Lew's Website

Tawas Bay Michigan

The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Welcome to the the Home of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. If you wondered where we meet, now you know.....CYBERSPACE! Unfortunately, we can't tell you who we are, what we do, when we meet, or anything else about us... if we did, we'd have to kill you. (And you know, since we are the Right Wing conspiracy, we are well armed)

You can, however, read some of Maureen's Missives below:

Maureen's Missives

We Can See That Judges Matter

In the case of Kelo v City of New London, the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that municipalities can use eminent domain, the power of condemnation of property, to promote economic development. In other words, if the government thinks it can take your property and give it to another private party who will pay more taxes, that is just fine with the majority of the Court.

People in Michigan should not be horrified by this decision. It sprang, fully formed, from the Michigan Supreme Court when it was controlled by liberal judges many years ago. It happened to Poletown. The City of Detroit condemned private homes in Poletown to give the property to General Motors to build a plant. There was no pretense that this would be a "public use" as is required in both the state and federal Constitutions. The case went up to the Michigan Supreme Court, which ruled, in 1981, that the public benefit from the plant justified the taking of these private properties. It was the Poletown case which led to the kind of taking upheld in Kelo.

However, in July of 2004, the Michigan Supreme Court, in the case of Wayne County v Hathcock, now dominated by judges who believe in interpreting law, not making it, reversed the Poletown case and held that it violated the state's 1963 Constitution.

Wayne County was trying to condemn property near Metro Airport for a high technology park. Some of the residents did not want to sell, so the County tried to condemn their property.

"The county is without constitutional authority to condemn the properties," the court's opinion read. All seven justices voted to overturn Poletown, although three dissented over some technical aspects that do not affect the main ruling.

Justice Robert Young, who wrote the lead opinion, called the 1981 case allowing Detroit's Poletown neighborhood to be cleared for a GM plant a "radical departure from fundamental constitutional principles."

"We overrule Poletown," Young wrote, "in order to vindicate our constitution, protect the people's property rights and preserve the legitimacy of the judicial branch as the expositor, not creator, of fundamental law."

So, in Michigan, we are presently protected from having our property taken to give to someone else who will pay more in taxes. But, if we, like the United States Supreme Court, end up with judges who decide to write law, not interpret it, we could be in danger again.


Why I Love Billboards

I realize that many people will disagree with me, but I love billboards.  I love signs of all types.  If I had my way, any person or business could put any sign on their own property that they wished.

As I drive down the highways, I love to look at the signs.  Since I hate driving and get terribly bored by driving, the signs along the way keep me awake.  For those of you who might be on the road at the same time I am, you might be grateful to the signs, also.

These signs tell the story of America.  They tell you of the wonderful places that you can stay, where you can eat, where to get gas, what you can buy, where you can get it, what you can see and how to get there.  They are loud, colorful and informative.  They showcase the marketplace that is this wonderful country.

There is a move on in the legislature to ban or limit billboards, again.  There are those who wish to legislate a limit on free speech.  They wish to preclude a property owner from marketing a piece of their land for a legitimate business purpose because they don't like the signs.  My advise to these folks is to move to Vermont.  In the wonderful state of Vermont, it is so politically correct that you can't even find a grocery store.  Everything is hidden from view by tasteful hedges.  Only politically correct signs are allowed to be seen from the road.  The trouble is, unless you know that "Carter's" is a grocery store, you will never find it.

If the sign haters wish to limit the number of signs, they can put THEIR money where THEIR mouth is.  To the farmer who owns the field, the sign is a form of income.  Go offer the farmer the same amount or more not to put the sign there.  The billboard companies rent their boards.  Pay them the same amount or more not to rent the space.  Pay them for the cost of the structure.  Make these agreements for a long enough time to make it worth the while of the farmer and the billboard company to be attracted to the deal.  That is the American way.

But no, the freedom-hating people don't want to actually use the system to accomplish their desires.  What they want to do is to limit the freedom of others by passing a law to enforce their preferences on others.  They wish to limit the opportunity of others to make a legitimate income from a legal act.  They have no intention of paying for it with their money.  They will employ the power of the State to enforce their will.

What will happen when they wish to restrict one of the freedoms that you hold dear?  Will you go meekly to the slaughter?  It is time for all Americans to stop the intrusive big foot of government from increasingly stepping down harder on us.

Cheer for the billboards.


Science Works Every Time

I don't care where you went to school, or how far you went, you were "exposed" to some science.  The problem is that it seems very little of it became imbedded in the brains of most of the American public.  This is particularly true of the members of the mainstream media.

I don't think there is a "Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy" which meets in some corner somewhere and decides: "How can we fool them today?"  I believe that people who go into journalism are most often enamored with the power of words.  They enter the field on a mission.  They want to make the world a better place.  They are oozing with compassion and emotion.  They are willing to do almost anything to accomplish their ends.  Take a look at the various columnists, reporters and authors who have been exposed over the last several years for fabrication, plagiarism, distortion and totally erroneous works.  Not one is a conservative.  However, these do-gooders often do a great deal of harm by falling for something that sounds good and is nonsense.  If they were to apply the smallest amount of scientific logic to their cause, the truth would out.

The scientific method (you remember this) depends upon logic.  First, you develop a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon.  Then, you develop an experiment to test the hypothesis.  Next, perform the experiment.  Analyze the result.  This will tell you whether your original hypothesis was correct.  If it was, you should be able to perform the same experiment time and again and get the same results.  Think about the old magnet and compass.  The magnet attracts the compass needle every single time.

Now, let's talk about some recent "issues" where a little logic would work. 

 I have a friend who had a daughter in college who was taking environmental science.  That is the least scientific field I can think of.  She started railing at her mother about recycling the trash.  Her mother was at her wit's end with frustration.  I suggested an experiment.  Her daughter was assigned to follow the trash at her own college.  All of the glass, cans, paper and garbage was separated in various bins.  They were picked up separately.  They all went to the land fill.  They were all dumped in the same bin.  However, the trash company was making a whole lot more money by charging for the handling of the separate bins.  Think about it.  If recycling really worked, people would pay YOU for your trash.  However, no one ever tests a program like this which is so politically correct.

My favorite is global warming.  First, one has to establish that the globe is in fact warming.  This means that one has to have an accurate method of measuring the temperature of the globe over a very long time.  Remember, thermometers are relatively new.  What do you measure and how do you do it?  If you can establish that the globe is warming, one might want to know why.  One might also want to know how much it is warming, how long will it last, how hot will it get, and what will be the result.  The global warming disaster-mongers cannot answer any of these questions.  What they have done is to develop computer models which they say answers these questions.  The problem with computer models is that if you put garbage in, you will get garbage out.  Not a single model which they say will predict the future can accurately replicate the past.  Remember, if it's real science, it will produce the same result each and every time.

If it's an anti-capitalist agenda, it will cost a whole lot of money, will produce a disaster for the United States and still won't solve the problem.

Q.E.D


Equal Justice Under the Law

Having been fortunate to have been old enough to have been saved from the benefits of "Affirmative Action" I am not a supporter of "special rights" for anyone.  I believe that every person should proceed on merit and hard work with no advantage or disadvantage visited upon them  by reason of their race, creed, color, national origin or any other specific characteristic which they possess by reason of their birth.  I am not foolish enough to assert that this has always been the case in America -- having been old enough to have employers tell me they didn't hire women for "that job."  (I always felt that was their loss.)

I am not for repealing laws which allow people equal opportunity to do anything.  Actually they are redundant to the rights already guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.  Which, by the way, was why I opposed the Equal Rights Amendment.  I like the body of law which surrounds the 14th Amendment and feel no great need to start over.

I am, however, getting sick and tired of every politically correct effort to define another "victim" group to which to assign special rights.  Soon, the only people left who will have to get or hold a job on the basis of merit and performance will be non-union, healthy, able-bodied, heterosexual white males, a distinct "minority group".

The news which set off this rant is an interview conducted on ABC 20/20 on September 5, 2001.  (I didn't watch it, but read reports of it.)  In the interview, a movie actress, Anne Heche, (who I have never seen in a movie) claims that she was insane for 31 years.  While she recently married a man, she had a well-publicized lesbian relationship with another woman named Ellen DeGeneres, who I also have never seen.  They were much touted by the press, and if I recall correctly, were feted at the White House by the former President and First Lady.  If Ms. Heche was entitled to special rights while engaging in a sexual "behavior" while she was insane, does she lose those rights now that she has changed her mind and married a man?  How would an employer know from day to day if preferences must be doled out?  Is there a daily questionnaire? 

I don't care what anyone does in their own bedroom.  I'm not in favor of persecuting people with whom I disagree, since I've never met anyone who agrees with me on everything, but I'm sick and tired of this politically correct movement which says you can't say anything which might offend anyone, and have to afford special consideration to anyone who claims "victimhood"  -- except, of course the afore-mentioned white males.  Of course, I might be considered prejudiced because I married a wonderful one of those 33 years ago, and wouldn't change him for the world.

The "Progressive" Agenda

First, let's establish what "progressive" is.  It's the current word liberals use since "liberalism" has been shown to be failed strategy.  

Next, who are progressives?  Liberal Democrats, Socialists, Communists, eco-terrorists, peaceniks, anarchists and anti-capitalists of all varieties make up the cadre.

What they have in common is their total commitment to their elitist values, which are most easily seen among the university professors in the liberal arts courses -- except those in the hard sciences.  They know what is best for you.  You are too stupid to be in charge of your own life.  They, the "anointed," will tell you what to wear, say, eat, drink, smoke (tobacco bad, marijuana good), do with your time and your money.  

They believe in the Utopian view which is best expressed in Communism and Socialism.  They believe that, while it has failed every time it's been tried, it is because the "Right" people haven't been in charge yet.

The premise is that everyone will be happy when they have an equal share of everything.  All outcomes must be equal.  The problem with equal opportunities for everyone is that it doesn't produce the same outcome.  Some evil people will work harder and make more money.  Some people will save better than others, some will invest better, and some will just be lucky -- although I always found that the harder I worked, the luckier I became.  Since this system is best expressed in capitalism, capitalism is bad.

In order to overcome the effects of capitalism, we must redistribute the wealth.  Take money away from those who have more and give it to those who have less.  This is accomplished by a steeply "progressive" tax code, the death tax -- which strips the fruits of years of hard work from those who were foolish enough to save, and reward behavior which produces failure.  Punish marriage because if people marry and have children only after doing so, they are more likely to be more successful.  Therefore, tax married people more than single people.  Try to get as many people on "entitlement programs" as possible -- this accomplishes two goals.  Many forget that once upon a time they bought their own insurance, paid their own medical bills and planned for their own retirement.  They are convinced that without "the Government" they will starve, be denied health care and live in dumpsters.  They then decide that all of their "wants" should be "rights" and demand more.  This enlarges the government, creates the need for more taxes, and pushes the private market out of the field.

The object is to get more than half of the people living off "the rich." This way, most people will never be in favor of tax cuts because most people don't pay taxes.  We're almost there.  Listen to the demagoguing going on over President Bush's proposed tax cuts.

The progressives do not believe in a republican form of government where the power flows from the people to the government.  They believe that The Government possesses all power and will give you what they decide you need.  That's why they always say: "We can't afford a tax cut."  In their mind, all money and property belongs to them, and they will let you keep only what they don't need.  The problem is that THEY NEED IT ALL because there is no end of PROGRAMS the people need.

You have to divide the people into factions.  Set the factions against each other to try to get the most spoils from the bountiful government.  The spoils are awarded on the basis of status, not merit or achievement.  This is the essence of "grievance" politics which you hear from certain groups of people who so busy being aggrieved they never do anything to improve their lot. 

When the elitists ultimately take over, they always kill all the people who don't agree with them.  They also reward themselves at a very high level for their wisdom and correct thinking -- all pigs are equal, but "some pigs are more equal than others."  They cannot abide a different point of view.  It's not just wrong, it's EVIL.  And if you don't think we're headed in the wrong direction, explain political correctness and affirmative action.

This country is at a crossroad.  In this 50-50 nation, it's time to take a stand.  Don't be cowered into silence. 

You can be darned sure that you are not going to end up a "more equal pig."


Puppies and Babies are Conservatives

Both puppies and babies are conservatives.  They come to you knowing nothing.  They want to eat, drink, and take care of bodily functions.  They want to be warm and cozy and cuddled.  They want to be happy and don't want their world to change in unpleasant ways.  They are afraid of falling and loud noises.  As time goes on, they make progress.  First, they learn English.  Then, they learn how to interpret those words to understand what they mean.  

What you need to learn is that these little creatures only want to make you happy.  They want to do what you want.  If you set reasonable rules and enforce them consistently, they will do exactly what you want.  (I know, all you mothers are saying: "What about the terrible twos?"  At this point, your child is starting to actually think.  They are practicing on you to see if you will do what they want, rather than the other way around.  If you continue to insist on the rules, consistently, like a broken record, you will win.  (Admittedly, girls are easier, both in kids and dogs.  They seem to react well to shaming.  Little boys sometimes need a swat on the back end to get their attention. . . .)

Time passes.  However, they still are conservative.  They are not happy with change.  They want everything to stay the same.  They never want to move to a different house.  They are never happy with a change in the family, another puppy, another baby.  They want all of their people around them all the time.

Eventually, things change.  If you have done your job well, your dog will be a faithful loving companion all of its life.  However, things never go that easily with kids.  They get into their teens.  Any setback is earth shaking.  All problems are monumental.  If they are "different" from their friends, the world will end.  They express their individuality by trying to be exactly like each other, same clothes, shoes, music, etc.  They try to test the limits of your patience and endurance by fighting your every statement. Boys do strange things with their hair, girls do strange things with their clothes, and they all like strange music. However, inside, they still want rules and limits.  If you are reasonable and persistent, you will raise a good kid.  

Raising kids is the hardest job in the world.  I know that.  I never had any.  I have had dogs; they never become teenagers.  If you're not up to the hard part, stick to dogs.

As to cats, I don't know.  Maybe they are liberals. . . .


The Importance of Being Honest

Now we hear great outrage levied against corporate executives who have lied, cheated and stolen from their companies, shareholders and employees.  "Throw the book at them!"  I agree.  But why did this happen at this point in time?

Could it be that during the eight years prior to the presidency of George W. Bush that the nation was led by people who assured us that "character doesn't count?"  When Sen. Robert Kerrey of Nebraska commented on what an "unusually good liar" Bill Clinton was, the elite media and Democratic membership laughed about it.  When Clinton lied under oath, not a single senator from his party would stand up and be counted to do more than chastise him.  When Clinton broke campaign laws with impunity, sold the White House, Air Force One, pardons and state secrets for campaign and presidential library contributions, the elites from the left coasts commented and clucked.  Nothing else happened.

A tone was set.  The country listened.  Grade school children engaged in oral sex.  Do what feels good.  There are no absolutes.  It's the economy, stupid.  Who cares, as long as we're making money.  It's only lying about sex.  There was no penalty for unacceptable actions.  Those jerks in the hinterland are making a lot of noise about nothing. 

A price is being paid for this mentality, and it isn't over.

As Arthur Anderson dissolves in its well-deserved demise, new accounting firms will be looking at the books.  They have nothing to gain and everything to lose if they cover up any wrongdoing.  All of the warts will show.  

The politicians who went along with lowering the standards of our country stand up and bloviate about the crimes of the corporate executives.  They'll pass laws that will probably hurt the economy.  They won't save a nickel for any employee or shareholder.  But most importantly, they won't look in the mirror.


A Way of Life in Danger

I remember the first time I shot a real gun.  Not my Lone Ranger silver cap pistols, not the BB guns my brother and I played with.  A real gun.  I was a skinny little girl (that's really true, for those of you who know me now) probably about ten years old.  We lived in Davison, Michigan, then.  My parents owned a nice tract of land with both trees and open areas.  Pheasants were plentiful.  We had Irish Setters then, and even though they had not been trained, they naturally pointed the pheasants.

My father took me along for the hunt.  I still have the old double-barreled 12-guage shotgun he used.  On this trip, he let me try.  The bird flushed, I pulled the trigger, and the next thing I knew, I was laying on my back in the field looking up in the sky.  Needless to say, I didn't get the bird.

There are strong forces who are working hard to make sure that your children and grandchildren will never be able to tell a story like this.  The anti-gunners continue to try to raise the age for hunting and owning a gun.  There is a method to their madness.  The higher the age, the less likely it is that children will develop an interest in hunting.  Think about how old you were when you went on your first hunting trip.  I would bet it would not be legal now.

There  is a world-wide movement to try to disarm private citizens.  It is heavily promoted in the Socialist countries of Europe and what was the English Empire.  The movement has always been supported by Totalitarian states like Nazi Germany and the USSR.  America is considered a barbarian nation where all those "Cowboys" want guns.

At the end of July in New York, the United Nations will focus on trying to separate you from your weapons.  The UN Disarmament Commission plans to try to regulate and eliminate the legal manufacture, commerce and ownership of weapons all over the world.  A "Draft Programme of Action" setting forth these proposals already exists.  The Second Amendment is a nuisance to these folks, not an "unalienable Right."

Even if you are not a gun owner, you must oppose these moves.  Without the Second Amendment, the rest of the Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on.  The fact that so many of your neighbors are armed protects you as well -- your way of life depends on it.

If you want more of Maureen's Missives, CLICK HERE