Worcester County Freedom Trail

The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in favor of pro-life demonstrators and organizations in the cases of Operation Rescue v. NOW (No. 04-1352) and Scheidler v. NOW (No. 04-1244) – which were considered together by the high court. According to the ACLJ, which faced the Supreme Court on this issue:

In an 8-0 opinion authored by Justice Breyer, the [Supreme] Court held that pro-life protests, inclulding sit-ins, did not consittute Hobbs Act violations for the purposes of RICO. The federal statute designed to go after drug dealers and organized crime cannot be used against pro-life demonstrators. The RICO Act was never intended to apply to civil disobedience. The Hobbs Act under RICO prohibits physical violence related to robbery or extortion. In our case, the Court held that pro-life protestors did not violate RICO because their actions, including sit-ins and blockades, did not consittute a violation of the statute. The Court reversed the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and judgment will be entered for the Petitioners.

This is a major victory for the pro-life community and removes a cloud that has been hanging over pro-life demonstrators for nearly two decades.

In case you haven’t heard yet, our former Governor, Bill Weld, is running for Governor of New York state. And he’s looking for support from his base in Taxachusetts! In his latest fund-raising letter, he states:

When I became Governor of “Taxachusetts” back in 1991, the Bay State had the dubious distinction of being the highest taxed state in the country (thanks to none other than Michael Dukakis.) I changed that by slashing taxes nineteen time in a row and successfuly preventing any tax increases whatsoever.

The Wall Street Journal agreed, calling him the most fiscally conservative Governor in the United States while he was in office.

According to Robert Hoose, Sullivan County Conservative Chairman:

Bill Weld is the only conservative leader with the proven experience and vision of cutting taxes and preventing spending. Bill has proposed an Empire State Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, has signed the American’s for Tax Reform pledge to not raise taxes.

Find out more at WeldforNewYork.org. Weld will run against former Assembly GOP leader John Faso in the GOP primary, who also touts cutting taxes as his big issue. Good start. Now if only we could get more Republicans talking about conservative social issues

It is said that Christy Mihos is getting ready to make a decision as to whether he’ll run for Governor as an R or an independent. I’d really like to see him run as an R. It will make our eventual gubernatorial candidate stronger, whoever wins in September.

In support of Mihos’ efforts, HubPolitics.com has put a petition online:

Show Christy that you want him to run as a Republican and ensure a Republican Primary. If you are going to be a delegate at the 2006 Massachusetts GOP State Convention in Lowell, sign the Christy Mihos Delegate Pledge Form. He needs 500 delegates to pledge support.

We conservatives have an absolute duty to think clearly and get our facts straight before speaking or acting. It is integral to our creed, and further we must not allow our political philosophy to be tainted in any way in the public relations wars with the left. Regarding the controversy over a United Arab Emirates company buying the management contracts for some US ports from a British company, my first instinct is to join the explosion of fury on the right. But the truth is, I don’t know enough yet.

I admit from a political/public relations standpoint it does not look good. The UAE has been a mixed bag in terms of its relations with radical Islam and the US, as I understand it, and the visceral response is kind of to view this somewhat akin to hiring a German company to manage our ports during World War II, inaccurate though the comparison might be. Politically, I don’t think the President is doing himself any favors by playing the politically correct card: “How can I say ‘Yes’ to a British firm, but ‘No’ to a UAE firm?” Look, either the UAE firm is a risk or they are not. If they are, you say No. That’s easy, political correctness be damned.

From a standpoint of actual risk to US security, I am certainly unqualified to comment. Many conservatives I highly respect, such as Michelle Malkin, are adamantly opposed to the deal. Some people I know in the security business say it is actually a good move: the UAE company is highly reputable, is well positioned to know who in the Islamic world is a threat to us, and unlike the timid-politically-correct US, is not afraid to pinpoint who is a threat regardless of their race, national origin, or religion. Finally, I read that port security will still be the responsibility of the US Coast Guard, etc, not the port management company.

There are two posts I want to pass on to you that give me pause about piling on the President and opposing the Port deal. The first is from Jonah Goldberg at National Review’s Corner. The second is an email to Michelle Malkin that she posted on her blog.

First, Jonah:

PORTS & THE PRESIDENT [Jonah Goldberg]
I’ve been very rough on Bush of late and I agree entirely with the now-obvious consensus that the UAE deal is bad politics. I’m even somewhat convinced that it’s bad policy. But I can’t help but get the whiff of hysteria in all of this. Hillary Clinton’s getting to the right of Bush, talk radio’s going through the roof, Republican presidential wannabes are lining up to distance themselves from the president. There’s even a convenient patina of anti-Arabic feelings in the mix as well as the usual lefty-populist paranoia about secret deals behind the scenes between oilmen and rich Arabs. And, of course, overnight everyone has become an expert in port security.

All this in response to a largely paper transaction (longshoremen will keep their jobs, the coast guard will still handle security, etc etc) between a British-owned and Arab-owned firm. In fact, it doesn’t seem overwhelmingly obvious to me that Jihadis would have a much harder time infiltrating a British firm than an Arab one. But mostly, I’m skeptical that this is the security disaster everyone claims because domestic national security is one of the few areas where I really do trust this White House to err on the side of safety. For five years, liberals have been saying that Bush is an obsessed madman when it comes to the terror threat. And for five years conservatives have been saying, trust him. Suddenly, all of that goes out the window. Again, I think Bush is probably wrong on the merits. But, I somehow doubt he’s as widly wrong as the mob claims.

I agree with JPod entirely that there is a second term dynamic to all of this. I just think that goes for a lot of conservatives as well.

Next, the email to Michelle Malkin (again, Michelle is deeply opposed to the port deal with the UAE company):

My husband works in the international transportation industry. In fact, his boss at one time was Dave Sanborn, the man that the White House has appointed to a post within the Maritime Commission. Dave was most recently working for DWI in the Dominican Republic and has worked for them before. DWI is not “buying the American ports” as I see frequently misrepresented in articles about this in the MSM. American ports cannot be bought.

They are buying the port operating division of a London-based, British-owned Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. That purchase will include current contracts that P&O ports has with the various ports listed in the stories. There are other port operation companies out there. The port in New York or any of the other ports mentioned could choose to contract with some other company if they do not want DWI being responsible for operating terminals in these ports. As we understand it the same employees who work for P&O currently will still be the employees that work there after the purchase goes through.

I don’t think there are suddenly going to be Arabs running all over the ports. Anymore so than there already are. Actually because of regulations and unions, more and more of ocean shipping, port operations and terminal operations in America are being run by non-American companies. Just a heads up…as we read the stories the information is so fact challenged. My husband does think there is room for some clarification, but to have Chucky [Schumer] out there trying to make this into a “the Bush adminstration IS NOT concerned about port security” is just spin.

[Michelle] Well, she makes a few good points about the how and why of the deal. But whether we should do it is the key issue. And my bottom line is that the deal looks bad and smells worse.

Having said that, Michelle has a great many excerpts from other commentators, newspaper editorials, etc, supporting the opposition to the deal, and you cannot form a rational opinion without reading them as well as the bits I’ve posted above. Check out her site, and in particular this post (because it is the latest post on the subject and also references her prior posts on the subject).

Update: Some national security experts weigh in here.

Another post by the always interesting Stanley Kurtz on National Review’s Corner blog.

I just saw the below post from today, so I have not myself had a change to look at the book. If you find yourself frustrated and fumbling at times in defending so obvious an institution as marriage, as I think many of us do, this book could be the cure. 

MARRIAGE BOOK [Stanley Kurtz]
Princeton’s Robert P. George and the University of Chicago’s Jean Elshtain have edited an excellent new book on the gay marriage debate (and on marriage in general), called The Meaning of Marriage. If you’re interested in the gay marriage debate, you want this book.

Jean Elshtain’s participation in this project is noteworthy, since this eminent political theorist and public figure has not so far entered the controversy. Elshtain’s introduction focuses on the unfortunate taboo, especially in the academy, on reasoned debate about so important an issue.

The authors here run the gamut from traditional conservatives to moderate liberals. Don Browning and Elizabeth Marquardt offer the liberal case against same-sex marriage. It’s definitely one of my favorite essays in the book. Browning and Marquardt base their argument on “the right of children to expect to be raised in a society whose legal and cultural institutions attempt to maximize the possibility that they will be raised by the parents who conceived them.” In making this argument Browning and Marquardt take on Jonathan Rauch.

Roger Scruton opens the book with some profound philosophical-literary reflections on the meaning of marriage. Scruton ends, like Elshtain, by taking a whack at the political correctness that makes it tough to even debate this issue. “Public debate about the most important things is now more or less impossible,” says Scruton (while creditably trying to disprove it).

Hadley Arkes has a fascinating piece exploring the underlying principles at stake in the gay marriage debate. Guided by the logic of the situation, Arkes has a knack for figuring out what’s going to happen in the real world before it actually does happen. I first read this essay just as I was finishing up work on my piece about polyamory and bisexuality. I was stunned to read Arkes on the consequences of having to reconstruct marriage for any given sexual orientation. In a sense, Arkes had figured out my project before I’d conceived it myself.

Robert George is such an important figure in this debate. I come at this issue from the social sciences, while George enters through Aristotelian-Thomistic natural law theory. If you want a particularly accessible introduction to natural law thinking, George’s essay for this book is an ideal entry point. It’s amazing how the two approaches can sometimes dovetail. I saw this particularly in George’s comments on the need for a particular practice of marriage, say monogamy, to be supported by the larger culture. Monogamy cannot be practiced by an individual alone. But it’s really George’s detailed but highly readable take on the “one-flesh union,” and his analysis of the clashing philosophies underlying our differing approaches to sexual morality, that makes this piece a gem.

There’s much more here: wonderful pieces by Maggie Gallagher, Jennifer Roback Morse, sociologist Bradford Wilcox, and several others. So if you’re interested in this issue, get The Meaning of Marriage.

By the way, this book was put together by the Witherspoon Institute, which organizes all sorts of seminars at Princeton around moral-social-political issues of interest. If you’re a student and want to study with some of the best conservative thinkers in the country, you might be interested in a summer internship or seminar at the Witherspoon Institute (they have other job opportunities as well). If so, just click here and check out the links.

Stanley Kurtz is always a great read over at National Review’s Corner blog. Here he talks about one of the latest outrages of the left. The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education established requirements that candidates for teaching degrees must develop and display “dispositions that respect and value differences” and embrace “multicultural and global perspectives”. Many “schools of education” have now implemented these requirements and have even failed or expelled students they deem ideologically unfit.

FIGHTING CAMPUS BIAS [Stanley Kurtz]
The other day, Frederick Hess had an important piece in the Washington Post (“Schools of Reeducation?) about the way Schools of Education are using evaluations of “dispositions” to enforce ideological conformity. I blogged about it, pointing out that the story was not only bad in itself, but stood as proof of the ideological bias running deep through the broader academy.

This evaluation of student “dispositions” (i.e. commitment to “progressive social justice”) by schools of education and social work strategy is a terrible development. Fortunately, someone is doing something to stop it. The good news is that the Center for Individual Rights has just won a landmark ruling on behalf of Scott McConnell, who was expelled from Le Moyne College over a course paper he wrote. CIR is the only organization challenging “dispositions theory” in court. Dragging school officials in front of a judge and putting them under oath is a good way to hold educators accountable for ideological bullying. And it sets legal precedents that will help other students defend themselves against ideological witch hunts in the future. For an update on the Center for Individual Rights’ victory, go to their website (where you might want to make a contribution as well).

People of the right for the most part want to live their lives, bloom where they are planted, and do good in their sphere of influence. Once upon a time that was good enough, and we could leave politics to the few. But we of the right cannot rest, for the lefties are constantly on the attack, attempting to undermine the ideals of Western Civilization upon which we all depend. Disposition Theory is just a recent example of the left’s incessant, tireless destructiveness.

I just heard a great talk at the Womens Republican Club of Worcester County by Dr. David Schaefer, Professor of Political Science at Holy Cross. He talked about the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting and upholding the US Constitution. He started with a tidbit from Boston Globe columnist, Scott McGrory, Jan 31, 2006:

I keep thinking back to Reilly’s remarks after the Supreme Judicial Court legalized gay marriage, when he said, ”I don’t believe the court should be making profound social changes.” If the court doesn’t make these changes toward equality in America, then who or what does?

Professor Schaefer aptly points out the horror of McGrory’s question. What do you mean, who makes these changes? In case McGrory hasn’t noticed, America is a republic, a land of self-government. If we the people want to institute a change, there is a mechanism in place — the constitutional amendment process.

The problem for the left, of course, is that this process is difficult. And rightly so. Our founding fathers knew that big changes need to be thought long and hard about. And they need to come from the people. The majority of the people. Not from an unelected body of elderly lawyers whose job is to uphold the Constitution, not change it.

Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves. They foresaw the potential problems with an activist judicial body. And they set in place fundamental principles to balance our three branches of government. The Constitution is not a “living constitution” designed to easily adapt to changing circumstances.

In fact, as Professor Schaefer pointed out, the whole argument for a “living constitution” is self-contradictory. If a constitution has no fixed meaning and needs judges to interpret current standards, then why have a constitution at all? In fact, why bother with any laws? Which is, in fact, exactly where the radical left is trying to drag us — to a land where anything goes…no laws…no punishment…no right and wrong. It’s all relative, right?

A new book I just picked up, Explaining Postmodernism, discusses exactly this philosophical underpinning to today’s radical left. Instead of experience and reason, postmodernism pushes for social subjectivism. Instead of individual identity and autonomy, it pushes for race, sex, and class group-isms. Instead of human interests as fundamentally harmonious and tending toward mutually-beneficial interaction, it pushes conflict and oppression. Instead of valuing individualism in values, markets, and politics, it calls for communalism, solidarity, and egalitarian restraints.

We need to take a stand for reason and experience. Check out Professor Schaefer’s new web site, The New Constitutionalist. I highly recommend the recent feature, “What Self-Government Has Come To.”

This from National Review’s Corner blog: 

THE HOPELESSLY P.C. AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION [Roger Clegg] 

I had just finished shaking my head over the American Bar Association and the approval over the weekend–by its Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar–of a new standard that would deny law schools accreditation unless they demonstrate a commitment to “diversity” (i.e., quotas); the full House of Delegates will now vote on this in August. Then the mail came and I opened the latest issue of the Federalist Society’s invaluable ABA Watch, which noted other resolutions that the House was going to vote on over the weekend: urging Congress to create and fund a commission to study the present day effects of American slavery; urging Congress to pass legislation “to provide federal recognition and to restore self-determination to Native Hawaiians”; opposing legislation limiting same-sex-couple foster parents; etc. I called the Federalist Society and was informed that all had passed. 

 I’m a lawyer and I’ve been a member of the ABA for 10 years, solely to get their 6 issues per year “Probate & Property” magazine. About once a year it has an article that makes the several hundred dollars in dues worthwhile. I’ve always known the ABA is a leftist organization, but this is really getting to be too much. My money is helping one of the predominant organizations leading the decline of Western Civilization. Forgive me.

Well, I guess we can’t be surprised. We live in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, after all.

The Mass Board of Registration in Pharmacy has sent Wal-Mart an official notice that it must stock the Plan B morning after contraceptive in this state. The lawyer behind the lawsuit that brought this to the forefront states that he is prepared to take this issue to each and every state to make sure all of their stores carry the product.

Way to discourage retailers from adding pharmacies, Massachusetts.

What’s next? Is my business going to have to start selling unwanted products? Or, if we don’t take our prescriptions exactly as prescribed, will the pharmacy police will be at our doors?

Read the story at http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-02-14T211714Z_01_N14387586_RTRIDST_0_LIFE-CONTRACEPTION-WALMART.XML

Michelle Malkin reports that her blog and thousands of other blogs and websites that have shown the Danish cartoons or been critical of the radical Islamist response to the cartoons or been guilty of the crime of being Danish have been relentlessly hit in the past day or two by Denial of Service Attacks, reverse spam viruses, and so on.

 This is exactly consistent with the radical Islamist response to the cartoons we have seen so far: rioting and murder. It is an attempt to shut up all opposition.

Read all about it here.