MILiberty

Socially Conservative Film Shapes GOP Presidential Race for 2012

2011-01-25T15:36:00.001-08:00

Those of us on conservative right are refusing to rest on the laurels of the 2010 election results, and already some have a plan to drive the dialogue as the presidential primary season begins. A group of Christian conservatives and film-industry professionals will be bringing social issues to the forefront of the GOP's presidential nomination process by scheduling the red-carpet previews of their controversial film, The Genesis Code, smack dab in the middle of both the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses. The movie has already earned mentions on Drudge (http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2011/01/25/sharron-angle-heads-to-iowa.aspx or http://drudgereport.com/) and Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0111/Angle_to_Iowa.html?showall) for getting Sharron Angle to appear as a VIP at the Iowa screening, and it seems like that's just the beginning of the controversy it will generate.

The Genesis Code picks fights on three major social issues: science vs faith, the discrimination against Christians on college campuses, and the right to life. To view the trailer for the film, click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p4Cs_QkwsM

These guys mean business. This is the first endeavor of American Epic Entertainment, a production company aimed at producing well-made, family-friendly Christian films that shape our culture. The Genesis Code boasts a stellar production quality and a star-studded cast including Fred Thompson, Catherine Hicks of 7th Heaven, and Academy Award winners Ernest Borgnine and Louise Fletcher. The film will hit theaters across the country this February.

Each candidate must now step up to the line in the sand that grassroots conservatives have drawn in order to secure a chance at the presidency. Even though the revolt against big spending has been hogging the political headlines during the past years, The Genesis Code shows that these social issues are still just as potent as ever for voters. For the latest updates on the movie and the ripples it's been making in the political waters, visit the movie's blog here: http://blog.thegenesiscodemovie.com/

Compassionate Conservativism

2011-01-25T12:51:00.001-08:00

Smaller Government

For those who don’t remember, early in the 2000 presidential campaign there was a divide in the Republican party over the use of the term “compassionate conservative”. For many in the party, the need for the distinction was quite obvious. Conservatives were mean, unless they were the religious type, and that type were just extremists. Perhaps you know the concept better from a popular illustration. “Regular” conservatives wanted to teach the poor to fish, while liberals wanted to give the poor fish to eat. Conservative pointed out that at liberals were foolish, because they would need to keep feeding the poor everyday for the rest of their lives and their children and grandchildren as well. In essence, they would become permanent wards of the state and loyal voters fearful of losing their handouts. This was contrary to the American dream. What about hard work? Rugged individualism? Self reliance? To only feed a man a fish was to subjugate him to near slave status and to be at the mercy of others. It robbed him of dignity and the ability to achieve his right to the pursuit of happiness. Liberalism, it was reasoned, was wholly un-American.
Liberals of course, scoffed at such a view. So, they argued, a man and his family will starve to death while taking fishing lessons from someone who takes the fish he does catch and deducts the cost for the pole or nets and the training and then takes his profit off the top. This leaves the man with mere scraps with which to feed his family. The greedy fisherman who owns the boat and hires the man lives in luxury and profits greatly while the man who is desperate has no clout and must take what he gets. Is this the “brotherly love” conservative claim to champion? Is this the American way? Must a man live in poverty his whole life while making someone else wealthy off of his sweat? This seems to resemble slavery as well.
For the morally conservative in the Republican party, this was a serious issue. These conservatives were conscious of the PR image that they were fighting. Americans may as a whole be politically ignorant, but they recognizing injustice and compassion when they see it. Neither solution of “teaching” or “feeding” were sufficient; but if only one was to be chosen, a man needs to eat first if he is to have the strength to work. Perhaps this will explain the liberal’s argument about free school breakfast and lunches in public schools.
Enter the term “Compassionate Conservative”. Why not do both! Genius! If we allow welfare, but limit its duration and require the recipient to seek employment, it’s a win-win. A “kinder and gentler” America.
Other Republicans were aghast. The term “Conservative” does not need a qualifier. How dare anyone suggest that there was a need for the adjective “compassionate”. It was self evident. The true definition of conservatism was dripping with compassion. To suggest the need for the adjective compassionate was to concede the point to liberals. This became a struggle over who could be more “compassionate”? Conservative Republicans would thus join battle on the Liberal Democrats terms. A battle conservatives were sure to lose.
Today we are poised to fight this battle once again. As conservatives gain more and more control in congress, the question of compassion will return. How can Republicans cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the budget without hurting the poor and needy?
The answer is not simply to preach self-reliance, but to focus on what the Founding Fathers witnessed firsthand. Christian Charity. Liberals have done their best to remove the concept of individual charitable acts. They reasoned that only governments could and should address the inequalities in society. Too many Americans were fine with passing off the responsibility of showing compassion to neighbors or strangers. What’s a few extra buck in taxes if it frees me up on weekends from working at the soup kitchen? If Conservatives in Washington are going to have success, it falls to conservatives on main street to step up and step into the lives of people they may not yet know exist.
Let’s practice what we preach.

Wonders Never Cease

2010-09-20T10:05:00.001-07:00

As a former UAW member, I was never happy that a part of my union dues went to support causes and political candidates that I disagreed with. Sure, there was a way to opt out, but that would be like wearing an “I hate my union” t-shirt to work every day. Not exactly a safe move.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, I found it hard to figure how the UAW, the union that represented hundreds of thousands of auto workers, could support Democratic candidate Al Gore. Vice President Gore had plainly stated that his goal was to “eliminate the combustion engine”. The UAW was basically supporting the candidate that would do the most harm to it’s members. What remarkable loyalty the members had. Nobody seemed to question the paradox.
Still, I do remember that back in the 1980’s, these same voters decided they had enough of the Democratic Party and overwhelmingly supported Reagan, despite the orders from the union bosses. But that brief flirtation with independence did not last. With the election of Reagan came the decline of the union movement, a trend that still continues to this day.
The oddity is that most union members are supporters of the right to bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment. They actually lean 50/50 on Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice. They are overwhelmingly against gay marriage and they see illegal immigration as a serious issue.
So how in the world do so many union members allow their union dues to support candidates with view opposite their own? A better question is why so many members vote in obedience to orders from above? The Answer is about the pocket book. When it comes to people’s paychecks, they will tend to sacrifice other principles to ensure their lifestyle.
So now we have illegal drug use. The Sacramento Bee reports that the Teamsters Union has forty new members. The Teamsters are now representing the marijuana growers in California. If I were a Teamsters member, I am not sure how I could continue to support my union when it protects illegal activities. Well, OK, I suppose there is some historical precedence. But still, unions supporting drug growers? Why not organize the Coyotes that bring illegal immigrants over the border. Now there’s a job that is underappreciated.
As long as Union bosses continue to find new members from the fringe of society, it will continue to alienate the general population as a whole.

Obama Goes to Church

2010-09-19T08:56:00.001-07:00

News Flash!!!
According to the Drudge Report, President Obama is going to church!
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
Oh, to be a liberal/progressive/Democrat. They were certain that they had elected anything but a church goer. Sure he went to Rev. Wright’s church, but he admitted he never listened to a single sermon. Otherwise he would have heard the hate speech flowing from the pulpit. Twenty years in the pew and not one memory of the Pastor’s “Hate America” diatribes.
We have since learned that nearly half of America is not certain if Obama is a “Christian” at all. A huge chunk of the populous thinks he might be a Muslim. He actually was schooled in Muslim education system in his early childhood. Then again, I know a few friends of mine that went to a Catholic elementary school, and I don’t think the Catholic Church would put them up as poster children. The only serious caveat is that to real Muslims, you are born a Muslim by having a Muslim father. You cannot choose your religion after that. Either you are faithful or you are an infidel. I think Muslims around the world are just as confused as Christians in America are.
The ones with the best clue might be Europeans. They have had nearly a century of “Christian” political leaders that one would have a difficult time identifying due to their lifestyle. One of my favorite measuring sticks for determining if someone is a Christian is twofold. First Imagine that it is illegal to be a Christian under penalty of death. First, would a person boldly claim to be guilty? A real Non-Christian would say “NO”. A real Christian would have to decide if they were willing to die for their faith. However, there is a second step. If a person were to admit such a thing, the court appointed lawyer would plead that her client were mentally unstable and the plea should be disregarded. The court would then enter a plea of not guilty due to insanity. Then there would be a presenting of evidence. Here is where things get dicey. Think of all your friends, family and co-workers. If they all had to testify on your behalf, what would they say? Some would think they were doing you a favor by presenting evidence that you were anything but a “real” Christian. Authorities might search your home to discover a Bible, only to have your defense lawyer show that it was rarely ever was opened.
Under this scenario, we return to the analysis of Obama going to church. He walked to the service with his family. Anyone with a clue in politics realizes that this is nothing more than a photo op. So the bigger question is, why? What polling numbers told Obama’s political strategists that he needed to create a new image? So many of his supporters are agnostics, atheists and at most, members of liberal Christian denominations. This means that a great percentage of his base either does not attend church services, or at best go a handful of times a year. Just going to a church service pushes Obama to the political middle. This has to be bad news to his Progressive Left supporters. Then again, maybe it is the fact that his “army” of supporters has abandoned him already, and he has decided to move to the middle like President Clinton did after losing Washington to Newt in 1994.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for someone going to church. However, real Christians know that going to a nice building has nothing to do with going to church. In fact you can’t “go to” church, you can only be a “part of” the church. So the question is what is President Obama bringing to the “body” of the church? This is where he has his most difficult challenge. From those who have much, much is expected. He is arguably the most powerful man in the world. What is he doing to promote the Great Commission? All religions have something similar to the Golden Rule, but the Gospel of Christ being spread to the ends of the earth is the responsibility of each member of the body of Christ. I don’t believe that President Obama has any clue in this area. When Obama and McCain both accepted an invitation to meet with Rick Warren. It was McCain who was able to “speak the language” that Evangelical Christians recognize. Obama seemed lost. It was this event and the introduction of Sarah Palin that solidified the Religious Right’s continued support of the Republicans in November of 2008. This is something Republicans should not take for granted. Mitt Romney is still not considered a Christian by most Evangelicals.
I don’t anticipate Chris Mathews leading off his Sunday show with this breaking news of Obama’s new conversion. It is more likely meant to be used by Whitehouse mouthpiece Gibbs at some later date to show how “normal” Obama is. No longer can opponents say there is no “proof” that his is a Christian. Symbolism over substance. I once told a friend that I think 2008 is likely to be the last election where both major candidates fell the necessity to claim to be a Christian. I might be wrong by one presidential election cycle.

2010-09-09T10:03:00.001-07:00

Too Smart by Half
It is unwise to give the Obama economic team "points for intellectual progress". You may have heard it said that even the Devil believes in God, but that doesn't seem to change his behavior any. Obama may now believe in tax cuts to spur the economy, but it does not change the basic fact that he is a Liberal or Socialist or Progressive or however you want to label big government intervention.
If you are taking the nation’s economy in the wrong direction, the smart thing would be to turn around and go back the opposite way. This is called “doing a 180”. Being too smart by half means you do the 180, only to continue another 90 degrees until you are now heading 90 degrees off on some economic tangent. In policy terms, this means implementing tax cuts, but erasing the positive affects by not making them permanent and raising other taxes that are more burdensome than the ones temporarily being lifted.
I hesitate to call it common sense, because I have come to realize that it is not as common as one would hope. Nevertheless, the average Joe has enough brains to realize that getting a bonus check at Christmas may allow for one time splurge in spending, but it does not translate into increased purchasing power on a permanent basis. Banks have now returned to the practice of requiring proof of earnings before awarding loans. This is why getting a small raise from an employer has a greater impact on an individuals behavior than the annual Christmas bonus. If my income goes up by five percent, assuming my bills are paid, I can increase my spending by five percent. A bonus check is most often unpredictable in its amount, and in the past few years, it has been uncertain whether it will even be forthcoming.
Common sense business practices use a simple mental calculation. On a scale of one to five you are one of the following:
1. Certain of unprofitability in the next year
2. Uncertain but likely to be unprofitable
3. Certain to break even
4. Uncertain, but likely to be profitable
5. Certain of profitability
The energy that moves decision making forward in a business is certainty. Even being certain of unprofitability it preferable to any form of uncertainty. Being able to predict or forecast allow for planning. Planning means strategic decisions and finding opportunity for taking risk. Uncertainty kills risk. No risk means no reward. If the economy is slow and business is unprofitable, two other factors come into play. The opportunity to eliminate waste presents itself and you can emerge better suited to take advantage of the next business upturn. More importantly, it is fairly certain that your competitors are also facing the same struggles. This is often where the men are separated from the boys. The weak or poorly run competitors go out of business. Again, this proves to be a positive when the next upturn comes.
Certainty of breaking even is like kissing your sister. Very undesirable, but it won’t kill you.
Certainty of Profitability is ideal. Too often it leads to complacency, excess and visions of infallibility, but that is the nature of man.
Uncertainty of any kind leads to hesitancy. It also leads to internal division within a company where marketing and R&D scream for more spending and the Accounting Department says “wait”. In the end, people start guessing and mistakes get made.
So now the Obama economic team wants to embrace some tax cuts, but implement new ones. At the same time, they want to let some Bush tax cuts expire but target renewing others, creating a winners and losers list. Each business lives with uncertainty whether they will be a winner or loser. This is on top of the uncertainty of the healthcare legislation and the possible increase in taxes coming from environmental legislation.
Too smart by half is doing the right thing in the wrong way for the wrong reasons. Tax cuts that do not create certainty in income miss the point. Tax cuts that pick winners while punishing losers with tax increases creates division and uncertainty, because there is no guarantee anyone will stay on the winners list. (insert lobbyists here)
Republicans need to say to the Obama economic team, “either do it right or don’t do it at all”. What should not happened is for Hillary to run in 2012 claiming that they tried tax cuts in 2010 and they didn’t work. Let’s hope the Republican economic team is NOT too smart by half.

Lt. Gov. Cherry Reads the Tea Leaves

2010-01-06T12:48:00.000-08:00

When former Michigan Governor John Engler left office, he left a state that was looking good in most categories. This is not to say that he was a tremendous success. Personally, I believe he joined neighboring Republican Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin in foolishly growing the size and scope of government to a point that forced any successor to tighten the reigns. His Lieutenant Governor, Dick Posthumus had to run shouldering the enormous weight of resentment that Engler had created.
His eventual successor was a tax and spend liberal with great political savvy. Still, after eight years of watching Michigan emulate the Detroit Lions as fighting for worst position amongst its rivals, Governor Jennifer Gandholm leaves a legacy of abject failure. Her re-election campaign in 2006 managed to convince voters that she had no responsibility for the decline in all aspects of measured success. She managed to run on the message… “It’s Bush’s fault”.
There comes a point that a politician needs to own up to their failures and successes. There are many of the former and few of the later. John Cherry, Governor Grandholm’s Lieutenant Governor has wisely seen the writing on the wall. No one like to end on a sour note. The mood of the electorate seems to promise harsh treatment to Democratic candidates in the 2010 elections. As a seasoned politician, Cherry realizes that sometimes the best way to win is to not run.
What is amazing is the number of also-rans that seems to want to join the fray on the Democratic ticket. House Speaker Andy Dillon seems like the most likely leader in the Primary race. Still, no matter who wins, they will have to answer one question: “How do you measure the results of the Grandholm administration after eight years?” Like the Detroit Lions of the NFL, repeated years of finishing last make promises of success seem hollow. Like Lion’s fans on Sunday afternoon, Democratic party voters may refuse to show up to vote on election day.

No Hoekstra in Illinois

2009-11-18T08:22:00.001-08:00

The hate Bush/America crowd that worked up their base into a frenzy, managed to get Barak Obama to promise if elected, to close Guantanamo (Gitmo) prison within a year. We have learned now, that Obama believes that the government should run like a community organization. He, as the community organizer should simply be able to give a motivational speech, and others should be inspired to follow his dream. Well, wake up. This is reality. Obama never really had a plan as to what to do with the prisoners. He assumed that other people would volunteer to solve the problem. That’s what happens in the NGOs and other organizations that Obama has a history with. In fact, the ideal solution to all public policy issues is to first have a community organization get its network to find a voluntary solution. Likeminded, loosely connected organizations that all favor a socialist (progressive) agenda are able to find someone for every particular need. Don’t be offended by this idea. The Christian Church was founded on this principle. If however, the voluntary solution proves limited or slow in results, then legislative action is pursued. Finally, if that fails, then a direct appeal to the judicial activism will trump all.
The Obama administration honestly believed that they merely had to speak to closing Gitmo and liberal states would step up to the plate. This did happen. Many states like Michigan volunteered to take the problem off Obama’s hands. Then we the people spoke. It became apparent very quickly that most Americans had a problem with bringing terrorists to the states and treating them as common criminals with the protections of the constitution. After being shot down in all other states, Obama returned to his home state, where politics is done with twisted arms and purchased favors, to find a solution.
Congratulations Illinois. Your former senator, now president is gifting you with the lowest and most dangerous type of humans; those that take innocent life with pride. Michigan citizens should feel great pride in themselves for standing up and resisting. But even more so, they owe a great debt of gratitude to U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra for fighting so aggressively to keep Michigan from being the volunteer to solve Obama’s Gitmo problem.

Mackinac Island GOP Straw Poll

2009-09-27T18:40:00.000-07:00

The envelope please....

And the Winner is...
According to the straw poll of Michigan's grassroots Republicans. For the governor’s race… Rick Snyder the successful businessman won convincingly. The Attorney General race went to former Court of Appeals Judge Bill Schuette. And the Sec. of State race was won by State Sen. Michelle McManus.
What do these results really mean? If one is familiar with the August 2007 Iowa Straw poll for the GOP Presidential race, one knows that there is much more to be gleaned from the results. The results from the most recent presidential Iowa straw poll showed Mitt Romney winning but not by the numbers expected. He outspent everyone else by ridiculous amounts. As a result, He came out weakened. Sam Brownback was the next biggest spender and needed to place second to convince donors he was viable. He came in third. He dropped out shortly thereafter. Second place went to Mike Huckabee. This surprising result catapulted him to the status of “top tier” candidates. His campaign held out to the end.
John McCain avoided the Iowa Straw Poll and had not presence there. Predictably, he received less than one percent of the vote. This was not a negative per se. As the only candidate from both major parties who publicly opposed corn based ethanol, he knew he had no chance and chose to lose on his own terms. When the Iowa Primary came in January of 2008, it was won by Huckabee with Romney a distant second. McCain tied with Fred Thompson for third. McCain roared back to life less than a week later in New Hampshire.
The press and media favorites were Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. They never were serious contenders. Neither put together the grassroots organization that winning requires. Ron Paul was a constant presence, but could never add to his limited Libertarian base. In the end it was McCain’s powerful organization that made the difference. (note: Powerful organizations can still be beat. Just ask Hillary Clinton)
Previous years conferences on Mackinac Island also showed early glimpses of future results. Mitt Romney (a Michigander) was stunned by the strength of McCain’s organization. The eventual primary result verified Romney’s weakness when he won the state by single digit percentage points.
Similarly, U.S. Senate candidate Keith Butler was considered to be the clear favorite. Jerry Zandstra’s strong showing demonstrated how weak the support truly was. This convinced Mike Bouchard to enter the race and he became the eventual nominee to run against Sen. Stabenow
Rich DeVos made an impressive appearance on the island and his strong showing convinced everyone else to get out or stay out of the race.
So early straw polls do matter. U.S. Congressman Pete Hoekstra chose not to have a major presence on the island. One seriously has to question if he could have had one if he wanted to. His support is strong in his own congressional district and also in nearby Grand Rapids, but he has spent little time in the last four years putting together a statewide organization and developing name recognition. It is likely that Like McCain in Iowa’s straw poll, he chose to lose on his own terms. Still, he finished within reach of Mike Cox and Mike Bouchard.
The surprise in the poll came in that Mike Cox, who had a strong and prominent presence on the island did not do better. In previous years, one could count on seeing hordes of Cox t-shirts. His successful run for Attorney General allowed for him to establish a statewide organization. Will Cox be the Mitt Romney who should have won the Iowa Primary but was upset by an outsider?
Similarly, the Bouchard and Land ticket should also have been strong. Lands eager volunteers were legendary in years past. Her statewide network and Bouchard’s connections from the U.S. Senate race should have resulted in a strong showing. I had anticipated a close early race between Cox and Bouchard. The fact that their support is identical is noteworthy.
Clearly the real winner in not only numbers, but also momentum was Rick Snyder. A political newcomer, he seems to have learned quickly how to develop a statewide organization and a compelling message. As the state of Michigan lingers in its seventh years of economic depression, the regret of not voting for businessman Devos in 2006 haunts many voters. Snyder may be able to tap into this sentiment. His not being a career politician also favors his chances as the national mode seems weary of both Republicans and Democrats.
One thing is for sure. It is far too early to make predictions. Many things can happen and new faces may appear suddenly. But if the Michigan Leadership Conference Straw Poll is a first snap shop, it shows the race could be long and hard fought. Hopefully party unity stays strong in the end.

Island Update

2009-09-26T12:27:00.001-07:00

For those unable to attend the Michigan Leadership Conference on Mackinac Island, the weather has cooperated and we are all enjoying sunshine and a cool breeze off the lake. This is great news for all the new brides scattered throughout the island. Unlike previous years, there seems to be a lower level of friction between the campaigns and their candidates. This harmony should be welcomed as voters have grown tired of bitter political fighting not only between parties but within parties as well.
The political debate between gubernatorial candidates showed no fireworks or clear frontrunner. It did demonstrate a slate of viable candidates. In an election season that bodes poorly for incumbent politicians of both parties, it should be interesting to see which candidate can capture the “outsider” label. Most have long track records in politics and will need to answer for their contribution to the mess in Lansing.
The economy and taxes seems to dominate all other discussion. This in a state that has little positive to show the rest of the country. Whoever follows Jennifer Grandholm as the Democratic Party nominee will carry a heavy burden to convince Michigan voters that they need four more years. Will voters reward Republicans statewide as a result? That may have as much to do with the national mood of voters more than that of the longsuffering residents of Michigan.

My Letter To Attorney General Mike Cox

2009-09-21T09:06:00.000-07:00

The following is a copy of a letter sent to Attorney General Mike Cox. It is in response to the lack of response I have received from his office and other public servants when seeking information under the Freedom of Information Act. I grow tired of stalling tactics and invite others to join me in the search for answers

Address Removed
Caledonia, MI 49316

September 17, 2009

Hon. Mike Cox, Esq.
Attorney General of Michigan
G. Mennen Williams Building, 7th Floor
525 W. Ottawa St.
P.O. Box 30212
Lansing, MI 48909

Dear Attorney General Cox:

I recently read about your commitment to disclosure by candidates for public office and their spouses and applaud the steps you have taken in this regard. Transparency is important for both candidates for, and holders of, elected office and I support your position that all money from lobbyists over $250 should be disclosed.

I’m a member of the Society of Professional Journalists and have started a blog that is covering the race for Governor, among other things. In studying the issues, I came across two non-profit organizations that bear your name. The first, the Attorney General Cox Committee, was formed on January 21, 2003, and is a lobbying organization. The second, called the Mike Cox Pay Kids Foundation, was incorporated on August 6, 2003. It is a tax-deductible, charitable foundation.

Together these organizations have raised and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. I believe your spouse was one of three board members for both organizations, and was the foundation’s treasurer. Much of the spending of these organizations went to pay for advertising that carried your name.

I obtained public record information for these organizations, but cannot find a document that discloses who funded them. Could you ask the boards of these organizations to disclose a list of who contributed to them – above $250?

According to the latest annual reports (2008) filed for these organization, the boards consist of Michael Garavaglia, Shannon Price, and Laura Cox; and Michael Garavaglia, Laura Cox, and Thomas Furtaw, respectively. Your assistance in getting these board members to cooperate in disclosing their sources of funding over $250 will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Tim Jerzyk

Accountability and Transparency

2009-09-18T09:36:00.000-07:00

This blog site was created for the purpose of holding politicians and candidates accountable in light of the upcoming election (2010). I make no attempt to hide my own political philosophical leanings. I am as uncomfortable with a Republicans growing government as I am with Democrats. For individuals, organizations, corporations and politicians alike, government budgets have become a form of lottery. Most people do not go out of their way to buy a lottery ticket, but when the jackpot reaches record amounts, even rational people cannot resist the urge. The size of the budgets at the state and federal level have created a level of temptation that makes hiring a lobbyist or forming a special interest group not only irresistible, but logical. If money is being given away, why not get in line?

For this reason the distinction of which party stands for "bigger" or "smaller" government has been blurred. Whether a conservative or liberal, most Americans coil at the thought of increased government intrusion into citizen's private lives. Shrinking government requires shrinking budgets. It is this idea that politicians seems to forget, despite what they may have promised while campaigning for office. Although perhaps too simplistic a phrase, "follow the money" truly does hold relevance to discovering the sources of corruption and unhealthy influences.

The State of Michigan is no longer in a position to tolerate politicians who express fidelity to anyone but its citizens. The gubernatorial candidates must be accountable and transparent regarding their financial activities. I am uncomfortable with, and puzzled by the actions of one candidate’s actions.

Attorney General Mike Cox's actions are worrisome to me not only for what I am unable to find through Freedom of Information request, but the apparent stalling that is taking place in providing the information.

I have decided with some hesitation, to post my correspondence regarding my inquiry so as to allow the light of truth to shine. I encourage others with greater skill and resources to join my quest for accountability and transparency

A this point I resist forming any conclusion, but my resolve for answers grows.

Let's Try Something New

2009-08-24T11:31:00.001-07:00

The 2010 gubernatorial race calls for not only new solutions in Lansing, but new FACES as well. Recycling faces leads to recycled ideas and a continued system of bought and paid for politicians. Americans and especially Michiganders are tired of the traditional two party political system that takes entrenched politicians and forces an either-or choice on election day. Voters are also aware that throwing their support behind a "third-party" candidate is in reality tossing their vote out the window. (Let's face it, we all know it's true) The place to affect change is at the level of the Primary Election. The question for each candidate, either Democratic or Republican is to who do you own your allegiance?
From what I have gleaned so far from the declared candidates, is that there are three types of candidates. To avoid playing favorites, I will illustrate on “Potential Candidates”.
There are those relying on name recognition: Ted Nugent? George Perles?
Those relying on a long history and connections within the political system: Andy Dillan? Candice Miller?
And those who come from outside the political “system” but have distinguished themselves. Dick DeVos?
It is perhaps too early to declare to the field closed, but it is the precise time to start asking difficult questions. The primary question will have to do will allegiance. Perhaps this may best be understood as “Show me the money”. What motivates or even dictates the behavior of the candidates? Do they want to be governor because “it’s their time”? Have the “political insiders” in each party decided who’s in? Or are there other reasons? Have term limits forced them to move to another political job? Do they have solutions that can not be traced to special interest? These are legitimate questions and ones that need to be answered before voters are asked to decide.

Compassionate Government

2009-07-20T09:56:00.000-07:00

Compassionate Government

For those who don’t remember, early in the 2000 presidential campaign there was a divide in the Republican Party over the use of the term “compassionate conservative”. For many in the party, the need for the distinction was quite obvious. Conservatives were mean, unless they were the religious type, and then they were just extremists. Perhaps you’ve heard the following concept. “Regular” conservatives, it is said, wanted to teach the poor to fish, while liberals wanted to give the poor fish to eat. Conservative pointed out that at liberals were foolish, because they would need to keep feeding the poor everyday for the rest of their lives and their children and grandchildren as well. In essence, they would become permanent wards of the state and loyal voters fearful of losing their handouts. This was contrary to the American dream. What about hard work? Rugged individualism? Self reliance? To only feed a man a fish was to subjugate him to near slave status to the mercy of others. It robbed him of dignity and the ability to achieve his right to the pursuit of happiness. Liberalism, it was reasoned, was wholly un-American.

Liberals of course, scoffed at such a view. So, they argued, a man and his family must starve to death while taking fishing lessons from someone who takes the fish he catches and deducts the cost for the pole or nets and the training and then takes his profit off the top? This leaves the man with mere scraps with which to feed his family. The greedy fisherman CEO who owns the boat and hires the man lives fine and profits greatly while the man who is desperate and has no clout, must take what he gets. Is this the “brotherly love” that the city of Philadelphia in 1776 was known for? Is this the American way? Must a man live in poverty his whole life while making someone else wealthy off of his sweat? This seems to resemble slavery as well.

For the conservative in the Republican Party, this was a serious issue. These conservatives were conscious of the PR image that they were constantly fighting. Americans may as a whole be politically ignorant, but they recognize injustice and compassion when they see it. Neither solution of teaching or feeding were sufficient, but if only one was to be chosen, a man needs to eat first, if he is to work. Perhaps this will explain the liberal’s argument about free school breakfast and lunches in public schools. Enter the term “Compassionate Conservative”. Why not do both! Genius! If we allow welfare, but limit it’s duration and require the recipient to seek employment, it’s a win-win. A kinder and gentler America.

Other Republicans were aghast. Conservatism did not need a qualifier. How dare anyone suggest that there was a need for the adjective “compassionate”. It was self evident. The true definition of conservatism was dripping with compassion. To suggest the need for the adjective compassionate was to concede the point to liberals. This became a struggle over who could be more “compassionate”? Republicans would thus join the battle on the Liberal Democrats terms. A battle the conservatives were sure to lose.

The decision for the Republicans to appear compassionate began long before the 2000 election. George H.W. Bush, Ford and Nixon were moderates. Each caved many times to the pressure of public perception. The net result was the continual expansion of size and scope of the government. George W. Bush did not reverse this trend. Although his tax cuts and pro-life positions were surely conservative, the culmination of his presidency resulted in an increase in the growth of government. Individual trees were indeed conservative, but the forest as a whole was not.

The history of corruption, waste, patronage and bureaucratic stagnation in government is well known. In fact, it is far more shocking to discover the opposite when it occasionally occurs. Each and every wasteful program was masked behind a wall labeled “compassion”. It is the responsibility of each citizen to stay interested and informed. It is the responsibility of the free press to discover and proclaim its discoveries. The current “crisis” status of the economy at the state, national and global levels invites rapid and radical responses. Due diligence requires a restless mind and a watchful eye toward the continued expansion of government in the name of compassion. Liberty is never free.

2009-07-09T11:32:00.000-07:00

The struggle for Liberty rests in the hands of the individual citizen. Each right and every dollar taken by or given to the government is one which our children and grandchildren will someday have to fight to restore. It is for posterity and moral fortitude that each citizen resit the trend that now pervades our nation.