Next Tuesday, Charlotteans will be take to the polls to vote in the mayoral race (where RINO Pat McRory will likely win another term). Also on the ballot is a vote on school bonds, as well as a major issue that has developed in Charlotte over the last several years: the half cent transit tax Charlotte citizens voted in favor of in 1998 in order to pay for a “transportation solutions” for Charlotte, including a “light rail” system we don’t need. The vote is whether or not to repeal that half cent tax, due to the fact that not only do we not really need light rail, but the cost of the light rail system is way, way, way, wayyyyyyyy over budget. Once that was discovered, just about every top city official feigned ignorance, and promised to “get to the bottom of it” - which of course, they didn’t do.

Jeff Taylor from the John Locke Foundation’s Meck Deck blog has been burning the midnight oil on this issue for several months now. This post is a good starting point to find out the history of the half cent tax, including when it was voted into law, the posturing done over the cost and practicality of light rail by various city officials, one of whom is running for re-election next week (hint hint), and the various arguments that have been made over time against light rail, arguments made by many people including the John Locke Foundation itself. Jeff’s also written about the issue at the Rhino Times (more on that here, here, and here).

It’s interesting the lies and scare tactics that the “vote against the repeal” crowd have used in an effort to convince people to vote against repealing the tax (some of which are documented here). Of course, in a city that has a penchant for lying to its voters, this isn’t exactly suprising.

Don’t get me wrong. We’ve got major transportation issues in Charlotte. But light rail isn’t the solution. For ideas on relieving Charlotte traffic congestion, the Vote Repeal website has ten suggestions.

Charlotte polls are open next Tuesday from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. I know I’ll be voting in favor of the repeal and, if you’re a Charlotte voter, I hope you will, too.

Oh, and if you’re worried that your property taxes will be used/increased - if the repeal vote wins - in order to continue to pay for the light rail project? Surprise! That’s already happening.

Really big.

Good.

Thur AM Update: Just to clarify, of course I’m all for 1st Amendment rights - but I like seeing Fred Phelps squirm a bit. Captain Ed has a good post up about the free speech aspect of this case here.

Prior:

• Sickening anti-gay protests at GI funerals

If you’re like me, you didn’t bother watching last night’s Democratic debate because you probably had better things to do - like watch the leaves fall or something. Seriously, last night’s debate proved to be the one to watch, as Hillary Clinton made her first official “noticeable” mistake: her facade started to crumble, the day before Halloween no less. Of course, being the frontrunner, the other candidates were targeting her, but the Senator proved she didn’t need much prodding to to prove that on the issue of giving illegals driver’s licenses in NY - as ordered by New York Governor Eliot Spitzer - she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Here’s the relevant part of the transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: Thank you, Brian.

Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. You told the Nashua, New Hampshire editorial board it makes a lot of sense. Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver’s license?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It’s probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum.

I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well-intentioned, can fill this gap.

There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.

MR. RUSSERT: Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver’s license?

REP. KUCINICH: Believe what?

MR. RUSSERT: An illegal immigrant should not have a driver’s license.

SEN. DODD: This is a privilege. And look, I’m as forthright and progressive on immigration policy as anyone here, but we’re dealing with a serious problem here, we need to have people come forward. The idea that we’re going to extend this privilege here of a driver’s license, I think, is troublesome. And I think the American people are reacting to it.

We need to deal with security on our borders, we need to deal with the attraction that draws people here, we need to deal fairly with those who are here; but this is a privilege. Talk about health care, I have a different opinion. That affects the public health of all of us. But a license is a privilege, and that ought not to be extended, in my view.

MR. WILLIAMS: Who else? Senator —

SEN. CLINTON: I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it. And we have failed —

SEN. DODD: Wait a minute. No, no, no. You said yes, you thought it made sense to do it.

` SEN. CLINTON: No, I didn’t, Chris. But the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are (driving ?) — (inaudible)?

SEN. DODD: Well, that’s a legitimate issue. But driver’s license goes too far, in my view.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, you may say that, but what is the identification if somebody runs into you today who is an undocumented worker —

SEN. DODD: There’s ways of dealing with that.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, but —

SEN. DODD: This is a privilege, not a right.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer has agreed to do is to have three different licenses; one that provides identification for actually going onto airplanes and other kinds of security issues, another which is an ordinary driver’s license, and then a special card that identifies the people who would be on the road.

SEN. DODD: That’s a bureaucratic nightmare.

SEN. CLINTON: So it’s not the full privilege.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure what I heard. Do you, the New York Senator Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor’s plan to give illegal immigrants a driver’s license? You told the Nashua, New Hampshire, paper it made a lot of sense.

SEN. CLINTON: It —

MR. RUSSERT: Do you support his plan?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed, and George Bush has failed.

Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York we want to know who’s in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He’s making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.

The transcript, however, doesn’t do it justice. Here’s the video (via MKH):

Clearly, she was flustered, and sputtered along, and got a bit angry when pressed. And at the end of it all, she still wouldn’t admit whether or not she supported Spitzer’s plan. Nuance, you see, is big in the Democratic party - especially if you’re a frontrunner during campaign season.

Her campaign issued a damage control statement in which she cried foul, and accused Obama of abandoning the “politics of hope” and caving to the pundits desire for him to “go negative” on Hillary. In other words, trying to get her to clearly state her position on an issue, and criticizing her, is “going negative.”

The NYT Caucus blog reports today is a new day for the Senator, and she’s a little more clear on her opinion of Spitzer’s plan:

A day after she appeared to struggle to give her views on the subject, Hillary Rodham Clinton offered support today for Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s effort to award New York driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, as her campaign sought to contain potentially damaging fallout from a what her own supporters saw as a tense and listless debate performance.

Mrs. Clinton’s statement affirming her support of Mr. Spitzer in his office came less than a day after she offered a muddled and hesitant position on the bill, prompting a round of denunciations by her opponents. It signaled the extent to which her advisers viewed that moment as the biggest misstep she made in the debate, and one with long-term potential to undermine her candidacy.

“Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administration’s failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform,’” her campaign said.
Mrs. Clinton’s aides said her statement was intended to signal that she broadly supported Mr. Spitzer’s goal of awarding driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Mr. Spitzer initially proposed a blanket program of awarding full-fledged driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants; in the face of sharp opposition from the Legislature, he backed off and presented a two-tier program system of awarding licenses to illegal immigrants.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said that she had not studied either plan, and was not specifically endorsing either of them.
Still, the wording of the statement was murkier than what many of her opponents have said in either supporting or opposing Mr. Spitzer’s initiatives. Among those opposing it were Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut; Senator Barack Obama of Illinois supported it.

So you can see that even in her statement, she’s still left herself some wiggle room in case she makes it to the general election.

Karol at Alarming News notes that the 9/11 Families for a Secure America group is offering $1000 to anyone who can get Hillary to definitively state what her position is on illegals having driver’s licenses.

I noticed that some female bloggers are accusing MSNBC’s Tim Russert (who moderated the debate, along with Brian Williams) and “the boys” of leading an “assault” on Hillary Clinton. Cute. I guess because Hillary’s a woman, “the boys” should have tossed softballs at her, and because they didn’t, Hillary was a “victim” of the “patriarchy” and all that (sound familiar?). And here I thought that males and females were supposed to be treated equally.

Related: Mark Noonan and Matt Margolis have filed a complaint with the FEC over Hillary’s shady fundraising practices. Clinton’s campaign has 15 days in which to respond.

Update: Fact Check has dared to critique Hillary’s answers and non-answers from the debate. I guess this means they’ve gone the “misogyny” route, too …

The afternoon’s gotten a bit busy. Will be back to blogging later this evening.

Before I go, how many of you out there are good at carving out pumpkin faces? I’ve never had much success with it myself, but enjoy watching others work their magic with ‘em. I usually just grab a magic marker and draw faces on the pumpkins I put outside

Caption: Karen Moynihan works on a pumpkin at Ellie’s Farm Market in Berlin, Vt., Friday, Oct. 26, 2007. She will prepare over 1000 pumpkins for the annual pumpkin display at the end of the month. She calls herself a ’speed carver,’ taking about 16 seconds to carve a normal design on a scooped-out pumpkin. (AP Photo/Toby Talbot)

Related: Private Pigg at Liberty Pundit blogs about the Iowa Department of Revenue’s recent decision to start taxing pumpkins. My question is: Where does a pumpkin hide its wallet?

Poor ol’ “Man-made” Global Warming. It, along with the President, gets unfairly blamed for all kinds of disasters, including hurricanes, droughts, snowstorms - and most recently, the wildfires in California.

Well, via Lawhawk, I read today that a little boy has taken responsiblity for starting one of the raging wildfires in California which destroyed 21 homes and left burned to a crisp 38,000 acres:

SANTA CLARITA, Calif. (AP) - Officials blamed a wildfire that consumed more than 38,000 acres and destroyed 21 homes last week on a boy playing with matches, and said they would ask a prosecutor to consider the case.

The boy, whose name and age were not released, admitted to sparking the fire on Oct. 21, Los Angeles County sheriff’s Sgt. Diane Hecht said Tuesday. Ferocious winds helped it quickly spread.

“He admitted to playing with matches and accidentally starting the fire,” Hecht said in a statement.

The boy was released to his parents, and the case will be presented to the district attorney’s office, Hecht said. It was not clear if he had been arrested or cited by detectives.

And it appears that investigators are zeroing in on arsonists as the culprits who set the other blazes:

The fire began in an area near Agua Dulce and quickly spread. It was among 15 or so major wildfires that killed 14 people, destroyed some 2,100 homes and blackened 809 square miles from Los Angeles to the Mexican border last week.

Authorities arrested five people for arson during that period, but none have been linked to any of the major blazes.

All but four of the blazes are now fully contained. Firefighters on Wednesday continued to cut lines around the remaining fires and kept a close eye on the weather.

Forecasters have said moderate Santa Ana winds could pick up later in the week.

Investigators have blamed an arsonist for setting a destructive wildfire in Orange County that blackened 28,500 acres and destroyed 16 homes.

Got that, far left Democrats? Bush and “Man-made” Global Warming are not to blame for the wildfires in California.

Now, I know you won’t apologize to the President because it’s not in your combative, hostile, hateful nature to admit to your sworn enemy that you were 100 shades of wrong, but would you at least be kind enough to say you’re sorry to your pal “Man-made” Global Warming? As Republicans, we’re used to dealing with and responding to unfair allegations demagoguing Democrats typically level at us for a multitude of things which we had nothing to do with, but - well - “Man-made” Global Warming is unable speak for him(her?)self - unless (s)he decides to huff and puff and blow your house down a la the Big Bad Wolf (who also, ironically, is also part of a fairy tale) - so (s)he can’t respond verbally in an effort to refute to your false allegations against his(her?) revered name.

C’mon, blame-game Democrats! Can’t we all just get along?

Related: Via Memeorandum, I see Blue Crab Boulevard has linked up to a post-mortem of sorts on the San Diego wildfires, as well as some photos of the fires as they were raging. You can view the photos here. And Dale Franks, a Southern California resident, posted some pictures last week of the rescue effort and the damage the fires brought to San Diego and surrounding areas.

PM Update: I meant to blog about this last week: Did you hear about Scare America host Randi Rhodes conspiracy theory that the wildfires were purposedly started by Blackwater (h/t: my friend Mark Dunn at the XDA blog)? These far leftites are just becoming their own parodies.

Here’s more good news from Iraq that the usual suspects will ignore.

I noticed yesterday that the media was intently focused on a news story about the possibility that the Mosul dam could collapse in Iraq, which they predict could kill up to 500,000 people. With increasingly positive news coming out of Iraq, it’s not much of a surprise to see the media obviously trying a different tactic in their continued negative reporting on Iraq: predicting possible future deaths on a massive scale.

More: Don Surber notes that the Washington Post’s story about the decline of US and civilian deaths in Iraq was buried on page 14.

The Washington Post and Newsweek both have up articles this week which discuss how risque Halloween costumes for young girls have gotten over the last several years due to their popularity which, to me, has become the scariest part of Halloween.

But as Michelle Malkin noted in a post yesterday, the sexualization of young girls doesn’t just happen on Halloween. It goes on year-round.

And you don’t just see the sexualization of young girls on TV and in magazines anymore. As I’ve written here before, the sexualization of young girls - and boys, for that matter - can start from a very young age … at the child’s elementary and/or junior high school, courtesy of sex ed classes that on the surface (we’re told, anyway) are designed to teach kids about “safe sex” but in actuality encourage them to engage in sexual activity whether it be the actual act itself or some form of it which, for all intents and purposes, is essentially the same thing. Or they’ll encourage kids to “explore” whether or not they are “really” heterosexual. And this attempt at sexualizing kids under the guise of “educating” them doesn’t just happen in the schools. We see it from groups like Planned Parenthood, where they’re known for using cartoons to make condom use more appealing to young kids.

With mess like this ingrained into our culture, it’s got to be harder than ever for parents to instill in their children the values they need to grow up and be self-confident, independent, mature, productive, responsible, respectable members of society.

No matter how much more uphill the battle gets, whether one is a parent or not, we must never give up the culture war battle - the protection of the innocence of our children depends on our remaining both vigilant and outspoken.

BTW, Captain Ed will be interviewing one of my favorite culture warriors, Carol Platt Liebau, about this very issue - and her new book Prude: How the Sex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls (and America, Too!) - on Heading Right Radio tomorrow at 3pm ET. Make sure to tune in.

To say what’s happening at the University of Delaware is shocking is an understatement. I mean, we all know that the majority of college faculties across the country are liberal, and as a result liberal indoctrination through “education” ensues, but, as Jason Steck explains, the program at the University of Delaware goes much further than that:

The details of the program at the University of Delaware are positively Orwellian. Students living in residence halls are required to attend a lengthy list of seminars explicitly intended as “treatment” for attitudes that are presumed to be politically deficient. Their progress through these seminars and their compliance with the list of mandatory ideologies is monitored and reported up a hierarchical chain with written reports. Students that fail to express their enthusiastic support for the required thoughts can receive negative reports and, given the mandatory nature of the program, may be subject to academic or other sanctions.

John Leo at Minding the Campus writes:

The indoctrination program pushes students to accept the university’s ideas on politics, race, sex, sociology, moral philosophy and environmentalism. The training is run by Kathleen Kerr, director of residential life, who reportedly considers it a “cutting-edge” program that can be exported to other universities around the country. Residential assistants usually provide services to residents and have light duties, such as settling squabbles among students. Kerr and her program are more ambitious. She has been quoted as saying that the job of RAs is to educate the whole human being with a “curricular approach to residential education.” In this curricular approach, students are required to report their thoughts and opinions. One professor says: “You have to confess what you believe to the RA.” The RAs write reports to their superiors on student progress in cooperating with the “treatment.”

Here’s an example of some of the UDel’s “required thoughts”:

“A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination. (This does not deny the existence of such prejudices, hostilities, acts of rage or discrimination.)” - Page 3

—–

“REVERSE RACISM: A term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege. Those in denial use the term reverse racism to refer to hostile behavior by people of color toward whites, and to affirmative action policies, which allegedly give ‘preferential treatment’ to people of color over whites. In the U.S., there is no such thing as ‘reverse racism.’” - Page 3

—–

“A NON-RACIST: A non-term. The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called “blaming the victim”). Responsibility for perpetuating and legitimizing a racist system rests both on those who actively maintain it, and on those who refuse to challenge it. Silence is consent.” - Page 3

Read more here. The PDF document FIRE has obtained detailing UDel’s “residence life education program” can be perused here.

Put another nail in the coffin on the liberal lie about supporting “free thought.”

Just got done reading this piece Jonah Goldberg wrote for the LA Times about his belief that conservatism is popular in theory but not so much in practice:

The problem is that conservatism, even Reagan’s brand, wasn’t as popular as we often remember it. Government spending continued to increase under Reagan, albeit a bit more slowly. Today, the U.S. population is 30% larger but government spending is 84% greater (adjusting for inflation) than it was when Reagan delivered his 1981 inaugural address. That was the speech in which he declared: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem,” and vowed to “curb the size and influence of the federal establishment.”

In 1964, two political psychologists, Lloyd A. Free and Hadley Cantril, famously asserted that Americans were ideologically conservative but operationally liberal. Americans loved Barry Goldwater’s rhetoric about yeoman individualism, but not if it meant taking away their Social Security checks or farm subsidies. “As long as Goldwater could talk ideology alone, he was high, wide and handsome,” they wrote. “But the moment he discussed issues and programs, he was finished.”

Still, Goldwater went to Tennessee to blast the Tennessee Valley Authority, God bless him. That was like going to a brothel to denounce prostitution, or to Iowa to denounce ethanol — but I repeat myself. He carried only six states in the 1964 presidential election.

Liberals have an inherent advantage. As long as they promise incremental, “pragmatic” expansions of the government, voters generally give them a pass. And every new expansion since FDR and the New Deal has created a constituency for continued government largesse.

If Hillary Clinton promised to socialize medicine — which, let the record show, she has attempted to do in the past — she would lose. But her current campaign promise to simply expand coverage sounds reasonable enough — even though there’s no reason to think she’ll stop pushing for a national single-payer healthcare system (a.k.a. socialized medicine).

“Liberals sell the welfare state one brick at a time, deflecting inquiries about the size and cost of the palace they’re building,” writes William Voegeli in an illuminating essay, “The Trouble with Limited Government,” in the current issue of the Claremont Review of Books.

Yes, they do - and they do it with the full support and aid of the mainstream media.

I wrote recently about the Democrats’ penchant for emotional arguments that they often “win” specifically because of their demagoguery. Democrats, unlike many Republicans, know the power of words and how to use them - and the media - to their advantage. With the success of talk radio and blogs, Republicans are doing a lot better job at getting their message out but it’s primarily getting out to people who are already sold on it. Quite simply, Republicans need to learn better ways to frame their pro-conservative arguments in a way that appeals not just to the base but also to those who aren’t political junkies, to your average American voter who doesn’t spend most of his free time scouring the newspapers and I’net for the latest goings-on in politics. Republicans are learning how to do this, but they haven’t become masters of how to do it, and until they do - and until they 1) start acting like conservatives and 2) stop throwing up their hands in the air and saying “we give up” (the SCHIP expansion drama is an exception to the rule) - the big government bureaucracy (and the dependence on the government) will continue to grow.

There is a tremendous power in words, if used in the right context. Take welfare, for example. The word itself has a negative connotation to it. Democrats don’t like to use it, and instead have adopted use of the word “disadvantaged” (and other “non-offensive” words) to describe people who are on welfare. Back in the mid 90s Newt Gingrich framed the welfare reform argument in a common sense way, telling people that welfare was hurting many of the people it claimed to be helping, and he assured people that he didn’t want to eliminate welfare altogether but instead implement reforms which would require able-bodied people on welfare to get a job so that only those who “truly needed it” would get it. This persuasive argument, in part, forced Bill Clinton into fulfulling a campaign promise he never intended to: implementing welfare reform. And as we all know, the passage of welfare reform has led to positive results we would not have seen had Bill Clinton and other Democrats had their way about it.

For conservatives, winning arguments about our national security isn’t a difficult thing to do, as we saw happen in 2002 and 2004. Not only that, but militant far left anti-war Democrats made it pretty easy. Where the problem comes in for conservatives is on domestic policy and selling pro-conservative arguments on social/fiscal issues in a hostile mainstream media environment that overwhelmingly favors Democrats. Until more conservatives in government develop a spine, start rejecting the “I give up” attitude towards growing social programs which liberals demagogue, as well as take a stand and say unpopular things that need to be said, and say them in effective and engaging ways that signify that they share the a voter’s concern on any given issue while at the same time confidently discussing their solutions/ideas, we will start seeing more people rejecting liberalism and embracing conservatism and perhaps, finally a return to the small-government ideals that once was the bedrock of conservatism.

See if you can say that three times fast.

Members of Congress are reacting swiftly to the recent news about the National Cemetery Administration decision halting flag-folding recitatations at military funerals at any national cemetary - because of one complaint:

A group of congressmen has asked the Department of Veterans Affairs to reconsider its ban on the flag-folding ceremony at military funerals after the agency decided last month to streamline burials at federal cemeteries.

“The flag folding recitation is a longstanding tradition which brings comfort to the living and honor to the deceased,” Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., writes in his letter Tuesday signed by 11 other congressmen. “The recitations accompanying each fold pay tribute to the service and sacrifice of our veterans and their families, the nation they proudly serve, and the beliefs that they hold dear.”

Veterans Affairs made the new policy decision last month, after a complaint was filed about a service at Riverside National Cemetery in California.

At issue are secondary meanings attached to the folding of the flag. As the Memorial Honor Guard makes the 13 folds — traditionally representing the original colonies — they recite “the first fold of our flag is a symbol of life, the second fold is a symbol of our belief in the eternal life, etc.”

A complaint about the recitation for the 11th fold — “in the eyes of a Hebrew citizen, represents the lower portion of the seal of King David and King Solomon, and glorifies, in their eyes, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” — garnered a complaint at the California cemetery, and according to reports, prompted the ban.

In a Sept. 27 memo, the National Cemetery Administration halted the ceremony. It was an effort to create uniform services throughout the military graveyard system, spokesman Mike Nacincik said.

But it’s caused a furor among veterans. Members of the American Legion have been flooding national headquarters since the decision, according to Ramona Joyce, an organization spokeswoman.

“We definitely think is a matter left up to the families,” she said. “It’s a nice ceremony; we’ve been doing it for years. Our honor guards have been doing it.

“It’s respectful and it’s something the family should be able to choose to have done if they so wish for their veteran,” Joyce said.

Nacincik said the 13-fold recital is not part of the U.S. Flag Code and is not government-approved.

Then why an “official” ban if it’s not “officially” government-approved? Why not let each individual family decide, rather than taking that right away from them? Isn’t that the least they could do for the men and women who have given their lives to protect such freedoms?

“That the actions of one disgruntled, whining, narcissistic and intolerant individual is preventing veterans from getting the honors they deserve is truly an outrage,” Rees Lloyd, 59, said. “This is another attempt by secularist fanatics to cleanse any reference to God.”

Yep.

Here’s background on the story, via Stop The ACLU.

Rob at Flopping Aces is justifiably outraged, and provides a contact name for the National Cemetary Association in case you want to let them know how you feel about this. While you’re at it, contact your reps in the House and Senate and urge them to put pressure on the National Cemetery Administration to reverse course.