Witnesses, including one who escaped the duplex by jumping out of a window, told police four suspects had entered the three-story residence in the Knollwood neighborhood, Public Safety Interim Deputy Chief Donald Webster said. Police late Friday were still looking for the fourth suspect, described as a black male about 20 years old with a stocky build, last seen wearing dark clothing.Take back the night with guns!
...
Investigators said six people were in the house when one suspect knocked on the door, asked the person who answered if there was a party going on and asked if he could use a bathroom. When he was denied entrance, four people forced their way into the residence, police said.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Crime off Campus
From the Gazette:
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Notes from the Chairman
Save the date! 20/20 Anchor John Stossel will be speaking at Western on Wednesday, November 28 at 7pm. The event is free and open to the public.
A big thanks to our friends at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy for helping us design this flyer!
If you are planning to bring a group of college republicans from another school, or if you would like to attend the private book signing before the event please email me at MeganBuwalda@hotmail.com for more information/ reservations.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Understanding Government: Spending
Government spends the money that it collects in taxes.
Governments spend massive amounts of money. In America in 2007, all levels of government spent an estimated total of 4,877,100,000,000 dollars.
Government spends money on several different types of programs. The most common of them is redistribution, taking money from some people and giving it to others. This type of program is significant enough to be the topic of a separate essay. Here, it will suffice to say that redistribution discourages productive behavior, encourages unproductive behavior, and dramatically empowers government.
Another type of government program is socialism. Socialism is government production of a good or service funded by taxation. While it is often used as a vehicle for redistribution, it could in principle provide goods or services to the taxpayers in proportion to what they paid in.
Socialism has today been largely discredited. Its early proponents claimed that it would produce goods and services more efficiently than capitalism. However, there are sound economic reasons that this will not happen. Socialism provides no good means of determining how resources should be allocated, implying that there will be perpetual overproduction of some goods and underproduction of others. It provides no incentive for hard work and investment, leading to economics stagnation.
Few today would openly claim that socialism is more efficient than capitalism. But this assumption seems to underlie efforts to create "national health care" and oppose greater school choice. There is a simple answer to the belief that socialism is more efficient than capitalism. If so, then let people engage in it voluntarily, and it will outproduce capitalism and win out in the free market. In fact, all experiments with voluntary socialism have ended in various degrees of disaster.
Another significant recipient of government spending is bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is also significant enough to be the topic of a separate essay. Of course, there are administrative costs in the private sector as well, but private and government employees face very different incentives. In the private sector, administrators must make a profit to survive. Thus they must freely convince people to give them money, and to do so they must make products and services that people want.
In contrast, government bureaucrats are funded by mandatory taxation whether they do a good job or not. They are not punished for failures, nor are they rewarded for successes. Bureaucrats advance not by doing a good job, but by having more subordinates. In fact, bureaucracies may actually gain from failure, since they can demand more resources to fix the problems that they caused. Different bureaucracies are often reluctant to share information, as this will hurt their quest for more funding.
The type of government spending that attracts the most condemnation is waste, fraud, and abuse. This is far more common in the government than the private sector, since government employees are not spending their own money. Ironically, though, waste may actually be less destructive than some of the most popular government spending, which creates incentives that make society worse off than if the money had just been destroyed.
Government spending and taxation are two sides of the same coin. This is because all spending must be paid for. The most direct way is through taxes. Government also spends money that it borrows. But money that is borrowed must still be paid back through taxes. Refusing to pay back lenders would effectively be a tax on them. Inflating the money supply is another possibility, but this is a tax on the value of money. Thus government spending is taxation.
As with taxation, giving money can be done in various ways. It could be secretly slipped into someone's account so that he would never notice. Or, it could be sent as a check complete with fawning news articles and preening politicians praising their own generosity. Just as the least visible methods of taxation tend to win out, so too the most visible methods of spending tend to win out. This creates the perverse situation that government can take someone's money, give some of it back to him, and make him think that he has come out ahead. This is one reason why government spending tends to have significant support.
Many government spending programs continue even though they have little public support. This is due to the difference between concentrated and dispersed interests. Government spending programs often take money from many people and give it to a few people. Thus the recipients of government money have a significant interest in preserving these programs, while those being taxed to pay for them have a much lower interest in stopping any particular program. This dynamic encourages more people to become recipients of government spending and serves to increase the size of government.
Like taxation, government spending gives the government power over the people. Government can encourage behaviors that it desires by subsidizing them. If government tried to mandate these behaviors by law, people would rebel, but spending accomplishes the same goal with little resistance.
Government spends money on a variety of programs, most of which are destructive. Government spending must be paid for with taxes. It misallocates resources and makes people poorer. It creates destructive incentives that make people poorer still. It can be used to control people and empower government. It ultimately rests upon the use of force. Government must spend no more than absolutely necessary.
Governments spend massive amounts of money. In America in 2007, all levels of government spent an estimated total of 4,877,100,000,000 dollars.
Government spends money on several different types of programs. The most common of them is redistribution, taking money from some people and giving it to others. This type of program is significant enough to be the topic of a separate essay. Here, it will suffice to say that redistribution discourages productive behavior, encourages unproductive behavior, and dramatically empowers government.
Another type of government program is socialism. Socialism is government production of a good or service funded by taxation. While it is often used as a vehicle for redistribution, it could in principle provide goods or services to the taxpayers in proportion to what they paid in.
Socialism has today been largely discredited. Its early proponents claimed that it would produce goods and services more efficiently than capitalism. However, there are sound economic reasons that this will not happen. Socialism provides no good means of determining how resources should be allocated, implying that there will be perpetual overproduction of some goods and underproduction of others. It provides no incentive for hard work and investment, leading to economics stagnation.
Few today would openly claim that socialism is more efficient than capitalism. But this assumption seems to underlie efforts to create "national health care" and oppose greater school choice. There is a simple answer to the belief that socialism is more efficient than capitalism. If so, then let people engage in it voluntarily, and it will outproduce capitalism and win out in the free market. In fact, all experiments with voluntary socialism have ended in various degrees of disaster.
Another significant recipient of government spending is bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is also significant enough to be the topic of a separate essay. Of course, there are administrative costs in the private sector as well, but private and government employees face very different incentives. In the private sector, administrators must make a profit to survive. Thus they must freely convince people to give them money, and to do so they must make products and services that people want.
In contrast, government bureaucrats are funded by mandatory taxation whether they do a good job or not. They are not punished for failures, nor are they rewarded for successes. Bureaucrats advance not by doing a good job, but by having more subordinates. In fact, bureaucracies may actually gain from failure, since they can demand more resources to fix the problems that they caused. Different bureaucracies are often reluctant to share information, as this will hurt their quest for more funding.
The type of government spending that attracts the most condemnation is waste, fraud, and abuse. This is far more common in the government than the private sector, since government employees are not spending their own money. Ironically, though, waste may actually be less destructive than some of the most popular government spending, which creates incentives that make society worse off than if the money had just been destroyed.
Government spending and taxation are two sides of the same coin. This is because all spending must be paid for. The most direct way is through taxes. Government also spends money that it borrows. But money that is borrowed must still be paid back through taxes. Refusing to pay back lenders would effectively be a tax on them. Inflating the money supply is another possibility, but this is a tax on the value of money. Thus government spending is taxation.
As with taxation, giving money can be done in various ways. It could be secretly slipped into someone's account so that he would never notice. Or, it could be sent as a check complete with fawning news articles and preening politicians praising their own generosity. Just as the least visible methods of taxation tend to win out, so too the most visible methods of spending tend to win out. This creates the perverse situation that government can take someone's money, give some of it back to him, and make him think that he has come out ahead. This is one reason why government spending tends to have significant support.
Many government spending programs continue even though they have little public support. This is due to the difference between concentrated and dispersed interests. Government spending programs often take money from many people and give it to a few people. Thus the recipients of government money have a significant interest in preserving these programs, while those being taxed to pay for them have a much lower interest in stopping any particular program. This dynamic encourages more people to become recipients of government spending and serves to increase the size of government.
Like taxation, government spending gives the government power over the people. Government can encourage behaviors that it desires by subsidizing them. If government tried to mandate these behaviors by law, people would rebel, but spending accomplishes the same goal with little resistance.
Government spends money on a variety of programs, most of which are destructive. Government spending must be paid for with taxes. It misallocates resources and makes people poorer. It creates destructive incentives that make people poorer still. It can be used to control people and empower government. It ultimately rests upon the use of force. Government must spend no more than absolutely necessary.
Election Update
From the Gazette:
KALAMAZOO -- Final results of the Kalamazoo City Commission election certified by the Kalamazoo County Board of Canvassers showed no changes from totals reported election night.They were only 2800 votes short of winning! Will they take this as an indication of the popularity of their agenda?
The canvassers' final report did include the results for two, declared write-in candidates whose totals were not reported Nov. 6. Thirty-two voters wrote in the name of Jonathan David Braun, while 31 wrote in Angela M. Suarez.
Debating Ron Paul
The Herald published a letter to the editor attacking Congressman Ron Paul.
Among other things, the letter attacked Paul for wanting to abolish the department of education. It was obvious that the writer is a product of government schools, as his letter contained many egregious grammar errors.
Ron Paul supporters Derek Getman and David Bell didn't waste any time responding.
Among other things, the letter attacked Paul for wanting to abolish the department of education. It was obvious that the writer is a product of government schools, as his letter contained many egregious grammar errors.
Ron Paul supporters Derek Getman and David Bell didn't waste any time responding.
Monday, November 12, 2007
John Stossel expose buffet
I've gathered up some of the reports John Stossel has done for "20/20." As Mr. Stossel is going to come speak on campus, these videos are a great way of discovering more about his work and his philosophy before the speech. You could also learn a thing or two! Enjoy watching; I know I did:
Stupid in America.
Greed is Good?, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6.
John Stossel Goes to Washington, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6.
Global Warming.
Sick in America, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6.
I'll put more up later! For now, enjoy these and don't forget to join the Facebook event group.
Stupid in America.
Greed is Good?, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6.
John Stossel Goes to Washington, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6.
Global Warming.
Sick in America, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6.
I'll put more up later! For now, enjoy these and don't forget to join the Facebook event group.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Anti-American Mexican Marxist to Speak at Western
Western Michigan University's website announces that Dr. Jorge Castaneda will speak at Western on Monday. Who is Jorge Castaneda? His most important job was as Mexico's foreign minister under Vicente Fox. He has held a number of university positions, written several books, and traveled in elite circles in the United States and Mexico.
He is also a radical leftist who began as a communist and advocated anti-American and pro-communist policies in office. He has written a biography of communist terrorist mass-murderer Che Guevara. He has advocated undermining American immigration laws.
His anti-Americanism is most clearly expressed in a quote in an interview with Mexican journalists in 2002. He advocated destroying the sovereignty of the United States.
He is also a radical leftist who began as a communist and advocated anti-American and pro-communist policies in office. He has written a biography of communist terrorist mass-murderer Che Guevara. He has advocated undermining American immigration laws.
His anti-Americanism is most clearly expressed in a quote in an interview with Mexican journalists in 2002. He advocated destroying the sovereignty of the United States.
I like very much the metaphor of Gulliver, of ensnarling the giant," Castañeda told Mexican journalists in a November 2002 interview. "Tying it up, with nails, with thread, with 20,000 nets that bog it down: these nets being norms, principles, resolutions, agreements, and bilateral, regional and international covenants."Naturally, he refuses to stem the tide of illegal aliens coming from Mexico.
"No border security is possible without Mexican cooperation," declared Castañeda. "There can be no future cooperation beyond what already exists without some form of immigration package." He warned that border security is "very, very sensitive" to Mexicans.Castaneda's goal of ensnaring the United States in globalist agreements is not just theoretical. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox has admitted that the proposed FTAA was intended to create a regional merger. He also admitted plans for a North American Union and common currency.
POLITICAL UPDATE--Immigration
This update focuses on immigration. The immigration debate continues on the campaign trail and in Congress. The Senate recently defeated one amnesty (the DREAM Act), and briefly considered another (the AgJobs bill). New York Governor Elliot Spitzer recently ordered that illegal aliens receive drivers licences, and Hillary Clinton offered support for this plan. Cultural decline is both a cause and effect of immigration.
Mike Franc: SCHIP's Path for Illegal Immigrants
Dana Rohrabacher: President Bush Should Quickly Pardon Jailed Border Agents
James Edwards: Open-Borders Politician Impersonates Law-and-Order Stalwart
Frosty Wooldridge: Vaporizing Our American Culture
Martin Golden: Fast Lane to Disaster
Joe Guzzardi: New York Governor Eliot Spitzer—Latest Toast Of The Treason Lobby
Pat Buchanan: Demography No Laughing Matter in Russia
Pat Buchanan: Mexican Imperialism Comes Out Of The Closet
Phyllis Schlafly: Dream Act Is Backdoor Amnesty
Martha Zoller: The DREAM Act -- Really a Nightmare?
Kris Kobach: A Sleeper Amnesty: Time to Wake Up from the DREAM Act
For more on immigration, see VDARE.com.
Mike Franc: SCHIP's Path for Illegal Immigrants
Dana Rohrabacher: President Bush Should Quickly Pardon Jailed Border Agents
James Edwards: Open-Borders Politician Impersonates Law-and-Order Stalwart
Frosty Wooldridge: Vaporizing Our American Culture
Martin Golden: Fast Lane to Disaster
Joe Guzzardi: New York Governor Eliot Spitzer—Latest Toast Of The Treason Lobby
Pat Buchanan: Demography No Laughing Matter in Russia
Pat Buchanan: Mexican Imperialism Comes Out Of The Closet
Phyllis Schlafly: Dream Act Is Backdoor Amnesty
Martha Zoller: The DREAM Act -- Really a Nightmare?
Kris Kobach: A Sleeper Amnesty: Time to Wake Up from the DREAM Act
For more on immigration, see VDARE.com.
If Democrats Had Any Brains...
Ann Coulter's sixth book is entitled If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans.
This book is a compilation of quotes by Coulter. It begins with a introduction discussing liberal outrage over Coulter. The book has 47 sections containing quotes on a given subject. The sections are arranged alphabetically by topic, from airport security to the war on terror. Most of the sections are between four and ten pages.
Much of the material in the book will be familiar to longtime Coulter readers. But it also contains quotes from print interviews, television appearances, and college speeches that many will not have seen.
As a compilation of quotes, this book is necessarily less substantive than Coulter's previous works. Coulter is controversial for two separate reasons--her bomb-throwing style and her anti-liberal political beliefs. This book concentrates on the former.
Conservatives looking for amusing, "insensitive" political one-liners should read this book. Those looking for analysis of liberalism could better read Treason, Slander, and Godless.
Previous: Godless: A Review
This book is a compilation of quotes by Coulter. It begins with a introduction discussing liberal outrage over Coulter. The book has 47 sections containing quotes on a given subject. The sections are arranged alphabetically by topic, from airport security to the war on terror. Most of the sections are between four and ten pages.
Much of the material in the book will be familiar to longtime Coulter readers. But it also contains quotes from print interviews, television appearances, and college speeches that many will not have seen.
As a compilation of quotes, this book is necessarily less substantive than Coulter's previous works. Coulter is controversial for two separate reasons--her bomb-throwing style and her anti-liberal political beliefs. This book concentrates on the former.
Conservatives looking for amusing, "insensitive" political one-liners should read this book. Those looking for analysis of liberalism could better read Treason, Slander, and Godless.
Previous: Godless: A Review
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
National Election Results
Elections were held yesterday in scattered jurisdictions across America.
Ernie Fletcher, the Republican governor of Kentucky, was defeated by Democrat Steve Beshear. Fletcher was hurt by the perception of scandal.
Haley Barbour, the Republican governor of Mississippi was easily reelected. Given that Republican Bobby Jindal won Louisiana's governorship two weeks ago, this means that there was a net of no change in partisan control of governorships.
Republicans lost a few seats in the Virginia House and Senate, Mississippi Senate, and New Jersey Senate. However, they gained a couple seats in the New Jersey House.
Ohio held a primary for a special election to fill the seat of the late Paul Gillmor. Bob Latta beat Club for Growth-endorsed Steve Buehrer and several others.
Democrats held big-city mayoral offices in Houston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh. However, Republican Greg Ballard upset Democratic mayor of Indianapolis Bart Peterson. Republicans also picked up several seats to win a majority on the Indianapolis city council.
Ballot initiatives held some interesting results. New Jersey rejected a measure to spend money on the destruction of human embryos (stem cell research). This comes in a state where even many Republicans are not pro-life. This ought to destroy the myth that stem cell research is a winning issue popular with voters.
Oregon rejected a measure to fund health care for poor children with cigarette taxes. This is the same model used by the proposed expansion of the SCHIP program. This disproves the idea that such programs are inevitably popular with voters.
Washington passed a proposal requiring a two-thirds legislative majority to raise taxes.
Utah rejected a measure to create a statewide system of school vouchers. John Stossel offers some thoughts on the bill.
There were some small victories for immigration restriction, with Virginia county officials who passed a measure cracking down on illegals reelected. Immigration may have helped Republicans win some county offices in upstate New York, where voters reacted against governor Elliot Spitzer's plan to give drivers licences to illegals.
Overall, there wasn't much of a net change in 2007. But the results of ballot initiatives suggest that conservatism is more popular than the Republican Party.
Ernie Fletcher, the Republican governor of Kentucky, was defeated by Democrat Steve Beshear. Fletcher was hurt by the perception of scandal.
Haley Barbour, the Republican governor of Mississippi was easily reelected. Given that Republican Bobby Jindal won Louisiana's governorship two weeks ago, this means that there was a net of no change in partisan control of governorships.
Republicans lost a few seats in the Virginia House and Senate, Mississippi Senate, and New Jersey Senate. However, they gained a couple seats in the New Jersey House.
Ohio held a primary for a special election to fill the seat of the late Paul Gillmor. Bob Latta beat Club for Growth-endorsed Steve Buehrer and several others.
Democrats held big-city mayoral offices in Houston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh. However, Republican Greg Ballard upset Democratic mayor of Indianapolis Bart Peterson. Republicans also picked up several seats to win a majority on the Indianapolis city council.
Ballot initiatives held some interesting results. New Jersey rejected a measure to spend money on the destruction of human embryos (stem cell research). This comes in a state where even many Republicans are not pro-life. This ought to destroy the myth that stem cell research is a winning issue popular with voters.
Oregon rejected a measure to fund health care for poor children with cigarette taxes. This is the same model used by the proposed expansion of the SCHIP program. This disproves the idea that such programs are inevitably popular with voters.
Washington passed a proposal requiring a two-thirds legislative majority to raise taxes.
Utah rejected a measure to create a statewide system of school vouchers. John Stossel offers some thoughts on the bill.
There were some small victories for immigration restriction, with Virginia county officials who passed a measure cracking down on illegals reelected. Immigration may have helped Republicans win some county offices in upstate New York, where voters reacted against governor Elliot Spitzer's plan to give drivers licences to illegals.
Overall, there wasn't much of a net change in 2007. But the results of ballot initiatives suggest that conservatism is more popular than the Republican Party.
Election Results
Bobby Hopewell will be the new mayor of Kalamazoo. He topped current mayor Hannah McKinney by 54 votes. Hopewell spent $20,000 on the race. He is likely interested in the state house seat of Robert Jones when it opens up in 2010 or 2012.
All 6 incumbents were reelected. There was a huge drop-off between the incumbents and the challengers. Convicted embezzler Stephanie Moore was elected to the seventh spot on the commission.
In Portage, Margaret O'Brien and Larry DeShazor were reelected. Elizabeth Campbell captured the third open seat.
All of the tax increases passed. The KRESA strategy of holding the election when there would be higher turnout in Kalamazoo and Portage appears to have succeeded. Both Portage tax increases also passed.
This brings to mind the Mencken quote:
All 6 incumbents were reelected. There was a huge drop-off between the incumbents and the challengers. Convicted embezzler Stephanie Moore was elected to the seventh spot on the commission.
In Portage, Margaret O'Brien and Larry DeShazor were reelected. Elizabeth Campbell captured the third open seat.
All of the tax increases passed. The KRESA strategy of holding the election when there would be higher turnout in Kalamazoo and Portage appears to have succeeded. Both Portage tax increases also passed.
This brings to mind the Mencken quote:
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
Monday, November 05, 2007
On the Ballot
Tuesday, November 6 is election day. Kalamazoo County will see elections for Kalamazoo City Commission, Portage City Council, and several tax proposals.
All seven seats on the Kalamazoo City Commission are up for election. The top seven vote-getters win, and the top vote-getter becomes Mayor. Six incumbent commissioners are running for reelection, and five challengers are on the ballot. Two homeless people are running as write-ins. One of the challengers has been convicted of embezzlement. A forum was held at Western for the candidates to express their views.
Portage Mayor Peter Strazdas is unopposed for reelection. Three seats on the Portage City Council are up for election. Two incumbents, Margaret O'Brien and Larry DeShazor, are running for reelection. Three challengers are also running.
Several tax proposals are also on the ballot. Kalamazoo is seeking renewal of a millage for Metro Transit, the local bus system. Kalamazoo County voters approved a tax increase for the bus system last November.
The Kalamazoo Regional Education Service Agency (KRESA) put a tax increase proposal on the ballot for some of its programs. This is similar, but slightly smaller, than a tax increase proposal that voters shot down last May. There are questions about how they are promoting the proposal.
Portage Public Schools has two tax increase proposals on the ballot. They are similar, but slightly smaller, than a proposal that was shot down by voters in February.
The Kalamazoo County Taxpayers Association has urged voters to oppose all these proposals.
You can see election results at Election Magic.
Predictions:
Kalamazoo (in order): Hopewell, McKinney, Anderson, Cooney, Miller, McCann, Barnard, Moore, Davis, Schaff, Jackson, Braun, Suarez.
Portage (in order): O'Brien, DeShazor, Fox, Campbell, Bailes.
Buses: Yes 65%
KRESA: No 52%
Portage 1: No 55%
Portage 2: No 55%
All seven seats on the Kalamazoo City Commission are up for election. The top seven vote-getters win, and the top vote-getter becomes Mayor. Six incumbent commissioners are running for reelection, and five challengers are on the ballot. Two homeless people are running as write-ins. One of the challengers has been convicted of embezzlement. A forum was held at Western for the candidates to express their views.
Portage Mayor Peter Strazdas is unopposed for reelection. Three seats on the Portage City Council are up for election. Two incumbents, Margaret O'Brien and Larry DeShazor, are running for reelection. Three challengers are also running.
Several tax proposals are also on the ballot. Kalamazoo is seeking renewal of a millage for Metro Transit, the local bus system. Kalamazoo County voters approved a tax increase for the bus system last November.
The Kalamazoo Regional Education Service Agency (KRESA) put a tax increase proposal on the ballot for some of its programs. This is similar, but slightly smaller, than a tax increase proposal that voters shot down last May. There are questions about how they are promoting the proposal.
Portage Public Schools has two tax increase proposals on the ballot. They are similar, but slightly smaller, than a proposal that was shot down by voters in February.
The Kalamazoo County Taxpayers Association has urged voters to oppose all these proposals.
You can see election results at Election Magic.
Predictions:
Kalamazoo (in order): Hopewell, McKinney, Anderson, Cooney, Miller, McCann, Barnard, Moore, Davis, Schaff, Jackson, Braun, Suarez.
Portage (in order): O'Brien, DeShazor, Fox, Campbell, Bailes.
Buses: Yes 65%
KRESA: No 52%
Portage 1: No 55%
Portage 2: No 55%
Conservative News and Opinion
Many sites provide conservative news and opinion.
Daily Conservative News and Opinion
Human Events
National Review Online
WorldNetDaily
FrontPageMag
The Daily Standard
Newsmax
Jewish World Review
Townhall
The American Spectator
Washington Times
RealClearPolitics
Cybercast News Service
World Magazine
Drudge Report
News With Views
Michelle Malkin
Daily Libertarian News and Opinion
Lew Rockwell
Reason Magazine
TechCentralStation
Periodical Conservative Opinion
The New American
Phyllis Schlafly Report
Conservative Battleline
The American Conservative
Citizen Magazine
Commentary
Chronicles Magazine
Specialized News
Keep and Bear Arms
Gunweek
VDARE
Education Reporter
Information Archives
Discover the Network (information on the left)
Get US Out of the United Nations
Guncite
Handgunlaw.us
Institute for Creation Research
Talk Radio
Rush Limbaugh
Michael Savage
Glenn Beck
Neal Boortz
Michael Medved
Sean Hannity
Selected Columnists
Ann Coulter
Walter Williams
Thomas Sowell
Phyllis Schlafly
Congressman Ron Paul
Michelle Malkin
Mark Steyn
Pat Buchanan
Mike Adams
Chuck Baldwin
Daily Conservative News and Opinion
Human Events
National Review Online
WorldNetDaily
FrontPageMag
The Daily Standard
Newsmax
Jewish World Review
Townhall
The American Spectator
Washington Times
RealClearPolitics
Cybercast News Service
World Magazine
Drudge Report
News With Views
Michelle Malkin
Daily Libertarian News and Opinion
Lew Rockwell
Reason Magazine
TechCentralStation
Periodical Conservative Opinion
The New American
Phyllis Schlafly Report
Conservative Battleline
The American Conservative
Citizen Magazine
Commentary
Chronicles Magazine
Specialized News
Keep and Bear Arms
Gunweek
VDARE
Education Reporter
Information Archives
Discover the Network (information on the left)
Get US Out of the United Nations
Guncite
Handgunlaw.us
Institute for Creation Research
Talk Radio
Rush Limbaugh
Michael Savage
Glenn Beck
Neal Boortz
Michael Medved
Sean Hannity
Selected Columnists
Ann Coulter
Walter Williams
Thomas Sowell
Phyllis Schlafly
Congressman Ron Paul
Michelle Malkin
Mark Steyn
Pat Buchanan
Mike Adams
Chuck Baldwin
National Conservative Organizations
These are a few of the many national conservative organizations.
General
Eagle Forum
American Conservative Union
Christian Coalition
John Birch Society
Pro-life
Right to Life
American Life League
Pro-Life Action League
Pro-Family
Focus on the Family
Focus on the Family Action
Family Research Council
Concerned Women for America
American Family Association
Traditional Values Coalition
Gun Rights
National Rifle Association Gateway
National Rifle Association (Institute for Legislative Action)
Gun Owners of America
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Immigration
Minuteman Project
Minuteman Civil Defense Corps
Numbers USA
Federation for American Immigration Reform
US English
Education
Home School Legal Defense Association
Economics
Club for Growth
Americans for Tax Reform
Citizens Against Government Waste
National Taxpayers Union
FreedomWorks
National Right to Work
Sovereignty
Eagle Forum
America's Survival
John Birch Society
Americans For Sovereignty
College
Accuracy in Academia
American Council of Trustees and Alumni
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
Intercollegiate Studies Institute
Leadership Institute
National Association of Scholars
Students for Academic Freedom
Young America's Foundation
General Think Tanks
Heritage Foundation
Cato Institute
American Enterprise Institute
Hoover Institution
Independent Institute
Mises Institute
Acton Institute
Specialized Think Tanks
Center for Immigration Studies
Media Research Center
Accuracy in Media
Discovery Institute
Institute for Creation Research
Center for Security Policy
General
Eagle Forum
American Conservative Union
Christian Coalition
John Birch Society
Pro-life
Right to Life
American Life League
Pro-Life Action League
Pro-Family
Focus on the Family
Focus on the Family Action
Family Research Council
Concerned Women for America
American Family Association
Traditional Values Coalition
Gun Rights
National Rifle Association Gateway
National Rifle Association (Institute for Legislative Action)
Gun Owners of America
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Immigration
Minuteman Project
Minuteman Civil Defense Corps
Numbers USA
Federation for American Immigration Reform
US English
Education
Home School Legal Defense Association
Economics
Club for Growth
Americans for Tax Reform
Citizens Against Government Waste
National Taxpayers Union
FreedomWorks
National Right to Work
Sovereignty
Eagle Forum
America's Survival
John Birch Society
Americans For Sovereignty
College
Accuracy in Academia
American Council of Trustees and Alumni
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
Intercollegiate Studies Institute
Leadership Institute
National Association of Scholars
Students for Academic Freedom
Young America's Foundation
General Think Tanks
Heritage Foundation
Cato Institute
American Enterprise Institute
Hoover Institution
Independent Institute
Mises Institute
Acton Institute
Specialized Think Tanks
Center for Immigration Studies
Media Research Center
Accuracy in Media
Discovery Institute
Institute for Creation Research
Center for Security Policy
Saturday, November 03, 2007
POLITICAL UPDATE--Health Care
This update focuses on health care. Liberals continue to promote socialist health care. The SCHIP program has been a subject of debate in Washington. Hillary Clinton and Michael Moore have promoted more government control of health care. Insurance contributes to the problem. The free market is the answer.
John Stossel: Medical Competition Works for Patients
Ron Paul: Congressional Control of Health Care is Dangerous for Children
John Stossel: Our Crazy Health-Insurance System
Ann Coulter: Is There a Trial Lawyer in the House?
Michael Reagan: It’s Not Hillarycare, It’s Hillarycon
John Stossel: Socialized Medicine Is Broken and Can't Be Fixed
Thomas Sowell: No 'Health Care'?
John Stossel: Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study
POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.
John Stossel: Medical Competition Works for Patients
Ron Paul: Congressional Control of Health Care is Dangerous for Children
John Stossel: Our Crazy Health-Insurance System
Ann Coulter: Is There a Trial Lawyer in the House?
Michael Reagan: It’s Not Hillarycare, It’s Hillarycon
John Stossel: Socialized Medicine Is Broken and Can't Be Fixed
Thomas Sowell: No 'Health Care'?
John Stossel: Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study
POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.
What Diversity Really Means
The University of Delaware's new "diversity" program has inadvertently done the country a favor. This is not because there is the slightest redeeming virtue to the program, but because the program reveals the truth about "diversity" and liberalism.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) exposed the mandatory program. It includes the following dogma.
Liberals' definition of racism is itself racist. It demonizes people based solely on their race. It also attacks open discourse, as counterarguments are smeared as racist without substantive response.
This program exposes liberals' purported principles as shams. Free speech? Not if you say anything they don't like. Open-mindedness? Nope. The "right to privacy"? "When did you discover your sexual identity?" Freedom? Not at University of Delaware.
What happened to all the liberals who supposedly believe in these things? Did any liberals at University of Delaware object? Did any liberals anywhere object? After initially defending the program, the university was forced to back away from it, but this was due to pressure from conservatives, not liberals.
Thus the real meaning of diversity, the liberal shibboleth, is exposed. It has nothing to do with improving education, and it is not a harmless fad. Diversity is anti-white racism. Leftists hate white people, America, Christianity, and Western Civilization as "racist", "imperialist", etc. "Diversity" is the socially acceptable way to express hatred of these things. Increasing "diversity" means reducing and tearing down America, Christianity, and Western Civilization.
Diversity is simply the latest guise of cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism was developed by Marxist theorists to destroy the culture of Western Civilization. They launched a culture war against the West. Like political correctness, multiculturalism, and "tolerance", diversity seeks to destroy Western Civilization. Of course, most people who blather about diversity don't know any better, but at its core this is what it means.
There is a whiff of Stalinism to liberals mandating that RAs pry into people's personal beliefs and hold the correct political positions. Liberals can't throw Americans into gulags. The closest they can come is sensitivity training. But if someone did try to imprison dissenters, would liberals object? Or would they be turning people in?
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) exposed the mandatory program. It includes the following dogma.
"A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….'"The purported "definition" of racism is a lie. Racism means treating people differently based solely on their race or hating people based on their race. This definition poses a problem for liberals, as it allows the reality that some individuals who are racial minorities are racist. Thus liberals invented the notion that those with "power" can or must be racist, while those without "power" cannot be racist, even if they murder people based on race.
The education program also notes that "reverse racism" is "a term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege." And "a non-racist" is called "a non-term," because, the program explains, "The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift the responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called 'blaming the victim')."
...
The school requires its approximately 7,000 residence hall students "to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy and environmentalism."
...
Further, the school requires "a systemic change" as a result of the program, FIRE noted. As one RA told students: "Like it or not, you all are the future Leaders, and the world is Diverse, so learning to Embrace and Appreciate that diversity is ESSENTIAL."
...
According to university materials, RAs are instructed to ask students during one-on-one sessions questions such as: "When did you discover your sexual identity?" "When were you first made aware of your race?" and "Who taught you a lesson in regard to some sort of diversity awarness? What was the lesson?"
Liberals' definition of racism is itself racist. It demonizes people based solely on their race. It also attacks open discourse, as counterarguments are smeared as racist without substantive response.
This program exposes liberals' purported principles as shams. Free speech? Not if you say anything they don't like. Open-mindedness? Nope. The "right to privacy"? "When did you discover your sexual identity?" Freedom? Not at University of Delaware.
What happened to all the liberals who supposedly believe in these things? Did any liberals at University of Delaware object? Did any liberals anywhere object? After initially defending the program, the university was forced to back away from it, but this was due to pressure from conservatives, not liberals.
Thus the real meaning of diversity, the liberal shibboleth, is exposed. It has nothing to do with improving education, and it is not a harmless fad. Diversity is anti-white racism. Leftists hate white people, America, Christianity, and Western Civilization as "racist", "imperialist", etc. "Diversity" is the socially acceptable way to express hatred of these things. Increasing "diversity" means reducing and tearing down America, Christianity, and Western Civilization.
Diversity is simply the latest guise of cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism was developed by Marxist theorists to destroy the culture of Western Civilization. They launched a culture war against the West. Like political correctness, multiculturalism, and "tolerance", diversity seeks to destroy Western Civilization. Of course, most people who blather about diversity don't know any better, but at its core this is what it means.
There is a whiff of Stalinism to liberals mandating that RAs pry into people's personal beliefs and hold the correct political positions. Liberals can't throw Americans into gulags. The closest they can come is sensitivity training. But if someone did try to imprison dissenters, would liberals object? Or would they be turning people in?
Friday, November 02, 2007
Vote NO on Everything
The Kalamazoo County Taxpayers Association has this recommendation concerning the proposed tax increases in Kalamazoo County.
-------------------
Vote "NO" on everything
If there were ever a time when the people of Michigan needed to smack our public officials upside the head, now is the time. It is clear that those who are running our state government, local governments, and schools have no idea of the economic pain that the people are going through.
Michigan's unemployment rate is about 7.5 percent, nearly three points higher than the national average. Our state is the epicenter for the home foreclosure crisis, with thousands of families losing their homes, or being forced to sell at huge financial losses. Wages are stagnant or being cut, and employers and jobs are fleeing to sunnier economic climates.
In the midst of this economic crisis, what solutions do our elected officials have to offer us? Only this: they want more of our money. The state, in a ginned up budget "crisis," ramrodded through not one, but two huge tax hikes on personal income and on dozens of everyday services. Instead of cutting bloated employee health and pension benefits, state lawmakers and the governor said: "No, we're not giving up our perks. You taxpayers have to dig deeper."
This attitude of "public be damned" has infected our local governments and schools as well. Instead of tightening their belts and reforming their spending habits, several local jurisdictions are asking for more tax dollars this November 6. The Portage school district, KRESA, and Metro Transit are all asking taxpayers to squeeze more blood from a stone, and come up with even more money.
Individually, these local tax hikes are being sold as "just pennies a day" to try to fool the public into voting yes. But weary taxpayers should not fall for this trick anymore. It is time we evaluate all these tax requests as a package, including the latest tax hikes shoved down our throat by the state. The people of Michigan, and Kalamazoo County, simply cannot afford bigger, more expensive government.
That's why we are issuing this rally cry to the voters of Kalamazoo County: "Vote NO on everything!" The people of this region need to send one single, clear, strong message to our local, and state, officials. We are not sheep to be fleeced, we are not birds to be plucked, we are not cattle to be led to the slaughter.
The people of Michigan have given and given, and given some more, until our local and state tax burden now stands at 14th out of the 50 states. And that calculation was done before the latest tax hikes by the state. We have been overly generous to our public institutions and employees, and now, during these tough economic times, we only ask that they do what we have done--tighten your belts, become more efficient, and live within your (that is, our) means.
The answer to our reasonable request by our public officials has been "NO." So now is the time for voters to say the same thing, right back at them: "NO!"
NO to your never-ending requests for millage hikes.
NO to your refusal to make sensible reforms and money-saving cuts.
NO to the ever-spiraling tax burden that is pricing more and more people out of their homes.
It doesn't matter what the tax request is for, it doesn't matter how many times "the children" are invoked, it doesn't matter how they try to manipulate our emotions with sob stories of poverty. Our governments and schools get enough of our money. They don't need any more. Make them live on the already generous support that we taxpayers give them. Vote "NO" on everything November 6.
-------------------
Vote "NO" on everything
If there were ever a time when the people of Michigan needed to smack our public officials upside the head, now is the time. It is clear that those who are running our state government, local governments, and schools have no idea of the economic pain that the people are going through.
Michigan's unemployment rate is about 7.5 percent, nearly three points higher than the national average. Our state is the epicenter for the home foreclosure crisis, with thousands of families losing their homes, or being forced to sell at huge financial losses. Wages are stagnant or being cut, and employers and jobs are fleeing to sunnier economic climates.
In the midst of this economic crisis, what solutions do our elected officials have to offer us? Only this: they want more of our money. The state, in a ginned up budget "crisis," ramrodded through not one, but two huge tax hikes on personal income and on dozens of everyday services. Instead of cutting bloated employee health and pension benefits, state lawmakers and the governor said: "No, we're not giving up our perks. You taxpayers have to dig deeper."
This attitude of "public be damned" has infected our local governments and schools as well. Instead of tightening their belts and reforming their spending habits, several local jurisdictions are asking for more tax dollars this November 6. The Portage school district, KRESA, and Metro Transit are all asking taxpayers to squeeze more blood from a stone, and come up with even more money.
Individually, these local tax hikes are being sold as "just pennies a day" to try to fool the public into voting yes. But weary taxpayers should not fall for this trick anymore. It is time we evaluate all these tax requests as a package, including the latest tax hikes shoved down our throat by the state. The people of Michigan, and Kalamazoo County, simply cannot afford bigger, more expensive government.
That's why we are issuing this rally cry to the voters of Kalamazoo County: "Vote NO on everything!" The people of this region need to send one single, clear, strong message to our local, and state, officials. We are not sheep to be fleeced, we are not birds to be plucked, we are not cattle to be led to the slaughter.
The people of Michigan have given and given, and given some more, until our local and state tax burden now stands at 14th out of the 50 states. And that calculation was done before the latest tax hikes by the state. We have been overly generous to our public institutions and employees, and now, during these tough economic times, we only ask that they do what we have done--tighten your belts, become more efficient, and live within your (that is, our) means.
The answer to our reasonable request by our public officials has been "NO." So now is the time for voters to say the same thing, right back at them: "NO!"
NO to your never-ending requests for millage hikes.
NO to your refusal to make sensible reforms and money-saving cuts.
NO to the ever-spiraling tax burden that is pricing more and more people out of their homes.
It doesn't matter what the tax request is for, it doesn't matter how many times "the children" are invoked, it doesn't matter how they try to manipulate our emotions with sob stories of poverty. Our governments and schools get enough of our money. They don't need any more. Make them live on the already generous support that we taxpayers give them. Vote "NO" on everything November 6.
Democrats Versus Advertising
Michigan democrats, apparently believing that there are still too many jobs in Michigan, have launched an attack on Michigan's drug companies.
Democrats seem to believe that drug companies spend too much money on advertising. They want to restrict how much companies can spend.
One common criticism of drug companies is that they spend more money on advertising than they spend on research. Suppose that's true. Let's review the economics of advertising.
A company can make the best product in the world, but no one will benefit from it if they don't know about it. By advertising, a company lets people know about a product that may benefit them. Thus advertising benefits society.
Democrats criticize advertising as if a dollar that is spent on advertising is a dollar that could be spent on research. But why do companies advertise? It's not because they like giving money to the media. It's because advertising attracts more customers and increases profits. Companies have more money because of advertising than they would otherwise. Restricting advertising would decrease the amount of money available for research, not increase it.
Advertising may sometimes encourage people to buy bad or unnecessary products, but whose fault is that? If a product is bad, the problem is the product, not advertising.
If a drug is unnecessary, why would people buy it? The problem here is not the free market, but government regulations. Government subsidizes employer-provided health insurance in the tax code, and so discourages people from controlling the costs of their own health care.
Drug companies save lives; government kills.
Democrats seem to believe that drug companies spend too much money on advertising. They want to restrict how much companies can spend.
One common criticism of drug companies is that they spend more money on advertising than they spend on research. Suppose that's true. Let's review the economics of advertising.
A company can make the best product in the world, but no one will benefit from it if they don't know about it. By advertising, a company lets people know about a product that may benefit them. Thus advertising benefits society.
Democrats criticize advertising as if a dollar that is spent on advertising is a dollar that could be spent on research. But why do companies advertise? It's not because they like giving money to the media. It's because advertising attracts more customers and increases profits. Companies have more money because of advertising than they would otherwise. Restricting advertising would decrease the amount of money available for research, not increase it.
Advertising may sometimes encourage people to buy bad or unnecessary products, but whose fault is that? If a product is bad, the problem is the product, not advertising.
If a drug is unnecessary, why would people buy it? The problem here is not the free market, but government regulations. Government subsidizes employer-provided health insurance in the tax code, and so discourages people from controlling the costs of their own health care.
Drug companies save lives; government kills.
Moore Money
The Gazette has revealed that one of the candidates running for Kalamazoo City Commission has been convicted of a crime.
Stephanie Moore, the leftist candidate running with Don Cooney, has been convicted of...
...wait for it...
...embezzlement!
She pleaded guilty to misusing $63,418.32 from and organization she ran.
She now works for the leftist group ACORN, which has been involved in voter fraud and has argued that it should be exempt from the minimum wage laws that it advocates.
Who better to run the government than someone who already has experience stealing money?
Stephanie Moore, the leftist candidate running with Don Cooney, has been convicted of...
...wait for it...
...embezzlement!
She pleaded guilty to misusing $63,418.32 from and organization she ran.
She now works for the leftist group ACORN, which has been involved in voter fraud and has argued that it should be exempt from the minimum wage laws that it advocates.
Who better to run the government than someone who already has experience stealing money?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)