Monday, September 24, 2012


The enclosed check is the largest donation I have ever made to any political candidate.

I want you to win the election.

I want you to win because I think that the present administration is taking the United States of America down a path which Alexis de Tocqueville so eloquently described 200 years ago.

He said, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

You must remind the American people that we are not a democracy, we are a republic.

We are not 300 million people ruled by a single government in Washington D.C.; we are fifty sovereign republics united under a constitution which gives only limited, necessary powers to those who conduct the affairs of our national union.

You were the Governor of Massachusetts. Remind the American people that every state has its own history, its own economy, its own weather, its own people and its own politics.

De Tocqueville told us that there are two things democracies find hard to do: start wars and end them.

Remind us that our constitution was made to provide for the common defense, not to police the world, nor export western style democracy.

Tell it like it is: we can afford to maintain the strongest military force on the planet for our defense, but we cannot afford to underwrite the military occupation of hostile nations all around the world.

Have the courage and integrity to tell the American people that you will bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan on your first day in office.

Have the courage to tell the American people that we need to reform our Congress; amend the constitution to prohibit omnibus bills, require that every bill address only one subject, require members to read what they vote for.

Governor, everyone keeps saying that this is the most important election in our lifetime.

It is not so important just because you are a more skilled and experienced executive than your opponent.

This election is important because we are inching down the road to become a one party nation, ruled by a political establishment with a collectivist mindset, abetted by a concupiscent media which coddles its heroes and impales dissenters with ridicule and scorn.

It the name of national security, your opponent assumes the power of life and death, maintains a Presidential kill list, authorizes indefinite detention of suspected troublemakers, and tolerates wholesale violations of the Bill of Rights.

You have to say so.

You have to tell us that when you take the oath of office to support and defend the constitution, you mean the constitution as it was written and ratified by the people, not some unwritten constitution that is supposed to have evolved because nobody objected.

This will be the most important election of our lifetime only if you make it a contest between a Republic and a Democracy.

A contest between freedom and collectivism.

De Tocqueville wrote: “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”

Ronald Reagan fought for Christianity against Godless collectivism.

So should you, Governor, so must you.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012


I’m no fan of Rachel Maddow, though I admit to being sometimes titillated by her acerbic wit.

Recently however, she took a step to distinguish herself from the drooling disciples of Democrat despotism, and prove that she is, indeed, a principled constitutional liberal.

The occasion was a speech by the Chief Executive on Constitution Day, September 17th, in the hallowed halls of the National Archives within sight of the document written by our founders in 1787.

Take a minute to listen to what she says:

Here is what the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution says:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I would think that Guantanamo Bay would be a “place subject to their jurisdiction” wouldn’t you?

So we’ve got all these ‘detainees’ at Gitmo.

Bush didn’t know what to do with them. Obama doesn’t know what to do with them.

The apologists of the status quo talk about ‘prisoners of war’ as though criminals who plot the murder of American citizens are somehow to be raised to the dignity of civilized enemies fighting for King and country.

Federal District Judge William Young got it exactly right when he sentenced Richard Reid. Here’s what he said:

Now, let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether the officers of government do it or your attorney does it, or if you think you are a soldier. You are not----- you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not meet with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You're no warrior. I've known warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and the TV crews were, and he said: 'You're no big deal.'

You are no big deal.

“Detainees.” I’d like to know who came up with that wimpy word. It sounds like you got stuck in a traffic jam.

I suppose that Nidal Hasan, who killed twelve people in Texas is now just another ‘detainee’. He has been a guest of the army brass for over three years.

If all these ‘detainees’ have committed crimes, then let’s get them convicted and punished.

The trials don’t have to be in New York, but the jury sure as Hell should be twelve good and true citizens of the Big Apple.

Try them at Gitmo, try them in Nebraska, try them on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

But if they are guilty, lets say so and treat them as criminals.

Monday, September 10, 2012


The guy’s name is Schiff. He’s a radio talk show host. I take it he’s a conservative, or at least a Republican.

Anyway, he went to North Carolina to get some footage of the Democratic National Convention. The result is on You Tube.

Microphone in hand, Schiff stops people entering the convention hall.

“Would you support a platform that would favor a ban on corporate profits?”
“Oh, yes.”
“Of course.”
“I could actually support that.”
“I favor corporate losses.”
“Obviously something I would be for.”
“At least a cap on profits.”
“And a cap on CEO salaries.”

Admittedly, Schiff pandered to the idea of supporting the ban. He painted a picture of corporate big wigs gouging consumers and lining their pockets with generous bonuses, and blamed it on corporate profits.

His tongue-in-cheek harangue against corporate wealth earned him unexpected kudos.

With a smile of appreciation and admiration, one delegate told Schiff, “You happen to be one of the smartest people I’ve met since I have been down here.”

Almost at the same time the Schiff You Tube interviews landed in my email, someone sent me an article by Deroy Murdock in the New York Post, entitled “Look Who Parks Their Cash At Bain.”

The article lists Bain Capital clients who have entrusted Mitt Romney’s firm with 1.56 Billion dollars to invest on their behalf.

Here are the beneficiaries of “corporate profits:”

Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, $2.2 million.
Indiana Public Retirement System, $39.3 million.
Iowa Public Employees Retirement System, $177.1 million.
Maryland State Retirement and Pension System, $117.5 million.
Public Employees Retirement System of Nevada, $20.3 million.
State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, $767.3 million.
Pennsylvania State Emplyees Retirement System, $231.5 million.
Employees Retirement System of Rhode Island, $25million.
San Diego County Employees Retirement Association, $23.5 million.
Teacher Retirement System of Texas, $122.5 million.
Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System, $15 million.

In addition, Bain has managed endowments for such educational institutions as Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Purdue, and the universities of California, Michigan, Virginia and Washington.

Couple of days ago, Polly and I saw the movie “2016, Obama’s America.”

I was left with the uneasy feeling that our President has a very third world concept of political leadership.

Everybody talks about the President of the United States as being the most powerful man on the planet. In the minds of simple folk, who think that corporations are greedy conglomerations of wealth, the man who occupies that office is empowered to bestow financial security, health and happiness on all his constituents.

They will be heard on November 6.

And so will the rest of us.

Monday, September 3, 2012


It has become fashionable to label as a right wing fanatic anyone who does not approve of abortions in cases of rape or incest.

The Hippocratic Oath, taken by physicians since the fifth century, forbade abortive medications without exceptions.

I have not found any state criminal abortion law which excluded rape or incest.

The land mark case of Roe v Wade, by which the Supreme Court of the United States gave physicians carte blanche authority to perform abortions, said nothing about rape or incest.

But the ‘rape or incest’ issue has entered the abortion debate for a very real reason.

Those who favor legal abortions insist that theirs is the majority opinion in the United States.

They see it as an issue which will help re-elect the President.

In truth, there is no majority opinion about abortion.

If the question is whether abortion should be allowed as a means of gender selection, the public will say ‘No.’

If the question is whether abortion should be allowed to save the life of the mother, the public will say, ‘Yes.’

If the question is whether abortion should be allowed as a means of placating an angry boyfriend or husband, or avoiding parental discipline or disapproval the public will say, ‘Maybe.’

The point here is that public opinion is visceral.

Public opinion supported the guillotine during the French Revolution as it has occasioned countless other atrocities throughout human history.

Which is why we have a constitution. And a Bill of Rights. And the rule of law.

And trial by a jury of one’s peers.

John Dethmers, an old timer who was a colleague of mine on the Michigan Supreme Court, often remarked that the first issue in every murder trial is “should the deceased have went?”

It was his folksy way of saying that jurors bring a certain gut sense of right and wrong to their task.

But a jury is not a mob.

They are required to sit still and listen to testimony, arguments by the lawyers, instructions by the judge.

Admittedly there are many examples of juries being swayed by passion and prejudice and despite the best efforts of trial and appellate judges, miscarriages of justice occur.

“Life,” as my son, the Professor, tells me, “is messy.”

But it seems to me that the noblest instincts of the human race are to rise above the mess, to temper the process of visceral decision making by clinging to proven principles and reach always for the unreachable perfection of truth and justice.

Which is why I cannot shake off the conviction that the destruction of an innocent human life to avoid embarrassment, expense, inconvenience, or discomfort is just plain wrong.

And to allow it is bad public policy.

The first child conceived in a petri dish was born in 1978. I have no doubt that the plastic placenta is not so far off.

In a day when human beings are manufactured without the discomfort of gestation or the pain of childbirth, what will become of the words, “all men are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Will children be chattels? Will they have owners rather than parents?

Or will they belong to the government?