Two Tea Party-friendly Republicans may soon vie for a safe GOP House seat in Alabama in a contest that could foreshadow 2014 GOP nomination battles.
The vacancy will occur in Alabama’s solidly Republican 1st congressional district in the southwest corner of the state. Since 2003 it has been represented by Rep. Jo Bonner, a moderate Republican. Bonner announced last week he’s leaving Aug. 15 to become the University of Alabama System’s vice chancellor of government relations and economic development.
Fincher, a member of the Alabama House Ways and Means Committee, told me in an interview that he will probably make a decision in the coming week.
“I definitely relate to the Tea Party movement,” he said. “I want to have that conservative voice that we desperately need” in Washington. “I want to have someone who pays taxes and has to meet a payroll.”
In addition to his legislative duties, Fincher is a broker/agent at Fincher & Associates Realty Services in Semmes.
Longtime conservative journalist Quin Hillyer announced his candidacy May 23 in a farewell post at the American Spectator website.
“I am a constitutional conservative—and an ‘opportunity society’ conservative as well, hearkening back to the Reagan-Kemp era of prosperity and liberty … Readers of this site know I am a full spectrum conservative. Mostly libertarian on economics, firmly for a strong defense, and for traditional values.”
Social conservative and former presidential candidate Rick Santorum has endorsed Hillyer.
The field for the soon-to-be-open seat may get crowded.
Other possible candidates for the GOP nod include state senators Trip Pittman, Bill Hightower, and Rusty Glover. Former state senator Bradley Byrne, a Republican establishment figure who ran for governor in 2010, could also throw his hat in the ring.
Media Matters’s Eric Boehlert Caught In A Lie, Falsely Accuses Weekly Standard of Ignoring Gosnell Abortion Trial
As I’ve written before, the anti-conservative propaganda website, Media Matters for America, lies, distorts, and makes up things in order to make good Americans look bad.
A case in point is Eric Boehlert, a senior slime-purveyor at the George Soros-funded character assassination factory.
Boehlert, known for his sloppy research and typographical errors, is now trying to justify the mainstream media’s virtual blackout of the trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell by accusing conservative media outlets of ignoring the proceedings.
Specifically, Boehlert writes that the conservative Weekly Standard magazine only bothered covering the trial recently.
He notes that the April 22 print version contains an unsigned editorial on Gosnell titled “See No Evil,” and that the online version contains only two articles on Gosnell — “A House of Horrors,” by Gary Bauer (April 3) and “The Gosnell Scandal” by Jon A. Shields (April 10).
But in fact the Weekly Standard has published at least three other pieces on Gosnell dating back to 2011 and Gosnell has been mentioned in various items available in the online archive dozens of times.
Those three pieces that focused on Gosnell are: “Philadelphia Abortionist Charged for Killing 7 Babies After They Were Born,” by John McCormack (Jan. 19, 2011); “The Supreme Court’s Back Alley Runs Through Philadelphia,” by Clark Forsythe (Jan. 24, 2011); and “To Live and Die in Philadelphia,” (Feb. 7, 2011).
Presumably the hiatus in coverage from when Gosnell was charged in 2011 until recently has something to do with the fact that the trial wasn’t underway and there wasn’t much, if anything, new to report during that period.
So it is apparent that the Weekly Standard hasn’t provided saturation coverage of Gosnell but the magazine also hasn’t exactly been ignoring the case, as Boehlert claims.
Perhaps if Boehlert had bothered to search the magazine’s online archive he would have found all the extra articles and blog posts I located.
But he didn’t.
Boehlert argues that conservative media outlets have ignored the Gosnell story because they’ve been obsessed with covering President Obama’s relentless assault on American institutions and values.
“If the conservative press could unplug itself from its Obama outrage machine and find the smallest bit of daylight between itself and the RNC, it might not miss important stories, like the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell,” he self-righteously pontificates.
Maybe if Boehlert would practice real journalism instead of writing reckless, erroneous, poorly researched hit pieces aimed at making conservative media outlets look bad he might contribute something of value to society.
After all the howling and vituperative whining from left-wingers it turns out Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was absolutely correct when he said Harvard Law School had significant numbers of what might reasonably be called “communists.”
These “communists” adhere to a bizarre school of legal thought called critical legal theory. The brilliant Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals describes critical legal studies (CLS) as “horse manure.”
Critical legal theory is anti-law. It’s like throwing a shrapnel grenade into a packed courtroom. Teaching it to law students is Marxist indoctrination, not education.
It takes the neo-Marxist perspective that the law is concerned with power, not justice. Because the law is a fraud perpetrated on the people, an oppressive tool of capitalism, imperialism, sexism, racism, and whatever other ism it is currently fashionable to attack, the legal system should be criticized endlessly as a means of tearing it down.
If you’re a communist it’s natural to embrace critical legal theory as a way of wrecking American society.
The issue arose recently when Jane Mayer, a reporter on the New Yorker’s anti-conservative beat, unearthed a three year old speech the freshman senator made in which he described Barack Obama as “the most radical” president “ever to occupy the Oval Office.”
Obama “would have made a perfect president of Harvard Law School” because “there were fewer declared Republicans in the faculty when we were there than communists!” said Cruz. “There was one Republican. But there were 12 who would say they were Marxists who believed in the communists’ overthrowing the United States government.”
Like most Americans, Cruz wasn’t using the plural form of the word communist with the precision of a political theory scholar. He was referring to people who believe that markets are fundamentally unjust and that physical force should be used to create a classless society. They believe in extreme, forced equality and boring sameness at the expense of freedom and individual rights.
A Cruz spokeswoman explained that her employer’s “substantive point was absolutely correct: in the mid-1990s, the Harvard Law School faculty included numerous self-described proponents of ‘critical legal studies’ – a school of thought explicitly derived from Marxism – and they far outnumbered Republicans.” (For more on law school radicalism see Walter Olson’s wonderful book, Schools for Misrule: Legal Academia and an Overlawyered America.)
Naturally, Cruz, who earned his J.D. magna cum laude at Harvard Law School in 1995, has been vilified by left-wingers and mocked by the antique media for speaking truth to power.
He is portrayed as a liar, a bully, a lunatic, and –gasp!— a McCarthyite.
(Of course, the late Sen. Joe McCarthy had nothing to do with much of what has come to be known as McCarthyism. And he was correct about the presence of real, live, pro-Soviet Communist agents in the U.S. government, as M. Stanton Evans proved in his exhaustively researched book, Blacklisted By History.)
Left-wingers who apparently have no understanding of critical legal studies and its connection to communism trashed Cruz on cue.
For accurately describing his Harvard experience, the senator has been viciously attacked as a McCarthy wannabe by leftists such as Obama stenographer Greg Sargent, MSNBC halfwits Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow, feral character assassin Michael Tomasky, the clueless Steve Kornacki, and a large echo chamber of radical journalists and useful idiots.
Cruz may not have put together a list of Bolsheviks at Harvard, but I’ve compiled one.
Harvard has been the center of the CLS movement for decades, a fact Time acknowledged in 2005. The magazine identified Harvard law professors Roberto Mangabeira Unger (#1), Morton Horwitz (#2), and Duncan M. Kennedy (#3) as “three of the best-known” CLS adherents. (Kennedy is also a member of the far-left Democratic Socialists of America and the radical, pro-terrorist National Lawyers Guild. Bernardine Dohrn, incidentally, used to be an organizer for the NLG.)
Other “Crits” on the Harvard faculty are Mark Tushnet (#4) and David W. Kennedy (#5). In a 1981 law review article titled “The Dilemmas of Liberal Constitutionalism,” Tushnet wrote that if he were a judge he “would decide what decision in a case was most likely to advance the cause of socialism.”
Crits Northeastern University law professor Clare Dalton (#6) and University of Wisconsin law professor emeritus David Trubek (#7) taught at Harvard Law but failed to earn tenure.
CLS-friendly law professors with ties to Harvard are easy to find. Yale’s Jack Balkin (#8) and Georgetown’s Gary Peller (#9) and Louis Michael Seidman (#10) (author of the infamous column “Let’s Give Up On the Constitution”) all received their law degrees from Harvard. So did academic Peter Gabel (#11) (who is also associate editor at leftist magazine Tikkun).
Stanford professor Robert W. Gordon (#12), who has a Harvard law degree, organized a campaign at Harvard Law in support of Dalton and Trubek when they were trying to get tenure. Gordon whined at the time that Harvard had engaged in “red-baiting” the two academics.
CLS enthusiast Mark G. Kelman (#13), a highly cited law professor and vice dean of Stanford Law School, also earned his law degree from Harvard.
And don’t forget that while Barack Obama was a law student at Harvard, he studied under CLS guru Unger. Moreover, the late Derrick Bell (#14), Obama’s racist, Marxist mentor at Harvard Law, was a proponent of critical race theory, the multiculturalist Left’s race-obsessed spinoff of critical legal theory.
Harvard is not the only university infected by CLS-loving communists.
In the groves of academe today such communists are mainstream or close to it.
In the soul-searching saga that has followed Mitt Romney’s defeat in November, some leading Republicans claim that to stave off political oblivion the GOP must wholeheartedly embrace comprehensive immigration reform including amnesty for those illegal aliens already in the country.
This is wishful thinking, of course. According to various studies including a Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) report, pandering to Latino voters will not gain the Republican Party Hispanic-American votes. Latinos are particularly hard to win over to the Republican side because they tend to be ideologically aligned with big-government solutions traditionally associated with Democrats.
In other words, if conservatives embrace amnesty and all it entails, they get nada. Zero. Zip. The Left wins by getting a huge increase in the left-leaning portion of the electorate.
For liberals, there’s no downside at all. It’s a win-win as the Cloward-Piven Strategy of overwhelming the system is applied to immigration policy.
The National Immigration Forum (NIF), a media-savvy political shop largely underwritten by radical left-wing political manipulator George Soros, is attempting to dupe conservatives into supporting a massive immigration amnesty.
NIF recently distributed to prominent conservatives a leaflet that attempted to link limited-immigration groups such as CIS to “the population-control movement – including pro-abortion and euthanasia advocates.”
On the surface, at least, this makes no sense at all.
NIF gets money from hard-left philanthropies that sit squarely in the abortion-on-demand camp. They include the Ford Foundation ($3,245,000 since 2002), Carnegie Corp. of New York ($3,217,000 since 2000), John S. and James L. Knight Foundation ($1,635,000 since 2005), and the extreme-left Tides Foundation ($282,797 since 1999).
NIF has received more than $5 million from Soros, who is on record as preferring Communist China’s government to our own. It argues that: the U.S.-Mexico border is already as secure as it’s going to get; real conservatives actually support immigration reform; and giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens is a wonderful idea. Soros supports the group through his Foundation to Promote Open Society ($3,507,152 since 2009) and Open Society Institute ($1,650,000 since 1999).
Clearly the left-wing NIF is trying to drive a wedge between conservative and pro-life groups in order to push amnesty.
Now, to go all-out for amnesty, NIF launched a new coalition-building project, “Bibles, Badges and Business for Immigration Reform” (BBB). BBB is described as “a national network of faith, law enforcement and business leaders working together to educate and support members of Congress.”
This is reminiscent of the “Bootleggers and Baptists” approach to coalition politics in which opposite moral positions are massaged to lead to the same political result.
The conservative movement is far from unanimous on the immigration issue, although conservative support for amnesty tends to be limited to elites such as pro-big business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Yet the BBB claims “there is a growing and diverse constituency of conservative, moderate and progressive leaders that is determined to go beyond the rhetoric and find common ground for practical solutions.” It says, “[t]hese leaders are coming together across the country to Forge a New Consensus on Immigrants and America.”
Moderates, progressives, and some squishy conservatives may be coming together on the issue, but most conservatives don’t want to have anything to do with proposals that flout the rule of law.
They know that amnesties beget future amnesties.
The Left’s obsession with voter ID laws amounts to “disenfranchisement hysteria,” according to Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler (R).
Photo ID requirements for voting, whether instituted in America or anywhere in the world, are “correlated with increased voter turnout, substantial increased voter turnout, and a whole lot of good things and I think that shows that some of this disenfranchisement hysteria is, frankly, frankly silly,” Gessler said during a panel discussion on electoral integrity at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., on July 26 of this year.
Voter ID advocates like the good-government group True the Vote have long maintained that asking voters to prove they are citizens is essential to combat voter fraud. Left-wingers, on the other hand, say such requirements are unfair to people who are too lazy to obtain acceptable forms of government-issued identification.
Gessler praised True the Vote, a good-government group that is on the front lines of the battle for clean, honest elections. True the Vote is one of those groups that liberals hate and that voter-fraud deniers like left-wing journalist Brentin Mock routinely smear. Without any credible evidence whatsoever, Mock has accused True the Vote, which merely watches polling places to keep officials honest, of trying “to strip voters of election rights.”
Gessler seems justified worrying about fraud at the voting booth. On this Election Day there is news of widespread voter fraud, malfunctioning voting machines, and military uniform-wearing New Black Panther Party members reemerging at Philadelphia polling places. Last year, Gessler released a study showing that nearly 5,000 illegal aliens voted in the U.S. Senate election in Colorado two years ago.
“We’ve got bloated and inaccurate voter rolls. We have a very loose honor system when it comes to voting in this country, both in the registration and voting as well; often times, for example, no forms of ID, or no photo ID required,” he said. “Over time we’ve seen the increased use of mail ballots which, while it has many good points, also increases a very common avenue for voter fraud.”
Those who oppose voter ID laws embrace “a culture of see no evil, hear no evil,” and their “argument is ironically propagated by some of the same people who see massive corruption when it comes to a campaign finance system.”
Such people, Gessler said, “see massive corruption in the ballot initiative process, but when it comes to voting in the polling booth, our hearts become pure, without malice,” according to voter ID opponents.
“I think we all want to believe that everyone is of good faith and willing to do the right thing, but I think Americans intuitively understand that in any human endeavor, and elections are hard, complicated human endeavors, in any human endeavor, there is a small proportion of people who will when tempted do the wrong thing, who when tempted, will break the law. And political power, as gained through elections, is a temptation and that tempts people to do bad things.”
Conservatives have long ridiculed those on the left as brain-dead, bleeding-heart know nothings who emote profusely while sitting around camp fires singing “Kumbaya.”
I used to think it was a stereotype. I was wrong — kind of.
The evidence surfaced during a panel discussion on organizing at the left-wing Take Back the American Dream conference in Washington, D.C., on October 4, 2011.
Heather Booth, a neo-communist, Saul Alinsky-inspired, community organizer led her fellow Marxists in a stirring recitation of the old labor movement song “Solidarity Forever.” (Booth founded the Midwest Academy, a training institute for Alinskyite agitators.)
It really needs to be heard to be believed: