon Brown: Preaching One Worldism In U.S., Fighting Patriots At Home
Phyllis Schlafly: The Many Sides of Globalism
Ron Paul: A Major Victory for Texas
WorldNetDaily: Texas Corridor detour: Officials nix land grab
Jerome Corsi: 'North American Parliament' under way
James Edwards: Patent Bill Should Die
Jerome Corsi: Bush opens SPP summit
Jerome Corsi: Makeover urged for 'North American Union' effort
North American Union: Eagle Forum Stop the NAU Stop SPP
Trans-Texas Corridor: Corridor Watch
Susan Easton: The Mouse That Roared
Dennis Behreandt: Transatlantic Two-Step
Brenda Walker: U.K’s Gordon Brown: Preaching One Worldism In U.S., Fighting Patriots At Home
Phyllis Schlafly: The Many Sides of Globalism
Ron Paul: A Major Victory for Texas
WorldNetDaily: Texas Corridor detour: Officials nix land grab
Jerome Corsi: 'North American Parliament' under way
James Edwards: Patent Bill Should Die
Jerome Corsi: Bush opens SPP summit
Jerome Corsi: Makeover urged for 'North American Union' effort
North American Union: Eagle Forum Stop the NAU Stop SPP
Trans-Texas Corridor: Corridor Watch
Friday, July 04, 2008
Senator No
Jesse Helms today joined Thomas Jefferson and John Adams amongst American statesmen who died on the Fourth of July.
Helms was a lion of conservatism. He was a staunch anti-communist when the establishment favored weak-kneed detente. He was a lifelong opponent of the world-government wannabes in the United Nations. He fought against threats against American sovereignty from the Panama Canal Treaty to the Law of the Sea Treaty. He fought for the conservative positions on issues from abortion to guns to judges to immigration. He was a conservative before conservatism was popular (rhetorically, at least) in the Republican Party.
Helms played a key role in helping Ronald Reagan to become President. He helped Reagan win North Carolina in 1976, turning a struggling campaign into a near-winner, keeping Reagan viable for 1980.
In his thirty years in the Senate, Helms always stayed true to his principles, infuriating liberals who dubbed him Senator No for blocking their agenda.
He also made this great ad illustrating the evils of racial preferences, which has enraged liberals ever since.
Helms was a lion of conservatism. He was a staunch anti-communist when the establishment favored weak-kneed detente. He was a lifelong opponent of the world-government wannabes in the United Nations. He fought against threats against American sovereignty from the Panama Canal Treaty to the Law of the Sea Treaty. He fought for the conservative positions on issues from abortion to guns to judges to immigration. He was a conservative before conservatism was popular (rhetorically, at least) in the Republican Party.
Helms played a key role in helping Ronald Reagan to become President. He helped Reagan win North Carolina in 1976, turning a struggling campaign into a near-winner, keeping Reagan viable for 1980.
In his thirty years in the Senate, Helms always stayed true to his principles, infuriating liberals who dubbed him Senator No for blocking their agenda.
He also made this great ad illustrating the evils of racial preferences, which has enraged liberals ever since.
Right to Life Endorsements
Michigan Right to Life has made endorsements for the August 5 primary election. The information is available on their website, but it only gives information for the districts that a voter resides in.
Some races of local interest:
In state house districts 58, 59, and 61, all announced Republican candidates meet their criteria.
In district 62, neither Republican candidate was endorsed.
In district 78 (Southern Berrien County), Sharon Tyler was endorsed, meaning that one of the other Republicans is not pro-life.
In district 88, all viable candidates meet their criteria, meaning everyone except William Galligan, who is not pro-life.
For 8th district judge (Kalamazoo County), Julie Phillips and William Murphy (and not the other two candidates) meet the criteria.
For Kalamazoo County Commission district 12 (Oshtemo), both candidates meet the criteria.
For more information, see the 2008 Election Preview, which is updated as necessary.
Some races of local interest:
In state house districts 58, 59, and 61, all announced Republican candidates meet their criteria.
In district 62, neither Republican candidate was endorsed.
In district 78 (Southern Berrien County), Sharon Tyler was endorsed, meaning that one of the other Republicans is not pro-life.
In district 88, all viable candidates meet their criteria, meaning everyone except William Galligan, who is not pro-life.
For 8th district judge (Kalamazoo County), Julie Phillips and William Murphy (and not the other two candidates) meet the criteria.
For Kalamazoo County Commission district 12 (Oshtemo), both candidates meet the criteria.
For more information, see the 2008 Election Preview, which is updated as necessary.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
The Truth Comes Out
Some of it, anyways.
The Free Press has a very revealing article about the Reform Michigan petition drive.
Not that we didn't already know, but we now have confirmation that the "reform" proposal is a sham to benefit democrats.
The funders of the petition drive remain mysterious, but we can safely assume that it's people close to the democratic party.
We also know who the mystery Republican supporting the petition drive is.
If Republicans are smart, they will file a hundred different legal challenges to the language of the petition and get it thrown out in court. That would be ironic.
The Free Press has a very revealing article about the Reform Michigan petition drive.
A spokeswoman for Reform Michigan Government Now!, an organization whose origins and finances are shadowy, said Tuesday she believes enough voter signatures will be collected -- at least 380,000 are required -- by Monday's deadline to get on the November ballot.In other words, they don't have enough signatures yet.
Not that we didn't already know, but we now have confirmation that the "reform" proposal is a sham to benefit democrats.
A Democratic Party insider, who requested anonymity, said Democratic strategists have been working on the ballot plan for about a year, with the goal of improving their chances of controlling the Legislature.The article also addresses the question of whether democrat legislators are on board with the idea.
Democrats have grown increasingly frustrated that state legislative districts are drawn to benefit Republicans, even though Michigan has voted Democratic in presidential elections for two decades.
The party insider said focus groups were organized to gauge voter interest in various reform ideas. They indicated that to win approval of a new redistricting mechanism, a ballot proposal had to be dressed up with changes that might excite voters, such as shrinking the Legislature and cutting lawmakers' salaries and benefits.
State Rep. Dale Sheltrown, D-West Branch, believes some Democratic officials aren't satisfied with the kind of Democrats elected to the House.The article also addresses redistricting.
"I think it's the result of disappointment by those on the political left, who thought they could take over the House (in 2006) and everything would be fine," Sheltrown said. "But to do that, they had to elect moderate Democrats like me, who don't always vote with the party.
"If you draw districts up so it's more equal, not only would Democrats have a better chance of taking over the Legislature, but they'd have Democrats closer to the kind they want."
The government reform campaign would take redistricting out of the Legislature and put it into the hands of a new, bipartisan commission. The nine-member panel would have four members chosen by each party and the eight partisans would then choose a chair, who would be nonpartisan.This redistricting plan would totally disenfranchise independents and third party supporters, who would have no role in the process.
The funders of the petition drive remain mysterious, but we can safely assume that it's people close to the democratic party.
We also know who the mystery Republican supporting the petition drive is.
Committee organization documents name Harland Nye of Hastings as the treasurer of Reform Michigan Government Now!Can anyone actually verify that he is a Republican? Apparently, having a single random self-identified "Republican" supporter is all it takes to make a proposal bipartisan.
...
Nye, an 80-year-old retired high school band director and life-long Republican, said he's a member of a group of activists in Hastings who frequently talk about public policy.
If Republicans are smart, they will file a hundred different legal challenges to the language of the petition and get it thrown out in court. That would be ironic.
Free Speech Versus Sexism
The controversy over Western's sexism policy isn't over yet.
The conservative free-speech group FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) wrote a letter to President Dunn demanding that the policy be changed. This was reported in the June 23 edition of the Herald (not online).
This controversy previously surfaced under President Haenicke, who pledged to change the policy. Apparently, the administration has held up the change.
The policy says that
Previous: A victory for free speech
The conservative free-speech group FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) wrote a letter to President Dunn demanding that the policy be changed. This was reported in the June 23 edition of the Herald (not online).
This controversy previously surfaced under President Haenicke, who pledged to change the policy. Apparently, the administration has held up the change.
The policy says that
Sexism is defined as the perception and treatment of any person, not as an individual, but as a member of a category based on sex. Whether expressed in overt or subtle form such as sex-related jokes or materials, sexism in the classroom or workplace is unacceptable at the University and its elimination shall be the responsibility of the entire University community.This policy clearly violates the right to free speech. It must be eliminated.
Previous: A victory for free speech
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Walberg vs. Schauer
John Gizzi's Races of the Week profiles the Walberg v. Schauer race. (One error: Kalamazoo is not in the 7th district.)
----------------
Michigan’s 7th District
Walberg vs. Schauer
Freshman Rep. Tim Walberg belongs to the exclusive fraternity of members of Congress who got there by unseating an incumbent of their own party. Two years ago, then-Rep. Joe Schwarz had irked many of his fellow Republicans in Michigan 7th District (Battle Creek-Kalamazoo) with his overall moderate voting record (lifetime American Conservative Union rating: 59%). Stalwart conservative Walberg, minister and former state legislator, hit this hard. Uniting both cultural and economic conservatives, Walberg defeated Schwarz for renomination by 53% to 47%.
The blood-letting from that Walberg-Schwarz primary two years ago has never really healed. Coupled with the fact that the 7th District has become a large bedroom community for Michigan State University and the University of Michigan, that the election of a Republican to Congress in the fall is no longer a slam dunk.
At 57, Tim Walberg has never trimmed his conservative sails, so it is no surprise that his opponent is about the most fearsome “800-pound gorilla” that Democrats and Big Labor could find: Mark Schauer, minority leader of the state senate.
“And you just name the issue and we disagree on it — any issue,” says Walberg. Walberg proudly opposed any tax increases or new taxes and has been leading the charge among House Republicans to make permanent the tax cuts of ’01 and ’03. And Schauer? In Walberg’s words, “My opponent has come up with creative ways for government to get more of our money. He supported [in the state senate] a bill to put a 20-cent per gallon tax on bottled water!”
While Schauer follows the lead of Barack Obama in opposing drilling offshore and in the Arctic Natural Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), Walberg backs both. Moreover, the Michigan man has been a key “mover and shaker” behind the “No More Excuses” legislation, which lays down a variety of proposals and guidelines for a more productive U.S. energy policy for a generation. So far, Walberg has collected 149 signatures out of a needed 218 on a discharge petition to get “No More Excuses” out of committee.
Along with offering creative conservative legislation to deal with pressing issues, Walberg is unabashedly pro-life. Schauer follows his party’s national platform on the issue and is strongly pro-abortion.
So Tim Walberg once again faces a stiff fight and the battle lines are drawn clearly. His fellow conservatives need to realize that when someone is forthright with his issue stands, the opposition is always going to be well-funded and hard-hitting — and that’s why Tim Walberg so badly needs their help.
Walberg for Congress, 317 West Washington Ave., Jackson, Mich. 49201; 517-962-4913; Walbergforcongress.com
----------------
Michigan’s 7th District
Walberg vs. Schauer
Freshman Rep. Tim Walberg belongs to the exclusive fraternity of members of Congress who got there by unseating an incumbent of their own party. Two years ago, then-Rep. Joe Schwarz had irked many of his fellow Republicans in Michigan 7th District (Battle Creek-Kalamazoo) with his overall moderate voting record (lifetime American Conservative Union rating: 59%). Stalwart conservative Walberg, minister and former state legislator, hit this hard. Uniting both cultural and economic conservatives, Walberg defeated Schwarz for renomination by 53% to 47%.
The blood-letting from that Walberg-Schwarz primary two years ago has never really healed. Coupled with the fact that the 7th District has become a large bedroom community for Michigan State University and the University of Michigan, that the election of a Republican to Congress in the fall is no longer a slam dunk.
At 57, Tim Walberg has never trimmed his conservative sails, so it is no surprise that his opponent is about the most fearsome “800-pound gorilla” that Democrats and Big Labor could find: Mark Schauer, minority leader of the state senate.
“And you just name the issue and we disagree on it — any issue,” says Walberg. Walberg proudly opposed any tax increases or new taxes and has been leading the charge among House Republicans to make permanent the tax cuts of ’01 and ’03. And Schauer? In Walberg’s words, “My opponent has come up with creative ways for government to get more of our money. He supported [in the state senate] a bill to put a 20-cent per gallon tax on bottled water!”
While Schauer follows the lead of Barack Obama in opposing drilling offshore and in the Arctic Natural Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), Walberg backs both. Moreover, the Michigan man has been a key “mover and shaker” behind the “No More Excuses” legislation, which lays down a variety of proposals and guidelines for a more productive U.S. energy policy for a generation. So far, Walberg has collected 149 signatures out of a needed 218 on a discharge petition to get “No More Excuses” out of committee.
Along with offering creative conservative legislation to deal with pressing issues, Walberg is unabashedly pro-life. Schauer follows his party’s national platform on the issue and is strongly pro-abortion.
So Tim Walberg once again faces a stiff fight and the battle lines are drawn clearly. His fellow conservatives need to realize that when someone is forthright with his issue stands, the opposition is always going to be well-funded and hard-hitting — and that’s why Tim Walberg so badly needs their help.
Walberg for Congress, 317 West Washington Ave., Jackson, Mich. 49201; 517-962-4913; Walbergforcongress.com
Dumb Laws in Michigan
Via the Club for Growth, it shouldn't be any surprise that Michigan's economy is in trouble.
-------------
Dumbs Laws in Michigan
Andrew Roth
The good folks at the MacKinac Center for Public Policy sent me dozens of dumb bills that were recently proposed in the Michigan Legislature. A special thanks to MacKinac's Ken Braun and Jack McHugh.
Here are a few that caught my eye:
SB 68 (introduced by Sen. Tupac Hunter) would authorize manicurist training. As MacKinac's Michigan Votes website explains, "Under current law, licensure is required for schools that teach cosmetology and electrology, but there is no separate category for the teaching of fingernail clipping."
SB 920 (introduced by Sen. John Gleason) would revise current law "in such a way" that would prevent Wal-Mart from using its own bank to process credit card transactions.
SB 906 (introduced by Sen. Mark Jansen) would ban the disposal of corrugated cardboard in a landfill.
SB 1194 (introduced by Sen. Gretchen Whitmer) would authorize the state fire marshall to ban the ownership of novelty lighters.
HB 4314 (introduced by Rep. Gino Polidori) that would "require any water bottled in Michigan for sale at market to have a label stating that the water is from Michigan and showing a small map outline of the state."
And here is my favorite one:
HB 5885 (introduced by Rep. Edward Gaffney) would "exempt individuals age 62 or older from the “driver responsibility fees” (“bad driver fees”) that are assessed for various violations."
According to his office website, Gaffney was 64 years old when he introduced this bill.
-------------
Dumbs Laws in Michigan
Andrew Roth
The good folks at the MacKinac Center for Public Policy sent me dozens of dumb bills that were recently proposed in the Michigan Legislature. A special thanks to MacKinac's Ken Braun and Jack McHugh.
Here are a few that caught my eye:
SB 68 (introduced by Sen. Tupac Hunter) would authorize manicurist training. As MacKinac's Michigan Votes website explains, "Under current law, licensure is required for schools that teach cosmetology and electrology, but there is no separate category for the teaching of fingernail clipping."
SB 920 (introduced by Sen. John Gleason) would revise current law "in such a way" that would prevent Wal-Mart from using its own bank to process credit card transactions.
SB 906 (introduced by Sen. Mark Jansen) would ban the disposal of corrugated cardboard in a landfill.
SB 1194 (introduced by Sen. Gretchen Whitmer) would authorize the state fire marshall to ban the ownership of novelty lighters.
HB 4314 (introduced by Rep. Gino Polidori) that would "require any water bottled in Michigan for sale at market to have a label stating that the water is from Michigan and showing a small map outline of the state."
And here is my favorite one:
HB 5885 (introduced by Rep. Edward Gaffney) would "exempt individuals age 62 or older from the “driver responsibility fees” (“bad driver fees”) that are assessed for various violations."
According to his office website, Gaffney was 64 years old when he introduced this bill.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Dave Healy for Texas Township Supervisor
Dave Healy is a candidate for Texas Township Supervisor. He is running against Republican incumbent Ron Commassaris in the August 5 primary election.
Healy has experience in government as a former member of the Van Buren County Commission. He has private business experience as well.
The incumbent has slacked off on the job and is no longer effective.
Dave Healy has been endorsed by the Kalamazoo County Republican Party, as well as the Homebuilders and Realtors. He deserves the support of Republican primary voters.
Healy has experience in government as a former member of the Van Buren County Commission. He has private business experience as well.
The incumbent has slacked off on the job and is no longer effective.
Dave Healy has been endorsed by the Kalamazoo County Republican Party, as well as the Homebuilders and Realtors. He deserves the support of Republican primary voters.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
POLITICAL UPDATE--Gun Rights
This update focuses on gun rights. The Supreme Court overturned the DC gun ban in DC v. Heller. The battle for gun rights continues on many other fronts.
The decision: DC versus Heller
The Western Right: DC Gun Ban Gone
Ted Nugent: DC Gun Ban Blown Away
Cassandra Kane: Second Amendment: A Valued Target for Students
Dave Workman: Kansas tornado produces gun rights bill
Phyllis Schlafly: Stunning Victory Against Judicial Supremacy
John Lott: Gun-Free Zones Are Not Safe
Vin Suprynowicz: 'If Only We Were Armed Before'
Dick Clark: Buying Your First Handgun
Will Grigg: Tyranny, The One-War Mirror, and the Criminal Syndicate Called the ATF
Sean Trende: Seemingly Good News for Second Amendment Rights
Daily gun news is available at NRA-ILA and Keep and Bear Arms.
The decision: DC versus Heller
The Western Right: DC Gun Ban Gone
Ted Nugent: DC Gun Ban Blown Away
Cassandra Kane: Second Amendment: A Valued Target for Students
Dave Workman: Kansas tornado produces gun rights bill
Phyllis Schlafly: Stunning Victory Against Judicial Supremacy
John Lott: Gun-Free Zones Are Not Safe
Vin Suprynowicz: 'If Only We Were Armed Before'
Dick Clark: Buying Your First Handgun
Will Grigg: Tyranny, The One-War Mirror, and the Criminal Syndicate Called the ATF
Sean Trende: Seemingly Good News for Second Amendment Rights
Daily gun news is available at NRA-ILA and Keep and Bear Arms.
DC Gun Ban Gone
The Supreme Court has overturned the District of Columbia gun ban. The ruling was 5-4, with the conservatives (plus Kennedy) in the majority, and the liberals in the minority.
Here is the decision: District of Columbia v. Heller
Here is some analysis of the decision.
After reading DC v Heller
Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Commentary: So, what’s next on guns?
We shall deal the with the good and bad in the decision, as well as the implications for other gun laws, and who deserves honor and shame in this case.
Good:
Of course, the court struck down the law requiring handgun registration while also not allowing any handguns to be registered. It also struck down the law preventing carrying a gun in your own house and requiring that long guns always be locked up. (It did not address the issue of handgun licencing in principle.)
Justice Scalia's opinion provides an excellent exposition of the meaning of the Second Amendment. As a bonus, it is also in places hilariously witty, particularly when slapping down some of Justice Stevens' assertions.
Scalia notes that the right to keep and bear arms is preexisting--the Second Amendment protects it, not grants it.
Scalia provides a good summary of the various state keep and bear arms provisions.
Scalia provides an interesting exposition of cases and legal commentaries concerning the second Amendment, including US v. Miller.
Scalia ably refutes the argument that you don't need handguns if you have long guns, which was not refuted in the oral arguments.
One is tempted to blame Justice Kennedy for the flaws in the majority opinion, though this cannot be proven.
Implications:
What does this decision mean for other gun control laws? The only federal gun control law clearly appears to be unconstitutional is the gun-free school zones act. Not necessarily the part about the schools themselves, but the part that bans guns within 1000 feet of a school, theoretically including people's houses. In fact, an earlier version of the same law was struck down as unconstitutional because the commerce clause did not allow such a regulation.
The 1932, 1968, 1986, and Brady (1993) gun control bills are not affected by this decision. Of course, it is certainly possible that future decisions could build on this one and affect them. The Lautenberg amendment (1996) related to 'domestic violence' might possibly be affected.
Whether state gun laws are affected depends on whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. The only way it could do so is if it is 'incorporated' by the 14th amendment. Courts have not to date ruled that it is, and have treated the rest of the Bill of Rights piecemeal on this point. The court declined to rule on this issue, and it sent mixed signals. Incorporation is a very dubious principle, but as long as it exists, there is no reason why it should not be used to advance freedom.
If the Second Amendment is incorporated, then laws such as the Chicago gun ban would be unconstitutional. The NRA has already filed suit against Chicago and several of its suburbs for their gun bans, and against San Francisco for its ban on guns in public housing. Several other local gun laws could be threatened.
People:
Who deserves credit for this decision? Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy, of course. Lawyers Alan Gura and Robert Levy filed this lawsuit and guided it through years of hard work. The plaintiffs Heller, Parker, and the others. The NRA (later on) for rounding up lots of Congressmen and state Attorneys General to support the suit.
Who doesn't deserve credit? The Bush administration, whose Solicitor General opposed overturning the ban and argued this position in court. The NRA (early) which tried to sabotage the suit by filing a non-Second Amendment suit and merging the two. In fairness, the NRA had very real concerns about the strategy behind this suit. If Justice O'Connor was still on the court instead of Justice Alito, the result could have been very different.
Finally, shame must be affixed to Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer. They attempted a truly evil act. They tried to annihilate one of our most basic rights and freedoms. For this they deserve our everlasting contempt.
Previous: Second Amendment at the Supreme Court
Here is the decision: District of Columbia v. Heller
Here is some analysis of the decision.
After reading DC v Heller
Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Commentary: So, what’s next on guns?
We shall deal the with the good and bad in the decision, as well as the implications for other gun laws, and who deserves honor and shame in this case.
Good:
Of course, the court struck down the law requiring handgun registration while also not allowing any handguns to be registered. It also struck down the law preventing carrying a gun in your own house and requiring that long guns always be locked up. (It did not address the issue of handgun licencing in principle.)
Justice Scalia's opinion provides an excellent exposition of the meaning of the Second Amendment. As a bonus, it is also in places hilariously witty, particularly when slapping down some of Justice Stevens' assertions.
Scalia notes that the right to keep and bear arms is preexisting--the Second Amendment protects it, not grants it.
Scalia provides a good summary of the various state keep and bear arms provisions.
Scalia provides an interesting exposition of cases and legal commentaries concerning the second Amendment, including US v. Miller.
Scalia ably refutes the argument that you don't need handguns if you have long guns, which was not refuted in the oral arguments.
It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police.Bad:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.Properly understood, it is unlimited. The English provisions that Blackstone commented on may not have been. Courts may have made such statements, but that does not make them right. The right applies to 'arms' as the term was understood by the Founders, basically those weapons useful for defense against individuals. It does not apply to nuclear weapons, of course. No manner of keeping or carrying an arm may be banned. As long the purpose is not to commit some other crime, the right covers it.
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.Prohibitions on felons and the mentally ill owning guns are legitimate if they are incarcerated. However, if a felon has served his time or 'mental illness' is simply the opinion of a psychologist about someone who has not been committed, then it is not. Which places are really 'sensitive' can be determined by how they treat the general public. If they allow visitors unmolested, then they are not sensitive and arms must be allowed. Only if the public is allowed by permission only, and hence there are guards and barriers (e.g. military bases) can arms be banned. Aside from the prohibition of selling arms to known criminals, regulation of the sale of arms is illegitimate.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”This makes no sense. Whether you have a right to have a weapon depends on how many other people use it? The definitions of 'arms' cited earlier in the opinion don't say this. Whether a type of arm is common, or even exists, has no connection to whether you have a right to it. According to the standard the court proposes, if the government bans a weapon after it is common, this is unconstitutional, while if it bans it before it is common, this is constitutional, even though it is a greater infringement!
One is tempted to blame Justice Kennedy for the flaws in the majority opinion, though this cannot be proven.
Implications:
What does this decision mean for other gun control laws? The only federal gun control law clearly appears to be unconstitutional is the gun-free school zones act. Not necessarily the part about the schools themselves, but the part that bans guns within 1000 feet of a school, theoretically including people's houses. In fact, an earlier version of the same law was struck down as unconstitutional because the commerce clause did not allow such a regulation.
The 1932, 1968, 1986, and Brady (1993) gun control bills are not affected by this decision. Of course, it is certainly possible that future decisions could build on this one and affect them. The Lautenberg amendment (1996) related to 'domestic violence' might possibly be affected.
Whether state gun laws are affected depends on whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. The only way it could do so is if it is 'incorporated' by the 14th amendment. Courts have not to date ruled that it is, and have treated the rest of the Bill of Rights piecemeal on this point. The court declined to rule on this issue, and it sent mixed signals. Incorporation is a very dubious principle, but as long as it exists, there is no reason why it should not be used to advance freedom.
If the Second Amendment is incorporated, then laws such as the Chicago gun ban would be unconstitutional. The NRA has already filed suit against Chicago and several of its suburbs for their gun bans, and against San Francisco for its ban on guns in public housing. Several other local gun laws could be threatened.
People:
Who deserves credit for this decision? Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy, of course. Lawyers Alan Gura and Robert Levy filed this lawsuit and guided it through years of hard work. The plaintiffs Heller, Parker, and the others. The NRA (later on) for rounding up lots of Congressmen and state Attorneys General to support the suit.
Who doesn't deserve credit? The Bush administration, whose Solicitor General opposed overturning the ban and argued this position in court. The NRA (early) which tried to sabotage the suit by filing a non-Second Amendment suit and merging the two. In fairness, the NRA had very real concerns about the strategy behind this suit. If Justice O'Connor was still on the court instead of Justice Alito, the result could have been very different.
Finally, shame must be affixed to Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer. They attempted a truly evil act. They tried to annihilate one of our most basic rights and freedoms. For this they deserve our everlasting contempt.
Previous: Second Amendment at the Supreme Court
Friday, June 27, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Cannon Fired
Utah Republican voters have ousted Congressman Chris Cannon of Utah in a primary election. He was defeated by Jason Chaffetz by a large margin, 60% to 40%.
This is significant. While Cannon is conservative in some ways, he is absolutely awful on immigration. He is the biggest supporter of open borders amongst house Republicans.
This is the first time that a primary defeat of an incumbent Republican member of Congress is clearly attributable to immigration.
When Cannon survived tough primary challenges in previous elections, the Wall Street Journal wrote editorials saying that most voters didn't care about immigration. What will they say now?
Cannon was also bad on some spending issues, such as his vote for the Medicare prescription drug bill.
Incumbent Republican Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland was ousted by voters earlier this year. He lost over a combination of issues, including abortion, gun rights, economic issues, the war in Iraq, and immigration.
For more on Cannon record on immigration, see this blog post.
This is significant. While Cannon is conservative in some ways, he is absolutely awful on immigration. He is the biggest supporter of open borders amongst house Republicans.
This is the first time that a primary defeat of an incumbent Republican member of Congress is clearly attributable to immigration.
When Cannon survived tough primary challenges in previous elections, the Wall Street Journal wrote editorials saying that most voters didn't care about immigration. What will they say now?
Cannon was also bad on some spending issues, such as his vote for the Medicare prescription drug bill.
Incumbent Republican Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland was ousted by voters earlier this year. He lost over a combination of issues, including abortion, gun rights, economic issues, the war in Iraq, and immigration.
For more on Cannon record on immigration, see this blog post.
McCain Still Supports Amnesty
A corespondent to Michelle Malkin reports on John McCain's closed-door speech to a Hispanic group.
Rep. Tom Tancredo is challenging McCain on this issue.
Then John McCain aid the exact thing I came to hear, he said “I was proud to work for Comprehensive Immigration Reform and If I am elected President I assure you that in 2009 I will ask Congress to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” (The crowd goes wild) “It is a Federal Responsibility” he said and continued ” we also need a temporary guest worker program”And this:
New York - The Republican candidate for the White House, Senator John McCain, promised that if he wins, a day after he is sworn in as a new president of the United States, he will pressure Congress to enact a law immediately in favor of immigration reform."Comprehensive Immigration Reform" is McCain's name for what everyone else calls amnesty. After McCain's popularity collapsed in the wake of the defeat of the 2007 amnesty bill, he promised not to support amnesty until the border was secured.
Rep. Tom Tancredo is challenging McCain on this issue.
Now, in an open letter to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, Tancredo is questioning McCain's role in a private meeting with Hispanic leaders in Chicago last week, and is challenging the candidate to stand firm on border security, regardless of the audience he's addressing.Is anyone really surprised by this?
The finger-in-your-chest tone of the letter may have subtly accused McCain of backpedaling on border security pledges in Chicago, where it was reported McCain promised an audience of 150 Hispanic leaders "comprehensive immigration reform."
"Senator," reads Tancredo's letter, "given your past sponsorship of amnesty legislation, such statements raise troubling questions. Are you planning to break a promise you made in February to postpone all other immigration reform legislation until we have first secured our borders?"
The letter goes on to allege that promises for secure borders have been dangled as carrots to lead legislators into voting for amnesty measures, but were then yanked away unfulfilled "after the amnesty was achieved."
"Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives are resolved to never let that happen again," the letter warns. "Are you prepared to wage war on conservatives to secure another amnesty for illegal aliens? I hope not," wrote Tancredo.
District 62 Residence Dispute
There has a been a dispute over the residency of a candidate for the 62nd state house district (Calhoun County), County Commissioner Greg Moore.
There are several articles in the Battle Creek Enquirer that explain the issue. The County Clerk declined to remove his name from the ballot, and the issue may now be decided in court.
Greg Moore hits residency snag in 62nd District race
Candidate's residency challenged
Moore likely to be on ballot
While candidates should certainly follow election laws, this doesn't seem like a big deal. Moore was chief of staff to Mike Nofs, who represents the 62nd district, and he represents part of it on the county commission. It's not like he has no connection to the district. Why not let the voters decide?
Also see the 62nd District Preview.
There are several articles in the Battle Creek Enquirer that explain the issue. The County Clerk declined to remove his name from the ballot, and the issue may now be decided in court.
Greg Moore hits residency snag in 62nd District race
Candidate's residency challenged
Moore likely to be on ballot
While candidates should certainly follow election laws, this doesn't seem like a big deal. Moore was chief of staff to Mike Nofs, who represents the 62nd district, and he represents part of it on the county commission. It's not like he has no connection to the district. Why not let the voters decide?
Also see the 62nd District Preview.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
