Kevin Fischer is a veteran broadcaster, the recipient of over 150 major journalism awards from the Milwaukee Press Club, the Wisconsin Associated Press, the Northwest Broadcast News Association, the Wisconsin Bar Association, and others. He has been seen and heard on Milwaukee TV and radio stations for over three decades. A longtime aide to state Senate Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature, Kevin can be seen offering his views on the news on the public affairs program, "InterCHANGE," on Milwaukee Public Television Channel 10, and heard filling in on Newstalk 1130 WISN. He lives with his wife, Jennifer, and their lovely young daughter, Kyla Audrey, in Franklin.
Repeat after me all you lefties: The New York Times is not liberal....the New York Times is not liberal
Newsbusters.com takes note that we're about one month into the Presidential campaign now that we know it's McCain vs.Obama. That means that the New York Times will offer stellar, unbaised, totally objective coverage of the race for the White House, right?
Newsbusters has been monitoring the lefties' favorite national newspaper:
I have read and dissected the 30-page decision handed down on July 2nd by Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge John Franke in City of Franklin v. Steven Hanke. Franke ruled in favor of Franklin’s ordinances that restrict where sex offenders can live or congregate. Hanke has been in violation of the ordinances sine he moved into a home less than 600 feet from a Franklin middle school over a year ago. Over the next few days, I’ll be blogging about some of the aspects of Franke’s ruling that I find noteworthy.
When I discussed the details of this case and the ruling last week on WISN filling in for Mark Belling, I got some of the obligatory sex offender sympathizer calls. Not once did they mention the victims, and their mantra was predictable when referring to the offenders:
“But they’ve got to live somewhere…”
From Franke’s decision:
Defendant (Hanke) contends that Franklin’s residency restriction “infringes upon Mr. Hanke’s fundamental right to liberty and property, by restricting where he may or may not live.” He simply presumes that a person has a right “to live where he wants to” and offers no argument as to why this right qualifies as fundamental for purposes of the Due Process Clause.
The notion that there is a right to “live where we want” has a certain superficial appeal, but on closer analysis it is not a right at all, much less a fundamental one. Our legal traditions have not recognized an individual’s right to live wherever he chooses. We have no right to live in areas the government has set aside for parks, or schools or public activities. When the government condemns a citizen’s land for a highway, the citizen’s “right to live where he wants” has been compromised, but the power of eminent domain is not subject to “strict scrutiny.” Laws often limit how close to the water a person can build a house, or how many different unrelated family members can reside together. Minimum lot sizes and building requirements effectively preclude3 people of modest means from residing in many areas.
To the extent the ordinances are “unfair” to the defendant, it is not because they prevent him from living where he wants, but because they prevent him from living in areas where most people are entitled to live. Such a claim of unfairness does not raise an issue of substantive due process, but rather a q question of equal protection based on the right to be treated equally by the government when it comes to choosing a place to live.
Franke noted Hanke did not choose a claim of equal protection, but even if he had, Franke wrote:
An equal protection argument would fail for the same reasons the defendant’s due process argument fails.
Finally, as Franke noted in his decision, Franklin’s restrictive ordinances only apply to two-thirds of the city limits.
“But they’ve got to live somewhere…”
Sure they do. As long as it’s not within 2000 feet of a school, library, day care center, or any other restricted areas in the ordinances, and as long as these creeps keep their hands to themselves.
As I write this blog, it’s hot, it’s sticky, and the AC in the Fischer household is rocking and rolling. With every cool breath of central air I take in, I think of how important it is that John McCain be elected our next President.
Huhhhh, you say?
What do liberals love to do?
What makes them deliriously happy?
OK, besides raise taxes through the ceiling.
They relish each opportunity to control and regulate just about every aspect of your life.
Case in point.
Take Joe Klein of TIME Magazine. He has decided that even though most of us enjoy a certain pleasure, that because he despises it, he is selfishly calling for heavy-handed regulation. I’m talking about air conditioning. Klein writes in his latest column in TIME:
“I love warm weather, even when it slouches toward humidity. I detest the harsh, slightly metallic quality of the air forced through even the fanciest AC systems. The only air conditioner I own sits, unused, in my car; my home is happily unrefrigerated. But given the energy mess we're in, I can now gild my personal preference with a patina of high-mindedness: air-conditioning is bad for the planet, and for national security, and for our balance-of-payments deficit. Unfortunately, it is not as bad as I'd like it to be — in part because not all of our electricity is provided by fossil fuels (although coal does predominate). And also because air-conditioning represents a relatively small slice of our energy use, an estimated 4%.”
Even so, the liberal Klein wants the next President to adhere to an energy policy that reduces or eliminates air conditioning.
“I'd like to see both candidates call for an immediate 5deg.F thermostat adjustment, just to get the conservation ball rolling — and because it would be a 'personal virtue' for each candidate to ask it of us. And I'd like to wish you all a nice, warmer summer.”
That’s obviously ludicrous but it clearly demonstrates the extremes liberals will go to achieve their goal of government intrusion and control of our lives from what kind of cars we drive to what we put in those cars to what doctor we can see to what schools we attend to what we can set our air conditioners at, if we can have them at all.
Dangerous stuff. So is a vote for Barack Obama and this kind of philosophy.
Don’t count on it.
Early last week, during a commercial in a Brewer game, I turned to ESPN just in time to see baseball analyst Peter Gammons talking about the Brew Crew.
The Brewers will make a deal for Cleveland’s C.C. Sabathia, Gammons said, and for a second starting pitcher as well. Gammons said J.J. Hardy and Rickie Weeks could be gone as the Brewers try to strengthen their roster for a playoff run.
That was last week. And Gammons, thus far, is looking prophetic.
Today, Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports writes that the Brewers may not be satisfied:
“The Sabathia trade might not be the Brewers' last before July 31 -- they have shown interest in the Giants' Jack Taschner, a left-handed reliever, and Ray Durham, a switch-hitter whom they would use off the bench.
But don't be surprised if the Brewers accelerate their transition this winter by trading shortstop J.J. Hardy and possibly first baseman Prince Fielder for multiple high-end prospects.
The demand for shortstops, in particular, is rising. Hardy, second in OPS only to the Marlins' Hanley Ramirez among NL shortstops, could bring a quality young starting pitcher — think Giants right-hander Matt Cain — if he is packaged with the right youngsters.
The Brewers then could replace Hardy with Class AA shortstop Alcides Escobar, whom they signed at age 16 as an international free agent out of Venezuela. Escobar already is considered a superior defender to Hardy, though he might struggle offensively for a time.
Fielder, who hit 50 home runs last season, could be even more coveted in trades than Hardy — the Mets and Yankees, for example, might prefer to acquire him than sign a free agent such as Mark Teixeira for countless millions.”
As much of a fan favorite Fielder is, I get the sense he’s not happy here given the inability to sign a contract that he and/or his agent liked. Eventually, he won’t be able to play first base. Trading him to an AL team that could play him as a DH, just like his dad was used in Detroit, would be the right move.
The Sabathia deal is risky. That’s a lot of money for just three months. The conventional wisdom is he’s gone after this season.
The Brewers are seriously attempting to contend. My own personal feeling is that as long as Ned Yost is the manager, and as long as baseball is still a 9-inning game (Yost panics from the 7th inning on) the Brewers won’t be there in October.