Open Carrying Teen Acquitted

An 18-year-old man who carried a rifle over his shoulder in Birmingham (Oakland County) has been acquitted. He was charged despite the fact that open carry is legal. He was charged with resisting and obstructing a police officer (dismissed by the judge), brandishing (which he clearly didn't), and disturbing the peace. The latter is a nebulous charge; it is sometimes misused to charge people who are doing legal things like open carry that the police don't like.

Teen acquitted in Birmingham gun incident
Bigger Problem for Birmingham: Their Police and Prosecuting Attorney

CTV and MCRGO Endorsements

More endorsements are coming out ahead of the August primary. Two of the latest are Citizens for traditional Values and Michigan Citizens for Responsible Gun Ownership. CTV helps some, while MCRGO doesn't seem to be very active anymore.

http://www.ctvmichigan.org/elections/endorsements.htm

Nothing too surprising here. They endorsed Tom Leonard in 93 and co-endorsed Deb DeBacker in 41 and Amanda VanEssen in 88. Tim Walberg was the only congressional endorsement.

http://www.mcrgopac.org/?action=100&what=100063

MCRGO has grades, not just endorsements.

The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran

The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran
by Robert Spencer

Islam has become an increasingly large force in Western Civilization, and its fundamental text is the Koran. Yet both Muslims and non-Muslims (infidels) do not agree on what it actually says. Thus the need for Robert Spencer, a Christian expert on Islam, and his book The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran.

Why not just read the Koran itself? As Spencer explains, it is organized in a way that makes it difficult to follow, and doesn't make clear which passages are chronologically later and negate earlier passages. Many passages have no context and assume outside historical knowledge from the reader. There are varying translations, and it is hard to read. The Hadith (sayings of Mohammed) illuminates many passages.

The Koran describes itself as the word of God (Allah) revealed to Mohammed. Spencer details the history of the revelation and compilation of the Koran, along with various disputed and lost passages.

Spencer describes the similarities between the Koran and the Bible. Many passages of the Koran assume knowledge of the corresponding Bible stories, while others have key changes from the Bible. Corresponding passages include Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, and Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. Other stories are based on heretical Jewish and Christian texts.

Spencer points out that many Muslims don't know what is in the Koran. He also outlines some of the issues with translation of the Koran. Mohammed is the central human in the Koran, and is seen as both a fulfillment of historical examples and a moral example for Muslims.

Spencer makes it clear that Allah hates infidels and has torment in store for them. He details the deep-seated antisemitism that pervades the Koran. The Koran rejects the divinity of Jesus and demands that Christians be oppressed.

As Spencer details, the Koran preaches the inferiority of women and legitimizes polygamy. The Koran preaches both nonviolence and violence, and Koranic scholars believe that the later passages that preach violence supersede the earlier nonviolent ones.

Spencer points out that the Koran does not preach loving your enemies and does not contain a version of the Golden Rule for all people--only for Muslims.

Spencer opposes banning the Koran and is highly skeptical of efforts to reinterpret it. He advocates first that Westerners actually understand the Koran and its implications. He supports monitoring Islamic communities in America for radical and retrograde ideas. He advocates ending Muslim immigration and foreign aid to Muslim countries.

Spencer's book is a worthy introduction to these important issues.

What Has the House Energy and Commerce Committee Ever Done for Us?

One of the arguments that supporters of Congressman Fred Upton use is that he should be supported because of his position as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It is stated or implied that this benefits the 6th district or conservatives in general.

Fred Upton being chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is great--for Fred Upton. He raised two million dollars from big corporations eager to buy influence. He got endorsements from several beltway conservative organizations hoping that he won't bury the bills they support. He's a bigshot in Washington.

But how does this benefit us? Nobody has explained how this is supposed to benefit the 6th district. The main "benefit" that powerful congressmen provide their districts is pork projects. But even those often benefit a few connected cronies rather than the public at large.

As for conservative issues, Upton may hold some good positions, but he is unreliable at best. The bill he is best known for was the incandescent light bulb ban, which he trumpeted in 2007, but later tried to pretend he never supported.

He also changed his position on global warming, and passed a bill manipulating daylight savings time.

Any of the potential Republican replacements for Upton as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee would be more conservative. That includes Joe Barton, John Shimkus, and Joe Pitts. So his position is no benefit to conservatives.

Conservatives would benefit from a congressman who is actually a movement conservative and who would fight for conservative values. That's not Upton.

Upton/Hoogendyk Debate 2

Congressman Fred Upton and Jack Hoogendyk met for a second debate today on WKZO. I'll link to audio when I can find it.

Fred Upton and Jack Hoogendyk agree on much during second debate

Some observations:

The media's choice of questions is incredibly frustrating. This is a Republican primary debate, not a general election debate. Questions should focus on issues of interest to Republican primary voters, particularly issues where candidates disagree. Obamacare and the Keystone Pipeline are issues where Upton and Jack agree, at least on the bottom line (No and Yes, respectively). So of course they spent a lot of time on these issues.

Still, there were some interesting contrasts. It now comes out that despite hyping himself as Obamacare's biggest enemy, Upton actually supports several major provisions of Obamacare. Specifically, he supports keeping children on their parents' insurance until 26, and he supports the provision banning insurance companies from "discriminating" based on "preexisting conditions", meaning that you can wait to get sick until you buy insurance. But if you support that, on what basis can you oppose the individual mandate? The whole point of the mandate is that people have to buy insurance or else insurance companies would go broke since everyone wouldn't buy insurance until they got sick. How does Upton square that circle?

As Jack pointed out, Upton is hardly a principled opponent of government involvement in health care. Upton supported the Medicare prescription drug bill. Upton defended his vote by pointing out that the bill is popular. When is free stuff ever unpopular? The problem is that all the free stuff handed out by self-serving politicians is bankrupting the country.

Upton also supported the expansion of SCHIP, and was one of very few Republicans supporting overriding President Bush's veto. Upton again failed to defend his vote. He pointed out that SCHIP was created by Newt Gingrich, whom he cited as a conservative authority, showing how out of touch with conservatives he is.

On Keystone, despite Upton's talk, he folded at the first opportunity, voting for a massive highway bill not including the Keystone Pipeline because President Obama threatened to veto it. As Jack said, why not make him do it? Republicans have gotten Obama to sign some things he opposed before, like ending the national parks gun ban, by attaching them to larger bills. What's the point of supporting the Keystone Pipeline if you won't fight for it?

On immigration, Jack's response was weak, ceding too much ground to the left.

Also noteworthy is that for the second straight debate, Upton did not bring up any of the smears against Jack that he has been promoting in his mailings. Apparently he doesn't want to bring them up in a forum where Jack has a chance to respond.

Previous:
Upton/Hoogendyk Debate
Upton Botches Election Data Again

Upton Botches Election Data Again

In my analysis of the debate between Congressman Fred Upton and Jack Hoogendyk, I pointed out that Upton made several mistakes in his analysis of election data.

Upton/Hoogendyk Debate

Upton: Well, I don't know if he could win or not. Voters will make that decision. I do know as I watched his career in the House and watched him run for nine offices in nine years, a career candidate on a host of fronts, governor, U.S. Senate, I watched him as a state Rep take what I considered a safe Republican district in Portage and make it awfully close, in fact, it had a recount to make sure he crossed the finish line as a Republican. When he ran for U.S. Senate, in that same district, Carl Levin beat him. What we saw with Jack in the state house was a steady decline in terms of support from the people that knew him best. Those that live in the same precinct.

[Me: I'm not sure what "district/precinct" means. I'll Assume Upton meant district. It's true that Jack's percentages declined. They were 57%/55%/51% in 02/04/06. (See http://electionmagic.com/.) But Upton doesn't mention that his own percentages declined, winning 69%/65%/61% in those same years. Thus Upton lost more support than Jack did over the same period. Julie Rogers wasted taxpayers' money with a recount, even though she clearly had no chance of success.
Carl Levin was an entrenched incumbent and Jack had no money, so it's no surprise he didn't win. He did easily win his own precinct, Texas 6, though. Upton could have taken on Levin in 1996, but he passed. It's a flat-out whopper to say that Larry DeShazor won handily. Larry got 51.06%.]

But another statement that Upton made slipped right by me at the time.

Transcript of Fred Upton, Jack Hoogendyk debate on Sunday

We have a diverse district. It went for Obama and President Clinton twice, particularly with Kalamazoo. It is diverse, that gives us strength, but it is one district where people don't care if you have an 'R' or 'D' next to your name.

It is true that the 1990s version was won by Clinton in 1992 and 1996. But the 6th district has changed since then. The 90s version had only a small part of Allegan County. The 2000s version had about half of Allegan. The new (2010s) version that Jack and Upton are running for this time has all but a tiny sliver of staunchly conservative Allegan County.

Running the numbers for 1992 and 1996, we find

1992
County Bush Clinton Perot
Allegan 19077 12823 8742
Berrien 29252 25840 14056
Cass 7391 8047 4756
Kalamazoo 38035 43568 21666
St. Joseph 9836 7817 6209
Van Buren 10357 12466 7255
Total 113948 110561 62684

1996
County Dole Clinton
Allegan 20859 14361
Berrien 28254 24614
Cass 7373 8207
Kalamazoo 40703 45644
St. Joseph 9764 8529
Van Buren 11347 13355
Total 118300 114710

(The numbers are slightly off due to the tiny sliver of Allegan missing, but this would not change the outcome.)

Thus Bill Clinton never won the CURRENT 6th district. That's even with Ross Perot taking a significant number of votes, more from the right than the left. The only democrat presidential nominee in recent decades to win the current 6th district is Obama. And that was after John McCain, who Upton endorsed early on in the primary, publicly abandoned the state of Michigan.

At least when it comes to election data, Fred Upton just can't get his facts straight.

Kalamazoo Charter Amendments Would Restrict Democracy

UPDATE: The controversial amendments were postponed for more study.

The Kalamazoo City Commission is considering several charter amendments.

Kalamazoo City Commission to consider placing charter amendments on November ballot

At a June 1 meeting, commissioners began considering several charter potential amendments, including changes in the way Kalamazoo voters elect the mayor and city commissioners. They may include moving the mayor to a separate ticket, changing commissioners' terms to four years from two, and establishing wards and electing city commissioners from those wards.

Considering each in turn...

Right now, the mayor of Kalamazoo is mainly a ceremonial position. He has no more power than any other city commissioner. Currently, the mayor is the candidate for city commission who receives the most votes. It isn't clear why this should change if he has the same power as any other commissioner.

What would be the purpose of changing commissioners' terms to four years? Campaigns for city commission are hardly long or arduous. This would only have the effect of making commissioners less accountable to the voters.

Political districts are desirable when political jurisdictions are large, so that legislators from one area cannot adequately represent citizens from another area. This applies to the United States, the state of Michigan, and perhaps even Kalamazoo County. But does it apply to the city of Kalamazoo, whose area is about 2/3 that of a township? Can someone from Winchell not represent Milwood? I think not.

A ward system would have the effect of making it harder to elect members of minority groups in the city of Kalamazoo, such as Hispanics or Republicans.

Upton Misrepresents RightMichigan.com

Recently a surrogate of Fred Upton posted an article promoting Upton and attacking Jack Hoogendyk on RightMichigan.com. It was a shoddy piece, with no documentation and with the same paragraph copied twice. It was the usual tripe that Upton's supporters have been spreading on Mlive.com and elsewhere.

Michigan 6: Fred Upton vs. Jack Hoogendyk

There was nothing too remarkable about this. RightMichigan's regular readers quickly tore the piece apart in the comments.

Then, a few days later, what should arrive in my mailbox?


The headline states that RightMichigan.com posted the analysis. This is false, except in the sense that it allowed a user to post the piece. As far as I can tell, he has never posted on the site before. The editor of RightMichigan, Jason Gillman, has endorsed Jack Hoogendyk, as have most if not all the regular contributors to the site (including me).

Notably, Upton's email does not have a link to the piece, unlike many of his other "in case you missed it" emails. This is probably because of the way the piece is shredded in the comments.

Upton trying to imply that Michigan's top conservative blog supports him when it doesn't is yet another addition to his disgraceful campaign.

See also: Maybe It Was A Frathouse Initiation

Obama Lied, Mexicans Died

Ann Coulter absolutly nails the "Gunwalker"/"Fast and Furious" scandal in her latest column. Read the whole thing.

THE BIGGEST SCANDAL IN U.S. HISTORY

To reiterate and expand on a few points...

This is a huge scandal. Watergate is traditionally seen as the BIGGEST SCANDAL EVER, but how many people died in Watergate? None. Nobody was injured, no money was stolen. It is known that FDR and JFK both spied on their political opponents, but Nixon will be forever damned for it. Hundreds of people died in Gunwalker.

This was not a "botched" law-enforcement operation. The agents on the ground knew that sending guns to Mexican drug dealers had no legitimate purpose. They repeatedly protested to their superiors, but were overruled.

Ann points out the campaign by administration officials and the left to claim that 90% of guns used in Mexican shootings came from the US. This was easily debunked by many conservative sources at the time, but they kept repeating it. The whole point of this argument was to argue for restricting Americans' gun rights.

The only explanation that makes sense is that the guns were shipped to Mexico to provide evidence to back up the administration's support for gun control. It would seem that gun control continued to poll terribly, so the administration never launched a public campaign for it. The "90%" talking point disappeared from the media.

Even so, democrats in Congress argue that the larger issue here is that too many guns are going to Mexico, so we need gun control. That's like arguing that the larger issue in Watergate was the shockingly high burglary rate in Washington. No, the issue is that the administration was committing the crimes.

The House of Representatives just voted to hold Eric Holder in contempt for his refusal to turn over documents relating to his involvement in the scandal. A handful of pro-gun democrats supported the resolution. (No thanks go to the 19 senate Republicans who voted to confirm Holder, when it was perfectly clear what kind of crook he would be.)

At this point the biggest question remaining is whether President Obama was involved in the execution of this scandal, or only in the coverup. His claim of executive privilege would argue that he was, while the ham-handed way it was carried out would argue that only Holder was to blame.

George Romney's Record

After the Roberts betrayal, our last chance to repeal Obamacare is to elect Mitt Romney and a Republican senate. Of course, the chances of doing so without someone important selling out aren't great. The following article on George Romney's history in Michigan is not encouraging.

Like Father, Like Son—Betraying The GOP Base Is A Romney Family Tradition

Et Tu, Roberts?

Regarding John Roberts' betrayal of America in the Obamacare and Arizona immigration law cases, remember that Ann Coulter warned us about him seven years ago.

SOUTER IN ROBERTS' CLOTHING

But unfortunately, other than that that, we don't know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.

FOOL ME EIGHT TIMES, SHAME ON ME

Bush said "Trust me," and Republicans trust him. It shouldn't be difficult for conservatives to convince themselves that Roberts is our man. They've had practice convincing themselves of the same thing with Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter.

READ MY LIPS: NO NEW LIBERALS

It doesn't help to have someone who thinks that, as an original matter, the Constitution says nothing about state abortion laws if he is then going to "balance" the law against "the integrity of the institution," "public confidence in our system of justice," "the need for stability and predictability," "the sweet mystery of life," blah blah blah. The problem with establishment types is precisely that they worry about everything except the law. Just get the law right and shut up.

Office of Sustainability to Replace University Bookstore

Last year, Western bought the privately owned University Bookstore, ending competition with its WMU Bookstore. Now Western will close the store and replace it with the burgeoning bureaucracy of its "Office of Sustainability".

University Bookstore to undergo $300,000 renovations; WMU officials envision 'deep green building'
WMU's University Bookstore closing to make way for Office of Sustainability; 75% discount clearance sale under way

"Sustainability" is the latest Trojan horse of the environmental movement. Whatever it is, it seems to involve spending tons of money.

Back in 2010, the students approved an $8 per semester fee to fund "sustainability" initiatives. This was in addition to the $21 student activities fee.

The article states that the renovated building is only a temporary predecessor to a "Deep Green Building" with a "significant budget".

If anyone wonders why tuition keeps increasing above the rate of inflation, this is part of the reason.

Previous:
Western's Bookstore Monopoly
Another Green Scam
Wrongest Statement Ever in the Herald?

Michigan Republican Liberty Caucus Endorsements

Michigan's Republican Liberty Caucus has made its endorsements.

http://mi.rlc.org/endorsements/

Congressional:
3: Justin Amash
11: Kerry Bentivolio

State House:
88: Amanda Van Essen
This is a safe R district where no democrat even filed. It is the majority of Dave Agema's current district.
96: Chad Dewey (safe D district)
109: Jim Hafeman (safe D district)

Kalamazoo County Right to Life Endorsements

I missed this at the time. Right to Life has also made endorsements in Kalamazoo County elections.

https://secure.rtl.org/apps/elections/listing (search Kalamazoo at the bottom)

All endorsed are Republicans.

Prosecutor: Scott Pierangeli
Sheriff: Bruce LaBrie (not Ward Lawrence)
Treasurer: Mary Balkema
Drain Commissioner: Nasim Ansari

County Commission:
3: Anthony Dugal
5: David Worthams
7: Danielle Gray and Roger Tuinier both meet criteria
10: Phil Stinchcomb (not Charles Bogren)
11: John Zull

No endorsements for Jeff Heppler, Dale Pominville, Dave Maturen, Brandt Iden, or Tim Snow.

Stun Gun Ban Unconstitutional

So the Michigan Court of Appeals rules.

Appeals court strikes down Michigan ban on stun guns

The legislature passed a bill allowing ownership with a concealed carry permit. But you shouldn't need any permit from the government to defend yourself. You don't need a permit to own a real gun; you shouldn't need one for a stun gun either.

Previous:
Legalize Stun Guns
Legalize Tasers Without Permit
Stun Gun Ban is Unconstitutional
Legalize Stun Guns

Western Graduates Find Jobs

Jobs as bakers and deli managers, that is, according to this article.

Western Michigan University graduates optimisitic about job market

Western is obviously putting the best possible spin on things, but the most relevant question is whether students find a job in their field of study.

The third student interviewed is moving to Detroit to look for a job.

Fred Upton's Phantom Cuts

Several times in recent weeks, Congressman Fred Upton has claimed to have voted to cut spending by 6 trillion. But is this true?

Southwest Michigan Politics: Mike O'Brien to speak Thursday in Kalamazoo; Congressman Fred Upton's latest mailer targets Barack Obama more than Jack Hoogendyk

There is no documentation for the claim in the mailer. I could not find any documentation on the internet either. The only mention of the claim is a letter to the editor from an Upton supporter.

Glad Fred Upton is fighting for fiscal responsibility (Letter)

The federal government will spend $3.8 trillion in 2012. So Upton is claiming to support cutting more than the entire federal budget. So he must be claiming to cut spending over multiple years.

This is an easy way to inflate the nominal size of the supposed cuts. If we cut spending by one dollar per year for the next six trillion years, how much have we cut spending?

But it's worse than this. Because future spending cuts never actually happen. Whenever Congress wants to pretend to cut spending, they pass a plan to cut spending by some gigantic amount over ten years. Breaking down the cuts over ten years, you inevitably find that they are all in future years, and little or nothing is cut in the first year.

Of course, Congress knows perfectly well that they cannot bind future Congresses. That is, any laws passed later will supersede the earlier law containing the cuts. Probably nobody will even remember the earlier law. Even if somebody does, members of Congress will argue that we can't make those cuts NOW. Look at all the urgent needs we face! We'll cut spending next year!

Say, I think I'll spend a billion dollars next year. Wait, no I won't. I just cut a billion dollars in spending! Look how fiscally responsible I am!

The only cuts that matter are the cuts this year. While Upton has voted for a few small cuts now that he has a competitive primary, his overall record is poor.

Even if Upton had cut six trillion, that would only be one third of the $17 trillion present-value unfunded liability of the Medicare prescription drug program that Upton voted for back in 2003. It only passed by five votes, so Upton could have rallied enough members to stop it.

It's a lot easier to pretend to cut spending than to actually cut spending.

Terri Mellinger, RIP

Terri Mellinger, the democrat Supervisor of Kalamazoo Township died Thursday morning. She had been suffering from an illness for months. The articles on her death do not specify which illness. She had not attended board meetings in months. Mellinger had not filed for reelection. It is not clear who will run the township government until the November election.

Terri Mellinger 'blossomed' as Kalamazoo Township supervisor, board member says

Previous:
Democrat Supervisor Doesn't Pay Taxes
Kalamazoo Township Goes Godless

Ann Coulter Takes Down Lisa Brown

Ann Coulter has a great response to the obnoxious feminist state rep. Lisa Brown who threw a fit after Republicans objected to her vulgar pro-abortion rant on the floor of the state house.

VULGARIANS ON THE LOOSE!

Michigan Right to Life Endorsements

Michigan Right to Life came out with its August primary election endorsements today. The most notable endorsement was covered in a separate post.

https://secure.rtl.org/apps/elections/listing

There are two notable non-endorsements on their list. Congressman Justin Amash and Michigan House Speaker Jase Bolger are both conspicuously absent.

Amash is pro-life and supports banning abortion, but has differed with Right to Life on several tactical questions.

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/02/justin_amash_explains_present.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/juneweb-only/gender-abortion-bill.html

As for Bolger, my best guess is that MRTL thinks he hasn't moved pro-life legislation quickly enough in the state house.

In other races, all four Republican senate candidates met MRTL's criteria. All the Republican congressional incumbents were endorsed. In the 11th district, Kerry Bentivolio and write-in Nancy Cassis both met criteria. Democrat Bob Costello was endorsed in the 14th.

In state house races, Republican incumbents and some democrats were endorsed. For the open seats, we have the following.
4. democrat Ernest Little. MRTL hasn't had much success in Detroit. Little is one of 11 candidates for an open seat.
18. democrat Phillip DeMaria. He's one of four democrats seeking this Macomb seat, along with former rep. Sarah Roberts.
25. Republican Sean Clark. He seems decent. He has a lot of establishment support, including conservative Senator Jack Brandenburg.
26. Republican Mark Bliss in this safe D district.
28. democrat Lesia Liss over fellow incumbent Jon Switalski.
39. Republican Nicholas Kennedy. He's one of six Republicans seeking this competitive seat vacated by the infamous democrat Lisa Brown. Brad Hantler looks pretty good here.
40. Republican David Wolkinson, one of four. Seems to be a Rick Snyder loyalist. County commissioner David Potts has a ton of establishment support. Is he not pro-life?
41. Republican Martin Howrylak. I like Deb Debacker here. Howrylak does not mention life issues on his website. Is Matt Pryor not pro-life?
52. No endorsement for Mark Ouimet.
63. No endorsement for Jase Bolger.
67. All Republicans meet criteria.
68. Republican Timothy Moede in this safe D district.
74. Both meet criteria.
78. Republican Dave Pagel. David Mann looks good here. Definitely not Brian Savage.
81. Republican Dan Lauwers, one of five. Check out Gary Eisen's mailbox.
88. Both meet criteria. Amanda Van Essen looks good here.
93. All four meet criteria. I like Tom Leonard here.
94. Republicans Ann Doyle and Tim Kelly both meet criteria.
108. No endorsement for Ed McBroom.