Voice For Liberty

Tag: Politics

  • Panel on political involvement to be in Wichita

    This Friday (September 17th) the Wichita Pachyderm Club presents a panel discussion on the topic “How you can become involved in the political process between now and the November 2nd General Election.”

    Panelists:
    Susan Estes, citizen activist
    Lynda Tyler, founder of Kansans for Liberty
    Craig Gabel, local conservative activist
    Kelly Arnold, Chair, Sedgwick County Republican Party

    All are welcome to attend Wichita Pachyderm Club meetings. The program costs $10, which includes a delicious buffet lunch including salad, soup, two main dishes, and ice tea and coffee. The meeting starts at noon, although it’s recommended to arrive fifteen minutes early to get your lunch before the program starts.

    The Wichita Petroleum Club is on the ninth floor of the Bank of America Building at 100 N. Broadway (north side of Douglas between Topeka and Broadway) in Wichita, Kansas (click for a map and directions). You may park in the garage (enter west side of Broadway between Douglas and First Streets) and use the sky walk to enter the Bank of America building. The Petroleum Club will stamp your parking ticket and the fee will be $1.00. Or, there is usually some metered and free street parking nearby.

  • Wink Hartman, Libertarian Party candidate?

    As reported by Rebecca Zepick on State of the State KS, former Republican Congressional candidate from the fourth district of Kansas Wink Hartman may be considering another run for that position, this time as nominee of the Kansas Libertarian Party.

    Zepick reported the news Saturday in the story Hartman Considering Re-Entering Race For Congress Against Pompeo and Goyle. She appeared later that day by telephone on KNSS Radio’s Jim Anderson Program, as did several others involved in this story.

    Anderson’s radio program proved to be a sounding board for several issues surrounding this race. For example: All the Republican Party candidates pledged, several times, to support the winner of the Republican primary. A caller to Anderson’s radio show brought up this point, and reminded Anderson — the host of the show — that he, too, made the pledge. Anderson became agitated, at one point threatening to cut off the caller.

    Anderson said that after a certain point, the campaign changed and became negative. Although he didn’t say so explicitly, it is clear that Anderson believes the negativity releases him from his pledge to support the winner of the primary. “I’m not supporting anybody right now,” he told listeners. He repeated this later in the show.

    After this, Kansas Libertarian Party Chair and candidate for governor Andrew Gray appeared as a guest, calling in by telephone. Gray said the key to Hartman joining the ticket is Hartman’s ability to — currently or in the future — fit in the “Libertarian mode.”

    Michael O’Donnell, a staff member in the Hartman campaign, then appeared by telephone and noted, as had Anderson, that the pledges to support the eventual primary election winner were made before the campaign became negative. True enough.

    But where O’Donnell missed the mark is in his assertion that the Pompeo campaign launched the first negative attacks, referring to information made available about Hartman’s Florida home ownership and his Florida voting record. Hartman’s recent Florida voting record was first reported by me on this site.

    While this information was not convenient to the Hartman campaign, it did not fall into the category of negative campaigning. This is the type of information voters are interested in. It was a matter of public record. It was all true.

    O’Donnell said that the Hartman campaign merely retaliated. But it did much more than that, launching some vicious attacks on Pompeo using the techniques of negative campaigns. Hartman’s campaign escalated the attacks, culminating with a charge against Pompeo that Hartman could not back up with convincing evidence.

    The pledges to support the primary winner were not made conditionally. They were absolute. In particular, candidates Anderson and Jean Schodorf need to step up and support Pompeo, the nominee. Evidently Paij Rutschman has made a financial contribution to the Pompeo campaign, but her website doesn’t endorse Pompeo.

    Looking forward, O’Donnell said that he wanted to make sure that Hartman didn’t appear as a “sore loser mentality.” Losing a primary and then running on a different ticket qualifies as just that: a sore loser. And Hartman lost the primary election in a big way. Hartman’s support declined in the polls as the election drew closer. From July 1 to July 28 his campaign did not receive a single dollar in campaign contributions other than those made by the candidate himself.

    Now Hartman may seek another round.

    It’s difficult to see what positive things Hartman would accomplish as the Libertarian Party candidate. His political views are barely compatible with those of libertarians. Hartman seems the type of Republican that pokes fun of libertarians — like me — for their absolute defense of personal liberty (including legalization of all drugs and prostitution), a peaceful and non-imperialist foreign policy, deregulation of marriage (not prohibiting gay marriage), a welcoming approach to immigrants (instead of the fortified border that Hartman advocated during the campaign), and uncompromising opposition to corporate welfare (as reported, Hartman will receive many millions in such welfare in conjunction with his Hartman Arena).

    Radical forms of libertarianism, including anarcho-capitalism or even the milder minarchism, seem beyond Hartman’s ability to grasp and understand.

    The Kansas Libertarian Party has a decision to make, too. Will it embrace a candidate — one clearly non-libertarian and blemished from running a negative campaign — who can contribute millions to its cause and give the party a big boost in coverage and recognition?

  • Kochs and Soros, contrasted and compared

    Daniel Fisher of Forbes Magazine weighs in again on mainstream media demonetization of Charles and David Koch for their support of organizations committed to economic freedom and liberty.

    Here, Fisher compares and contrasts the Kochs to George Soros, the celebrated financier of many left-wing causes, and to a much greater extent than the Kochs:

    “According to the most recent reports available, Soros has donated some $2 billion to his Open Society Institute, which pursues a wide variety of political initiatives around the world. Much of the money went to support pro-democracy activists and the like battling corrupt and oppressive regimes.” That sounds like a noble cause. Perhaps someday some might be used to combat the oppressive Obama regime here in America.

    Here in the United States, however, Soros money flows to the same types of organizations and the same types of uses for which the political Left is vigorously attacking Charles and David Koch:

    Here in the U.S., the institution has backed a profusion of community organization, “education” and get-out-the-vote groups that seem to have concentrated their activities in important swing states like Michigan and Ohio in the 2008 election year. No reports are available for 2010 but it’s a safe bet a similar amount flowed to organizations which, while not explicitly in favor of a specific candidate, support cherished causes of the Democratic Party and its financial supporters: non-judicial elections, municipal employee unions, universal healthcare.

    One of the outfits that’s received a lot of Soros money over the years is the Center for American Progress, recipient of $1 million from Soros in 2008. CAP, a left-wing think tank that supports increasing government intervention and opposes economic freedom, may be of interest to those in the south-central Kansas fourth Congressional district as the former workplace of Democratic Party candidate Raj Goyle.

    While Soros has made his contribution to CAP a matter of public knowledge, CAP does not disclose all its donors. CAP takes advantage of the same confidentiality provisions in the law that the political Left criticizes groups like Americans for Prosperity for using. But for some reason, we don’t see mainstream media references to this, and liberals seem blind to the parallels.

    We also don’t see much reference to the way Soros earned his fortune. A hedge fund operator and speculator, Soros was actually convicted of insider trading. Yet the Left hammers on Koch Industries for providing energy that America has used to power its economic growth, and energy we will continue to need.

    Soros Makes The Kochs Look Like Political Skinflints

    By Daniel Fisher

    Jane Mayer’s New Yorker profile of the Koch brothers paints a picture of a Wichita-based empire that stealthily reinvests its profits from oil refining and manufacturing into a constellation of vaguely menacing right-wing organizations. Leave aside the valid criticism that the Kochs have been anything but stealthy in their funding, which tends to undermine the title of the article, “Covert Operations.” Writers can always blame an editor for the headline.

    What about the idea there’s something aberrational about the amount of money the Kochs are pouring into politics? According to Mayer, Charles and David Koch, personally and through foundations and political action committees, poured $250 million or so into charities, think-tanks and political campaigns between 1998 and 2008. Much of that went to groups like Lincoln Center that the average New Yorker reader could hardly consider a hotbed of constitution-in-exile, would-be McVeighs frothing at the idea of the Obama presidency.

    Continue reading at Forbes

  • American Majority activist training in Wichita

    A message from American Majority.

    Our nation was founded by ordinary citizen activists desiring a government that was accountable to the people. Today, ordinary citizens across our nation are tired of the status quo and ready to engage for the betterment of their communities.

    American Majority is pleased to announce an Activist Training will be conducted on Saturday, September 25 in Wichita, KS to provide citizens with the tools necessary to become effective activists.

    The training will take place in the meeting room at Mike’s Steakhouse located at 2131 S Broadway in Wichita from 10:00am to 2:00 pm. Registration opens at 9:45 am. The cost is $25 per attendee. Breakfast and/or lunch may be purchased during the event, if desired.

    The training will be conducted by a certified American Majority Mechanic Trainer (read more about your trainer at the end of this article).

    Topics* to be covered during the training session include:

    • The System (an in-depth look at the system we’re in, how we got there, and what we can do about it)
    • Grassroots Action (ideas and practical steps to engage our communities and organize a coalition of volunteers)
    • Patriots 2.0 (effectively utilizing social networking tools, blogs, wiki projects and other technologically-driven platforms)

    Full training materials, samples and supplements will be provided to help you apply what you learn to your organization, candidate, cause or community.

    Click here to register for this event.

    If you have any questions or would like additional information, contact Laurie Skipper at Laurie@AMMechanics.org or call 316-686-2525.

    American Majority is a non-profit and non-partisan organization whose mission is to train and equip a national network of leaders committed to individual freedom through limited government and the free market.

    * Topics are subject to change.

  • In Left’s attack on Koch Industries, facts sometimes don’t matter

    Sometimes in politics hatred runs so deep that facts simply don’t matter.

    We saw an example of this Wednesday in Overland Park, Kansas as a group of two “theatrical protesters” sought to inform attendees at an Americans for Prosperity rally about what they thought was the true nature of that organization.

    Their argument, presented in a handout paid for by the Kansas Democratic Party and given to attendees, went like this:

    First: “My friends at Americans for Prosperity can be a little shy — which is why they’ve outsourced the job of letting you know who they really are to me.”

    This charge of outsourcing — made by two women theatrically dressed in sorcerer’s outfits: “out sourcerers,” get it? — is a common criticism of big business. Democrats often campaign on a pledge of eliminating tax breaks for American companies that outsource jobs overseas. Whether these jobs are created at the expense of American jobs is a matter of contention.

    Then, the handout notes a fact that I think just about everyone knows by now and has never been hidden: “Americans for Prosperity was founded by billionaire CEO David Koch. [New York Times, 7/10/08]”

    (Not to quibble too much here, but the New York Times article referenced describes David Koch’s position as “executive vice president and a board member of Koch Industries,” not CEO.)

    Then comes the heart of the charge: that Koch Industries outsources American jobs to China: “One of Koch Industries’ key subsidiaries actually won an award for Outsourcing Excellence” after they shipped American jobs to China. [Freeborders Press Release, 6/1/06; http://www.invista.com/page_whois_shareholder_en.shtml]”

    Earl Glynn of Kansas Watchdog looked into this matter and found out that the outsourcing took place before Koch Industries owned INVISTA, the company that did the outsourcing — and a small job it was at that. Below I quote at length from the article AFP Bus Stop in Overland Park Greeted by “Out-Sourcerers”. There’s video of the theatrical protestors in the Kansas Watchdiogarticle:

    The “Out Sourcerers” also complained about the out sourcing of jobs by Koch Industries in their handout:

    One of Koch Industries’ key subsidiaries actually won an award for “Outsourcing Excellence”; after they shipped American jobs to China. [Freeborders Press Release, 6/1/06; http://www.invista.com/page_whois_shareholder_en.shtml]

    Google cache shows this online article from June 2006 about this “Outsourcing Excellence Award.” The description of the project for this award was “an interactive online sales platform for textile mills to market fabrics directly to garment vendors, brands and retailers anywhere in the world.”

    Freeborders used its strategy of onshore project management in both Europe and the US, coupled with offshore development at its Shenzhen, China facilities to complete the project three weeks ahead of schedule. The new platform was launched in the US, Europe and Asia Pacific and over 700 brand and retail companies, registered in the first five weeks. The platform ultimately connected 600 textile manufacturers in 40 countries to over 1,000 brands and retailers worldwide.

    An online article Lessons Learned From This Year’s Awards from Aug. 2006 describes the “outsourcing” that was used to “meet impossible deadlines” over an 8 week period to win the award:

    INVISTA then hired Freeborders, a supplier that agreed to meet the demanding deadline by putting together teams in the US, Europe, and China who literally worked around the clock. With eight weeks left, the buyer asked Freeborders if it could deliver the library three weeks early so it could demonstrate the program at a trade show in Miami. And Freeborders did.

    How many permanent jobs could have been involved in meeting “impossible deadlines” over an 8 week period?

    But that’s not the whole story either:

    • In 2001, three years before INVISTA was acquired by Koch Industries, INVISTA’s former owner outsourced an IT project to a global consulting firm. Fewer than 20 of the consulting firm’s employees worked on the project. It was completed in 2001.
    • Five years later, that 2001 IT project was given an “outsourcing award” (in an award category titled “Best European collaboration” given that the project was initiated out of a European office of INVISTA’s former owner).

    A DuPont press release from Nov. 2003 explained the sale of INVISTA by DuPont to subsidiaries of Koch. At that time INVISTA had 18,000 employees at 50 global manufacturing sites. The press release does not mention if any of the DuPont resources were in Wichita or Kansas.

    The Out Sourcerers’ claims about Koch Industries outsourcing jobs from Wichita or Kansas is about politics, not jobs in Wichita or Kansas.

    Koch Industries has 70,000 employees in 60 countries. The majority of the employees — more than 50,000 — are employed in North America with about 2,200 employees in Wichita.

  • Left’s double standard on Kochs and Soros

    Evidence continues to mount that the political Left — most recently in the form of New Yorker magazine’s Jane Mayer and her criticism of Charles and David Koch — simply doesn’t understand liberty-based thinking and political positions. Following, Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner explains.

    Some of Carney’s most important points:

    • Regulation is often used to increase barriers to entry to an industry, thereby increasing the value of existing companies. But the Kochs oppose heavy-handed regulation.
    • Many energy companies view greenhouse gas regulations as a way to increase profits. Not so for Koch Industries.
    • Economic freedom, which Charles and David Koch have advocated for many years, is good not only for business, but for everyone.

    Left’s double standard on Kochs and Soros

    By Timothy P. Carney

    I was the main speaker of the night at a fancy dinner. The crowd included millionaire business owners and corporate executives. And the man who introduced me, and who had invited me to speak, was billionaire industrialist Charles Koch.

    My topic was what it always is: the evils of corporate welfare and bailouts, and the destructive influence of the Big Business lobby in Washington. In my talk, I blasted “regulatory robber barons” and “subsidy sucklers.”

    But if you follow the Left’s talking points, my talk was part of Koch’s “pro-corporate movement.”

    Continue reading at the Washington Examiner

  • Roberts endorses Mike Pompeo

    This morning United States Senator Pat Roberts stopped by the Mike Pompeo campaign headquarters in east Wichita to endorse Pompeo in his campaign for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas.

    In his endorsement, Roberts said that Pompeo knows the airplane manufacturing business and how to meet a payroll. Roberts said that the general aviation industry is in a fight almost every session of Congress, and that Pompeo’s knowledge of this industry will be a plus in Washington.

    Roberts described Pompeo’s leading opponent — Democrat Raj Goyle — as having a “very liberal background.” Roberts described how some of his colleagues in the Senate on the other side of the aisle — meaning they are Democrats — would make conservative speeches in their home states, but vote the Democratic party line in Washington. He told the audience “We cannot afford to send anybody, no matter what they say in this campaign, to Washington when the first vote they will cast will be for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.”

    Roberts also said that Pompeo’s military background and experience means he understands the value of national security, which Roberts said is the first obligation of the federal government. He added that Pompeo would be a good match for the armed services committee.

    Roberts characterized this election as a “crossroads,” although he recognized this word is overused. Bureaucratic agencies in Washington are planning to further the Obama agenda without Congress, creating what he called a “fourth branch of government.”

    Their ultimate goal is to implement cap-and-trade energy regulation and taxation without the consent of Congress, Roberts told the audience. “Either we’re going to make decisions with the consent of the governed and send a message to Congress, or they’re going to make the decisions for us, and we’re going to have to live with it.”

    In his remarks, Pompeo said this is a unique election, as “we stand as a nation in a place we have not been in my lifetime,” citing the recent large federal deficit spending. This, he said, was his primary reason for deciding to run for Congress. He said that Goyle, his opponent, thinks about the world “in a way that’s very different from most Kansans” and has an East Coast philosophy and experiences that represent the Obama/Pelosi agenda. That agenda is not right for Kansas, he added.

    I asked about the upcoming lame duck session of Congress — the period after the November election and before newly-elected members take office: If there is a big win by Republicans, is there a danger that many just-defeated members will be voting on potentially important legislation?

    Roberts answered that there should not be a lame duck session. Specific areas of concern during the session include card check, immigration, raising taxes in a recession, and other things that would further the Obama agenda.

    He said that there are 125,000 more federal employees now than when Obama assumed office, and that their average salary is $125,000. These people are the fourth branch of government, he said, and they’re trying to get the Obama agenda passed despite — or around — Congress.

    A lame duck session with partisan political goals is not in the best interest of America, and there is a danger of that, he said.

    Besides Pompeo and Goyle other candidates in this race are Reform party candidate Susan Ducey and Libertarian David Moffett.

    Additional coverage is available at the Wichita Eagle and at State of the State KS, which includes video.

  • Brownback paves plan for Kansas education reform

    Last week near Emporia Sam Brownback, surrounded by Kansas educators and legislators, laid out the start of his plan for improving Kansas education if he is elected governor.

    His opponents in the race for Kansas Governor are Reform Party candidate Ken Cannon, Libertarian Andrew Gray, and Democrat Tom Holland. Mark Parkinson, the incumbent, decided not to run.

    In his remarks, Brownback said that education is “primary function of the state.” While Kansas has excellent schools, he said that more innovation is needed.

    In the area of teachers, Brownback wants more mentoring opportunities available to young teachers. He supports a master teacher plan that offers higher salaries to teachers who “provide models of excellence within their schools.” He also called for alternative teacher certification programs that allow those who did not follow the traditional teacher education and certification path to become teachers.

    On funding, Brownback said that Kansas school funding formula needs revision. He called for an end to school finance litigation, saying that school finance is the responsibility of the legislature, local school boards, and voters, but not the courts. A focus of a new funding formula will be on getting dollars into the classroom, he added.

    One of the five key benchmarks in Brownback’s administration will be fourth grade reading achievement. He cited National Assessment of Educational Progress scores that indicate 28 percent of fourth-graders fail to achieve a “basic” score. “If you can’t read, your world starts closing in around you. But if you can read your world starts opening up,” he said. Fourth grade is a key time to measure reading, he added.

    He also called for a refocused emphasis on career and technical education, citing a wind turbine program at Cloud County Community College. With innovative programs like this, he said it is unacceptable that any child would drop out of school.

    Brownback said that it is crucial that we find ways to support our higher education system. He said he would highlight and support the work of community and technical colleges, stabilize funding for public universities, support the national cancer institute designation at KU, building the national bio and agri-defense facility at KSU, the Kansas Polymer Research Center at Pittsburg State University, and the National Center for Aviation Research at Wichita State University.

    In response to a question, Brownback said he is not looking to redefine the state’s responsibility for funding education as mandated by the Kansas Constitution. He said he wants to get more money into the classroom. The disputes we’ve had should not be resolved by the courts, he added. The percentage has not been as high as he thinks it could be.

    He added that if local taxpayers vote to spend more on local schools, he would support that and allow them to do that. Currently the local option budget formula places a limit on how much local districts can add to what the state allocates.

    Continuing, Brownback said the problem with school funding is the Kansas formula. The money is not getting in the classroom, as there are too many “nooks and crannies” in the formula. He would focus on renovating the formula, he added.

    Another question mentioned two reforms that some states are using and the Obama administration supports — charter schools and teacher merit pay — and noted that these reforms are absent from the plan presented today. Brownback replied that the master teacher program is a form of increased pay for highly qualified and gifted teachers. On charter schools, Brownback said that additional proposals may be rolled out, and that he didn’t want to lay out everything in one day.

    The complete press release announcing the plan may be read at the Brownback campaign website.

    Commentary

    If we wonder why conservatives are not fully gung-ho for Sam Brownback, the education plan provides a few reasons why. The two missing reforms asked about (the questioner was me) — charter schools and teacher merit pay — are popular with conservatives, but vigorously opposed by the existing Kansas education establishment, especially the teachers union.

    The master teacher pay plan proposed by Brownback is a long away from merit pay. Under a master teacher plan, it seems like a relatively small number of teachers would be rewarded. Merit pay usually means that all teachers are paid according to their effectiveness, as is the case with most workers, especially professionals.

    I didn’t get a chance to ask another question about another reform battle that is being waged: teacher tenure reform. But it seems like the relatively meek reforms proposed by Brownback indicate a candidate who would not be willing to take on the teachers unions over the issue of tenure.

    Brownback’s reliance on the NAEP scores as a measure of student achievement is refreshing, as the Kansas school establishment would like to ignore this test. The NAEP is a more rigorous test than the Kansas-administered tests. According to figures at the Kansas State Department of Education, in 2009 87.2 percent of Kansas fourth graders were reading at a level the department considers “at or above standard.” This number has been increasing at the same time the NAEP score are mostly flat. Brownback didn’t talk about this discrepancy, but if he is willing to advocate for an honest measurement of Kansas schoolchildren, that would be a big step.

    Brownback’s advocacy for allowing local school districts to vote for more school spending is sure to be vigorously opposed unless the money is “equalized.” In the Kansas House this year, there was a proposal to let counties charge an additional sales tax to be given to the school districts in the county. A Johnson County — a large, wealthy county — legislator proposed the measure, which was vigorously opposed by counties without Johnson county’s wealth. If some of the money raised by a Johnson county sales tax was shipped to poorer counties through the equalization formula, the opposition would disappear, almost certainly.

    An interesting commentary on the coverage of Brownback and Holland and their education proposals is at the Kansas Republican Assembly blog: Analyze this: Opinion masquerading as news.

    More about Brownbacks plan from the Kansas Education: Public Policy in Kansas and Beyond blog is at Sen. Brownback offers weak tea of reforms.

  • Kansas primary election recap to be Pachyderm topic

    At this week’s meeting of the Wichita Pachyderm Club, the presentation will be “Reflections on the Primary Election.” This will be a panel discussion with panelists WSU Political Science Professor Ken Ciboski, District Court Judge Phillip Journey, and Terry Bruce, a Kansas Senator from Hutchinson.

    All are welcome to attend Wichita Pachyderm Club meetings. The program costs $10, which includes a delicious buffet lunch including salad, soup, two main dishes, and ice tea and coffee. The meeting starts at noon, although it’s recommended to arrive fifteen minutes early to get your lunch before the program starts.

    The Wichita Petroleum Club is on the ninth floor of the Bank of America Building at 100 N. Broadway (north side of Douglas between Topeka and Broadway) in Wichita, Kansas (click for a map and directions). You may park in the garage (enter west side of Broadway between Douglas and First Streets) and use the sky walk to enter the Bank of America building. The Petroleum Club will stamp your parking ticket and the fee will be $1.00. Or, there is usually some metered and free street parking nearby.