Warner Todd Huston's blog

The ACLU finally gets one right by taking the side of a beleaguered bait shop owner in Clearwater, Florida that is under attack by city officials over a mural of game fish painted on the outside walls of his bait shop.

City officials are claiming that the fish painting is an "advertisement sign" that falls under a beautification ordinance prohibiting large signs for businesses. The City has fined the shop's owner Herb Quintero $700 and is warning that a further $500 a day fine can be imposed unless he paints over the fish.

But Quintero feels there is a fallacy in the City's position. The ordinance is supposed to prohibit large signs advertising for products sold within the establishment. Quintero says that the game fish painted on the side of his building are hardly "products" and that no words appear among the depictions of those fish to advertise for anything. His mural is art, not advertising, Quintero says. And in the somewhat run-down section of the city in which his bait shop is situated, that art adds to the beauty of the area.

In protest to the treatment he is receiving at the hands of the city, Quintero covered the fish with a banner displaying the First Amendment to the Constitution. But the city was no amused.

"Only in Florida could a business owner be targeted and fined for displaying artwork, and then in protest of the fine, display the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- and then be ticketed for that," said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida.

The ACLU is taking the city to court on behalf of owner Quintero.

This is a fight for a certain amount of free speech. All liberty minded Americans should hope for the ACLU to be victorious over this corrosive power of the city to impose itself on its citizens. Anyone interested in the rights of property owners should support Mr. Quintero in this fight. More of these thuggish city rules should be challenged throughout the country to put a check on the nanny state in which we increasingly live.

(Photo credit: DOUGLAS R. CLIFFORD, Times)

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Before I get to the problem of the Illinois Republican Party, a question: how do we get our government officials in the U.S.A.? Answer: we elect them. Now, you may be wondering why I begin here with something so simple, something we all take as a given? Let me answer that...

We DON'T elect them in Illinois. At least where it concerns selection of our Republican state central committeemen, anyway. It's shocking, I know, but in the Illinois Republican Party, the voters have NO SAY WHATEVER in who takes a seat on the state central committee for the Ill GOP.

In Illinois, even the corrupt Democrat Party elects their central committeemen by rank and file voters. But not the Republicans. In the Illinois GOP the folks that guide our entire party establishment are afforded their seat by the selection of local precinct committeemen only, not by the votes of rank and file Illinois Republicans. The people have no direct say. None.

The selection process has been like this since the 1980s when the Illinois GOP pushed through an elimination of the primary system for electing state central committeemen. This change was pushed through without the input of the voters, too. (The Democrats, for their part, never abandoned electing its state central committeemen) It was merely decreed by the Illinois GOP and thus it became fact.

Now, many outside of Illinois have wondered for years just how it was that Ambassador Alan Keyes -- who didn't live in Illinois -- so suddenly became the Illinois candidate for the Senate against Barack Obama in 2004? Well, the reason this quixotic choice was made was because the state central committee made the selection behind closed doors, without the input of the voters, for that matter without even the knowledge of the local committeemen. The unelected central committee met in secret, chose Alan Keyes and thus he became the candidate without the knowledge or input of Illinois voters. Then, once he emerged as the candidate, some members of the very committee that secretly chose him publicly came out and said they did not support Alan Keyes for Senate, undermining his campaign from the very start.

No wonder Barack Obama so easily won his Senate seat in 2004.

Now, in practice, this secret selection of central committeemen has created a Party essentially run by the powerful interests of the Democratic Party. The money spread by Democrats influences the secret selection of the Illinois GOP central committee members. For all intents and purposes, the Illinois Democratic Party chooses the members of the GOP central committee and these committee members act accordingly.

But, even were that not the case, the current process essentially disenfranchises Illinois Republican voters and distances the operations of the party from them. After all, why get too involved in party politics when there is no way to run for positions on the central committee and no way to get involved? It is a closed society of powerful interests not open to participation or influence by rank and file voters.

It should also be noted that this process also disenfranchises military voters, too. How absurd is it to note that the corrupt Democratic Party of Illinois allows its military voters to engage in electing its committeemen but the Illinois Republican Party does not? More than absurd, its shameful.

There has been for years a bill floating about the statehouse in Springfield, though, intent on reverting the committeemen selection process back to an election. It has failed in the past, but SB600 is being revived again and this time it seems to have more support than it ever had before.

Conservative stalwart, State Senator Chirs Lauzen (R-Aurora) is trying once again to get SB600 off the ground and through his hard work he's gotten even the members of the committee itself -- except member Dan Rutherford (R-Pontiac) -- to sign on as co-sponsors.

It could be going into the Senate Elections Committee this week.

In a time when the Illinois Democratic Party has been exposed for the monumentally corrupt cancer that it truly is, this is the perfect time for the Illinois GOP to shed its own corrupt practices and open the party back up to control by the very voters whom it asks for support.

Kuddos to Senator Lauzen for his efforts thus far. May they bear democratic (small "d") fruit.

Here is a good source on info on what SB600 means from Doug Ibendahl, a long-time Illinois Republican figure from Cook County (Chicago).

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

The Public Service Research Foundation has finished its research into how union membership was distributed throughout the US for 2008. It looks like some very useful info:

The Public Service Research Foundation has announced that it has updated its state-by-state, sector by sector tables and charts on employment, union membership and union density for 2008 and is making them available.

Information about union membership is obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population Survey and is released annually in its report on Union Members http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

The Union Members release includes a table on employment and union membership by state, but this doesn’t include a breakdown of the information by industry sectors.

Professors Barry T. Hirsh and David A. Macpherson make annual information on union employment and union membership by state available on their web site "http://www.unionstats.com/". This information is derived from the Current Population Survey.

The Public Service Research Foundation used this information to create a set of tables and charts on employment and union membership for each state. These cover the period 1983 through 2008 to help identify trends.

The tables and charts display employment, union membership and union density (the percent of the workforce that is unionized) total, private, public, manufacturing and construction.

Because construction employment averages only 6 percent of the total workforce the sample size of the survey at the state level makes the data more subject to statistical and sampling error. To improve the accuracy of the information the Foundation applies a five year moving average to the construction data at the state level.

“This information can be of value to public officials and others involved in public policy when making decisions about policies involving labor unions,” said Foundation President David Denholm”

Those interested in obtaining this information may inquire by sending an e-mail to david@psrf.org or by calling 703-242-3575.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

We have been talking about it for some time here, that most odious provision in the Democrat pushed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) that eliminates the secret ballot for prospective union members. Democrats want to eliminate the secret ballot because, they say, it will make it easier to enlarge union membership without all that messy votes of conscience stuff. It's easier, they feel, to leave prospective new members open to union intimidation to get them to vote pro-union.

So, doing away with the secret ballot is a particular goal of the EFCA. Democrats are dead set on passing this act with this anti-democratic voting measure intact.

Yet in 2001 the same Democrats that are so intent on eliminating the secret ballot for American workers were all exercised over maintaining the secret ballot for Mexican workers.

The DC Examiner has this story:

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), the main “card check bill” sponsor on the House side, and nine other Democratic co-sponsors,” all signed the letter to Mexico demanding that the secret ballot be maintained. Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.), Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.), Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.), Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.). All joined Miller in both co-sponsoring EFCA and signing the 2001 letter.

“We understand the secret ballot is allowed for, but not required by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose,” Miller and the other card check co-sponsors said in the letter.

“We respect Mexico as an important neighbor and a trading partner, and we feel that the increased use of the secret ballot in union recognition elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican workplace,” they said.

(Full text of letter in .pdf format)

So, to these Democrats the secret ballot is of extreme importance for Mexican workers but for our own it is easily dispensed with? Seriously? Do these Democrats even know the definition of the word hypocrisy?

Naturally, they all want to imagine that there were key difference between the situations with Mexican workers and American. But their protestations about these differences are completely unsatisfactory as explanation.

As Ed Morrissey over at Malkin's HotAir.com says,

The secret ballot exists to protect people from influence and intimidation, both in the workplace and in the electoral system. It’s a sad day in America when one major political party has no problem defending that principle in someone else’s nation and abandons it for Americans.

Hear, hear.

Sadly, what this incident proves is that Democrats have no principles. They only want power. That is the beginning and end to their philosophy.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

In a recent issue of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a story on the delicate political spot occupied by Senator Arlen Specter was discussed showing that he has worked himself into a can't win for loosing situation. He's made both sides mad with his erratic stance on both sides of the political fence.

But one quote by Bill George the head of the Penn. AFL-CIO was telling about how unions view the Employee Free Choice Act. At least in George's case, he proves to either have no clue what's in the EFCA, or he knows all too well and is willing to obfuscate just to get it passed.

Here is George's quote:

"Arlen Specter will not be our candidate in 2010 if he doesn't support an opportunity for Americans to have free elections in the workplace," said Bill George, president of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, who added if Mr. Specter wins his union's endorsement he expects a lot of labor members to cross over in the Republican primary to vote for him.

The curious thing is that George is warning Senator Specter that if he votes against the EFCA that vote will in essence deny workers from having "free elections in the workplace." Unfortunately for George's understanding of the EFCA, a yes vote on this odious act will do far more to eliminate the worker's right to vote than a no vote will.

The EFCA has an important feature called "card check." This feature takes away from workers the centuries old democratic right of the secret ballot. Workers will have to openly declare their vote for or against a union by signing a public card so that everyone, workers, union bosses and employer, knows what each and every worker voted for.

This leaves every worker open to specifically targeted pressure to vote one way or another. This also leaves the worker open to union intimidation and makes a conscience driven "no" vote much less likely than a fearfully issued "yes" vote.

So, Mr. George claims he wants proper and free elections in the workplace and wants Specter to vote for the EFCA, but the EFCA actually makes free and fair elections in the workplace far less likely, not more likely.

In the end we have to wonder if Mr. George understands this legislation? If he does, then he is obfuscating the truth just to get this undemocratic bill passed. If he doesn't... well, if he doesn't he is not doing a very good job representing his fellows, now is he?

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Greg Sargent is reporting that a coalition of conservative Democrats, the so-called "Blue Dogs," have joined to ask Speaker Pelosi not to bring the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) to the floor.

The Blue Dogs have asked Pelosi not to consider the bill until the Senate has first voted on it. As far as the Senate goes, Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that he won't bring it up for vote unless he knows he has 60 votes and that number doesn't seem very likely at this time.

Moderate Democrats from more conservative districts are afraid that if the House takes up the bill first, two divergent versions of the bill will exist between the House and the Senate and that this confusion will give opponents of the EFCA enough ammo to hurt the reelection chances of the moderates.

“Their concern is that the House will pass something, then the Senate will take up the bill and do something different,” the senior leadership aide tells me. “The Blue Dogs don’t want to end up voting on something that won’t even become law. They’re saying, `See what can get through the Senate first, and then we’ll vote on it.’”

House Dem leaders agree with this assessment, the aide says. Asked if it would anger labor leaders, the aide said that labor might not like it but that labor leaders would “understand the dynamic.”

In any case, if Pelosi heeds this warning from moderate Democrats, we may see the EFCA stymied for a while unable to go forward. Opponents of this bill need to keep the pressure up on Democrat representatives in right to work states. It is obviously having an effect so far.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

In 1996 Congress passed and Bill Clinton signed the welfare reforms that for the first time in 20 years caused poverty statistics for black children to fall to unprecedented lows during the modern welfare era.

In 1996, Barack Obama was against these reforms.

In 2009, with his giant welfare bill he calls a "stimulus plan," Barack Obama has eliminated these reforms.

Watch this video to see how Obama wants to return to the days of higher poverty rates for black children.

Proof once again that Democrats want to enlarge welfare rolls, destroy the lives of citizens, make everyone poorer, and create a permanent underclass that they can count on for votes.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Despite all claims to the contrary, President Obama has not been very vigilant about pursuing that idea of "transparency" he ballyhooed during the recent campaign. Politico reported on a host of documents, proclamations and executive orders that Obama has made in the last month and none of them were online. In fact, many were not even released at all to the press by the White House.

So, where is the drumbeat of outrage about the "secret presidency" we heard for the last 6 or so years?

Remember all the mavens of the Old Media establishment that kept claiming that Bush was too secretive? Along with the Old Media, the nutrooters also took up the claim as a battle cry against the evil Bush administration. Of course, Bush was trying to fight an intelligence war where keeping secrets means life or death for our soldiers. But, regardless of Bush's reasons, the media and the left were constantly apoplectic over this supposed "secrecy."

It was undemocratic, mean spirited, anti-American... evil even. The left was in a constant state of righteous indignation over Bush's secrecy.

Then came the answer to their dreams, the man to cause tingles up their legs, Barack Obama. Why, he was going to change everything. It was to be a government of "transparency," don't ya know? Obama made all sorts of promises to put every government policy, debate, and document on line for all to see.

Apparently, neither Obama nor his supplicants in the media are much worried about secrecy now.

In his first weeks in office, President Barack Obama shut down his predecessor’s system for reviewing regulations, realigned and expanded two key White House policymaking bodies and extended economic sanctions against parties to the conflict in the African nation of Cote D’Ivoire.

Despite the intense scrutiny a president gets just after the inauguration, Obama managed to take all these actions with nary a mention from the White House press corps.

The moves escaped notice because they were never announced by the White House Press Office and were never placed on the White House web site.

Politico also notes the Register is published days after the fact, so the news is no longer new. Politico further says that this is a reversal of the openness that the Bush administration practiced.

In fact, many of these secret initiatives and orders were only found because bloggers dug them up from the Federal Register, the daily compendium of government actions issued by the National Archives.

And this fact, that bloggers dug them up, doesn't that demolish the oft repeated claim by the Old Media that we need journalists because bloggers don't have the resources or capability to keep an eye on government like real reporters do? Looks like all those "real" reporters seriously dropped the ball in this story!

Here is the list Politico noted.

One order Obama signed Feb. 5 expanded the National Economic Council to 25 people by adding the Secretary of Health and Human Services; Secretary of Education Arne Duncan; senior adviser Valerie Jarrett; “climate czar” Carol Browner and two other officials.

Another order the president signed the same day added two slots to the Domestic Policy Council, bringing it to a total of 26 people. Some slots were reassigned. The chief technology officer was among those added to the panel, while “AIDS Policy Coordinator” was removed. It was unclear if that was a substantive change, simply reflected plans to keep the AIDS czar post at the State Department, or perhaps both.

Another Obama executive order, signed January 30, canceled two Bush-era executive orders relating to regulatory review. The White House did release chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s memo halting regulations in the works at federal agencies, but didn’t release another Obama memo setting a 100-day deadline for agency heads to recommend a new regulatory review process. The memo indicates that Obama may want to do some things differently on the regulatory front than the last Democrat in the White House, Bill Clinton.

Some of these seem a bit important, don't they? Expanding government by fiat, creating cushy new jobs for friends, summarily changing the way regulations will be reviewed... aren't these things that need to see the light of public review?

So, what about that whole "transparency" thingie, Barack?

The White House belatedly posted the mysteriously missing documents claiming a simple oversight after Politico inquired about them.

Lastly, where is the anguished outcry about this secrecy? Would the Old Media have allowed belated postings of secret orders under the excuse that it was just an "oversight" if Bush had done it?

You tell me.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Usually I don't go for the hard-edged treatment of politicians as my headline here does. I don't often call individuals "liars" and the like, though I've been known to do so on occasion. Generally, I prefer to assume that those that oppose my views are truthfully advocating for deep held beliefs and not using lies and obfuscation to get there -- some exceptions to that, of course. I am not really the biggest fan of the wild-eyed, Olbermannesque sort of bombast and name-calling.

But, after what Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said of his desire to push the ill-conceived "Fairness Doctrine" down our throats, I just can't see any other explanation of his motives. Every single word he said on this issue was convoluted, unAmerican, illogical and meant solely as a cynical means to his ends of quashing free political speech so that his party could consolidate it's domination of American politics.

Schumer made these remarks last November, so they aren't new. But his remarks are of a piece with the Democrat's push to launch an unAmerican crusade to eliminate free speech in this country, a campaign that has been gathering steam these last few days. And, since the quest to impose the "Fairness Doctrine" on American's rights to free political speech is again a topic of the Democrat's agenda, it behooves us to see the false logic and lies underlying the effort. Chuck Schumer's words are the perfect guide for us to illustrate the left's goals.

Schumer started off his screed against free speech by claiming he wanted "balance." Schumer said on Fox News, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.

Yet, the only thing that Schumer and his cohorts on the left want to "balance" is AM talk radio. Why is that, exactly? If true "fairness" is the left's honest goal, why is talk radio the only medium being targeted? Why else but that talk radio is the only one in which conservative principles predominate. On cable TV news the left owns 75% of them. On network TV the left owns 100%. In print, the liberal view is predominant and has been since the late 1960s. So on "balance" the left is predominant throughout the media. Yet, AM talk radio is all the Chuck Schumers of the world are interested in fostering that vaunted "balance."

Now just look at the logical gymnastics and anti-American sentiment that Schumer indulges in to justify his destruction of one of America's most cherished principles: free political speech.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

There is so much wrong in this ignorant statement that it boggles the mind.

First of all, and this is seminal, the concept that government is not "consistent" unless it overtakes everything is so unAmerican in its basic concept that it truly shows Schumer to be an outright liar. After all, he stood foursquare against the Patriot Act, didn't he? Schumer didn't see any problems with inconsistency as he tried to stop a larger take over of surveillance by the federal government, of course. Yet, all of a sudden he is worried about being "consistent" now?

Clearly, he is lying. This "consistency" argument is merely a means to an end as opposed to a logically thought out policy based on American tradition.

In fact, there is only one theory of government in which government controlling all it surveys is central to its system and that is a tyrannical monarchy. Republics and Democracies, on the other hand, are entirely based on the idea that government has some power in some areas and less or none in others. Democracies are built on the process of governors and the governed carefully deciding upon which areas government will exercise power and to what degree. Schumer's claim that it's an all or nothing proposition is not only unAmerican, its both undemocratic and a strike against liberty and freedom everywhere.

With this concept of "consistency" that Schumer espoused, it seems that he is no better than Saddam Hussein or the Taliban with his concept that government should control every aspect of our lives.

But, again, we come back to the clear fact that he is less a despot than an outright liar. Schumer isn't interested in total control of government as a basic concept. He is only interested in the power of his party. He would not be for this sort of power in the hands of Republicans or Libertarians. He is only a shill for extremist liberals and their power grab.

And this, in the end, proves he is not smart enough to even understand the concepts he claims to be operating under. His "consistency" argument would only be consistent if the same power was absolute whether Republicans or Democrats were in command, yet he "consistently" fights Republican power. In truth Schumer seeks to deny this "consistent" tyranny to the Republicans while working to assure it for Democrats. He is not smart enough to understand that if his party gets this all out power, that tyrannical power will -- it must -- eventually devolve onto the opposite party at some point in the future.

This is the whole reason that the founders, men of vastly superior mental capacity than Chuck Schumer, created a system that made government less powerful than would befit Schumer's "consistency" concept.

This so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is a rejection of liberty, a slander against fairness, and the destruction of one of the most basic freedoms in western theories of government.

Of course, there are levels of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, neither right being absolutely “free.” But, this isn’t the argument that Schumer is making with his idiotic “consistency” argument. If he stuck with the long history of defining and re-defining freedom of speech and the free press he’d at least have some legitimate grounds upon which to argue. But he did not do so.

In the final analysis the only conclusion that one can make is that Chuck Schumer is a liar and a very stupid man.

Unfortunately, the entire Democratic Party is following the inane argument of this stupid man right toward an entirely anti-American policy.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

When the Auto Bailout was approved by Congress one of the stipulations was that the automakers had to get concessions from the unions.

So, in an attempt to abide by Congress' demands, GM has been in negotiations with the United Auto Workers to make the requisite deals. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as if the UAW is in the mood for making any deals, at least if it involves any cuts for them. Consequently the UAW has decided to walk out on further negotiations.

Sadly, instead of trying to arrive at a fair package with General Motors, the UAW would rather stubbornly fight them at a time when everyone is being asked to trim expectations in this faltering economy.

At issue is the UAW administered retiree health care fund. This fund is one of the biggest reasons that GM workers see a total per-employee labor cost of $69 per hour while its competition, such as Toyota, only is saddled with hourly costs of $53. This higher cost makes the U.S. automakers less competitive.

GM says they have a solution to this exorbitant health-care fund.

GM says it owes $20.4 billion to the fund, and the loan terms set a target of giving the union half of the value in cash and half in GM stock. The trust fund would take over health care payments for GM's roughly 500,000 blue-collar retirees and spouses starting Jan. 1, 2010.

The trust, called a voluntary employees beneficiary association, would let GM move about $46.7 billion in retiree health care costs off its books, making it more cost-competitive with Asian automakers. It is the key feature of a new four-year contract signed in 2007 with the UAW.

Not good enough say union bosses.

It appears the unions won't bend even if the whole company goes down the tubes. I expect they imagine that with their guy in the White House they don't have to make the same sort of sacrifices the rest of the country has to make?

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!