Sunday, October 29, 2006


This update focuses on population. The Unites States recently surpassed 300 million people, according to official estimates. Conservatives celebrate American prosperity and abundance. Liberals display anti-human bias with their belief that population is a problem and that too many people exist.

Jonah Goldberg reviews the history of liberal support for eugenics.
Terry Jeffrey writes that liberals see humanity as a cancer on Earth.
Joseph D'Agostino argues that population is good, illegal immigration is bad.
Joseph D'Agostino proves that the United States is not overpopulated.
Mac Johnson blames liberal culture for America's low birthrate.
Joseph D'Agostino shows that the United Nations promotes genocide in the third world.
Joseph D'Agostino shows that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are promoting genocide against humanity.

POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.

Bailey Settles

Former WMU President Judy Bailey has settled with the University. Her severance will cost the University $530,000. She will also receive retirement benefits.

Bailey's lawsuit against the University says a lot about whose interests she put first as President.

Friday, October 27, 2006

Politics Blizzard

Developments are coming fast and furious...


Robert Novak provides another report on the status of the House and Senate.

If things like this keep happening, voters may start fleeing the country during election season.

The Gazette has started making its endorsements. They don't endorse Jack Hoogendyk, and don't endorse the Democrat either. Go figure. I shredded their inane editorial on Jack before the primary.

Gazette editor Jim Borden recounts the recent Jon Silver controversy. Of course, it was the commenters who were reasonable, and Silver unreasonable.


Mike Bouchard continues to build momentum. Mike spent yesterday in West Michigan. While in Kalamazoo he visited with the Western Michigan University College Republicans and then headed over to Grand Rapids. National attention, the President coming in later today on behalf of his campaign, and great reviews from his debates, forums and appearances are changing the dynamics of this race. The trend is moving our way and Mike is in position to take advantage of the opportunities.


While the 2006 election cycle nears its climax, maneuvering is already underway for the 2008 Presidential election. The State Republican party is dividing into camps supporting John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Joe Sylvester is upset about the number of College Republicans who he sees as supporting John McCain. Meanwhile, Jason Miller writes that Mitt Romney's record shows that he is not a conservative.


Republican Michigander reports information on liberal billionaire Jon Stryker who has spent millions to defeat Republicans here and here. Styrker's campaign of lies has nothing to do with outsourcing, the minimum wage, or George's medical practice. The real issue is homosexual rights. Stryker has spent millions to promote "gay rights," but since he know most people don't support them, he tries to fool people about other issues. From Saul's blog:

Kalamazoo-area philanthropist Jon STRYKER and his sister, Pat STRYKER, have dumped a combined $5.1 million into the new anti-Republican political action committee (PAC) known as "Coalition for Progress (CFP)." It's money that has almost exclusively gone into cable and radio commercials that bang on Republican candidates across the state.

Campaign finance documents filed today show CFP has spent $4 million this campaign cycle on advertising, robo-calls and other out-reach efforts to dissuade voters from picking Republican gubernatorial nominee Dick DeVOS and other GOP legislative candidates.


"So, what's a Legislature go for these days? $5.15 million," Resch said. "What do you get for $5.1 million? What kind of policies do you want passed in the Legislature for $5.1 million? What kind of voter approved laws do you want reversed for $5.1 million?"

Resch suggested Stryker, a gay activist, wants to overturn the voter-approved Proposal 2 of 2004 that constitutionally defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. He also said Stryker may want to "bust" open state spending.


In total, CFP reported having 74 contributions with 70 coming from someone other than Stryker. However, non-Stryker contributions accounted for less than a half of a percent of all the money CFP raised.
Stryker's "coalition" is a coalition of one. (Two, counting his sister Pat.) Yet another Stryker lie.

Judicial Tyranny

The New Jersey Supreme Court has issued a ruling imposing "gay marriage" on New Jersey. They actually went so far as to "order" the New Jersey legislature to pass a law creating "gay marriage," and gave them a "deadline" of six months to do so.

This is what conservatives mean by judicial tyranny. The New Jersey Supreme Court has no authority to order the state legislature to do anything. None at all. They certainly don't have the power to order that laws be passed. The courts' job is to enforce the law, not make the law.

This is the same bunch of jokers that in 2002 allowed the Democrats to replace a scandal-plagued Senate candidate with someone else even though it was clearly illegal to do so. They also declared partial-birth abortion a constitutional right, and tried to force the boy scouts to admit homosexual scoutmasters.

What about what the people want? What about democracy? I strongly recommend Ann Coulter's excellent column on the same topic. If we don't stop this, our republic will be reduced to a dictatorship of judges and bureaucrats.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Job Opportunity

In Michigan's difficult economic climate, finding a job may not be easy. Here's an opportunity for a job with Western that I received in an email.

Office of Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay & Transgender Student Services
Coordinator Position Description

Title: Coordinator
Level: Full-time (20 hours/week) Doctoral Associateship or Graduate Assistantship
Supervision: This position reports to Suzie Nagel, Associate Dean of Students, Division of Student Affairs.

Application Information: Please submit letter of interest and résumé by Monday, October 30 2006 to:

Suzie Nagel
Associate Dean of Students
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5326
(269) 387-2150

LBGT Student Services Mission: The mission of the Office of Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, and Transgender (LBGT) Student Services is to promote a campus climate that affirms and supports the academic and personal development of students who identify as lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender, transsexual, questioning, their partners, allies, and others who face discrimination due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. LBGT Student Services offers education about gender identity and sexual orientation to the WMU community and collaborates with registered student organizations and members of WMU and local community agencies to provide students with access to healthy resources, activities, and support services.

Purpose of Coordinator Position: To increase knowledge, awareness, and understanding among the WMU community of issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity; and to provide information, referral, support, and advocacy to lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender students in accordance with the mission of LBGT Student Services.

Coordinator Responsibilities:

1. Maintain and enhance the Safe On Campus and Transgender ally programs: publicize programs; schedule and conduct orientation/training sessions; periodically communicate with members; monitor and/or evaluate usage, effectiveness.

2. Maintain and enhance the LBGT SpeakOUT Panel program: publicize program to potential users; schedule programs and speakers; recruit and train new speakers; meet periodically with program members; compile summaries of user evaluations.

3. Identify departments, units, special groups or populations at WMU that could benefit from education to increase LBGT awareness, sensitivity, and responsiveness. Develop and provide training.

4. Continue the positive working relationship with LBGT registered student organizations OUTspoken and OUTreach.

5. In collaboration with registered student organizations and/or community agencies, plan, organize, and implement special activities and events that address the issues, concerns, or needs of LBGT students and allies – in particular, Fall Welcome Celebration, National Coming Out Day, and LBGT Awareness Week events.

6. Hold regular office hours.

7. Maintain and further awareness, use, and visibility of the office and its services.

a. Produce and distribute office brochures and other materials related to office services and activities.
b. Utilize media and communication vehicles to promote awareness of office.
c. Represent the office at appropriate events designed to share information about WMU resources and services (e.g., Welcome Week, Bronco Bash, RA Training, Graduate and Non-Traditional Student Services Fair, Orientation Leader Training).
d. Serve on University committees as appropriate and ensure that the perspectives and needs of LBGT students are represented.

8. Recruit, train, and supervise student employees and volunteers.

9. Provide information, referral, support, and advocacy to LBGT and ally students.

a. Collect and organize information about campus and community resources for LBGT students.
b. Provide information, support, and advocacy for students who are experiencing harassment or discrimination based on real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.
c. Maintain the resource library of educational materials related to the office mission.

10. Facilitate two meetings per semester of the Campus LGBT Advisory Committee. This group is comprised of WMU faculty, staff, and students who provide input and support to LBGT Coordinator and advocates for the needs of LBGT students at WMU.

11. Respond to requests by faculty, staff, and students for information about LBGT issues.

12. Routinely collect and report data and information on services provided by the office.

Rosana Alsaud Chairperson Graduate Student Advisory Committee Western Michigan University Office: (269) 387-8207 Fax: (269) 387-8232
Aren't you glad your tax dollars help to support this?

There goes another million

The Kalamazoo Public Schools are going to build a new middle school in the Arcadia neighborhood. The land for the school is being purchased from the Western Michigan University Foundation. What struck me about this story was one small paragraph within the story.

KPS is buying the land for $1 million, although it was appraised for $2 million earlier this year, said Robert Beam, WMU vice president for business and finance.
So the WMU Foundation just decided to sell the land for a million dollars below market value. The foundation is a private entity, though the fact that it has a website suggests that it is not entirely private. The foundation is funded by private donations, so it can use its money how it wants. However, its stated mission is to support Western, not KPS. A million dollars not spent improving Western is a million dollars that will be demanded from the taxpayers.

I wonder if the people who donated this money know how it is being used?

Michigan Coalition for Lying

The Michigan "Coalition for Progress" is running ads that attack State Senator Tom George.

The ads claim that George voted against raising the minimum wage, without ever pointing out that he voted in favor of raising the minimum wage. George voted for a different version of the same bill.

The ads also claimed that the clinic that employs George "refuses" to accept Blue Cross/Blue Shield coverage. This is a flat-out lie. When they were caught lying to voters, several local radio stations refused to run the ads. The Coalition for Progress then changed the ads to say that the clinic "refused" to accept the coverage. It's doubtful that most voters noticed the one-letter change.

While technically accurate, the ad strongly implies that this is something that is happening today. They don't mention that the clinic "refused" to do so SIX YEARS AGO. In any case, George had no control over that policy. Even if the clinic did refuse this coverage, it would just mean that they would lose business to some other clinic.

The ads also don't deign to point out the "Coalition for Progress" is actually a billionaire liberal named Jon Stryker.

As liberalism has become increasingly unpopular, many liberals have rebranded themselves with the label "progressive." A progressive is literally someone who is for progress. Of course, this is totally uninformative since people wildly disagree about what constitutes progress. In this case, it would seem that "progress" means overturning the traditional bourgeois moral prohibition against lying.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Your attacks make you look stupid

Today I'm sitting here watching some football and an ad comes on. It's Canada Jenny attacking DeVos on his stance on abortion. Here's the kicker to anyone who knows anything about government. Until the United States Supreme Court realizes abortion is NOT a Constitutional right, the Michigan governor's stance on the issue doesn't mean jack. How could DeVos outlaw almost all types of abortion when the Supreme Court says it's a woman's right? It's like hiring an IT coordinator and getting upset because they don't wear clothes that match. Doesn't really have much to do with the job right now.

So what does this amount to? Granholm is doing nothing but 1. Scaring the clueless into voting for her and 2. Taking a pot shot at DeVos that really means nothing. Also, what it amounts to for people like me is that Granholm doesn't even know the scope of the position she's held for the past 4 years. Maybe it's just me, but I'm sick of the negative attacks on both sides.

POLITICAL UPDATE--National Security

This update focuses on national security. North Korea recently tested a nuclear weapon. America continues to be threatened by Islamic terrorists. Liberals persist in trying to weaken our security. We need to realistically understand the threats that we face.

Richard Mgerdechian writes that liberals are undermining our security.
Frank Gaffney writes that Ronald Reagan was right about missile defense.
Mac Johnson shows that Citgo is run by Hugo Chavez, an anti-American dictator.
Ann Coulter argues that liberals want to appease our enemies.
Walter Williams asks whether we have the will to win the war on terrorism.
Thomas Sowell warns that the threat of nuclear terrorism is growing larger.
Ann Coulter writes that we should use racial profiling to stop Islamic terrorists.
Phyllis Schlafly writes that North Korea shows that we need a missile-defense system.
Ann Coulter writes that liberals won't secure America because they don't like America.
Ann Coulter shows how the New York Times undermines national security.

POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Politics Roundup

Links with little or no comment...

Robert Novak gives an assessment of House, Senate, and Governor races.

The Strykers, a couple of local billionaire liberals, are trying to oust Republicans.

The Gazette reports on the race for the sixth congressional district.

Kalamazoo settled a lawsuit by a former police officer.

Green Party gubernatorial candidate Douglas Campbell has lots of fun ideas, including creating a state currency for Michigan. I wonder if the US Constitution has anything to say about that?

The Herald has an awful editorial on population. See my comment.

Single-State Recession

An interesting article in National Review examines Michigan's single-state recession.

Trained economists are debating the various factors that have contributed to Michigan’s single-state recession. These include fiscal, regulatory, trade, and monetary policy. By contrast, too many Michigan politicians have resorted to the logical fallacy of poisoning the well in an election year.


Before his untimely passing in August, Stephen Dresch advanced a neo-Hayekian critique of the Michigan government’s many failed attempts to pick economic winners with tax dollars. According to Dawson Bell of the Detroit Free Press, Dresch helped set in motion investigations of university economic-development activity “which led to public outcry, criminal convictions and the departure of high-level officials” at Michigan Technological University. Dresch was later elected to the state legislature as a Republican in a heavily-Democratic Upper Peninsula district.

It was Hayek who argued that governments lack the knowledge to successfully engage in central planning. And Dresch, a Yale Ph.D, was treated in a boorish manner in Lansing for defending this moral high ground. But there is cause for longer-term optimism. Dresch’s critics lost this year’s policy battle over the single-business tax, while more positive change seems inevitable in the wake of Michigan’s severe employment and income declines.

Those serious about solving Michigan’s economic problems should reflect on Dresch’s critiques and let private venture capitalists and entrepreneurs, not politically connected funds and authorities, allocate capital.

One lesson to be learned from Michigan’s single-state recession is that economics trumps politics. Another is that markets don’t wait for politicians.
Government can't pick winners and losers better than the free market can. That means that every time politicians take money by force and spend it on job creation, investing in education, targeted tax breaks, economic incentives, or whatever the latest fad is, they make the economy worse, not better.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

More immigration inanity

Liberals continue to promote myths about immigration.

One example in a Kalamazoo Gazette editorial on America reaching a population of 300 million. At least the Gazette doesn't endorse the population bomb nonsense that we're about to run out of food and starve to death. They correctly note that much of our population gain is due to immigration.

They then dismiss any concern over this country's immigration problems by saying:

If Americans feel their nation is under siege by the flood of immigrants, it's not the first time. Waves of Irish, Jewish, Chinese and Eastern European immigrants made native-born Americans worry that these new groups would never assimilate and would forever change American culture.

They did assimilate and they did forever change American culture -- for the better.

The current wave of immigrants will do the same. They will assimilate and they will change American culture -- for the better.
Once again, the Gazette resorts to the classic assertion without any evidence. Anyone who has studied the previous waves of immigration to this country knows that they created huge problems of crime, cultural disunity, and political instability.

But these problems went away, right? So what is there to worry about?

This completely ignores the fact that these problems did not solve themselves. They were solved by addressing, rather than ignoring them. For one thing, immigration was entirely halted for a while. Presumably, the Gazette would also endorse this today, right? Assimilation came about thanks to a culture that demanded it. The multiculturalism that is all to prevalent today actively fights against assimilation.

Did previous immigration change American culture for the better? This is a complex question that requires study to answer, not the glib assertion that the Gazette provides. In some ways, yes; in other ways probably not.

Moreover, does this tell us anything about immigration today? The analogy between yesterday's and today's immigration is flawed in a number of ways. Today's immigration comes largely from one country that borders America. Modern communication and changes in American culture make assimilation more difficult.

Will today's immigration improve American culture? All the evidence suggest otherwise.

The Gazette also suggests that immigration is the answer to our social security problem. I would argue that the fact that social security is a pyramid scheme that depends on taking from existing workers to support today's retirees is the real problem. Of course, immigrants will also claim social security someday, including those who haven't paid anything into the system. Expecting them to fix a broken system is foolhardy.

Declining birth rates are a real problem in American society. We ought to try to address this cultural problem, not drown it out with immigration from other cultures.

Meanwhile, a speech at Western propagated more myths. My comment on the article addresses some of them.

Risky business

One of the stranger aspects of the debate over the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is the opposition of big business. A column in the Detroit News examines this phenomenon.

Big Business bosses oppose Proposal 2 because, they say, it threatens to scuttle efforts to diversify their work forces when their customer base -- and the global economy -- is diversity writ large. Big Labor and civil rights groups oppose it. Gov. Jennifer Granholm and her challenger, Dick DeVos, oppose it.

Big names, but not enough pull and not enough big money. That's why One United Michigan, a broad coalition formed to defeat Prop 2, is holding a fund-raiser Tuesday in Detroit, why Jesse Jackson is expected to be here this week, why a Washington political consultant, the Dewey Square Group, has been hired to galvanize opposition.

Clock is ticking

Each of Detroit's automakers has contributed $250,000. Comerica and DTE Energy each spent $150,000, people close to the effort tell me, and Toyota Motor Co. has pledged $100,000. Still, organizers are concerned they are running short on cash and time.

They worry that they have not yet stated a compelling case for why the proposal would be bad for Michigan, especially as it's gutting through a brutal transition from Old Economy industrial state to, theoretically, a New Economy knowledge state.

They haven't stated a compelling case, because they don't have one.

One real-world answer: That despite the wide disparity in school systems across Michigan, applicants to state universities would be treated the same, even if the resources and environment of their educations are anything but -- and everyone knows it.

Another real-world answer: That Michigan risks providing a legal template for challenging myriad programs -- say a university's outreach to girls interested in math and science -- when it most needs to attract and nurture talent. How does that help?
As much as we may dislike disproportionate outcomes, they are a reflection of reality. They are not going to go away by pretending they don't exist. We can't use universities to fix bad public schools.

From the perspective of our economic well-being, why does it matter whether our scientists are men or women? If we want more mathematicians and scientists, why not promote these subjects to both boys and girls?

Essentially, these business leaders are saying that the way to improve Michigan's economy is to promote less qualified people in place of more qualified people. With these people running major businesses, it's no wonder that our economy is in such bad shape.

Saturday, October 14, 2006


This update focuses on government. Government takes about half of everything that we earn. It spends money in ways that make us all worse off. It takes away our freedom through regulations and programs. Government is based on force and it is always looking for new ways to expand its power.

Lew Rockwell shows how government regulations damage America.
Thomas DiLorenzo argues that the Homeland Security Department threatens freedom.
Terry Jeffrey shows that government bureaucrats waste our money.
Thomas DiLorenzo lists many ways that government threatens our freedom.
Congressman Ron Paul explains how the IRS threatens free speech.
Walter Williams explains how government tyranny hurts Africa.
Congressman Ron Paul explains why the estate tax must be repealed.
Ron Paul explains how foreign aid hurts both Americans and foreigners.
Herman Cain explains how Social Security defrauds America.
James Plummer writes that government want to surveil us on our own property.

POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.

Taking the fight to Canada

I had to laugh at Debbie Stabenow's most recent campaign ad. It goes along with other recent liberal efforts to demonize people for political gain.

The ad focuses on the "issue" of Canadian trash. It attacks Mike Bouchard for what he supposedly did concerning the issue, and contrasts this with what Stabenow supposedly did in Washington. I don't know about the truth of the specific claims, though given the source, I strongly suspect that they aren't true.

What cracked me up was the line that after Republican wouldn't act, Stabenow "took the fight directly to Canada and got something done."

Took the fight to Canada!

Well, Blame Canada!
It seems that everything's gone wrong
since Canada came along
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
They're not even a real country anyway.
The smut we must stop
The trash we must smash
Laughter and fun must all be undone
We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before somebody thinks of blaming us!
What do liberals have against Canada? Isn't Canada the northern wonderland with socialized medicine, "gay marriage," and gun control that liberals are always trying to foist on us?

Recently I heard a Democratic operative say that they would focus on issues that affect people's lives, like Canadian trash. How does Canadian trash affect your life? With all the caterwauling from liberals like Stabenow, you'd think that people were being buried alive under mountains of Canadian trash.

As far as I know, Canadian trash isn't any different from American trash. Trash isn't a good thing, but it can be managed efficiently in our free market system. We bury it in landfills designed to prevent any environmental damage. When they are full, they are capped, and can be used as parks or golf courses. It's not as if we're running out of land.

The irony here is that liberals are setting themselves in opposition to Canadian environmental regulations. The ridiculous government regulations in Canada are the reason that it is more cost-effective to drive hundreds of miles to Michigan than dispose of trash locally.

The fact is that trash-hauling is a part of our economy. Banning Canadian trash imports would result in hundreds of lost jobs. It's pretty ironic that liberals are touting every hundred jobs here and there while simultaneously advocating banning hundreds more jobs. The Canadian regulations are wrong; but they hurt Canada, not America.

Once again, liberals use demagoguery to advance their political fortunes.

Unity through demagoguery

One of the ironies of liberalism is that liberals claim to support diversity and tolerance and multiculturalism, and oppose racism and hatred. Then, they turn around and demonize anyone when it is politically convenient.

This isn't "hypocrisy," once you understand the real meaning of terms like "multiculturalism" and "political correctness." Still, it's interesting to see that the ethics of liberalism allows the violation of all its supposed noble principles in pursuit of political power.

One example is the demonization of China. The Granholm campaign and state Democratic Party have run a number of ads attacking China during the gubernatorial campaign. There's nothing wrong with attacking China, which certainly has plenty to criticize. But China is not the reason that Michigan is suffering through a single-state recession. If Republicans had run similar ads, you can bet liberals would call them racist.

If Granholm and the Democrats had any shame, they would be afraid to show their faces in public with the record they have. Instead, they decided to lie like there's no tomorrow. This means saying whatever it takes win, including demagoguery.

Another example is the opponents of the MCRI. One of the liberals' talking points is that the initiative is being foisted on us by outsiders from California.

This is a California campaign run by California people with California ideas on how to change Michigan's constitution, which is working very well," said David Waymire, spokesman for Citizens for a United Michigan, which was formed to oppose the ballot proposal.
What do liberals have against California?

Of course, liberals aren't telling the truth. The the campaign for the MCRI was initiated by Michigan citizens in the wake of the Supreme Court rulings in the University of Michigan cases. They contacted Ward Connerly, who had experience promoting similar initiatives.

Given the wacko liberals who run the California legislature, California should practically be paradise for liberals. Why attack them? Michigan liberals are hoping to subtly play on the revulsion of conservatives and other normal people to the radical liberalism of Hollywood, San Francisco, and the California legislature.

The real issue is not who is sponsoring the MCRI, and whether they live in Michigan, but whether it is a good idea. Of course, liberals are lying about that, too.

The third example is the absurd debate over "Canadian trash." But this post is getting longer than I thought it would, so I'll save that for my next post.

Doom! Doom!

If anyone doubts that the opponents of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative will say anything to stop it from passing, look no further than this article from the Detroit News.

LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Opponents of a ballot proposal that would ban some affirmative action programs in Michigan are running a statewide radio ad that likens the measure to the Sept. 11 and Hurricane Katrina disasters.

"If you could have prevented 9/11 from ever happening, would you have?" an announcer asks in the ad. "If you could have prevented Katrina from ever happening, what would you have done? On November 7th, there's a national disaster headed for Michigan: the elimination of affirmative action."

The announcer then urges listeners to "take a stand" and vote against the proposal.

Backers of the anti-affirmative-action proposal swiftly condemned the 60-second ad Friday.

"This is very disgusting. How can they talk to a widow of a fireman and say that this is equivalent to 9/11?" said Doug Tietz, spokesman for the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.

A spokesman for One United Michigan, the group airing the ad, stood by it.

"Taking away opportunities from families and women is exactly like taking away their lives," Dave Waymire said. "We think this ad is a wake-up call to Michigan about the damage this proposal will do to our state."
We're all going to die!

Not to belabor the obvious, but 9/11 and Katrina both killed more than a thousand people. The opponents of proposal 2 know that most people oppose racial discrimination. Their strategy from day one has been lying and fear-mongering.

Don't be too surprised if you hear before November that the MCRI will resurrect the confederacy.

Despite the attacks, the MCRI continues to hold a narrow lead, 50-41 in the latest poll. To push the MCRI to victory, we need to expose the lies of "One United Michigan" and BAMN. We can all play a part in making that happen.

The facts about North Korea

Ann Coulter's latest column reminds us of the history leading up to North Korea's nuclear test that liberals don't want you to know. Read it all.

Current New Mexico governor and former Clinton administration official Bill Richardson has been on tour, bragging about the groundbreaking Clinton administration negotiations with North Korea -- keeping his fingers crossed that no one has access to news from 1994.

In 1994, the Clinton administration got a call from Jimmy Carter -- probably collect -- who was with the then-leader of North Korea, saying: "Hey, Kim Il Sung is a total stud, and I've worked out a terrific deal. I'll give you the details later."

Clinton promptly signed the deal, so he could forget about North Korea and get back to cheating on Hillary. Mission accomplished.

Under the terms of the "agreed framework," we gave North Korea all sorts of bribes -- more than $5 billion worth of oil, two nuclear reactors and lots of high technology. In return, they took the bribes and kept building nukes. This wasn't difficult, inasmuch as the 1994 deal permitted the North Koreans to evade weapons inspectors for the next five years.

Yes, you read that right: North Korea promised not to develop nukes, and we showed how much we trusted them by agreeing to no weapons inspections for five years.

The famed "allies," whom liberals claim they are so interested in pleasing, went ballistic at this cave-in to North Korea. Japan and South Korea -- actual allies, unlike France and Germany -- were furious. Even Hans Blix thought we were being patsies.

If you need any more evidence that it was a rotten deal, The New York Times hailed it as "a resounding triumph."

At the time, people like William Safire were screaming from the rooftops that allowing North Korea to escape weapons inspections for five years would "preclude a pre-emptive strike by us if North Korea, in the next U.S. president's administration, breaks its agreement to freeze additional bomb-making."

And then on Oct. 17, 2002 -- under a new administration, you'll note -- The New York Times reported on the front page, so you couldn't have missed it: "Confronted by new American intelligence, North Korea has admitted that it has been conducting a major clandestine nuclear weapons development program for the past several years."

So when it comes to North Korea, I believe the Democrats might want to maintain a discreet silence, lest anyone ask, "Hey, did you guys do anything with North Korea?"
It's also worth pointing out that North Korea continues to exist thanks to aid from China. If China cut off the oil pipelines, North Korea would collapse. If they really didn't want Korea to get nukes, all they would nave to do is but off aid. Given this, should we really believe that this is something that China didn't want?

Why might China want such a regime to have nuclear weapons?

Saturday, October 07, 2006


This update focuses on judges. Judicial activists continue to impose their will on America. This does great damage to our country. The power of judges must be restrained, and honest judges must be confirmed to the bench.

George Detweiler says a constitutional convention isn't the answer to judicial activism.
Phyllis Schlafly writes that lower court judges threaten our freedom.
Thomas Sowell writes that judges threaten our national security.
Schlafly writes that the Roberts court has been seduced by trying to create "consensus".
Schlafly writes that judges have ordered tax increases in Texas.
Schlafly lists many ways judges damage sovereignty, marriage, border security, and more.

End eminent domain abuse

One of the proposal on the ballot in November would restrict the situations in which government can use eminent domain.

Eminent domain is the principle under which the government can buy land that the owner does not want to sell. This has traditionally been reserved for government projects like roads and airports. But some governments have taken land to give it to private developers or politically connected corporations. The theoretical justification for this is that the new owners will pay more taxes, thus enriching the government, a "public benefit."

In 1981, more than a thousand homeowners in a traditionally Polish neighborhood were forcibly displaced to make way for a new factory in Hamtramck, Michigan. In what became known as the Poletown case, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that there was nothing wrong with this. In 2004, the now conservative court overruled the Poletown case.

In 2005, this issue exploded in the public mind with the Supreme Court case Kelo v. Hew London. The U. S. Supreme Court ruled that there was nothing wrong with this practice. This sparked a movement to abolish this practice. Michigan is currently only protected by a court ruling. Thus the legislature moved to amend the state Constitution to stop eminent domain abuse. The amendment passed both houses with more than two thirds of the vote, and must now be approved by a popular vote. Proposal 4 would end eminent domain abuse and require government to pay 125% of the value of property to prevent theft by underassessment.

Eminent domain is a huge violation of private property rights. Most basically, it is wrong to take land unless absolutely necessary. It is also a huge avenue for corruption, as corporations can contribute to politicians to get them to take land that they can't buy. It also assumes that government can better decide how best to use property than the people who own it. This is the basic assumption of socialism.

Phyllis Schlafly provides information on the nationwide movement to protect property rights, and argues that taking land to increase tax revenue is unconstitutional.

Thomas Sowell calls eminent domain abuse "socialism for the rich," as wealthy developers can take property at below-market rates.

Proposal 4 must be passed.

Dove Hunting

One of the propositions on the ballot in Michigan would allow dove hunting. The Michigan legislature passed a bill to allow this which was signed by the Governor, but opponents collected enough signatures to force the issue on the ballot. This article provides much good information on the issue.

Dove hunting on the ballot in November

When the dove-Americans win the right to vote, our only game birds will be hawks.

But only regular Americans get to vote. In Michigan, they'll decide whether we'll have rational, science-based hunting or if we'll base laws on the emotional needs of extremists.

The issue on the ballot is dove hunting. The bigger issue, though, is who should be in charge of determining public policy in our state. Should we have laws based on facts, or should we let demagogues make the rules? Dove-Americans? The idea of dog-Americans and cat-Americans is attributed to Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, the group behind efforts to ban dove hunting. I think blaming the HSUS for the concept of citizenship for animals was meant as a joke.

But the group is not funny.

In a 2004 Washington Post article, he included in his goals: Ending animal acts in circuses, ending the use of animals in medical research, and ending hunting.

That's what the dove vote is about: Ending hunting.

HSUS is working to get the people who raise the beef, pork or chicken you had for dinner out of business.

But it wants to protect those blamed for things like firebombing veterinary schools. Pacelle and his organization are opposed to dove hunting and labeling animal-rights criminals as terrorists.

HSUS stands alone in opposition to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The act would strengthen penalties for lunatics who blow people up to protect laboratory rats.

So think of Proposal 3 as a referendum on good sense. Vote yes for intelligent game management by wildlife biologists. Or vote no because Pacelle wants you to.

Anti-hunters are pushing three arguments against dove hunting: Doves are too small to eat, doves don't make a mess, and the Bible says doves are the bird of peace, doves are songbirds, and doves mate for life.

In the fields, those are called easy targets.

First, how big is big enough to eat? Cows are bigger than turkeys, so goodbye to that Thanksgiving tradition?

Second, the doves are harmless is an argument from people who live in New York City or wherever HSUS has its offices. Farmers, particularly those who grow seed or grain crops such as sunflowers, know the mourning dove is good at stealing crops.

Third, the "bird of peace" is a Eurasian turtledove, an entirely different genus and species from the mourning doves that are hunted in very nearly every state across the country.

Next, doves aren't songbirds. If making noises qualifies a bird as a songbird, squawking chickens would be songbirds.

And finally, the whole mating-for-life thing defies the evidence and good sense. Mourning doves have an annual mortality rate of about 70%. That means three in four mourning doves alive this fall will be gone by next fall, whether because of weather, predation, disease, accident or hunting. The idea that the one in four that remains will be wearing their widow weeds forever is just silly.

Vote yes on Proposal 3.
I love the "symbols of peace" argument. Aren't eagles symbols of war? If so, can we hunt them?

Don't let the animal rights extremists win this one.

Why we need English

Why do we need English as our official language? Because if we don't speak a common language, we can't communicate. Case in point is a recent controversy in the Herald. Many students have great difficulty communicating with foreign students. This illustrates the problems that can and will arise if we don't all speak the the same language. This comment summarizes the problem.

posted 9/29/06 @ 6:32 PM EST
Here is one thing you never, never want to do. Don't tell a professor you don't want to be in another group with an international student who won't pull his or her weight. I had the bad luck to be assigned to a group with two foreign students who I knew from class sessions didn't speak much English.

I had been in a group my prior, Sophomore year with a foreign student and had to do my portion of the work and hers because of her language and cultural difficulties. In other words you had to talk at half speed while she checked her dictionary and when she talked, which wasn't much, wait for her to go back and forth in her little dictionary looking for words in English. The cultural difficulties were that she didn't know how things work here so a lot of things made no sense to her even when she understood the literal translation of the words.

I would do no better in her country but I didn't go to her country and I ended up doing twice as much work and got dinged on the grade because she didn't participate in the class presentation of our work.

So, I didn't want to go through that double with two foreign students. When I asked to be assigned to a different group I got the kind of lecture Jonathan Silver would give me about cultural insensitivity, blah, blah, blah and my relationship with the professor went South and I got hurt on my grade.

Supposedly it is a great life skill to be able to deal with someone who doesn't speak much English or understand much about us but I don't imagine there are many companies in America where they hire a lot of people who barely speak any English and don't know anything about America except what they see on dubbed tv. The fact that I would do just as badly in their country is irrelevant because I'm not going to their country to impose myself on them.
Many commenters offer insights on this problem. Students from other countries can't speak English, and so hang out by themselves. Professors accommodate them with special treatment, which creates resentment. Criticizing this situation is politically incorrect, and will quickly get you labeled racist. There is a huge double standard for how Americans and foreign students are treated in parallel situations.

With both legal and illegal immigration out of control, this situation is only going to get worse. We need to create a culture that makes learning English imperative. Passing official English is one part of making that happen.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Stop the spin so I can get off

OK, I was flipping through the channels here and I saw something completely unacceptable. I came accross Lou Dobbs on CNN. They did a story titled "War on the Middle Class." Can you guess what the news story was about? If you guessed raising the minimum wage, then you're right. It's a little known fact that most people consider themselves middle class regardless of where they really are. So even though the story was a bunch of people saying why we need to raise the minimum wage (note it was a one sided arguement. They didn't present a single person saying why it shouldn't be raised) which only directly effects those below the poverty line, they got people assuming the story was about them by tagging the label "Middle Class" to it.
Another case I saw in less than a minute. I saw the CBS Evening News had a leadoff story about Dennis Hastert. They said there are people in the Republican party calling for Hastert's resignation, but didn't name a single one. They implied Hastert had something to do with the Mark Foley situation but failed to submit any evidence that he had anything to do with the situation. Unless you're really paying attention, what you take away from the story is that the Republicans are in trouble.
A few years back we tried pushing legislation through the WSA calling for the addition of Fox News in the dorms. I'm starting to reconsider the idea. Maybe we should push it through again. Anyone interested in working with me on this, let me know.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Wackos can't wait

The deranged left on campus is staging an event tomorrow entitled "World Can't Wait: Drive out the Bush Regime." Michelle Malkin provides some details on this event.

The indispensable Discover the Networks site provides much more information on this group. "World Can't Wait" is actually a front group for none other than the Revolutionary Communist Party!

Founded in June 2005 by Charles Clark Kissinger, a longtime leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party, World Can't Wait (WCW) is a direct action movement seeking to organize "people living in the United States to take responsibility to stop the whole disastrous course led by the Bush administration." The organization asserts that removing President Bush from office "will be like removing a forty-pound tumor from your gut." WCW vows "to send Bush, Cheney and the rest of those fascists packing. ... After that, there are people in 'World Can't Wait' who are working for everything from reforming the Democratic party, to building a 3rd party, to revolution."


On September 20, 2006, WCW ran another ad in The New York Times, promoting its upcoming October 5 rally "to drive out the Bush regime." Billed as a set of concurrent "protests in cities all across the country," the ad exhorted people to skip work and school that day in order to participate in the demonstrations. The declared aim of the protests was to bring "to a halt" the U.S. government's alleged pursuit of "endless wars," its routine use of "torture," its indifference to the victims of Hurricane Katrina (in 2005), and its quest to transform the United States into a "theocracy."
Read it all. Once again, liberals are either supportive of or indifferent to communism. The eagerly ally with America's enemies.

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter is coming to speak on campus. Ritter took $400,000 from an agent of Saddam Hussein to finance a documentary. This money came from the Oil for Food Program, and hence from the oppression of the Iraqi people. Ritter has also had legal trouble for trying to meet with underage girls.

Ritter has been criticized for accepting $400,000 from Iraqi American businessman Shaker Al-Khaffaji for the financing of his 2000 documentary In Shifting Sands: The Truth About UNSCOM and the Disarming of Iraq[15]. According to a Washington Times article, Al-Khaffaji obtained the money from the U.N. Oil-for-Food program for goods imported into the country in violation of U.N. sanctions [16].


Ritter came under further criticism following a September 14, 2002, Time article where he refused to provide details regarding the conditions of the children's prison at the Iraqi General Security Services headquarters he inspected in January 1998. Ritter refused to provide details on the prison, containing "toddlers up to pre-adolescents," for fear that the information "...can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq." [18]

Legal problems
In 2001, Ritter was arrested near Albany, NY. News reports say Ritter had brushes with police on two occasions (in April and June), both involving allegations of intent to meet underage girls after chatting on the Internet.[19] [20]

Prosecutors initially agreed to charge Ritter with a misdemeanor with a view to dropping the charges if no further allegations against him arose in the following six months, and asked for court records to be sealed. Ritter himself says all charges were dismissed. However, it was claimed by WTEN-TV citing unnamed sources, that Ritter underwent court-ordered sex offender counseling from an Albany psychologist.[21]

Monday, October 02, 2006

Kalamazoo Peace Center

This week has been declared "Peace Week" by liberals on campus. So this seems like a good time to examine some of the nutty liberals on campus. Many of their efforts seem to revolve around the "Kalamazoo Peace Center," located in the Wesley foundation on campus.

According to their website, the Peace Center is a group of "students and others" dedicated to promoting liberalism. The center also refers to "the collective:"


The role of the Collective is to keep the Peace Center alive and productive.

Members of the Collective volunteer their time to cooperatively staff the office. The Collective participates in day-to-day activities and in long-term developmental goals of the Peace Center. If you are interested in being a volunteer or joining the collective feel free to download an application, send us an email, or stop by!
The Center was started 25 years ago as a project of the West Michigan Conference of the United Methodists, which says a lot about the decline of mainline Protestant denominations.

In the 1980's, it was used to promote the Nuclear Freeze movement. This movement demanded that the United States unilaterally stop building our nuclear capacities. Strangely, this was exactly what the Soviet Union wanted us to do. So what happened? Ronald Reagan did exactly the opposite of what the liberals wanted. He increased military spending. The Soviet Union went bankrupt trying to keep up, was demoralized, and collapsed. Four hundred million people were freed from communist tyranny, and there was no war. Today, the peace center's website acknowledges how wrong they were. Yes, I'm kidding.

Their "coalition" included the "anti-nuclear Valley Alliance, Citizens in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, Pushkin Institute, United Nations Association, and many faith-based groups such as the Presbyterian Church and Pax Cristi." I'm pretty sure that the "people of El Salvador" means the communists trying to overthrow the government of El Salvador.

Today, the Peace Center works with the Progressive Student Alliance, uniting such leftist organizations as "Students Against Sweatshops, Students' Kalamazoo Non-violent Opponents to War, NAACP, Western's Organization for Women and many more."

Then, the Progressive Student Alliance made a "daring" step--becoming the "Progressive Community Alliance." They work with organizations such as "Beehive Collective, Global Exchange, Oxfam and other national and international organizations." That's the Peace Center's "herstory."

As an organization championing peace, the Peace Center naturally supports banning jobs and racial discrimination. They demand a "living wage," which would ban any jobs that pay less. Of course, they oppose the MCRI:

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban both discrimination and affirmative action programs. This campaign exists to bring awareness to the community on the unethical aspects of this proposal and to get citizens to VOTE NO ON PROP 2 in November.
The Peace Center's calendar of events includes meetings of the Kalamazoo Homeless Action Network, which has provided some of the funnier moments in local politics.

Their community and links pages provide links to plenty more crazy liberal organizations. Ugh--I need to read Ann Coulter.