Friday, October 31, 2008

Herald on Levin

To no one's surprise, the Western Herald endorsed Carl Levin. But some of the comments in their endorsement make it clear that (once again) they don't know what they're talking about.

HERALD EDITORIAL: Levin’s focus on education, ending war and energy earn him Herald’s vote

We feel Levin shares a perspective more in-line with the Western Michigan University community, where Levin is a centrist Democrat and Hoogendyk leans far to the right. More importantly Levin has a proven record of bipartisan cooperation allowing him to implement legislation.
How is Levin 'centrist'? The Herald provides no evidence for this assertion. Levin has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 7%.

They also provide no evidence of his 'bipartisan cooperation'.

Both candidates acknowledge the bailout bill does not specifically address access to higher education.
Why would it?

Of course, this is the Herald as usual.

Carl Levin and American Sovereignty

Where does Senator Carl Levin stand on the issue of American sovereignty?

Levin has been a consistent supporter of the United Nations. He has voted to give billions to the International Monetary Fund. He has voted for sending UN troops to Darfur in the Sudan.

Levin voted for the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, which contained an endorsement of the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Levin voted against NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. But he voted for most-favored-nation trading status with China.

On the Issues: Carl Levin on Foreign Policy
Carl Levin: Senate Fast Track Vote

Gazette Endorsements

The Kalamazoo Gazette has made its endorsements. Most are not too surprising.

'No' on state Proposal 1
Vote 'yes' on Proposal 2
With reservations, we back transportation tax
Two good candidates, but we recommend DeShazor
Gazette recommendations in other House races
Gazette's recommendations for Kalamazoo County posts
Bill Murphy is best choice for District Court judgeship
No endorsement for either candidate for Supreme Court
Our recommendations for Kalamazoo County Board
Let Mr. Upton, Mr. Levin go back to Washington

Local Election News

News about local elections.

Chamber takes neutral stance on county transit millage
Tactics become the issue
PAC spends $2.3M on state House candidates
Students help swell voter rolls
Record registrations in Michigan

Two competing for prosecutor job
Four-year incumbent facing challenge

Republican Hoogendyk offers change
Senate candidates differ on government's roleIncumbent Levin a vigilant watchdog

Baillargeon, Cronin running for circuit judge in Allegan
Judgeship candidates differ in legal experience

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Gazette Attacks Jack Again

The Gazette has once again attacked Jack Hoogendyk in an editorial endorsing his opponent.

Let Mr. Upton, Mr. Levin go back to Washington

The Gazette also attacked Jack in their 2006 primary election endorsement. Once again, their arguments are either factually incorrect or poorly reasoned.

While Michigan's economy has remained stagnant throughout Hoogendyk's Lansing career -- something we certainly cannot blame on him -- he has spent too much time fighting embryonic stem-cell research, making English the official language of Michigan and battling the University of Michigan, and not enough time finding pragmatic solutions to Michigan's problems.

Hoogendyk, proudly an ideologue, would do little in Washington to advocate for the state and its residents. We expect he would be too busy waging culture wars that this nation is growing increasingly weary of.
This editorial echoes what the Gazette said in 2006. What they don't say is that most of Jack's focus on social issues was during his first term.

They fail to mention Jack's more recent focus on economic issues. Jack fought against the job-killing tax increase passed by the legislature. He has pushed for transparency in government spending. He has fought wasteful government spending, from the giveaway to movie makers, to the new state police headquarters, to the proposed taxpayer-funded Detroit River bridge. Jack passed a bill to give schools more flexibility in scheduling.

The Gazette may disagree with these measures, or think them ineffective, but not to acknowledge them at all is dishonest.

They make it sound as if the culture war was something started by conservatives. In truth, it was started by liberals to overthrow traditional western culture. Michigan's bad economy hasn't stopped liberals from pushing an embryonic stem-cell research ballot initiative, letting millions of illegal aliens into the country, and trying to create same-sex benefits funded by taxpayers. When has the Gazette ever attacked liberals for these things?

The Gazette's real problem with Jack is that they disagree with his views. But they prefer to call such issues 'divisive' rather than debate their merits.

Meanwhile, what does the Gazette say about Carl Levin?

He has been an effective voice for Michigan, defending the domestic auto industry, the state's bread and butter, and seeking support for protection of the Great Lakes.
And the auto industry is doing so well for his efforts! They neglect to mention that Levin voted for increasing CAFE standards that are hurting American auto makers so much.

Kalamazoo is growing increasingly weary of the Gazette.

Previous: Gazette attacks Jack

Taking on Levin

Human Events reports that a new group is attacking Senator Carl Levin. They are called Levin Too Liberal for Michigan.


Could the Murtha Effect Hit Michigan?

Carl Levin’s free pass just expired.

A new group called Levin Too Liberal for Michigan launched a website this morning quizzing constituents on the candidate’s liberal record in the U.S. Senate, including several questionable positions taken by the member of the Armed Services Committee on national defense. The group also took out a full page ad Sunday in Michigan’s Battle Creek Enquirer. The ad outlined Levin’s actions in the Senate, such as his opposition to missile-defense and his blockage of several key military appointments.

The group also takes Levin to task for using his powerful committee chairmanship to thwart the reappointment of Marine General Peter Pace as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and "smearing" White House and Pentagon officils who made tough decisions about terrorist interrogations.

Erik Diana, chairman of Levin Too Liberal for Michigan, said Levin has been given a free pass from the media after 29 years in the U.S. Senate.

“We’re just basically asking people to hold him accountable,” Diana told HUMAN EVENTS.

One example Diana cites -- and which appeared in Sunday’s ad – is Levin’s refusal to condemn for their New York Times ad calling Gen. David Petraeus a traitor. A resolution came before Congress to condemn the group for the ad, but Levin -- then chairman of the Armed Services Committee -- voted against doing so.


Read it all.

National City Takeover

Michelle Malkin passes on a report from Rep. Steven LaTourette that money from the trillion-dollar government bailout recently passed by Congress was used to finance the takeover of National City Bank by PNC Bank. National City Bank is a major employer in Kalamazoo since it bought First of America Bank in 1997.

Let's hope no one in Kalamazoo loses their jobs because of the bailout Congress passed.


GOP Rep. Steve LaTourette, one of the consistent opponents of socialism in the House, reports:

U.S. Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-OH) says he fears that John Dugan, Comptroller of the Currency, steered $7.7 billion of taxpayer bailout money to his former client, PNC, so it could buy National City Bank.

LaTourette today sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson outlining his concerns and asking for an investigation. He also asked House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) to hold a hearing on the Fed’s decision to have one regional bank (PNC) gobble up regional bank (National City) using bailout money. LaTourette is a senior member of the Financial Services panel.

The Pittsburgh-based PNC, which bought National City on Friday at a fire-sale price with federal bailout money, was one of Dugan’s clients just before he was sworn in as Comptroller of the Currency in August 2005, LaTourette said. Prior to becoming Comptroller, Dugan was a partner at Covington and Burling, a DC law firm that specializes in banking regulation.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Vote NO on Proposal 2

Proposal 2 on the ballot in Michigan in November concerns embryonic stem cell research. A stem cell is a human cell that can become many different types of cells. Some people believe that stem cell research has potential to cure some diseases.

There are several different types of stem cells. There are embryonic stem cells, which are the components of embryos that help them grow in babies. There are also adult stem cells that are in everyone's bodies, and there are umbilical cord stem cells, and induced stem cells, which are other cells conditioned to act like embryonic stem cells.

Research using all forms of stem cells is legal in America and in Michigan. The only thing that is illegal in Michigan is the destruction of human embryos for research. This is legal nationally, and embryonic stem cells can be imported into Michigan. There is no "ban" on embryonic stem cell research, much less all stem cell research. The only "restriction" on this research is that it currently cannot receive federal or state funding. In the same sense, government could be said to "ban" stamp-collecting because it does not subsidize it.

Proposal 2 would overturn Michigan's ban on the destruction of human embryos for research. Make no mistake. Embryos are human beings. Destroying an embryo is killing a human life. They are at the earliest stages of human development, and they are younger and smaller than us, but stage of development, age, and size do not affect whether someone is human or deserving of protection.

Don't be distracted by the argument that embryos "would be destroyed anyways". This is not some cosmic law of nature. It is a choice made by human beings. It could be otherwise. It is shameful that human embryos are treated this way, but it does not make destroying them for research OK. It wouldn't be right to kill elderly people for research because "they're going to die anyways". Frozen human embryos could be adopted and given a chance at life, and some have been. Can anyone tell the people who came from adopted embryos that they should have been killed for research?

Is embryonic stem cell research necessary to cure diseases? There is no reason to believe so. While stem cell research may be promising, it has been going on for a while now and it has not resulted in any cures as of yet. Adult stem cell research has resulted in treatments of diseases, while embryonic stem cell research has not resulted in a single treatment. Nor is it particularly promising, since embryonic stem cells are designed to grow into human beings, not a single type of healthy tissue. Use of embryonic stem cells in medical tests has led to tumors, not cures. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that any cure or treatment that could be achieved with embryonic stem cells (assuming there are any) couldn't be achieved with the other types of stem cells, which present no ethical issues.

This issue has been shamefully demagogued by the supporters of embryo destruction. There is no reason to expect the cures for millions of people that they promise. One of the worst claims of this sort was the claim by John Edwards that if he were elected Vice-President, Christopher Reeve would get up out of his wheelchair and walk.

Proposal 2 would do a lot more than just allow embryo destruction, though. This is a constitutional amendment, not a law, and it could not be changed in the slightest short of another constitutional amendment. This makes every detail even more worth considering. A careful reading of the language reveals several largely unknown consequences of this proposal.

The proposal says that "any research permitted under federal law maybe conducted in Michigan". "Under federal law" may sound tough, but federal law does not restrict embryo research at all. And federal law would supersede Michigan law anyways, so this provision does nothing.

The proposal places the limitation that the "embryos were created for the purpose of fertility treatment". "Fertility treatment" could certainly include human cloning or some other technique. This provision would be difficult to enforce in practice, as people could always say that they were creating embryos for fertility treatment and then "change their minds" later.

The proposal says that no one may "purchase or sell human embryos for stem cell research for stem cell therapies and cures". Thus they could be bought or sold for any other reason.

State and local laws could not "prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research" or "create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research". This would prevent state or local legislators from regulating a significant and growing field with lots of serious ethical questions surrounding it. The Michigan Constitution does not give any other industry such a blanket ban on regulation.

The proposal does not appropriate money for stem cell research. However, it would legalize embryo destruction and hence create the possibility of government spending to support this. Other state legislatures have spent many millions on embryo research at the behest of its proponents, and you can bet that they will make the same demands in Michigan. Further, it isn't hard to imagine some liberal court deciding that the prohibition on creating "disincentives" actually mandates funding, since not funding embryo research is a disincentive to conducting it.

If embryo research is so promising, why does it need government funding? Cures for diseases that affect millions of people would be worth many billions of dollars. Lots of private companies conduct medical research. So why can't embryonic stem cell research be funded through the market? Because the market believes that it isn't likely to work.

So why is embryonic stem cell research such a popular cause on the left? It's all about abortion. Leftists are desperate to find a moral justification for killing tiny human beings stronger than the "woman's right to choose" to kill any baby she finds inconvenient. A decade or so back they touted fetal tissue research. Now it's destroyed embryo research.

The slogan used by opponents of Proposal 2 is "2 goes 2 far". But 2 doesn't go too far, it goes in the wrong direction.

Vote NO on Proposal 2.

For more information:

See also:
Proposal 2 is Bad News. Vote NO!
Prop 2 supporters think you are stupid
Embryonic stem cell research obsoleted... AGAIN!

Coulter on Education Professors

Ann Coulter calls out education professors in her latest column. She mentions the petition to support Bill Ayers that this blog noted recently. The count of Western professors supporting Ayers is now 7.

Regarding Coulter's point that education professors are dumb, it's worth pointing out that Thomas Sowell documented in Inside American Education that education schools are widely considered the intellectual dregs on campus even by other liberal professors, education students are much less smart than average students, and education schools serve to make teachers worse than they would be without them.


First of all, the fact that Ayers is a professor of education proves only one thing: He is dumber than any person without an education degree.

Ayers is such an imbecile, we ought to be amazed that he's teaching at a university -- even when you consider that it's an ed school -- except all former violent radicals end up teaching. Roughly 80 percent of former Weathermen are full college professors -- 99 percent if you don't include the ones killed in shoot-outs with the police or in prison -- i.e., not yet pardoned by a Democratic president.

Any other profession would have banned a person like Ayers. Universities not only accept former domestic terrorists, but also move them to the front of the line. In addition to Ayers, among those once on the FBI's most-wanted list who ended up in cushy college teaching positions are Bernardine Dohrn (Northwestern University), Mark Rudd (a junior college in New Mexico) and Angela Davis (History of Consciousness Department, University of California at Santa Cruz).

While others were hard at work on Ph.D.s, Susan Rosenberg was conspiring to kill cops and blow up buildings, and was assembling massive caches of explosives. This put her on the fast track for a teaching position at Hamilton College!

Despite having absolutely no qualifications to teach, having earned only a master's degree in "writing" through a correspondence course, Rosenberg was offered a position at Hamilton within a few years of President Clinton pardoning her in 2001, releasing her from a 58-year prison sentence for participating in the murder of cops and possessing more than 700 pounds of explosives.

But Obama thinks it's a selling point to say that Ayers is a college professor.

Hundreds of college professors have signed a letter vouching for Ayers, which would be like Lester Maddox producing a letter from George Wallace assuring us that Maddox is a respected member of the community. No, really, I've got the letter right here!

Friday, October 24, 2008

Carl Levin and Marriage

Where does Michigan Senator Carl Levin stand on the issue of marriage?

In 1996, Levin voted for the Defense of Marriage Act that prevents one state from opposing its definition of marriage on another.

However, Levin voted against a federal constitutional definition of marriage. He also refused to support the 2004 Michigan marriage amendment that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. He supports so-called "civil unions", which are the same in all but name to so-called "gay marriage".

Levin has voted to punish employers who take sexual behavior into account in their hiring decisions. He has also voted for 'hate crimes' bills including homosexuality that would criminalize certain thoughts under certain circumstances. He has voted to spend taxpayers' money on benefits for 'domestic partners' of government employees.

On the Issues: Carl Levin on Civil Rights
Carl Levin: Statement of Senator Carl Levin on Gay Marriage

WMU Security Report

From the Department of Public Safety

You must certainly be relieved that there were no hate crimes on campus in the last three years.

A Surprising Endorsement

HERALD EDITORIAL: Western Herald supports Ybema for Michigan State House

See also the discussion in the comments on privatization.

CRs in the Herald

From the Herald:

College Republicans remain active as they prepare for ‘crunch time’
By Ashley WioskowskiNews Editor

(Michael Paeplow / Western Herald) Junior Brendan Cole, vice president of Students for Life, spoke to Western Michigan University’s College Republicans on Wednesday night in the Bernhard Center.

The College Republicans met on Oct. 22 to discuss their last plans to help promote candidates before Election Day.

Last weekend the Republicans went door-to-door in Vicksburg to promote Republican candidates, and this week the group will continue in Vicksburg.

Anyone who is interested can meet the Republicans at the Bernhard Center at 3 p.m. for carpooling.

Addressing the limited time before the election, Dan Mack, treasurer for the RSO, stressed how important it is to go door-to-door promoting the candidates.

“It’s crunch time,” Mack said.

David Bell, elections vice chairman, addressed the group about last week’s absence of Jack Hoogendyk, who is running for U.S. Senate against Sen. Carl Levin, due to a time conflict in scheduling.

Bell said that Hoogendyk plans to re-schedule sometime in the future.

Bell also brought up that the RSO finally has got the funding to bring Ben Stein, who is most popular for his quiz show, “Win Ben Stein’s money,” or his part in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.”
Beyond comedic entertainment, Stein has political affiliation.

Stein has worked as an economist, poverty and trial lawyer.

Also, in 1973 and 1974, he became a speechwriter and lawyer for Richard Nixon and then Gerald Ford.The date is yet to be planned, but Bell said he foresees it taking place in the spring.

The Republicans plan to go door-to-door Nov. 1 for Larry DeShazor who is running for State Representative in the 61st district.

On Nov. 3, the Republicans will be putting up yard signs.

Kelly MacDonell, chief of operations, added that these signs will be put up “everywhere we can.”On Nov. 5, the group will be going to Roadhouse for a celebratory dinner.

College Republicans member Brendan Cole, who is the vice president for Students for Life, announced speaker Chris Gast, a political activist, will be at 2304 Sangren Hall on Oct. 23 at 8 p.m. to address Proposal 2: Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Thinking About Medical Marijuana

Proposal 1 on the ballot in Michigan in November concerns medical marijuana. It would allow people who say that they need marijuana for pain treatment to register with the state of Michigan. This would allow them to use and grow small amounts of marijuana without violating Michigan law. It would not change federal law that makes marijuana illegal, but it would mean that only the federal government could prosecute marijuana possession. Similar proposals have passed in about a dozen other states.

What should we think of this proposition? Both supporters and opponents agree that marijuana can be used to relieve pain. They disagree about whether smoked medical marijuana is more effective than the pill form which contains the chemical in marijuana that relieves pain.

Whichever form is more effective, it should not be hard to conclude that people who legitimately use marijuana to relieve pain should not be prosecuted. At present, this is uncommon, but not unheard of.

The question then is whether Proposal 1 would only protect legitimate users, or whether it would create other undesirable consequences. The proposal's backers have been accused of wanting to legalize drugs, and in many cases this is probably true. Nonetheless, the proposal should be considered on its own merits unless it would somehow create a 'slippery slope' to drug legalization. As none of the other states that passed such proposals has gone further, this does not seem to be a serious objection.

Another potential problem is whether the proposal would allow people who do not really have a medical need to get marijuana. Could users forge prescriptions, or obtain them from a handful of sympathetic doctors willing to bend the rules? Something like this seems to have occurred in California, which previously passed a medical marijuana proposal. Supporters and opponents of this proposal disagree about whether the Michigan proposal is different in a way that fixes these problems.

Of course, forthright advocates of marijuana legalization will not find these to be compelling objections. Before one advocates such a position, some questions should be asked. Is there reliable data on the health effects of marijuana use? Does drug addiction nullify the autonomy necessary for someone to have a right to liberty? Is marijuana a 'gateway drug' that leads to the use of harder drugs? Would legalizing marijuana result in higher crime rates than keeping it illegal?

This author does not claim to have good answers to these questions. Most of these questions are technical and depend on empirical data. Existing studies seem to have conflicting conclusions. Neither advocates of drug legalization or the government are necessarily credible sources of information.

Another objection raised by opponents of the proposal is that it would mandate that employers not prohibit legal marijuana users from employment. If so, then the proposal would advance freedom for one group while restricting it for another. In such case, one could reasonably side with the group one favors more. Supporters dispute that the proposal would do this, however.

You can learn something about a proposal from who supports it and who opposes it. Most newspapers seem to support the proposal. Various law enforcement and family values groups oppose it. Most democrats and libertarians support it. Most conservative Republicans oppose it. There are exceptions, however, as very conservative state rep. Fulton Sheen supports the proposal.

If a voter is unsure about a proposal, is there a default position that should be taken? For conservatives, the default position is to oppose change (support the status quo) because there are more ways to make things worse than better. In other words, there are more bad ideas than good ideas. On the other hand, the libertarian default position is to support freedom.

This essay has no definite conclusion. But the questions contained herein are the sort that a voter debating Proposal 1 should ask.

For more information see the following organizations.
Oppose: Citizens Protecting Michigan's Kids
Support: Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care

Bad Writing

Two recent editorials in the Herald are practically case studies in bad writing.

HERALD EDITORIAL: Groups at WMU should be pairing up and working together, not apart

HERALD EDITORIAL: Religious groups free to give political insight, but should not endorse any one candidate

The opinions are pretty silly, too.

Sunday, October 19, 2008


This update focuses on the culture war. The 2008 election campaign is well underway. Cultural battles continue in party conventions, courts, movies, academia, and more.

Phyllis Schlafly: Contrasting the Party Platforms
Phyllis Schlafly: Feminists against Palin - shame on you
James Fulford: “Guilty As Hell, Free As A Bird”—Ayers, Obama, And The Exclusionary Rule
William Jasper: From Homosexual Marriage to Bestiality
Thomas Sowell: The Vision of the Left
Phyllis Schlafly: Title IX Tied Our Hands at Olympics
William Jasper: Recreating Riots
Thomas Sowell: Amateurs Outdoing Professionals
Phyllis Schlaly: One Brave Judge Resists Feminist Agenda
Allan Ryskind: Hollywood Still Loves Very Red Dalton Trumbo
Don Devine: Old Right War Lessons

POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Carl Levin and Abortion

Few politicians are more pro-abortion than Carl Levin.

Levin doesn't just support abortion some of the time, or most of the time. He supports it in the most indefensible cases. He voted against a bill to ban partial birth abortion, when a baby is born except for the head and then killed. Defending infanticide is no problem for Levin.

Levin also voted against criminal penalties for crimes that harm an unborn baby. Apparently, punishing criminals who attack women might threaten abortion.

Levin even voted against prohibiting minors from crossing state lines to get abortions. He even voted against notifying parents that their daughter has gotten an out-of-state abortion. One of the main purposes of parental notification laws is to prevent statutory rapists from destroying the evidence of their crimes by pressuring or coercing young women into having abortions. If one state requires parental notification, rapists will drive to another state that doesn't. But protecting rapists is no problem if it protects abortion.

If you love abortion, you'll love Carl Levin.

On The Issues: Carl Levin on Abortion
Core Principles: Carl Levin's Extremely Radical Abortion Agenda
Core Principles: I Guess this Question is Above Carl Levin’s Pay Grade, Too.
Scotty Boman: Levin votes to allow federal funds to support forced abortions

Campus Alert

The following alert appears on GoWMU.


Four students assaulted near campus

The Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety is investigating four assaults that were reported to have occurred on the 1200 block of Red Pine, off West Michigan Avenue, at approximately 2 a.m. Saturday, Oct. 11.

According to police reports, four victims were assaulted without provocation on Red Pine. Victims and witnesses said a group of about 30 unknown black males, approximately 18 to 24 years old, came uninvited to a gathering at 1225 Red Pine. In groups of four or five, they proceeded to attack each of the four victims individually in an area behind 1234 Red Pine, a neighboring residence.

WMU officials urge all students to follow these safety guidelines:

Be alert and aware of your surroundings.

Do not walk alone at night, especially in dimly lit areas or areas that have been targeted by predators in the past.

Even when you are with a large group of friends, report all unwanted visitors, intruders and suspicious activities immediately. Unwanted visitors often crash student gatherings to steal or start trouble.

For emergencies, call 911. For non-emergencies, call the Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety at (269) 337-8994. If you have information regarding this incident, provide an anonymous tip through Silent Observer at (269) 343-2100.

WMU Public Safety
(269) 387-5555


Why isn't this on the main WMU website?

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Cliff Taylor for Michigan Supreme Court

The battle for the Michigan Supreme Court has gone on intermittently for years, but it seems to be approaching a climax this year. In 2000, the democrats launched an all-out attack against Republican-nominated judges "Markman and Taylor and Young". But all of them went on to win easily. The next few elections were relatively muted, with only some smears from the likes of Jeffrey Feiger. All the incumbents since then have been reelected.

But it appears that democrats are increasingly desperate to take control of the court. This year, the democrat party sponsored a ballot initiative deceitfully named the Reform Michigan Government Now (RMGN) initiative. Among other things, RMGN would have eliminated the seats of Republican justices Robert Young and Steven Markman. This amendment was eventually thrown out for being far to long to qualify as a constitutional amendment. The Michigan democrat party spent $1.4 million from unidentified donors on the effort.

Taylor, Young, Markman, and Maura Corrigan form a conservative 'block' of four on the seven-member court. The court also has two liberal democrats and one erratic Republican who has vehemently attacked Taylor and often sides with the democrats. Replacing Taylor with a democrat would swing the court far to the left.

Taylor has served on the Michigan Supreme Court since 1997. He is a Navy veteran, former assistant prosecutor, and formerly served on the Michigan Court of Appeals.

Taylor is a strict constructionist who believes in applying the law as written, not making it up to suit his own political preferences. He has protected the principle of personal responsibility against trial lawyers who want to blame others so they can rob them of their money. By keeping damages to reasonable levels, Taylor not only protects individual businesses, but protects a better business climate, benefiting Michigan's economy.

One frequent charge democrats make against Taylor is that he favors big business against the little guy. But this is patently false. Taylor favors liberty and the rule of law against all their opponents, occasionally including big business. Taylor led the court in overturning the infamous Poletown case, which had said that government could take people's property and give it to business for redevelopment. Taylor sided with individual rights over the interests of big business. Taylor also rebuffed legal actions against the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), a measure to eliminate governmental racial preferences which was opposed by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

Taylor supports law and order, and is tough on crime. He supports punishing criminals, not embarking on a quest to find the 'root causes' of crime. But this does not mean that he will necessarily side with government law enforcement agencies over individual liberties. He ruled against efforts to block Michigan's 2000 concealed carry law, which was opposed by many law enforcement officials at the time. Thus he sided with individual liberties over government power.

Taylor's opponent, Diane Hathaway, endorsed the RMGN proposal, which was described in an internal democrat party presentation as "changing the rules of politics to help democrats". This doesn't speak well to her respect for the rule of law.

Cliff Taylor is a highly respected and accomplished justice who has defended individual liberties and the rule of law time and again. He deserves to be reelected.

See Taylor's website:

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Students for Life in the Herald

Students for Life advocates rejection of Proposal 2

Students for Life is a registered student organization that focuses on informing the local community, both on and off campus about the importance of the Pro‑Life message.

“The Pro‑Life message is undervalued and under appreciated on campus,” said Brendan Cole, vice president of the Students for Life organization. They attempt to raise student awareness and support.

Chris Gast, a political activist currently advocating the rejection of Proposal 2, will be speaking Oct. 23 at 8 p.m. in Sangren Hall. Students for Life does not yet have a room number, but for more information contact:

Proposal 2 is a state of Michigan proposal on the ballot this upcoming election year that has direct language that would be amended to the state constitution regarding the issue of embryonic stem cell research.

Gast will be speaking on behalf of rejecting the proposal in terms of the stem cell provisions it allows.Any student interested in hearing Gast speak on the issue can get information from Students for Life or can keep an eye peeled for chalk and flyers around campus.


Read it all.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Faculty for Ayers

Barack Obama's ties to 1960's and '70's terrorist William Ayers have led to increasing scrutiny of Ayers. After spending years in hiding, the government botched the case against him, and Ayers got a PhD and became a "respected" university professor. Now, some of Ayers university colleagues are defending him with a website petition.

As of this writing, the petition has garnered 2853 [UPDATE: 3880] signatures, most attributed to university professors.

Barack Obama has close and extensive ties to Ayers. His political career was launched at a fundraiser at Ayers' house. They served together on the board of the Woods Foundation, and worked closely together for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, purportedly an education-reform group. Obama gave a positive review to a book by Ayers.

Ayers was a founder of the communist terrorist group the Weathermen, which bombed a number of buildings, including the Pentagon. Ayers shows no remorse for his crimes. As late as September 11, 2001, Ayers bragged about them.

But now, Ayers is a "respected" university professor doing important "academic research". Liberals had no problem with a unrepentant former terrorist as a university professor (don't question their patriotism!). As you might guess, Ayers' "research" is all about undermining America.

The statement blathers about Ayers is a victim of "McCarthyism". He's just as guilty as all the other "victims" of McCarthyism.

Seven professors from Western Michigan University are on the list.
40 Gary Miron Education
882 Joseph Kretovics Education
897 Jill Hermann-Wilmarth Education
1653 Lauren Freedman Education
2088 Allen Webb English
2112 Karen Vocke English
2643 Sue Poppink Education

(It should be noted that the website does not appear to verify whether the signatures are genuine. The list includes Kathryn Jean Lopez, #1202, the editor of National Review Online.)

Perhaps there should be a WMU Faculty Terrorist Watch List.

See also: Leftist MSU Professors Announce Support for Terrorist

Election News

News about local elections.

Hoogendyk: Congress should stay out of military's way
County board candidate Chris Haenicke has lived on both sides of the poverty line
Upton, rivals split on how to ease crisis
Congressman would request N.Y. mayor's aid on economy

Graham, Quinn vie for District 10
Kalamazoo County Commissioner candidates in District 15 pit farms vs. factories
Nieuwenhuis said she wants to bring more awareness to agriculture, an economic sector she said the county board takes for granted.

She said the county should fund alternative-energy research, which would help greenhouse owners who struggle with high energy bills.

She also wants the board to push state and federal legislators to loosen U.S. immigration laws that she said hurt both migrant workers and Michigan farmers.
State Rep. Lorence Wenke backed recall of fellow Comstock Republican Bill Shields
63rd District candidates Bolger and Smith say they have what it takes to represent a diverse area
Republican newcomer Charles Ybema challenges Robert Jones in 60th District
Campaign enters final month
GOP workers plug awayin wake of McCain pullout

80th District race focuses on economy
Job growth the focus in 87th District

Saturday, October 11, 2008


This update focuses on the economy. The stock market plunged significantly in recent weeks. The government passed a bailout bill that may cost 700 billion to one trillion dollars. This failed to stabilize the market.

Gary Wolfram: Econ 101: The Financial Crisis and Danger of Government Intervention
Don Devine: End of Capitalism?
John Stossel: Try Free Enterprise
Walter Williams: Lessons From the Bailout
Ron Paul: The Do-Something Congress
Gary North: The Month When Reality Invaded
Michelle Malkin: Dear Congress: Put the Gun Down Now
Steve Sailer: America’s Minority Mortgage Meltdown/ Diversity Recession: The Smoking Gun?
Steve Sailer: Karl Rove—Architect Of The Minority Mortgage Meltdown
Thomas Sowell: Bailout Politics
Ron Paul: Lipstick on a Bailout

See also:
The Recession Reader
The Bailout Reader

Friday, October 10, 2008

Proposal 2 is Unnecessary

From RightMichigan:

Embryonic stem cell research obsoleted... AGAIN!

College Republicans discuss current events

From the Herald:

College Republicans discuss current events

This weeks College Republicans’ meeting touched briefly on recent debates, and included an interesting debate of it’s own.

Along with the normal agenda, Chairperson Megan Buwalda announced a visit from Jack Hoogendyk, State Senate candidate for Michigan, running against Sen. Carl Levin that will occur on Oct. 15 at 9 p.m.

The College Republicans started their meeting by discussing their view on the recent debate between Fred Upton, United States House of Representative for Michigan’s sixth district and Don Cooney, City Commissioner that took place Oct. 4 in the Kalamazoo Public Library.


There's more.

Obama: The Candidate of Corporate Socialism

Justin Raimondo: Establishment Messiah

Thursday, October 09, 2008

Julie Phillips for 8th District Judge

The race for the open seat on the 8th District Court comes down to two candidates. They are Bill Murphy, and Julie Phillips.. Candidates Jeff Gagie and Sondra Nowak were eliminated in the August primary election. The seat is open due to the retirement of Judge Quinn Benson.

Judicial races are different because they are non-partisan and candidates aren't allowed to talk about issues. Both candidates have solid experience which they tout on their websites.

Some information can be gleaned from examining endorsements. Murphy lists the endorsements of several moderate Republicans on his website. Julie Phillips has the endorsement of conservative Republican Mary Balkema. Right to Life found that Phillips and Murphy meet their criteria.

You can also get a sense of the candidates from who the local trial lawyers are supporting. A number of area trial lawyers have signs for Murphy in front of their offices. These same trial lawyers have consistently supported the most liberal judicial candidates, including democrat-nominated candidates for Michigan Supreme Court. Trial lawyers usually support the candidates who will award them the largest judgements.

One troubling aspect of Murphy's campaign is his placement of several large signs in the city of Kalamazoo contrary to city ordinance.

A question about whether his 4-feet-by-8-feet signs are allowed under a Kalamazoo city ordinance is being researched, Murphy said. The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled municipalities may limit sign size, but it must be enforced across the board. Murphy contends there are many signs, as large or larger, in town that have not been challenged.
Murphy's attitude toward the signage law is troubling for someone running for a job to enforce the law. While the law might ultimately be unconstitutional, it has not been ruled so, and it is unwise for him to substitute his opinions for the law as it stands.

None of this is to say that Murphy would be a bad judge, but there are several red flags about his candidacy. Based on endorsements and experience, the best candidate is Julie Phillips. Conservatives should support her election.

See Julie's website:

Previous: Julie Phillips for 8th District Judge

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Club for Walberg, Schwarz for Schauer

The Club for Growth released a new television ad for Congressman Tim Walberg.

Former Congressman Joe Schwarz, who Walberg defeated in the primary in 2006, decided to endorse Schauer because of this ad. But why? The ad is true. Is Schwarz upset that Schauer is being criticized for voting for tax increases? Perhaps. Schwarz did run for governor in 2002 pledging to raise taxes.

Schwarz was elected a Battle Creek city councilman and mayor. He was elected to the state senate for 16 years. He was a member of Congress for two years. In 2006, practically every member of the Republican establishment endorsed him in the primary. But when he lost one election, he ditched the party and endorsed the democrat.

The tax-hikers can have Schwarz and Schauer. The tax-cutters have Walberg and the Club for Growth.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Julie Rogers Already Wasted Your Money

Julie Rogers has yet to be elected to anything, but she has already managed to waste taxpayers' money. Back in 2006, Rogers ran for the 61st state house seat. She did better than expected against Republican Jack Hoogendyk, but still lost by 474 votes.

Rogers demanded a recount, even though there was no good reason for one. The margin was close enough that the state had to give her one, even though the chance that such a recount would overturn the election result was astronomical.

Rogers claimed there were voting "irregularities", which is not the same thing as any actual problem. Even after two-thirds of the precincts were recounted and there was a net change of only seven votes, she still did not concede.

The recount may have cost "only" thousands of dollars, but the principle was clear. Julie Rogers put Julie Rogers ahead of the taxpayers. She just didn't care about wasting our money.

Do Michigan taxpayers really want to put Julie Rogers in charge of a lot more of our money?

See also the WMUGOP's press release: Rogers' Campaign Wastes Taxpayers' Money

Saturday, October 04, 2008

Carl Levin Voted for the Bailout

Michigan Senator Carl Levin voted for corporate welfare for Wall Street firms bankrupted by bad lending. An email from Jack Hoogendyk elaborates further.


Hoogendyk: Levin is on the Side of Big Government

US Senate Candidate Calls for Action in Favor of the Market

Michigan - October 3, 2008 - US Senate Candidate Jack Hoogendyk expressed his strong disagreement with Senator Carl Levin's vote in favor of the bailout package. Two days ago, Michigan's US senators split on the bill: Senator Stabenow voted against it, whereas Senator Levin voted for it.

"I applaud Senator Stabenow's 'no' vote," Hoogendyk said, "but it does not come as a surprise that, once again, Senator Carl Levin has chosen to put himself on the side of the 'we-know-better-than-you' government rather than on the side of the people, individual potential, and the free market. If Congress does indeed pass this legislation, we will have missed a golden opportunity to reduce the burden of taxation and misguided regulation."

"The capital gains tax, the corporate tax, and the mark to market rule of accounting are all examples of government burdens that, if removed, would produce immediate results for the economy. While I recognize the urgency of this crisis, I cannot support a government solution that may provide short-term relief but will further hamper economic growth in the long run."

Bailout Passed

Well, it didn't talk long for Congress to revive the bailout plan. After the initial failure, there was a lot of earmarking and arm-twisting to put Congress back in line.

The Senate passed it by a vote of 74-25.

The House passed it by a vote of 263-171.

It has been signed by the President.

The bill was passed despite overwhelming public opposition at the behest of the Wall Street elite.

This bill will mean more socialism, more inflation, more bad lending, more bankruptcies, and more bailouts to come.

Tough times are ahead.