Gov. Sarah Palin at her rally in West Chester, Ohio today:
"In this election, especially here in Ohio, you're going to be asked to choose between a candidate who will not disavow a group committing voter fraud and a leader who will not tolerate it. This group needs to learn that you, here in Ohio, you won't let them turn the Buckeye state into the ACORN state."
Video
Friday, October 17, 2008
What's next after SCOTUS ruling on Ohio voting?
I missed getting this post out earlier because of a lunch with a friend who is leaving Toledo for more fertile grounds in North Carolina (imagine that).
Anyway, better late than never.
Yes, the Supreme Court, in an unsigned opinion, granted Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's request to halt verification of voter registration information AND the reporting of any mismatches to local boards of elections. However, they did NOT rule on the issue of the law.
The opinion clarifies that the justices were not commenting on whether Ohio is complying with a provision of the Help America Vote Act of 2002. They said they were granting Brunner's request because the law does not allow private entities, like the Ohio GOP, to file suit to enforce the provisions of the law they sued over.
So the Ohio Republican Party does not have the standing to file the suit.
Next question: who does and how quickly can we get individuals with standing to file their complaint? It appears that the lower courts would issue the same types of rulings - and the judges really wouldn't have to think very hard since they've just heard the arguments.
I'll volunteer!
Anyway, better late than never.
Yes, the Supreme Court, in an unsigned opinion, granted Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's request to halt verification of voter registration information AND the reporting of any mismatches to local boards of elections. However, they did NOT rule on the issue of the law.
The opinion clarifies that the justices were not commenting on whether Ohio is complying with a provision of the Help America Vote Act of 2002. They said they were granting Brunner's request because the law does not allow private entities, like the Ohio GOP, to file suit to enforce the provisions of the law they sued over.
So the Ohio Republican Party does not have the standing to file the suit.
Next question: who does and how quickly can we get individuals with standing to file their complaint? It appears that the lower courts would issue the same types of rulings - and the judges really wouldn't have to think very hard since they've just heard the arguments.
I'll volunteer!
'You make me sick,' councilman tells business owner
Yes, it's true, but probably only in Toledo.
At-large Councilman Joe McNamara held a press conference yesterday in front of a gas station to criticize local carry-outs that sell miscellaneous items that some people use as drug paraphernalia. He claimed the stores were selling crack pipes and that new regulations are needed to prevent sales to kids.
According to this news report, McNamara got emotional when the owner stated he wasn't breaking the law by selling such items.
Note that McNamara does not want to outlaw the sale of the items he claims can be used for drugs, nor is he calling for increased enforcement of the existing laws relating to illegal drug usage. No, he wants to regulate the business.
It will come as no surprise to you, I'm sure, that McNamara has gone after other such items - like plastic storage bags - for the same reason. Or that Toledo's land contract regulations were also sponsored by McNamara.
What do these things have in common - besides the obvious, that is?
They're all part of the recommendations from Toledo's Housing Task Force.
This group is dominated by neighborhood groups, city of Toledo administrators and even the spouse of sitting County Commissioner (which explains her strong support of the recommendations). While the chairman of the group is a builder and there are two banks represented, the remaining members have their own agendas when it comes to what they think is best for a neighborhood, and none of those include free-market principles. The group also includes individuals known to affiliate with more government regulation, rather than more freedom.
Here are some of the recommendations they make:
Sound familiar? They should - the city has either implemented or is considering implementing these ideas.
Sadly, their recommendations aren't just about improving the housing stock in Toledo, they also include social engineering:
The Toledo Housing Fund is just another bureaucracy used to funnel dollars - and now they are recommending that Toledo export it's failed policies. For a Toledo task force to meddle in the affairs of other jurisdictions by telling them what type of housing they should provide is unacceptable. But then, the idea that white people are fleeing Toledo to avoid being near African-American neighborhoods is routinely promoted by many within our community, including former mayor Jack Ford. And others have expounded that the only way to address such 'inequities' is to insist that low-income housing be imposed upon those other jurisdictions.
This group also wants to continue the failed policies that got us into our current housing mess:
While I can understand these ideas and recognize the value such assistance might have to overall neighborhood successes, I object to the method: to use public tax dollars to benefit some at the expense of others. The only solution appears to be more government spending - not a reliance upon private or charitable entities to accomplish the objective.
They also want to resort to civil penalties for violations - even if said violations are already against the law. In addition to the ones listed above, they include:
And then there is the social engineering - with no mention of free-market ideals:
Many of the goals of the task force are commendable. But the way they are implemented ignores several vital factors:
1. The citizens of Toledo have not approved this approach. This is a government task force, dominated by big-government thinkers who are pushing their agenda into law with the help of one of the task force members who is also a member of city council.
2. Despite their goal of 'diverse' neighborhoods, the task force is highly lacking in diversity with limited or no representation from business owners and 'average citizens' ... not to mention the absence of political or philosophical diversity.
3. The solutions favor government control over free-market principles. To subsidize a particular type of housing because politicians and special interest groups want it results in a housing stock that buyers and sellers may reject. Perhaps the group subconsciously recognizes this fallacy. Understanding that people have left Toledo for various reasons, they recommend instituting Toledo's failed policies in surrounding jurisdictions. Of course, that will just cause people to leave those jurisdictions as well.
4. The thinking behind these recommendations result in attacks (like McNamara made) against business owners. The effort to 'improve' neighborhoods in these manners breeds a contempt for the wrong entity - the business - and not for the true source of the problem - the city and its policies.
The reason people have drug use, loitering, trash, etc. in their neighborhoods is not because of a business but because of the people who live in the neighborhood. Repeated phone calls to police do not result in enforcement of the existing laws, but a growing frustration that existing laws are not enough because the city does not have enough police to follow through with the enforcement. To address the symptom, people try to close down the business, failing to recognize that the activities will continue - just in front of a closed-up building instead.
But this how government operates in opposition to free choice: establish a task force, pack it with people who share your goal, come up with recommendations to expand government, use the force of government (though laws, taxation and taxpayer-funded 'incentives') to mandate the ideas, claim you're doing things for the 'common good,' and then scratch your head and call for more of the same when the results are not as expected.
I wish the goal of this task force had been to increase freedom for Toledoans - maybe it would have saved McNamara from his temper tantrum.
At-large Councilman Joe McNamara held a press conference yesterday in front of a gas station to criticize local carry-outs that sell miscellaneous items that some people use as drug paraphernalia. He claimed the stores were selling crack pipes and that new regulations are needed to prevent sales to kids.
According to this news report, McNamara got emotional when the owner stated he wasn't breaking the law by selling such items.
"You better stop selling crack pipes … next to kids," Mr. McNamara said. "You make me sick!"
Note that McNamara does not want to outlaw the sale of the items he claims can be used for drugs, nor is he calling for increased enforcement of the existing laws relating to illegal drug usage. No, he wants to regulate the business.
It will come as no surprise to you, I'm sure, that McNamara has gone after other such items - like plastic storage bags - for the same reason. Or that Toledo's land contract regulations were also sponsored by McNamara.
What do these things have in common - besides the obvious, that is?
They're all part of the recommendations from Toledo's Housing Task Force.
This group is dominated by neighborhood groups, city of Toledo administrators and even the spouse of sitting County Commissioner (which explains her strong support of the recommendations). While the chairman of the group is a builder and there are two banks represented, the remaining members have their own agendas when it comes to what they think is best for a neighborhood, and none of those include free-market principles. The group also includes individuals known to affiliate with more government regulation, rather than more freedom.
Here are some of the recommendations they make:
Objectives
1-A Promote use of available incentives for market-rate and affordable housing to local and regional housing developers.
1-B Provide a more effective enforcement tool to ensure that rental properties are brought up to code by strengthening TMC Section 1763 by adding substantial civil fines: $250 for 1st offense, $500 for 2nd offense & $1,000 for 3rd offense.
1-C Provide a more effective enforcement tool to ensure that properties being sold through land contract be brought up to
code, including substantial civil fines: $250 for 1st offense, $500 for 2nd offense & $1,000 for 3rd offense.
1-D Inventory and secure vacant properties by drafting and passing an ordinance that requires registering vacant properties and that they be secured to specific standards.
Sound familiar? They should - the city has either implemented or is considering implementing these ideas.
Sadly, their recommendations aren't just about improving the housing stock in Toledo, they also include social engineering:
1-I Work with the Toledo Housing Fund in their efforts to secure adequate funds that are non-federal, dedicated, and ongoing for market rate rehab and new construction within the City of Toledo and to disperse low and moderate-income households outside of Toledo.
The Toledo Housing Fund is just another bureaucracy used to funnel dollars - and now they are recommending that Toledo export it's failed policies. For a Toledo task force to meddle in the affairs of other jurisdictions by telling them what type of housing they should provide is unacceptable. But then, the idea that white people are fleeing Toledo to avoid being near African-American neighborhoods is routinely promoted by many within our community, including former mayor Jack Ford. And others have expounded that the only way to address such 'inequities' is to insist that low-income housing be imposed upon those other jurisdictions.
This group also wants to continue the failed policies that got us into our current housing mess:
Objectives
2-A Assist low or moderate income households become first-time buyers by reducing the amount of cash needed at closing in down payment assistance or to assist CDC’s in selling their new or rehabilitated homes to homeowners.
2-B Create a City of Toledo Employer-Assisted Housing Program to which the City would match $1 of City funds for each $1 of an employer’s fund, up to $5,000, to enable an employee to purchase a home in the City of Toledo.
2-D Create a linked deposit program to fund incentives to retain and attract middle-income and professional households, empty nesters, young professionals, and urban pioneers to all Toledo neighborhoods, especially target neighborhoods.
2-E Help low-income seniors and/or handicapped home owners remain in their homes by providing grants for emergency home repairs.
2-F Help low-income homeowners (especially female heads of household) remain in their homes by providing grants for emergency repairs.
While I can understand these ideas and recognize the value such assistance might have to overall neighborhood successes, I object to the method: to use public tax dollars to benefit some at the expense of others. The only solution appears to be more government spending - not a reliance upon private or charitable entities to accomplish the objective.
They also want to resort to civil penalties for violations - even if said violations are already against the law. In addition to the ones listed above, they include:
3-A Improve the effectiveness of TMC Section 554 eliminate discriminatory/steering real estate practices by amending it to include civil fines and civil law suits.
And then there is the social engineering - with no mention of free-market ideals:
Objectives
4-A Encourage developers of new subdivisions to set aside between 5% than 10% of the units for low and moderate-income families by providing additional incentives to the developers.
4-B Disperse low- and moderate-income housing throughout Lucas County and the City of Toledo. The Mayor should work with the Lucas County Commissioners, the Toledo-Lucas County Plan Commissions and other leaders within the region to expand the policy of inclusionary zoning.1
4-C Strategic dispersal of individual housing tax credit units throughout a neighborhood at densities not to exceed 15 percent of the housing units on a block.
***1 “The establishment of zoning regulations which create incentives or requirements for affordable housing development. This can include set-aside requirements or density bonuses for developers.”
Many of the goals of the task force are commendable. But the way they are implemented ignores several vital factors:
1. The citizens of Toledo have not approved this approach. This is a government task force, dominated by big-government thinkers who are pushing their agenda into law with the help of one of the task force members who is also a member of city council.
2. Despite their goal of 'diverse' neighborhoods, the task force is highly lacking in diversity with limited or no representation from business owners and 'average citizens' ... not to mention the absence of political or philosophical diversity.
3. The solutions favor government control over free-market principles. To subsidize a particular type of housing because politicians and special interest groups want it results in a housing stock that buyers and sellers may reject. Perhaps the group subconsciously recognizes this fallacy. Understanding that people have left Toledo for various reasons, they recommend instituting Toledo's failed policies in surrounding jurisdictions. Of course, that will just cause people to leave those jurisdictions as well.
4. The thinking behind these recommendations result in attacks (like McNamara made) against business owners. The effort to 'improve' neighborhoods in these manners breeds a contempt for the wrong entity - the business - and not for the true source of the problem - the city and its policies.
The reason people have drug use, loitering, trash, etc. in their neighborhoods is not because of a business but because of the people who live in the neighborhood. Repeated phone calls to police do not result in enforcement of the existing laws, but a growing frustration that existing laws are not enough because the city does not have enough police to follow through with the enforcement. To address the symptom, people try to close down the business, failing to recognize that the activities will continue - just in front of a closed-up building instead.
But this how government operates in opposition to free choice: establish a task force, pack it with people who share your goal, come up with recommendations to expand government, use the force of government (though laws, taxation and taxpayer-funded 'incentives') to mandate the ideas, claim you're doing things for the 'common good,' and then scratch your head and call for more of the same when the results are not as expected.
I wish the goal of this task force had been to increase freedom for Toledoans - maybe it would have saved McNamara from his temper tantrum.
'Not business friendly' post #15 - the results of bad policy
As you can see from the title of this post, I've done of lot of posts about Toledo and Ohio being 'not business friendly' in terms of their policies, laws and taxation.
Whether it was increased spending on frivolous or unmandated items, perpetual increases in property taxes in the name of 'the children,' new licensing requirements and threatened closure of businesses they don't like, or the actual takeover of private business in order to generate 'income' for the city (yes, they actually think that's what happens), there was bound to be a impact that could be measured in objective terms.
And that's exactly what was shown during yesterday's Toledo City Council Finance Committee Meeting.
According to the handout:
While I will not discount the partial impact that the national economy has on us locally, even when Ohio's and the nation's economy was good, Toledo was losing population and businesses. The local politicians like to blame everyone but themselves for this, but the evidence is clear.
Toledo is losing not just the businesses, but also the revenue from those businesses.
And despite looking at a deficit that is now estimated to be around $10 million, our expenditures are up: overtime by fire, refuse and police; salaries and wages; pension costs; and utilities account for most of it. Even medical costs are higher, though they are still within the budgeted amounts.
It's the spending, stupid.
But still it's not the fault of the politicians. No, they expect that the local economy will improve when the 'broader economic climate' does. However, such an expectation requires the 'willing suspension of disbelief' and the ability to disregard the historical evidence. For about 20 years, Lucas County has led the state with the highest unemployment numbers of all the urban counties - and that's through good and bad economies and both republican and democrat presidents and governors.
And they would never admit that their socialist, anti-business policies, rules, regulations and laws have anything to do with it, even though reversal of such would certainly have a positive impact on tax collections.
Unfortunately, upcoming legislation in Toledo doesn't seem to reflect the lesson waiting to be learned. Whether it's shutting down businesses if they violate a more restrictive noise ordinance or putting new restrictions on convenience stores as an alternative to better or more enforcement of existing laws by our police department, or moratoriums on home day cares, Toledo City Council seems poised to take their anti-business stance to the next level.
This is not business friendly. One can only hope that the impact on what they consider to be 'their' checkbook, i.e., the city's general fund, will eventually make them change their ways.
Whether it was increased spending on frivolous or unmandated items, perpetual increases in property taxes in the name of 'the children,' new licensing requirements and threatened closure of businesses they don't like, or the actual takeover of private business in order to generate 'income' for the city (yes, they actually think that's what happens), there was bound to be a impact that could be measured in objective terms.
And that's exactly what was shown during yesterday's Toledo City Council Finance Committee Meeting.
According to the handout:
"Business Net Profits for the month of September were 17.31% lower than the same month last year, resulting in a year-to-date decrease of 24.67%. We expect no improvement in this category until the economic cycle clearly turns the corner.
The Individual Net Profits category for the month of September was down 21.83% from the same period last year. The year-to-date result is still in the -13% range."
While I will not discount the partial impact that the national economy has on us locally, even when Ohio's and the nation's economy was good, Toledo was losing population and businesses. The local politicians like to blame everyone but themselves for this, but the evidence is clear.
Toledo is losing not just the businesses, but also the revenue from those businesses.
And despite looking at a deficit that is now estimated to be around $10 million, our expenditures are up: overtime by fire, refuse and police; salaries and wages; pension costs; and utilities account for most of it. Even medical costs are higher, though they are still within the budgeted amounts.
It's the spending, stupid.
But still it's not the fault of the politicians. No, they expect that the local economy will improve when the 'broader economic climate' does. However, such an expectation requires the 'willing suspension of disbelief' and the ability to disregard the historical evidence. For about 20 years, Lucas County has led the state with the highest unemployment numbers of all the urban counties - and that's through good and bad economies and both republican and democrat presidents and governors.
And they would never admit that their socialist, anti-business policies, rules, regulations and laws have anything to do with it, even though reversal of such would certainly have a positive impact on tax collections.
Unfortunately, upcoming legislation in Toledo doesn't seem to reflect the lesson waiting to be learned. Whether it's shutting down businesses if they violate a more restrictive noise ordinance or putting new restrictions on convenience stores as an alternative to better or more enforcement of existing laws by our police department, or moratoriums on home day cares, Toledo City Council seems poised to take their anti-business stance to the next level.
This is not business friendly. One can only hope that the impact on what they consider to be 'their' checkbook, i.e., the city's general fund, will eventually make them change their ways.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Observers must be allowed at early voting sites, Ohio Supreme Court rules
The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner must order the county boards of elections to allow observers at sites for absentee early voting periods.
Brunner had taken the position that Ohio law does 'not require' observers during the early voting times, so boards were told they did not have to allow observers access to the sites. When a radio show host asked her spokesman, Jeff Ortega, about this interpretation - 'not required' being different from 'prohibited' - Ortega hung up.
It was a 4-3 decision with Republican Justices Paul Pfeifer, Terrence O'Donnell, Robert R. Cupp and Judge Lynn Charles Slaby of the 9th District Court of Appeals, a Republican hearing the case by assignment, in the majority. Dissenting were Republican Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, Republican Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger and Judge William Herman Wolff Jr. of the 2nd District Court of Appeals, a Democrat also sitting by assignment. Republican Justices Maureen O'Connor and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, who are on the ballot this fall for re-election, removed themselves from the case.
This is a win for Ohio, especially in light of the coverage Palestra.net has provided about voting irregularities, and all the questionable registrations submitted by ACORN.
Here is the one-page ruling...opinion to follow.
Brunner had taken the position that Ohio law does 'not require' observers during the early voting times, so boards were told they did not have to allow observers access to the sites. When a radio show host asked her spokesman, Jeff Ortega, about this interpretation - 'not required' being different from 'prohibited' - Ortega hung up.
It was a 4-3 decision with Republican Justices Paul Pfeifer, Terrence O'Donnell, Robert R. Cupp and Judge Lynn Charles Slaby of the 9th District Court of Appeals, a Republican hearing the case by assignment, in the majority. Dissenting were Republican Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, Republican Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger and Judge William Herman Wolff Jr. of the 2nd District Court of Appeals, a Democrat also sitting by assignment. Republican Justices Maureen O'Connor and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, who are on the ballot this fall for re-election, removed themselves from the case.
This is a win for Ohio, especially in light of the coverage Palestra.net has provided about voting irregularities, and all the questionable registrations submitted by ACORN.
Here is the one-page ruling...opinion to follow.
Evidence of fraudulent votes in Ohio
On Fox News today, with reporters from Palestra.net breaking the news, of an actual vote cast by a non-resident.
Great work, Shelby Holliday and Tiffany Wilson!
Great work, Shelby Holliday and Tiffany Wilson!
Court battle over Ohio voter registration continues
Ohio's Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court over previous court rulings that said she must verify new voter registrations with external databases and share any mismatches with local boards of election.
Here is the text of the ruling from the Sixth District U.S. Court of Appeals.
According to Brunner's own office, there are about 200,000 registrations that contain information that does not match either the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles or the Social Security Administration. That's roughly one-third of all the new registrations filed to date.
The way it's supposed to work, the Secretary of State checks the registration card information with these two external databases. Any unverifiable information is supposed to sent back to the local board of election. The local board then will attempt to clarify the mismatch. It could be something as simple as a transposition of figures in the address or Social Security number - or it could be as serious as a registration for a person who doesn't exist. Having a report of the mismatches just allows the local boards to correct the information, ensuring that the registered individual is able to cast a ballot.
Imagine what would happen if, through a typographical error, the data saved into the elections database shows the last four digits of your SS# are 1981 instead of 1891. If the board entered it incorrectly, your correct number on your ballot won't match and it could result in your vote not being counted.
The verification process protects legitimate voters while identifying potentially fraudulent voters. This is a win-win for all involved.
But for some reason, Brunner continues to fight this, despite her claims yesterday that she would comply with the ruling.
At the same time, revelations from Palestra.net reporters Tiffany Wilson and Shelby Holliday (Video Blog: Vote From Home Votes and Prosecutors Now Investigating Ohio Vote) have resulted in an investigation by the Franklin County Prosecutor.
Brunner ran on a platform of restoring confidence in Ohio's election process. So far, she's doing just the opposite.
Here is the text of the ruling from the Sixth District U.S. Court of Appeals.
According to Brunner's own office, there are about 200,000 registrations that contain information that does not match either the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles or the Social Security Administration. That's roughly one-third of all the new registrations filed to date.
The way it's supposed to work, the Secretary of State checks the registration card information with these two external databases. Any unverifiable information is supposed to sent back to the local board of election. The local board then will attempt to clarify the mismatch. It could be something as simple as a transposition of figures in the address or Social Security number - or it could be as serious as a registration for a person who doesn't exist. Having a report of the mismatches just allows the local boards to correct the information, ensuring that the registered individual is able to cast a ballot.
Imagine what would happen if, through a typographical error, the data saved into the elections database shows the last four digits of your SS# are 1981 instead of 1891. If the board entered it incorrectly, your correct number on your ballot won't match and it could result in your vote not being counted.
The verification process protects legitimate voters while identifying potentially fraudulent voters. This is a win-win for all involved.
But for some reason, Brunner continues to fight this, despite her claims yesterday that she would comply with the ruling.
Almost as if she anticipated a court ruling a few hours later, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner promised yesterday to give county elections workers access to a list of possibly problematic voter registrations. (source)
At the same time, revelations from Palestra.net reporters Tiffany Wilson and Shelby Holliday (Video Blog: Vote From Home Votes and Prosecutors Now Investigating Ohio Vote) have resulted in an investigation by the Franklin County Prosecutor.
"Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien confirmed that he is investigating alleged voter and registration fraud involving 13 newly registered voters who came to Columbus for a get-out-the-vote campaign and used the same address, a small East Side home." (source)
Brunner ran on a platform of restoring confidence in Ohio's election process. So far, she's doing just the opposite.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
COSI gets endorsement of Lucas County Republican Party
Amid a series on controversial votes, it appears that the Lucas County Republican Party has endorsed the third COSI levy, despite the rejection of this levy by voters twice before.
According to several reports, there was a motion to adjourn the meeting due to a lack of proper notice to many members of the executive committee. The LCRP bylaws call for a 5-day notice of the meeting to all members of the executive committee via U.S. mail. I spoke to several people who never received the mailed notice, but who did get a last-minute phone call.
Again, according to what I was told, Chairman Jon Stainbrook ignored the required lack of notice.
It was also brought up that Stainbrook prohibited an elected state central committee woman from entering the meeting. The elected state central committee members are, according to the bylaws, members of the executive committee and, as such, are expected to participate in the executive committee.
Now, the person banned from the meeting was Joann Wack, someone Stainbrook has publicly opposed and against whom he's made several charges. His issues with her aside, she is still the state central committeewoman and he cannot ban her from participation because he doesn't like her.
Stainbrook also named additional members of the executive committee. According to the bylaws of the party, the membership of the executive committee is as follows:
So Stainbrook does have appointment authority, but his appointments cannot exceed the combined numbers of ward chairmen, club presidents and the central committee officers.
Apparently, there was a question as to how many people could be appointed, with Stainbrook making a comment about being able to appoint as many people as he wanted.
Then came the discussion of the issues. There were questions about which issues would be considered for endorsement and Stainbrook decided only issues with a representative present would be considered. It was unknown whether or not Stainbrook informed the campaigns for the issues that they would be considered at this meeting in order for them to provide a representative. And reports indicate that there was no one present to represent COSI, even though that issue was voted upon.
There was a motion to abstain from endorsing any issue. The result of that vote was an 11-11 tie, with Stainbrook voting no. Under parliamentary procedure, the motion would fail because it did not have a majority. However, Stainbrook, despite voting 'no' already, decided that, as chairman, he could break the tie - so he voted again.
The Children Services Board levy was voted on and passed. The Port Authority levy was voted on and passed. Then the COSI levy was voted on and received a vote of 10-10. Again, under parliamentary procedure, the motion to endorse the levy would have failed. However, despite voting 'yes' to endorse COSI, making the vote 10 in favor, Stainbrook decided again that he would break the tie, thus resulting in an 11-10 vote to endorse the COSI levy.
Now, how support of these levies represents the core principles of the Republican Party of limited government and lower taxation apparently was never part of the discussion.
But for the chairman of the executive committee to vote twice is beyond any distortion of parliamentary procedure - and should be rejected by all Republicans in Lucas County.
Additionally, the lack of proper notice to members of the executive committee - as required by the bylaws - should negate any action taken tonight. Didn't Stainbrook make a huge stink about proper notice prior to being elected chairman of the party? Has he now embraced the very actions he once opposed? It appears so.
When I served on the executive committee - something I did for my entire time as an elected official - the executive committee would schedule a meeting and invite all the levy representatives to come and give a presentation. We also invited any opposition campaigns to give a presentation as well. We'd have them come in, give the presentation, answer our questions and then excuse them. We'd then decide whether or not we were going to take a position on the levy and, if so, we'd vote. The chairman never voted as part of the decision, though I suppose they could have cast a vote if we had a tie.
The LCRP will suffer criticism for the way this endorsement process was handled - or, rather, mishandled. Additionally, I expect there will be a huge outcry against Stainbrook and the party for endorsing the COSI levy - except from The Blade. I expect an editorial praising Stainbrook and the party for their 'courage' to endorse COSI will not be too far in the future.
Whether or not you personally support the COSI levy, you cannot - under any distortion of principles - claim that endorsing this levy represents the core values and principles of the Republican Party. Supporting a taxation of citizens in order to fund a non-profit entity that has proven it cannot support itself is contrary to the fundamental precepts of the GOP, including limited government, individual responsibility, and limited taxation - taxation only for the constitutionally mandated functions of government.
And local Republicans, being the people they are, will probably register their objections to this abandonment of principles by not supporting the party with their labor or their funds, rather than in any public commentary. But it would be foolish to underestimate their outrage over this.
According to several reports, there was a motion to adjourn the meeting due to a lack of proper notice to many members of the executive committee. The LCRP bylaws call for a 5-day notice of the meeting to all members of the executive committee via U.S. mail. I spoke to several people who never received the mailed notice, but who did get a last-minute phone call.
Again, according to what I was told, Chairman Jon Stainbrook ignored the required lack of notice.
It was also brought up that Stainbrook prohibited an elected state central committee woman from entering the meeting. The elected state central committee members are, according to the bylaws, members of the executive committee and, as such, are expected to participate in the executive committee.
Now, the person banned from the meeting was Joann Wack, someone Stainbrook has publicly opposed and against whom he's made several charges. His issues with her aside, she is still the state central committeewoman and he cannot ban her from participation because he doesn't like her.
Stainbrook also named additional members of the executive committee. According to the bylaws of the party, the membership of the executive committee is as follows:
ARTICLE VIII
THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
A. An Executive Committee shall be formed after the organizational meeting of the Central Committee. Membership shall include:
1. All Lucas County Republican ward chairmen.
2. The elected officers of the Central Committee, plus three (3) additional officers to be selected by the Central Committee Chairman.
3. The members of the State Republican Central Committee who reside in Lucas County.
4. The president or designee of any Lucas County Republican auxiliary club with twenty-five (25) or more paid members that has been recognized during the previous two (2) years by the Executive Committee as an active Republican organization.
5. Past LCRP Chairmen who reside in Lucas County.
6. Any Lucas County Republican officeholder elected in a general election who requests appointment by the Chairman.
7. The Party Chairman may appoint any registered Republican residing in Lucas County to be an at-large member of the Committee. The number of the Party Chairman’s appointees shall not exceed the number of members listed in Numbers 1, 2, and 4 of this section.
8. Members who serve in more than one (1) position shall have only one vote.
So Stainbrook does have appointment authority, but his appointments cannot exceed the combined numbers of ward chairmen, club presidents and the central committee officers.
Apparently, there was a question as to how many people could be appointed, with Stainbrook making a comment about being able to appoint as many people as he wanted.
Then came the discussion of the issues. There were questions about which issues would be considered for endorsement and Stainbrook decided only issues with a representative present would be considered. It was unknown whether or not Stainbrook informed the campaigns for the issues that they would be considered at this meeting in order for them to provide a representative. And reports indicate that there was no one present to represent COSI, even though that issue was voted upon.
There was a motion to abstain from endorsing any issue. The result of that vote was an 11-11 tie, with Stainbrook voting no. Under parliamentary procedure, the motion would fail because it did not have a majority. However, Stainbrook, despite voting 'no' already, decided that, as chairman, he could break the tie - so he voted again.
The Children Services Board levy was voted on and passed. The Port Authority levy was voted on and passed. Then the COSI levy was voted on and received a vote of 10-10. Again, under parliamentary procedure, the motion to endorse the levy would have failed. However, despite voting 'yes' to endorse COSI, making the vote 10 in favor, Stainbrook decided again that he would break the tie, thus resulting in an 11-10 vote to endorse the COSI levy.
Now, how support of these levies represents the core principles of the Republican Party of limited government and lower taxation apparently was never part of the discussion.
But for the chairman of the executive committee to vote twice is beyond any distortion of parliamentary procedure - and should be rejected by all Republicans in Lucas County.
Additionally, the lack of proper notice to members of the executive committee - as required by the bylaws - should negate any action taken tonight. Didn't Stainbrook make a huge stink about proper notice prior to being elected chairman of the party? Has he now embraced the very actions he once opposed? It appears so.
When I served on the executive committee - something I did for my entire time as an elected official - the executive committee would schedule a meeting and invite all the levy representatives to come and give a presentation. We also invited any opposition campaigns to give a presentation as well. We'd have them come in, give the presentation, answer our questions and then excuse them. We'd then decide whether or not we were going to take a position on the levy and, if so, we'd vote. The chairman never voted as part of the decision, though I suppose they could have cast a vote if we had a tie.
The LCRP will suffer criticism for the way this endorsement process was handled - or, rather, mishandled. Additionally, I expect there will be a huge outcry against Stainbrook and the party for endorsing the COSI levy - except from The Blade. I expect an editorial praising Stainbrook and the party for their 'courage' to endorse COSI will not be too far in the future.
Whether or not you personally support the COSI levy, you cannot - under any distortion of principles - claim that endorsing this levy represents the core values and principles of the Republican Party. Supporting a taxation of citizens in order to fund a non-profit entity that has proven it cannot support itself is contrary to the fundamental precepts of the GOP, including limited government, individual responsibility, and limited taxation - taxation only for the constitutionally mandated functions of government.
And local Republicans, being the people they are, will probably register their objections to this abandonment of principles by not supporting the party with their labor or their funds, rather than in any public commentary. But it would be foolish to underestimate their outrage over this.
Text of court decision on Ohio voter registration verification
Yesterday I blogged about the continuing court sage regarding voter registration verifications in Ohio. While I had a copy of the ruling, I did not have a way to post the 50-page decision on line.
Thanks to Laura at Pursuing Holiness who provides this link to the text of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling on Ohio voter registration verifications.
You can read for yourself some of the criticisms the majority issued against Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.
Thanks to Laura at Pursuing Holiness who provides this link to the text of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling on Ohio voter registration verifications.
You can read for yourself some of the criticisms the majority issued against Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.
More voter fraud in Ohio
As if the issues with ACORN weren't enough, we now have this report from Michelle Malkin about a houseful of out-of-state Obama activists registered as Ohio voters.
This needs to be investigated and, if proven true, prosecuted.
I don't care which side of the political aisle you're on or what your political philosophy is, this is wrong. It would be wrong if they were McCain supporters and it's wrong if they're Obama supporters.
Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike should be outraged at this and demand accountability!
And if Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner had been following the law to verify voter registrations with outside databases - and then share mismatches with local boards of elections - would this have been caught sooner?
This needs to be investigated and, if proven true, prosecuted.
I don't care which side of the political aisle you're on or what your political philosophy is, this is wrong. It would be wrong if they were McCain supporters and it's wrong if they're Obama supporters.
Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike should be outraged at this and demand accountability!
And if Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner had been following the law to verify voter registrations with outside databases - and then share mismatches with local boards of elections - would this have been caught sooner?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
BREAKING - Brunner must verify registrations and share mismatches with local boards of election
UPDATED: Copy of the complaint with case number available here.
Jason at DarkeGOP posted this ruling first and has excerpts from the ruling here.
Having read the first 15 pages of the ruling, from the entire 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, I call the majority opinion decision 'scathing.' They decide that Jennifer Brunner, Ohio's Secretary of State, made claims she could not support in saying that implementing the ruling of the lower court would be too difficult this close to an election. They also write that she tried to straddle two aspects of the law in order to support her position. They document that she had been verifying the information and sharing it with local boards, but that she stopped doing so. Considering that aspect, they decide that to do so again would not be burdensome.
They rule there is no attempt in verifying voter registrations to prevent people from voting, but that sharing voter identification mismatches with the local boards of election will only give the local boards the ability to pursue better, more accurate information from voters who have recently registered.
Also, I understand that Brunner announced today that she would voluntarily follow the law, apparently expecting the ruling of the court to go against her.
Jason at DarkeGOP posted this ruling first and has excerpts from the ruling here.
Having read the first 15 pages of the ruling, from the entire 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, I call the majority opinion decision 'scathing.' They decide that Jennifer Brunner, Ohio's Secretary of State, made claims she could not support in saying that implementing the ruling of the lower court would be too difficult this close to an election. They also write that she tried to straddle two aspects of the law in order to support her position. They document that she had been verifying the information and sharing it with local boards, but that she stopped doing so. Considering that aspect, they decide that to do so again would not be burdensome.
They rule there is no attempt in verifying voter registrations to prevent people from voting, but that sharing voter identification mismatches with the local boards of election will only give the local boards the ability to pursue better, more accurate information from voters who have recently registered.
Also, I understand that Brunner announced today that she would voluntarily follow the law, apparently expecting the ruling of the court to go against her.
RICO action filed against ACORN
This press release just in:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Maurice Thompson, (614) 224-4422
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
BUCKEYE INSTITUTE FILES STATE RICO ACTION AGAINST ACORN
Think Tank Represents Two Warren County Voters
COLUMBUS – The Buckeye Institute, a Columbus-based think tank, today filed a state RICO action against the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) on behalf of two Warren County voters. The action filed in Warren County Court of Common Pleas alleges ACORN has engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity that amounts to organized crime. It seeks ACORN’s dissolution as a legal entity, the revocation of any licenses in Ohio, and an injunction against fraudulent voter registration and other illegal activities.
Plaintiffs Jennifer Miller of Mason, Ohio and Kimberly Grant of Loveland, allege that ACORN's actions deprive them of the right to participate in an honest and effective elections process. They allege fraudulent voter registrations submitted by ACORN dilute the votes of legally registered voters.
“The right to cast a vote that is not diluted by fraudulent votes is a fundamental individual right,” Buckeye Institute President David Hansen said.
“ACORN appears to be recklessly disregarding Ohio laws and adding thousands of fraudulent voters to the state’s roles in the process,” Maurice Thompson, Director of the Buckeye Institute’s 1851 Center for Constitutional Law said. “Such voter fraud erodes the value of legally cast votes,” he added.
In the complaint, Thompson cites an accumulation of evidence showing numerous instances of admitted fraud by ACORN employees, as well as individuals solicited by ACORN.
“In light of its hiring, training and compensation practices, ACORN should have known its conduct would cause fraud,” Thompson said. “It also should know that its conduct will cause fraud in the future.”
In addition, the complaint cites conduct by ACORN in Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.
A full copy of the complaint is available online at http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/acorn.pdf.
The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, together with its 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, is a nonpartisan research and educational institute devoted to individual liberty, economic freedom, personal responsibility and limited government in Ohio.
Monday, October 13, 2008
The Bill of No Rights
The Bill of No Rights
Courtesy of Lewis W. Napper
We, the sensible of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden delusional, and other liberal, commie, pinko bedwetters.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.
ARTICLE I
You do not have the right to a new car, big-screen color TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II
You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III
You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all of your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
ARTICLE V
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.
ARTICLE VI
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and kill you.
ARTICLE VII
You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII
You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.
ARTICLE IX
You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities in education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
ARTICLE X
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness -- which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those around you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
Courtesy of Lewis W. Napper
We, the sensible of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden delusional, and other liberal, commie, pinko bedwetters.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.
ARTICLE I
You do not have the right to a new car, big-screen color TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II
You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III
You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all of your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
ARTICLE V
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.
ARTICLE VI
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and kill you.
ARTICLE VII
You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII
You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.
ARTICLE IX
You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities in education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
ARTICLE X
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness -- which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those around you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
Obama has spoken; everything's okay now
Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama spoke to a sold-out crowd today (a couple of thousand) in Toledo. He announced his new economic plan which includes a two-year tax credit for companies that hire new employees, a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures for those making a 'good faith effort' to pay their mortgages, and withdrawals from 401(k) retirement accounts without penalties.
While I'm sure there will be a lot of discussion across the blogosphere about his proposals, I thought you might be interested in what one attendee had to say, per NewsTalk 1370 WSPD:
"I love what I heard today and I believe that everything's going to be okay now."
While I'm sure there will be a lot of discussion across the blogosphere about his proposals, I thought you might be interested in what one attendee had to say, per NewsTalk 1370 WSPD:
"I love what I heard today and I believe that everything's going to be okay now."
Fear, fear and more fear - even though we have 'nothing to fear but fear itself'
While The Blade embraces the statement from President Roosevelt about having nothing to fear when it comes to promoting socialism and Presidential candidate Barack Obama, it again contradicts itself by actually promoting fear of doom and destruction when it comes to our survival.
Over the last two days, I've blogged about our paper's publisher, John Robinson Block, and his love of socialistic ideals when it comes to FDR's new 'bill of rights.' I've documented how elected officials have fallen in line with this thinking as they promote Obama's candidacy. The underlying message is that Obama offers 'hope' and 'change' and we should 'embrace' him.
But then the paper comes along with this article on global warming,
Climate change called certain and most predictions are bad, Even Ohio's namesake buckeye said to be at risk, to stoke the fear of its readers that life, as we know it, is doomed.
According to the article, we could have difficulty growing crops, with more insects and too much rain at the wrong times combining to destroy them. We'll bounce between drought and floods, will have extreme heat, including winters that could be as much as 10 degrees warmer (and how a warmer winter is a bad thing is still beyond me).
Yep - if we do nothing, we'll have more hurricanes and forest fires and more species will become extinct. We'll lose our tourism because we won't have as many fish to catch and animals to hunt. Ducks, trout and salmon will decrease while evaporation could even threaten our ability to get fresh water from Lake Erie. With warmer temperatures, we'll get more algae which will kill the fish, smell terrible and decrease our waterfront property values.
(Of course, the smell we have from the extension of the treatment plant down the street will have no impact whatsoever on our property values here where I live on the edge of the Maumee Bay.)
And let's not forget smog, which they say poses a real threat to everyone's health, or the prediction that people with allergies will suffer more.
Be afraid - be very afraid. That's the message of the article, even using "a dire forecast" as one of the article sub-headings.
So, while we're supposed to reject 'fear' about everything else, we're supposed to embrace 'fear' about the climate? The contradiction is not only obvious, it's irreconcilable.
I know the climate is changing - Earth's climate is cyclical, demonstrated by the glacial grooves seen on our Lake Erie Islands. It's obvious that this area was cold enough in the past for glaciers to exist, and it obviously warmed - without the help of humans contributing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
Personally, I think I might like a warmer climate where I am. It would save me from having to move to a warmer climate in the future. And who's to say that today's temperatures are what is the best? Are they the ideal we should strive toward, or are they just what we have adapted to?
All the 'issues' raised in the article have more to do with how humans have responded to the current cyclical climate and seem to imply that we would not be able to adapt if anything changed. I reject that idea completely.
Humans today are more equipped, in terms of our acceptance of change and our technological advances, than we have ever been. We have the knowledge, the resources and the ability to respond to just about anything, include a warming and/or cooling planet. We have the ability to live at the poles and in the desert and everywhere in between. While we're not yet at the depths of the oceans or in the expanses of space in terms of long-term habitats, it's not a matter of ability so much as it is a matter of funding to be able to do so.
So, if my property is a bit bigger because the lake level is a foot less, is that really such a bad thing? I think I might like warmer summers and winters, as well.
The Blade wants you to believe that the issues they list are problems. But we can just as fairly see them as opportunities. The Blade wants you to fear these things because it leads to more government control and mandates in order to make you safe. At the same time, they want you to reject the fear that is supposedly coming from conservatives when it comes to the political campaigns and, instead, embrace more government control, mandates and a new 'bill of rights' to make you feel safe.
So in one area they tell you not to fear, government will take care of you. In the other area they tell you be very afraid in order to justify government taking care of you.
Perhaps they're not so contradictory after all.
Over the last two days, I've blogged about our paper's publisher, John Robinson Block, and his love of socialistic ideals when it comes to FDR's new 'bill of rights.' I've documented how elected officials have fallen in line with this thinking as they promote Obama's candidacy. The underlying message is that Obama offers 'hope' and 'change' and we should 'embrace' him.
But then the paper comes along with this article on global warming,
Climate change called certain and most predictions are bad, Even Ohio's namesake buckeye said to be at risk, to stoke the fear of its readers that life, as we know it, is doomed.
"If the threat of more West Nile virus, smog, contaminated water, higher food prices, invasive species, toxic algae, lake level declines, and deaths from heat waves isn't enough to wake up people to problems associated with climate change, consider this: Ohio might lose its namesake nut to arch rival Michigan.
That's right. The buckeye.
Some fear the buckeye tree won't be able to handle the state's warming climate and will instead adapt to a more moderate climate in Michigan, a cruel fate of irony for Ohio's official tree.
But that may be the least of the region's concerns if other predictions about climate change come true - forecasts that go well beyond reduced opportunities for skiing, snowmobiling, ice fishing, and other forms of winter recreation."
According to the article, we could have difficulty growing crops, with more insects and too much rain at the wrong times combining to destroy them. We'll bounce between drought and floods, will have extreme heat, including winters that could be as much as 10 degrees warmer (and how a warmer winter is a bad thing is still beyond me).
"That, of course, is if no major changes occur soon to curb greenhouse gases."
Yep - if we do nothing, we'll have more hurricanes and forest fires and more species will become extinct. We'll lose our tourism because we won't have as many fish to catch and animals to hunt. Ducks, trout and salmon will decrease while evaporation could even threaten our ability to get fresh water from Lake Erie. With warmer temperatures, we'll get more algae which will kill the fish, smell terrible and decrease our waterfront property values.
(Of course, the smell we have from the extension of the treatment plant down the street will have no impact whatsoever on our property values here where I live on the edge of the Maumee Bay.)
And let's not forget smog, which they say poses a real threat to everyone's health, or the prediction that people with allergies will suffer more.
"We are facing threats to the life support system of the Earth," said Mr. Schneider, one of America's top climatologists and a key figure in the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's Nobel Prize-winning work in 2007.
...
Failure to pass meaningful legislation to address climate change "could put the planet and our country at risk of even bigger and graver consequences," (U.S. Rep. John Dingle, D-Mich.) said.
Be afraid - be very afraid. That's the message of the article, even using "a dire forecast" as one of the article sub-headings.
So, while we're supposed to reject 'fear' about everything else, we're supposed to embrace 'fear' about the climate? The contradiction is not only obvious, it's irreconcilable.
I know the climate is changing - Earth's climate is cyclical, demonstrated by the glacial grooves seen on our Lake Erie Islands. It's obvious that this area was cold enough in the past for glaciers to exist, and it obviously warmed - without the help of humans contributing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
Personally, I think I might like a warmer climate where I am. It would save me from having to move to a warmer climate in the future. And who's to say that today's temperatures are what is the best? Are they the ideal we should strive toward, or are they just what we have adapted to?
All the 'issues' raised in the article have more to do with how humans have responded to the current cyclical climate and seem to imply that we would not be able to adapt if anything changed. I reject that idea completely.
Humans today are more equipped, in terms of our acceptance of change and our technological advances, than we have ever been. We have the knowledge, the resources and the ability to respond to just about anything, include a warming and/or cooling planet. We have the ability to live at the poles and in the desert and everywhere in between. While we're not yet at the depths of the oceans or in the expanses of space in terms of long-term habitats, it's not a matter of ability so much as it is a matter of funding to be able to do so.
So, if my property is a bit bigger because the lake level is a foot less, is that really such a bad thing? I think I might like warmer summers and winters, as well.
The Blade wants you to believe that the issues they list are problems. But we can just as fairly see them as opportunities. The Blade wants you to fear these things because it leads to more government control and mandates in order to make you safe. At the same time, they want you to reject the fear that is supposedly coming from conservatives when it comes to the political campaigns and, instead, embrace more government control, mandates and a new 'bill of rights' to make you feel safe.
So in one area they tell you not to fear, government will take care of you. In the other area they tell you be very afraid in order to justify government taking care of you.
Perhaps they're not so contradictory after all.
The Blade speaks, politicians fall in line - again
We saw it with the issue of the United Way Building - after The Blade opposed them tearing down their dilapidated building so they could build new, multiple politicians jumped on the band wagon and agreed - even though none of them, including The Blade, had actually seen the current state of the structure.
Now it's happening again with the idea that we need another Franklin D. Roosevelt - and his disastrous policies that prolonged the depression. Yesterday's front-page lead story was how 'many' are saying we need another of FDR's new deals, including a new 'bill of rights.' FDR, according to all the liberals, saved us from ourselves.
As Warner Todd Huston writes:
But let's not allow facts to get in the way, The Blade has spoken and the politicians are falling in line.
Sen. Barack Obama is in Toledo - technically, Oregon, Ohio - preparing for his debate this week. Last night, he held a fundraiser where just about every Democrat politician took up the cry of The Blade.
And that was just the governor.
Oregon Mayor Marge Brown, Lucas County Democratic Party Chairman Ron Rothenbuhler, U.S. Representative Marcy Kaptur and State Treasurer/Attorney General candidate Richard Cordray all parroted similar sentiments.
And just to make sure you get their message, their headline makes the emphasis: Ohio governor heralds Obama as return of FDR-inspired change. All praise, the savior has arrived.
Even Obama seems to think this is a good idea. During a neighborhood stop upon his arrival, he (typically) didn't give a yes or no answer to the question of a person's right to have a job, but agreed in principle: 'I agree that everyone who is willing and able to work should be able to find a job that pays a living wage,' he said.
Of course I don't believe that the Obama campaign is taking marching orders from our local newspaper. But I do believe that our state and local politicians make a point of agreeing with our publisher whenever they can, while being either silent or highly cautious in the few instances when they disagree. Elected officials and candidates are routinely told by their colleagues and parties just how detrimental disagreement on John Robinson Block's 'pet issues' can be. And he doesn't even live in Ohio.
In this instance, agreeing with Block is very dangerous. The depression was prolonged by FDR's anti-capitalist, anti-American New Deal policies, not ended by them.
They also set us on our current path toward socialism - away from liberty and prosperity, as our founders intended. And that should make all of us afraid.
Now it's happening again with the idea that we need another Franklin D. Roosevelt - and his disastrous policies that prolonged the depression. Yesterday's front-page lead story was how 'many' are saying we need another of FDR's new deals, including a new 'bill of rights.' FDR, according to all the liberals, saved us from ourselves.
As Warner Todd Huston writes:
More and more, though, modern economists and historians are realizing that the acclamations that are so often bestowed upon Saint FDR are little else but hero worship, Democrat spin and lies. Jim Powell, author of FDR’s Follies, does a fantastic job demolishing the FDR myth and quotes Pulitzer Prize winning author David M. Kennedy as saying: “Whatever it was, the New Deal was not a recovery program, or at any rate not an effective one.”
As columnist Mark Steyn recently joked, it was FDR that put the “Great” in The Great Depression because for the rest of the world it was just a depression.
But let's not allow facts to get in the way, The Blade has spoken and the politicians are falling in line.
Sen. Barack Obama is in Toledo - technically, Oregon, Ohio - preparing for his debate this week. Last night, he held a fundraiser where just about every Democrat politician took up the cry of The Blade.
Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland praised Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama last night and compared the senator's vision for America to that of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt by likening the difficulties faced by the nation in the 1930s to those of today.
...
"FDR told the truth but also gave people hope, and FDR provided the leadership as I believe Barack Obama will provide leadership to get us out of the condition we are in and to move us forward," Mr. Strickland said.
The governor proclaimed: "Those are the words of FDR in 1933. They ought to be the words of our national leaders today in 2008. We must put our people to work, we must consider what is right for the common good of all of us, and I am convinced Barack Obama is the man to do that."
...
After his remarks, Governor Strickland said he agreed with President Roosevelt's Jan. 11, 1944, State of the Union message, in which he spoke of the need for a second Bill of Rights under which everyone has the right to a "useful and remunerative job."
And that was just the governor.
Oregon Mayor Marge Brown, Lucas County Democratic Party Chairman Ron Rothenbuhler, U.S. Representative Marcy Kaptur and State Treasurer/Attorney General candidate Richard Cordray all parroted similar sentiments.
And just to make sure you get their message, their headline makes the emphasis: Ohio governor heralds Obama as return of FDR-inspired change. All praise, the savior has arrived.
Even Obama seems to think this is a good idea. During a neighborhood stop upon his arrival, he (typically) didn't give a yes or no answer to the question of a person's right to have a job, but agreed in principle: 'I agree that everyone who is willing and able to work should be able to find a job that pays a living wage,' he said.
Of course I don't believe that the Obama campaign is taking marching orders from our local newspaper. But I do believe that our state and local politicians make a point of agreeing with our publisher whenever they can, while being either silent or highly cautious in the few instances when they disagree. Elected officials and candidates are routinely told by their colleagues and parties just how detrimental disagreement on John Robinson Block's 'pet issues' can be. And he doesn't even live in Ohio.
In this instance, agreeing with Block is very dangerous. The depression was prolonged by FDR's anti-capitalist, anti-American New Deal policies, not ended by them.
They also set us on our current path toward socialism - away from liberty and prosperity, as our founders intended. And that should make all of us afraid.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
The 'right' to a job - socialism in Toledo
The Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to our U.S. Constitution, detail the 'rights' that we, as American citizens, possess. Those rights are not granted to us by the Constitution, they are documented in the document to ensure that the freedoms and liberties we have are respected and followed by the governments we establish.
Among those rights are freedom of the press, of religion and of speech; right to bear arms; against unreasonable search and seizure; to due process of the law; a trial by jury; to bail; and the one most people forget, the restriction of the federal government: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
From the preamble, we have the right to pursue happiness, but none of the founding fathers ever indicated that government was somehow responsible for ensuring happiness or guaranteeing it in any way.
Today, The Blade, features a front page story - upper right side where the most important news traditionally goes - featuring a letter from the publisher of the paper, John Robinson Block, to Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.
The letter to Sen. Obama, which his paper thinks is the most important thing going on in the world today, asks a question in bold:
The obvious answer any presidential candidate who seeks to support and uphold the Constitution should have is: NO!
However, I suspect that Obama would provide a different answer, considering the last paragraph of the letter:
The 'story' that goes along with this self-generated news, "FDR's economic fairness initiative resonates today," claims that many people today believe we need a return to the failed policies of socialism, though the paper doesn't it call it such. Instead, it quotes Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown talking about restoring the rules of economic fairness.
The article doesn't mention that the only economic systems which claimed to produce fairness have all failed, because they attempted to regulate fairness of results rather than fairness of opportunity.
It does, however, find plenty of room to detail Roosevelt's 'Second Bill of Rights':
I find it ironic, though, that despite promoting 'the right to a good education' The Blade is opposed to school choice.
So let's take a look at these 'rights.'
How can government protect us from fears? No matter what actions a government might take to protect us from facing the consequences of age, sickness, accidents and unemployment, they cannot stop us from worrying or 'fear' about those things. And is there really anything any government can do to protect us from old age???
Every person within the borders of the United States of America has access to adequate medical care. No person with a potentially life-threatening issue is ever turned away from an emergency room. Many ERs treat people with non-life threatening issues. Access to doctors, immunizations, preventive medicine, prescription drugs, etc. is available. The trick is when government tries to re-define access as 'access without regard to ability to pay' and insists that others must pay for such care rather than allowing the free market to work and empowering individuals to be responsible (payment plans, etc.) for their own care.
Every person has the 'opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health' but government can never ensure such a thing without completely taking control of our bodies and dictating the food we eat, the exercise we get and the behaviors we embrace. Isn't that really where such a 'right' leads?
The 'right to a decent home' is part of what got us into the current financial mess. It was laws, rules and regulations Congress and government passed that put people into homes they couldn't afford, especially when unemployment benefits and welfare payments qualified as 'income' for the purposes of credit. And who gets to decide the definition of 'decent'? I think one of those lovely beach front homes in Newport, RI, would meet my definition of 'decent.' Does that mean government should give me one of them if it's my right?
The 'right' of business to be protected from unfair competition is all about government controlling every aspect of the market place. It can only lead to government price controls, government preferences and government mandates. We see how well those things work in Cuba. I bet the American people would absolutely love to have Cuba's economy these days. And if you don't like that example, you can look at how well the USSR did - oh, wait - that nation doesn't exist any more. What a ringing endorsement.
And if every farmer had a 'right' to sell his produce at a price that produced a decent (there's that word again) living, it would necessarily guarantee that consumers of such products would be paying a price that harmed their 'living.' Artificial price controls - that is, prices dictated by government and not by a free market - negatively impact our overall economy, driving the costs of goods beyond their value.
The "right to earn enough ..." I guess I'd have to equate 'enough' with 'decent' and ask who gets to decide how much is enough, and also to go back to the fact that mandating a wage or income drives the costs of labor beyond its value, which is sure-fire way to destroy an economy.
I guess I never realized how important some people believe it is for the government to guarantee my right to recreation. Does that mean they'll buy me that sailboat I've always wanted since that's MY definition of recreation?
But the most odious of these suggestions is this one:
'The right to a useful, remunerative job in industries, shops, farms, or mines.'
How does government decide what is useful? Do they tell the entrepreneur that her new invention isn't really 'useful' and prohibit her from going into business? Do the four categories (industry, shops, farms and mines) necessarily restrict us to just useful jobs in those areas?
If a person has a right to a job, does the employer - who is, also, a person - have any comparable rights? What roles do merit or skill or experience or qualifications play in such a system? Is one person's right to a job more important that another's? Since government doesn't create jobs or wealth, how can government even make such a guarantee?
And if the publisher of our local paper - born into wealth - thinks everyone should be guaranteed a job, why did he lay off people at The Blade? Did he, by reducing staff levels, violate the 'right' of his employees to a job?
When we equate the results of work to 'rights,' we eliminate any incentive to achieve. If everyone has a 'right' to the rewards, there is no reason to take a risk to attain them. There would be no reason for a person to work harder in order to gain an advantage or advancement. And if there is no reward for the effort, there will be no effort.
We must reject socialism on every level, but especially at the local one where small numbers of individuals can have a big impact. I encourage you to contact The Blade and tell them what you think of this letter and the publisher's opinion that people have a 'right' to a job.
The Blade
541 N. Superior St.
Toledo, OH 43660
(419) 724-6000
TOLL FREE: 1-800-245-3317
SHARP, LUANN, Assistant Managing Editor Administration/Features, 419-724-6127, luannsharp@theblade.com
McLAUGHLIN, MARY-BETH, Assistant City Editor (News tips), 419-724-6085, mmclaughlin@theblade.com
ROYHAB, RON, Vice President/Executive Editor, 419-724-6161, royhab@theblade.com
ZERBEY, JOSEPH, Vice President & General Manager, 419-724-6217, jzerbey@toledoblade.com
FRANCK, KURT, Managing Editor, 419-724-6163, kfranck@theblade.com
Among those rights are freedom of the press, of religion and of speech; right to bear arms; against unreasonable search and seizure; to due process of the law; a trial by jury; to bail; and the one most people forget, the restriction of the federal government: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
From the preamble, we have the right to pursue happiness, but none of the founding fathers ever indicated that government was somehow responsible for ensuring happiness or guaranteeing it in any way.
Today, The Blade, features a front page story - upper right side where the most important news traditionally goes - featuring a letter from the publisher of the paper, John Robinson Block, to Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.
The letter to Sen. Obama, which his paper thinks is the most important thing going on in the world today, asks a question in bold:
Do all Americans who want to work have the right to a job where they live?
The obvious answer any presidential candidate who seeks to support and uphold the Constitution should have is: NO!
However, I suspect that Obama would provide a different answer, considering the last paragraph of the letter:
"President Roosevelt called for a "Second Bill of Rights" guaranteeing the right to a job, the right to a decent home, the right to adequate medical care and the right to a good education. Do you agree?"
The 'story' that goes along with this self-generated news, "FDR's economic fairness initiative resonates today," claims that many people today believe we need a return to the failed policies of socialism, though the paper doesn't it call it such. Instead, it quotes Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown talking about restoring the rules of economic fairness.
The article doesn't mention that the only economic systems which claimed to produce fairness have all failed, because they attempted to regulate fairness of results rather than fairness of opportunity.
It does, however, find plenty of room to detail Roosevelt's 'Second Bill of Rights':
President Roosevelt's proposed second Bill of Rights included:
• 'The right to a useful, remunerative job in industries, shops, farms, or mines.'
• 'The right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation.'
• 'The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return that will provide a decent living.'
• 'The right of every businessman to trade with freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies.'
• 'The right of every family to a decent home.'
• 'The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.'
• 'The right to protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.'
• 'The right to a good education.'
I find it ironic, though, that despite promoting 'the right to a good education' The Blade is opposed to school choice.
So let's take a look at these 'rights.'
How can government protect us from fears? No matter what actions a government might take to protect us from facing the consequences of age, sickness, accidents and unemployment, they cannot stop us from worrying or 'fear' about those things. And is there really anything any government can do to protect us from old age???
Every person within the borders of the United States of America has access to adequate medical care. No person with a potentially life-threatening issue is ever turned away from an emergency room. Many ERs treat people with non-life threatening issues. Access to doctors, immunizations, preventive medicine, prescription drugs, etc. is available. The trick is when government tries to re-define access as 'access without regard to ability to pay' and insists that others must pay for such care rather than allowing the free market to work and empowering individuals to be responsible (payment plans, etc.) for their own care.
Every person has the 'opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health' but government can never ensure such a thing without completely taking control of our bodies and dictating the food we eat, the exercise we get and the behaviors we embrace. Isn't that really where such a 'right' leads?
The 'right to a decent home' is part of what got us into the current financial mess. It was laws, rules and regulations Congress and government passed that put people into homes they couldn't afford, especially when unemployment benefits and welfare payments qualified as 'income' for the purposes of credit. And who gets to decide the definition of 'decent'? I think one of those lovely beach front homes in Newport, RI, would meet my definition of 'decent.' Does that mean government should give me one of them if it's my right?
The 'right' of business to be protected from unfair competition is all about government controlling every aspect of the market place. It can only lead to government price controls, government preferences and government mandates. We see how well those things work in Cuba. I bet the American people would absolutely love to have Cuba's economy these days. And if you don't like that example, you can look at how well the USSR did - oh, wait - that nation doesn't exist any more. What a ringing endorsement.
And if every farmer had a 'right' to sell his produce at a price that produced a decent (there's that word again) living, it would necessarily guarantee that consumers of such products would be paying a price that harmed their 'living.' Artificial price controls - that is, prices dictated by government and not by a free market - negatively impact our overall economy, driving the costs of goods beyond their value.
The "right to earn enough ..." I guess I'd have to equate 'enough' with 'decent' and ask who gets to decide how much is enough, and also to go back to the fact that mandating a wage or income drives the costs of labor beyond its value, which is sure-fire way to destroy an economy.
I guess I never realized how important some people believe it is for the government to guarantee my right to recreation. Does that mean they'll buy me that sailboat I've always wanted since that's MY definition of recreation?
But the most odious of these suggestions is this one:
'The right to a useful, remunerative job in industries, shops, farms, or mines.'
How does government decide what is useful? Do they tell the entrepreneur that her new invention isn't really 'useful' and prohibit her from going into business? Do the four categories (industry, shops, farms and mines) necessarily restrict us to just useful jobs in those areas?
If a person has a right to a job, does the employer - who is, also, a person - have any comparable rights? What roles do merit or skill or experience or qualifications play in such a system? Is one person's right to a job more important that another's? Since government doesn't create jobs or wealth, how can government even make such a guarantee?
And if the publisher of our local paper - born into wealth - thinks everyone should be guaranteed a job, why did he lay off people at The Blade? Did he, by reducing staff levels, violate the 'right' of his employees to a job?
When we equate the results of work to 'rights,' we eliminate any incentive to achieve. If everyone has a 'right' to the rewards, there is no reason to take a risk to attain them. There would be no reason for a person to work harder in order to gain an advantage or advancement. And if there is no reward for the effort, there will be no effort.
We must reject socialism on every level, but especially at the local one where small numbers of individuals can have a big impact. I encourage you to contact The Blade and tell them what you think of this letter and the publisher's opinion that people have a 'right' to a job.
The Blade
541 N. Superior St.
Toledo, OH 43660
(419) 724-6000
TOLL FREE: 1-800-245-3317
SHARP, LUANN, Assistant Managing Editor Administration/Features, 419-724-6127, luannsharp@theblade.com
McLAUGHLIN, MARY-BETH, Assistant City Editor (News tips), 419-724-6085, mmclaughlin@theblade.com
ROYHAB, RON, Vice President/Executive Editor, 419-724-6161, royhab@theblade.com
ZERBEY, JOSEPH, Vice President & General Manager, 419-724-6217, jzerbey@toledoblade.com
FRANCK, KURT, Managing Editor, 419-724-6163, kfranck@theblade.com
Saturday, October 11, 2008
BREAKING - no more voter registration verifications in Ohio
The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted to overturn a federal court ruling ordering Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to provide an adequate system of identifying newly registered voters.
The Ohio Republican Party has asked for an en banc review of the case.
Her reasoning? It's too much work.
Ohio Republican Party State Chairman Bob Bennett issued the following statement:
Remember this quote?
"Well, I tell you what, it helps in Ohio that we've got Democrats in charge of the machines."
- Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama (Columbus Dispatch)
The Ohio Republican Party has asked for an en banc review of the case.
Her reasoning? It's too much work.
"Brunner argued that it would take two to three days to create the necessary computer programs, and that nothing in the Help America Vote Act required her to do what the lower court ordered. A three-judge panel of the appeals court agreed in a split decision.
"With less than a month until the election, and less than two weeks until the beginning of counting absentee ballots, the secretary cannot be required to undertake the extensive reprogramming and other changes to the election mechanics without complete disruption of the electoral process in Ohio," the majority said in its opinion. "The irreparable harm to the voting public caused by the district court's order is equally clear.""
Ohio Republican Party State Chairman Bob Bennett issued the following statement:
"Jennifer Brunner continues to do everything she can to help her candidate. Her efforts to fight transparency and accountability in the voting process are shameful, and her actions to conceal fraudulent activity only serve to cast doubt on the integrity of this election.
Even the courts acknowledge Secretary Brunner failed to provide election administrators with an adequate system of verifying voter registrations. She claims her office has the ability to flag questionable registrations, but she refuses to give that information to county election officials for review. The Secretary of State was asked about this process months ago, and she intentionally stonewalled everyone involved.
Ohioans have good reason to be concerned. A national Democrat activist group publicly admitted this week to engaging in fraudulent voter registration activity right here in Ohio, but rather than holding them accountable Jennifer Brunner is fighting to let their actions go unchecked.
We agree with the dissenting judge in this ruling, who said Brunner's 'lack of concern for the integrity of the elections process is astounding and deeply disturbing.' She has fought to keep absentee ballots from qualified Republican voters; she has fought to keep observers from watching the early voting process; and now she has fought to keep election officials from verifying the identity of newly registered voters. Her legal battles serve only to destroy public confidence.
Remember this quote?
"Well, I tell you what, it helps in Ohio that we've got Democrats in charge of the machines."
- Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama (Columbus Dispatch)
AFP #9 - John Stossel
His comments:
- not the strongest defender of liberty on the major networks - I'm the only defender...
- financial crisis? crisis is the friend of the state. Media constantly talking about it...last crisis was global warming...before that killer bees ... y2k ... mad cow disease ... pesticides shrinking frog testicles... politicians and the press have a constant list of crises.
- is the economy destroyed? how do we measure it? unemployment? it's 6% now, it was 10%...
- This is not a crisis. Yes, the market is down and that's bad. What about the good news, in last 20 years, Dow went from 1,000 to 10,000. it's a cycle - and it will only be a crisis if we bring big government in to solve it.
- subsidized housing has existed for years. Fannie Freddie created to interfere with the housing market. Republicans didn't create it.
- they were not subject to various checks...reckless mortgage lending was created by perverse incentives.
- what if government had cut them and AIG loose? let them negotiate with lenders, revalue assets?
- is it true that banks wouldn't find people to loan to without government action? While watching news about crisis, there are commercials for Ditech offering lending at 6%...
- the taxpayers are on the hook. Crisis is the friend of the state and only government regulation is the solution.
- the markets are behind the understanding and reach of the bureaucrats.
- government can protect us??? Americans think that government can protect us from market drops - as things are complex, we turn to government.
- take cars - they're complicated, engineering, safety, etc... Compare the worst job in your state with the best a government can produce - the Trarant.
- the Trarant disappeared as soon as the Berlin Wall fell - government's best couldn't compete in a free market.
- we do need government - but limited government. government can protect our property and keep us safe from invaders. We do need it to preserve rule of law, but the question is how much? What percent is appropriate. Government has grown from 2% to 40% of GDP...Only since Lyndon Johnson and the birth of the Great Society has the spending per person skyrocketed.
- they're spending not like drunken sailors because drunken sailors spend their own money.
- they give rich people money - for doing stupid things like me - who built on the edge of an ocean and if my house washes away, they'll give me money due to my flood insurance, and will pay for my house. And my house did wash away...so thanks for the money I didn't ask for but that you provided.
- ask high school kids - why is American prosperous? kids say it's because we're a new country with natural resources and a democracy. "is America #1?"
- kids are challenged to think about other places like India and Hong Kong - with population density and no natural resources. Answer for their success is economic freedom.
- Free people, left alone, can prosper. He explains what people face when trying to open a business. Free people, left alone and allowed to TRY, will let people prosper.
- Economic Freedom Index - countries with the most economic freedom have the most prosperity.
- Goes to skating rink with a bullhorn and tries to direct people - it fails. liberals will say it's because you need someone smarter to direct people. But that fails too. He uses this as example of why central planning fails, because they cannot know the wishes of free people.
- the conceit of central planners who think they know best is a threat to America.
- Capitalism performs miracles all the time. Think about the use of a piece of plastic to get money or rent a car in a foreign nation and then to get a bill with all the accounting correct...do you trust the government to do that?
- thanks people for fighting for the liberty that makes government great.
- not the strongest defender of liberty on the major networks - I'm the only defender...
- financial crisis? crisis is the friend of the state. Media constantly talking about it...last crisis was global warming...before that killer bees ... y2k ... mad cow disease ... pesticides shrinking frog testicles... politicians and the press have a constant list of crises.
- is the economy destroyed? how do we measure it? unemployment? it's 6% now, it was 10%...
- This is not a crisis. Yes, the market is down and that's bad. What about the good news, in last 20 years, Dow went from 1,000 to 10,000. it's a cycle - and it will only be a crisis if we bring big government in to solve it.
- subsidized housing has existed for years. Fannie Freddie created to interfere with the housing market. Republicans didn't create it.
- they were not subject to various checks...reckless mortgage lending was created by perverse incentives.
- what if government had cut them and AIG loose? let them negotiate with lenders, revalue assets?
- is it true that banks wouldn't find people to loan to without government action? While watching news about crisis, there are commercials for Ditech offering lending at 6%...
- the taxpayers are on the hook. Crisis is the friend of the state and only government regulation is the solution.
- the markets are behind the understanding and reach of the bureaucrats.
- government can protect us??? Americans think that government can protect us from market drops - as things are complex, we turn to government.
- take cars - they're complicated, engineering, safety, etc... Compare the worst job in your state with the best a government can produce - the Trarant.
- the Trarant disappeared as soon as the Berlin Wall fell - government's best couldn't compete in a free market.
- we do need government - but limited government. government can protect our property and keep us safe from invaders. We do need it to preserve rule of law, but the question is how much? What percent is appropriate. Government has grown from 2% to 40% of GDP...Only since Lyndon Johnson and the birth of the Great Society has the spending per person skyrocketed.
- they're spending not like drunken sailors because drunken sailors spend their own money.
- they give rich people money - for doing stupid things like me - who built on the edge of an ocean and if my house washes away, they'll give me money due to my flood insurance, and will pay for my house. And my house did wash away...so thanks for the money I didn't ask for but that you provided.
- ask high school kids - why is American prosperous? kids say it's because we're a new country with natural resources and a democracy. "is America #1?"
- kids are challenged to think about other places like India and Hong Kong - with population density and no natural resources. Answer for their success is economic freedom.
- Free people, left alone, can prosper. He explains what people face when trying to open a business. Free people, left alone and allowed to TRY, will let people prosper.
- Economic Freedom Index - countries with the most economic freedom have the most prosperity.
- Goes to skating rink with a bullhorn and tries to direct people - it fails. liberals will say it's because you need someone smarter to direct people. But that fails too. He uses this as example of why central planning fails, because they cannot know the wishes of free people.
- the conceit of central planners who think they know best is a threat to America.
- Capitalism performs miracles all the time. Think about the use of a piece of plastic to get money or rent a car in a foreign nation and then to get a bill with all the accounting correct...do you trust the government to do that?
- thanks people for fighting for the liberty that makes government great.
AFP #8 Blogger of the Year
My apologies for not being able to blog about the speeches by Grover Norquist, about the 'leave us alone' coalition versus the 'takings' coalition, and John Fund about voter fraud...
I was in the 'green room' with Erik Telford, the manager of New Media for AFP, preparing to accept AFP's Blogger of the Year award.
To say I'm honored is an understatement. I look at all the blogs I read and think how much I have yet to learn and do with my blog, so to have such a distinction is humbling.
My thanks to Lisa Renee of Glass City Jungle and Mike at History Mike's Musings (links will be added later) for helping a brand new blogger with getting started and various problems I encountered when I first started Thurber's Thoughts. Thanks to Mike especially who actually came up with the name. Despite our political philosophical differences, they saw me as another blogger they were glad to welcome to the blogosphere and help along the way.
My thanks also to Sam Adams Alliance and their Samsphere conferences - and to the bloggers I've met from those meetings. Without the training and education I've received from them, and the connections and 'community' (yes, that's for you, Emily and Eric!), my blog wouldn't be where it is today.
And of course, my thanks to AFP - especially the Ohio Chapter who, when I asked for help with prosperity-ending issues said we're here to help so they don't succeed. State Director Jack Boyle and Jennifer Siedel helped us establish a list serve to fight against the so-called Healthy Families Act, better known as 'sick days Ohio.' They also put me in touch with liberty-minded individuals in Cincinnati fighting tax increases.
I'm truly honored by this distinction.
I was in the 'green room' with Erik Telford, the manager of New Media for AFP, preparing to accept AFP's Blogger of the Year award.
To say I'm honored is an understatement. I look at all the blogs I read and think how much I have yet to learn and do with my blog, so to have such a distinction is humbling.
My thanks to Lisa Renee of Glass City Jungle and Mike at History Mike's Musings (links will be added later) for helping a brand new blogger with getting started and various problems I encountered when I first started Thurber's Thoughts. Thanks to Mike especially who actually came up with the name. Despite our political philosophical differences, they saw me as another blogger they were glad to welcome to the blogosphere and help along the way.
My thanks also to Sam Adams Alliance and their Samsphere conferences - and to the bloggers I've met from those meetings. Without the training and education I've received from them, and the connections and 'community' (yes, that's for you, Emily and Eric!), my blog wouldn't be where it is today.
And of course, my thanks to AFP - especially the Ohio Chapter who, when I asked for help with prosperity-ending issues said we're here to help so they don't succeed. State Director Jack Boyle and Jennifer Siedel helped us establish a list serve to fight against the so-called Healthy Families Act, better known as 'sick days Ohio.' They also put me in touch with liberty-minded individuals in Cincinnati fighting tax increases.
I'm truly honored by this distinction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
