Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts

Monday, August 26, 2013

We Meet the Governors

That was really fun.

Today, Gov. Nikki Haley came to Greenville, SC, to announce her intent to run for a second term as the governor of SC.  She has done a great job so far, leading the state to one of the best economies in the nation and demonstrating how to govern from a conservative, fiscally prudent standpoint.  And what she says, she does.


To help her make this announcement, Senator Tim Scott served as the emcee for this event.  He did a great job firing up the crowd and defining what it is conservatives should be doing.


Three of the nation's best GOP governors then came to the stage and spoke about Gov. Haley and the fine job she has done.  First was Texas governor Rick Perry:


He was followed by Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal:


And finally, the governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker:



Each of the governors stayed for various periods of time to mingle with the crowd, and my family got to meet all four of them.  Governor Jindal stayed the longest, and impressed me with his talkative nature (which, admittedly, is an asset in his line of work) and the sincere enjoyment he seemed to take in meeting total strangers.  He spent more than two minutes with my own children, having a wide-ranging conversation that I caught on video: 

 (still haven't figured out how to make this work...)

I hope you listen carefully to what he said to the kids.  I found it satisfying that he encouraged my kids to read their Bibles, even though there was no obvious evidence that we were Christians (in other words, we had not explicitly said so).  I hope you enjoy the video, and if you get a chance to vote for Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, or Nikki Haley in the future, please consider doing so.

Friday, January 20, 2012

Why I'm Voting for Rick Santorum in the SC Primary

Tomorrow, in the South Carolina GOP Presidential Preference primary, I will be voting for Rick Santorum.  Here’s why.
I need to start out by saying that I haven’t been totally thrilled with any of the four remaining candidates.  All of them have obvious weaknesses of character and/or policy which will make their race against Obama less of a lock than it ought to be.  The Republican Party needs a leader of the Reagan type, who, like him in 1980, would win 40+ states and carry a mandate with him to Washington.  But since we have four remaining candidates from whom to choose, and since any of them will be an improvement over the current president, I must choose from among them.

Rick Santorum, on the whole, represents my views the most consistently.  He has been consistently and passionately pro-life, and wrote the bill that ended partial birth abortion.  On social issues, he and I are of one voice.  He is also a firm believer in the Second Amendment (The NRA rates him A+).  He opposed TARP, voted against McCain-Feingold and Frank-Dodd, and receives low ratings from both the ACLU and the AFL-CIO.  While I am concerned about the trouncing he took in the 2006 Pennsylvania Senate race (and, for that matter, the trouncing he may get here in SC tomorrow, if the polls are valid), he is more demonstrably opposed to Obama than either Romney or Gingrich.  His biggest liability in my eyes is that he does not come across as a leader.

Newt Gingrich, at the moment, would be my second choice.  I agree with him on most issues—but he occasionally throws one out there that makes me scratch my head.  His personal character history is a serious problem and, even if he has sincerely repented and stays on the right track, will be a detriment in the race.  (Obama, for all his flaws, has no hint of marital infidelity.)  I am also concerned that his ego may become a liability.

Mitt Romney seems to be a conservative now, but my gut just doesn’t like the fact that he wasn’t while he was the governor of Massachusetts.  I think he can be a great executive, and if he is the GOP nominee, I will vote for him in November.  But for now, I’m going with the most consistent conservative.

Ron Paul is problematic.  His voting record is often meritorious and often puzzling.  The ACLU rates him pretty favorably—that's a problem.  His vicious and untrue attack ads concerning Santorum (being shown ad nauseam this week on SC TV stations) trouble me.  His foreign policy ideas are dangerous to the future of our country. 

Please educate yourself on the candidates and then take the opportunity to vote.

Monday, May 23, 2011

The Republican Presidential Field: A First Look

It's good to be back blogging again, after a busy few weeks.

The GOP presidential field is forming and evolving, as various individuals dive in or bow out. I want to discuss my thoughts on who these folks are and whether they are the "kind of people we want" in the White House. Starting from the top:

My Favorite so far: Tim Pawlenty. Two-term governor of a liberal-leaning state who managed to keep a wayward budget under control and generally be conservative without compromising core principles. As long as he doesn't get to DC and get grandiose ideas about how government can "help the people," I think he'll do a pretty good job.

Other Big Names:

Mitt Romney: He worries me. I can't get "RomneyCare" out of my head. He's Mormon...not sure how that will affect his decision making...if at all...or should it? He looks and talks presidential, but almost without passion.

Newt Gingrich: I like him, but his negatives are enormous. For every two good ideas he has—and he has many—there seems to be a lemon. I always have my doubts about those whose marital infidelity has become so, um, public. His tenure as House Speaker, however, was superb.

Rick Santorum: I like him, too. He's quite conservative and votes with a conscience. I don't think he has much of a chance, but mainly because so many of my GOP friends/family in PA don't like him. And if you can't do well in your home state....

Jon Huntsman: The man began running for president against Obama while still serving in the Obama administration. I call this bad ethics. He's an incredibly rich man—he didn't need the day job. So why did he take it?

The Rest of the Pack:

Michele Bachmann: Four words: Sarah Palin on steroids. Thoroughly enjoyable to listen to, and her positions on the issues are consistently on the mark. She comes across as less-than-presidential, though, and will be portrayed as (you heard it here first) Sarah Palin on steroids. This demonization will deep-six her campaign. And like Santorum, if you can't win your home state—Pawlenty will win MN, I'm sure—you are toast.

Ron Paul: Good on fiscal issues. Libertarian streak is too strong. Occasionally comes across as a crackpot.

Herman Cain: I lack research. Is he a bona fide, conscience-driven, Bible-believing Christian? Is he another loud-mouthed, egotistical, radio talking head? I honestly have no idea yet.

Gary Johnson: Leading nominee at present for the 2012 "Who??" award.

Thankful they dropped out: Huckabee, Trump. (Although Trump may do a Ross Perot and jump back in. I can see this scenario. I don't like it.)

Still haven't committed, and looking doubtful they will: Palin, Christie

And there are others out there as well. Start your research, everyone; I'll keep you informed about mine.

Sunday, April 3, 2011

How Democrats Historically Respond to Losing

Earlier this year 14 Wisconsin senators and a bunch of Indiana representatives, who found themselves in the minority party in their chambers, decided to hightail it to Illinois [formerly known as "Land of Lincoln" but new nicknames like "Land of Democrat Refugees" should be considered] to simply stop business from occurring in the legislatures of their states. In so doing they showed contempt for their offices and the citizens who voted for them. They also showed deep contempt for the democratic process. We live in a country where "We, the People" elect representatives to our government. These people—like it or not—were the elected representatives. But instead of doing the honored job which they were elected to do, they behaved like the pouting 5-year-old who takes his proverbial ball and heads home. It probably goes without saying that if Republicans tried something like this, they would be publicly demonized for years to come. Now rewind to the years 1860-1861. Democrats had been the majority party for about a decade due to the demise of the Whig party and other events. The 1850's saw multiple pieces of legislation which the Democratic party supported—and the infamous Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, the second worst decision of the Court in our nation's history—passed and signed into law by democrat presidents. These pieces of legislation infuriated many who saw them as contrary to the principles and freedoms which America was founded upon. Members of other parties stayed in their seats and dutifully voted, even when in the minority. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was elected president. Before he even took the oath of office, seven entire states—commandeered by democrats—seceded from the Union. Within weeks after the inauguration, four more entire states—also commandeered by democrats—seceded also. I'm predicting that if our current president gets voted out next year, we may see members of the Democratic Party try similar stunts in Washington in 2013.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

What To Do In Wisconsin

The short version of the story: Newly-elected GOP legislative majority and GOP governor begin to follow through on campaign promises to cut state spending. Teachers in the public schools are included, and will be expected to receive less generous compensation packages. Unions are outraged; democrats wail and howl.

Then, the 14 remaining democrat members of the Wisconsin Senate flee. Away. To Illinois. Since a quorum of 20 is required, and since there are only 19 Republicans, Senate business has come to a halt.

The fugitive legislators deserve strong criticism for their cowardice and irresponsibility. But they deserve more than that. In the "real world," those of us who don't show up for work—nay, refuse to come to work!—get the axe.

The Wisconsin constitution (I found it here; see p. 63) provides a way for elected officials to be recalled from office. I would encourage everybody who lives in a district represented by one of these fugitive legislators to begin the process by signing petitions to get these folks removed from office. They have abdicated their responsibilities, and therefore, they should be removed from their posts.

Whether or not these 14 like the legislation being debated, and regardless of the number or opinions of those protesters, they were entrusted with a responsibility. If they don't care to fulfill that responsibility, they should no longer hold office.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Congratulations, Michigan!

Congratulations, Michigan. You were not so "blown away" that you couldn't get to the polls and vote for the "right" kind of change. You were not so foolish as to think that more years of democrat control in Lansing would somehow be helpful. You managed to exercise your vote well.

For your efforts, you now have a Republican (if not actually conservative) governor, a Republican House, and a two-thirds Republican majority in the Senate. You have installed a Republican Attorney General, Secretary of State, two Supreme Court justices, and members of higher education boards. You sent a couple new Republicans to Congress. You installed Republican officials at a variety of other levels of government.

You are off to a good start...but you aren't done. You need to pressure your elected officials to support (i.e., vote for) smaller government, lower taxes, fewer regulations on business, and the return of authority, where appropriate, to local units of government. You need to continue to keep local citizens informed and, like yourself, active. You need to consider who is going to run for office in 2011 and 2012, and start now to prepare for the election of additional, freedom-loving, conservatives in the days ahead.

Keep up the good work.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Get Out And Vote!

Elections are on November 2. Plan to vote on that day at your local polling place.

This is the time of year when we are all reminded that elections have consequences. That every vote counts. That they who do not vote should not complain about the results. One of the [inaccurate] retorts is that "My vote doesn't make a difference." Baloney!

Every vote counts. We, the people, need to send a very loud message to those whom we send to Lansing, Columbia, every other state capital, and Washington D.C.: Repudiate, Repeal, and Renounce the foolishness of the past two years! Repeal Obamacare! Get the budget under control! Reform and/or remove entitlement programs!

Your vote for candidates who support these positions just makes the collective voice a little bit louder. Together, all of us can scream loudly and clearly that we are severely displeased with the unconstitutional direction our government has taken, and that we expect our elected officials to turn it back in the right and constitutional direction.

It is only an educated, moral, active electorate that can be trusted to choose leaders of integrity, honesty, and competence. Do your part.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Who I'm Voting For, Part 2

80th House District: Aric Nesbitt

There are two candidates in this six-way race that stand out to me: Aric Nesbitt and Frank Thompson. I think that both of them can be fine representatives for the people of Van Buren County.

Frank's background is business-oriented. He has been a small-business owner in our county for a long time; he's a family man (married for 42 years); he takes a good stand on the issues. I certainly won't begrudge anyone who wants to vote for him.

Aric's background is somewhat different. He is much younger; I believe he is still single. He has spent most of his working life in the political world. He also takes a good stand on the issues and shares my values. His one liability, in my book, is that he has spent most of the past decade working outside of Michigan and in DC, which is not necessarily an asset.

But Aric has one big advantage in my book, too: He has demonstrated that he will reach out to others. He has both called me personally and visited my house last Saturday (disclaimer: I think he was just working his way through my neighborhood, as opposed to seeking me out individually) and discussed the issues with me. And if you know me, you probably realize I would ask him straight questions. I liked his answers, and I like his energy.

Governor: Pete Hoekstra

As in the state House race above, I see two candidates who stand out above the rest: Pete Hoekstra and Mike Bouchard. I think either one would make a good governor for Michigan. I give Hoekstra the nod in my book.

A word on the other candidates: I have not been pleased with Rick Snyder's avoidance of taking good positions on social conservative issues. His economic ideas seem sound (something that's true for all five GOP candidates), but I can't say too much else in his favor. Mike Cox has demonstrated a penchant for "being a politician" and has already behaved badly with some of his misleading advertisements against Hoekstra. Tom George, who is from Kalamazoo and whom I know personally, has not convinced me of his fiscal conservatism, demonstrated oh-so-terribly with his tax hike vote a few years ago--a vote that helped swing the critical Senate vote to the democrats.

Bouchard has a lot going for him. His stands on the issues are solid, and his experience in Oakland County will be valuable. Pete Hoekstra, however, has demonstrated a very strong friendship with pro-family and pro-life groups, including reaching out to homeschoolers and supporting local control of public education. He also has a long record in Congress; most of it is very good.

The other races in my precinct are uncontested. Make sure you vote on August 3!

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Who I'm Voting For, Part 1

Very soon I will be voting, probably for the last time, in a Michigan election. There are several important primary races where I live:

U.S. Representative, 6th District
State Senate, 20th District
State Representative, 80th District
Governor

Here's who I am voting for, and why:

U.S. Representative: Jack Hoogendyk

Hoogendyk is looking to upset incumbent Fred Upton, and I hope he does. Hoogendyk has a record, from his six years in the Michigan House, of sound fiscal and social conservatism. He is a Christian man who has shown that he will vote as he speaks. He is predictable; he does not seek which way the wind blows before deciding how to cast a vote. You know what you are getting...and in his case, I like it. A lot.

Upton, on the other hand, has been a case study in political expediency. He is not reliably conservative. He has voted with the democrats too many times on issues that matter, such as the surge vote several years ago, the TARP bailout, and the Cash for Clunkers bill (a failure of which he was one of the leading cheerleaders).

Republicans have a clear choice, and they need to make the most of it.

State Senate, 20th District: Tonya Schuitmaker

Tonya is another politician who has put her votes where her mouth has been. She is consistently conservative, pro-life, and fiscally sound. She has done a great job, worked hard, and reached out to her constituents (including me) during the past six years she has served in the State House. In short, Michigan needs her and 147 similar people in the Legislature.

I have not been impressed with Lorence Wenke's credentials as a conservative, although he (or Larry DeShazor) both would be vastly superior to the candidate running on the other ticket. DeShazor seems like a good guy but for the most part his record is not as long as Tonya's.

Next post: Thoughts on the other two races

Sunday, November 29, 2009

A Minaret-Free Land?

In a rather surprising development, 57.5% of Swiss voters approved a constitutional ban on the construction of minarets in their country. Although speculation exists that it will be overturned by a Swiss court or the mis-named "European Court of Human Rights," for now, there will be no more minaret-capped mosques in Switzerland.

It is interesting to see that Europeans are starting to awaken to the presence—the very uncomfortable presence—of Islam in their midst. Switzerland's Muslim population is about 6% of its total.

This sentence was telling:

Sunday's results stood in stark contrast to opinion polls, last taken 10 days ago, that showed 37 percent supporting the proposal. Experts said before the vote that they feared Swiss had pretended during the polling that they opposed the ban because they didn't want to appear intolerant.
There are many people in this world who don't "want to appear intolerant" toward Islam because they fear the repercussions. To stand in opposition to Islam is to invite violence and jihad into one's midst.

One more reason to appreciate the secret ballot.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Why You Should Vote "NO" on Kalamazoo's Ordinance 1856

Next week Kalamazoo city voters will have an opportunity to vote on Ordinance 1856, which essentially grants special rights to homosexuals, crossdressers, and others who are not heterosexual. Much has been written on the topic (some great stuff is here) already, so I will not strive to duplicate those efforts.

There are several good, strong reasons to vote NO on this ordinance. It essentially grants special rights to one group while discriminating against another. It is bad for businesses. It will cause social problems when, for example, men are using women's restrooms.

But the biggest reason to vote NO on the ordinance is this: It brings legitimacy to sin. The Bible teaches that all sexual activity outside of marriage (which, by biblical definition, is heterosexual) is sin. Homosexuality and other deviant forms of sexual behavior are condemned in some of the strongest language found in the Bible.

To grant special civil rights to those who are engaging in sin, and to simultaneously discriminate against those who are desiring to set an example of what is morally right, is cancerous to the body politic. For this reason alone I would recommend that you vote NO on Ordinance 1856.

But if you want a lot more good reasons to vote NO, check here.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Fox News Polls: Some Interesting Statistics!

Fox News Poll: 43 Percent Would Vote To Re-Elect President Obama - Political News - FOXNews.com

The headline-grabber from this batch of statistics is above: Only 43% of voters would vote to re-elect the president today. Considering that he won about 53% of the popular vote eleven months ago, this tells us that he would receive approximately 19% fewer votes. Considering that his vote total was about 69.5 million in 2008, a 19% drop would shrink that to about 56.3 million—about 3.6 million fewer than John McCain actually received.

Perhaps we can conclude that at least 13.2 million Americans have awakened. That's a good start.

On the other hand, 60% of voters think the president is "a strong and decisive leader." So there's still work to do.

Did Obama deserve the Nobel Prize? 38% of democrats, 74% of independents, and 91% of republicans did not think so. Overall, that's 65% of Americans who think he did not deserve it.

Then there's this closing paragraph from the article:

Finally, in a rare example of bipartisan agreement, majorities of Democrats, 53 percent, Republicans, 78 percent, and Independents, 61 percent, agree the country is more divided these days. All in all, 64 percent of Americans think the country is more politically divided today -- that's more than twice the number who say it is not more divided, 31 percent.
"Bipartisan" refers to two parties. Three groups are mentioned. Hmmm....

Monday, August 10, 2009

Michiganders (and certain others) About To Be Denied Proper Representation in Census

According to this wsj.com article, the upcoming 2010 Census will, like the three preceding it, be using a count of all persons physically present in the country to determine apportionment in Congress for the upcoming decade—including persons here illegally. The result of this will be to give disproportionately higher numbers of representatives to those states which have disproportionately higher numbers of illegal aliens.

Who wins and who loses under this scenario?

Winners: California is projected to have nine additional representatives in Congress, compared to the results if a count of only legal, permanent residents was done. Texas would get four additional representatives. Depending on the actual counts, several other states could pick up an additional seat, including Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New York, and New Jersey.

Losers: Several states right now are looking at the possibility of losing a Congressional seat regardless of this issue, but states at risk include Michigan, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Ohio could lose a second seat if illegal immigrants are counted. New York and New Jersey stand to lose a seat under a proper count, but could gain it back if illegal immigrants are counted.

What should we do?

For Michiganders, this is very much a bi-partisan issue. Our entire congressional delegation in D.C. should demand that the census only count legal, permanent residents of the country; legislation should be introduced to make this happen. Furthermore, co-sponsors should sprout up like weeds from such places as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and other states which either stand to lose a seat(s) or which will likely be unaffected regardless of the specific count.

We need to contact our representatives, regardless of their party, and demand action on this front. As Cameron Brown said in a MIRS interview recently, "If people can't have confidence in our election process, in our election system, they will not have confidence in government, period."

We have the greatest governmental system on the planet, and it is in the interests of all citizens to keep it healthy and honest. Eternal vigilance is required.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Time to Apply the Pressure!

Congress is embarking upon its summer recess. When your Congressman or Senator comes to your area, you need to introduce yourself and politely make a few things known to him or her. For your convenience, here are some talking points:

  • Under no circumstances whatsoever is a government takeover of heathcare acceptable. None. No compromises are acceptable, either. Government simply needs to get out of the way.
  • Government spending is ridiculously out-of-control and must be severely curtailed. Pork projects, bailouts, "stimuli," and presidential date nights to far-off locales need to stop (OK, maybe your congressman can't do much about that last one).
  • Taxes must not go up. Welfare, including such forms as the EIC, needs to shrink.
[Commentary on that last point: Given the ludicrous complexity of the U.S. Tax Code, it has become nearly impossible to change it in any way without affecting someone with higher taxes. I really don't have a problem with people who pay no taxes now, due to the EIC or other similar targeted tax credits, paying something more equitable if those tax credits are removed.]

If your Congressman hasn't extricated himself from the discussion by this point, select your favorites from this list below:
  • Illegal immigration, since it is illegal, needs to be stopped. With vigor.
  • Guantanamo is the ideal place for terrorist enemies of our country.
  • The Second Amendment is every bit as much a part of our Constitution as the First Amendment.
  • Abortion is murder, and since murder is illegal, it needs to be stopped. With vigor. The Supreme Court was supremely wrong on that one.
  • Car manufacturing should be in the hands of the private sector.
The point here is to impress upon your Congressman that there are many voters who have strong feelings on these issues, and that these people will vote in the next election. We want them to return to Washington next month with the strong feeling that many voters are watching and taking notes, and that if they support the Obama/socialist agenda, they do so at their own electoral peril.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Q&A with Sen. Tom George (R-20th District)

Sen. Tom George is currently serving his second term in the Michigan Senate and is a candidate for governor in next year's election. He is a medical doctor and a history buff. He recently and graciously agreed to answer some questions related to his campaign to become Michigan's next Republican governor.

1. Would you, during the campaign, be willing to sign a pledge indicating that you would not raise taxes? If not, are there specific taxes you would be willing to raise, under certain circumstances?

No, I will not sign a pledge to not raise taxes as I have always made it a policy and practice to not sign any kind of pledge. I believe it would be imprudent of a gubernatorial candidate to take such a pledge.

2. Being a doctor certainly gives you more insight into the healthcare industry than most of us have, and being a senator gives you more insight into the workings of government than most of us have. What other qualities do you think you have that prepare you to become Michigan's next governor?

Having maintained an active career outside of the legislature is an advantage that no other candidate can claim. I continue to work at the hospital, including some nights and weekends when the legislature is not in session. This puts me in touch with the many challenges that people are facing on a regular basis. It also gives me special insight into the strengths and weaknesses of our health care system.

Fixing health care is one of the keys to fixing Michigan’s economy and turning our state around. One of the lessons my medical practice has taught me is that the health of a population and subsequent health care costs largely reflect health behaviors. With health care costs now the single largest expense in the state budget, the state’s ability to lure jobs, fix its infrastructure, and provide tax cuts will in part depend on the next governor’s ability to improve the health behavior of our citizens.

Having legislative experience is also important as fixing Michigan will require using the legislative process. Governor Engler was a skilled legislator and this helped make him an effective governor. In contrast, Governor Granholm’s lack of legislative experience has at times been apparent.

Outside of the legislature, I have provided volunteer service to several organizations. These experiences enhance my credentials. For example, in 2008, I co-chaired MI-Cause, the statewide coalition which formed to oppose last fall’s embryo research ballot proposal. I have served as president of the Historical Society of Michigan, a statewide non-profit group founded in 1828 to promote and preserve the history of our state. In 1998 I chaired the Kalamazoo Coalition for Appropriate and Compassionate Care, a group which formed to oppose the assisted-suicide ballot proposal.

As a physician, I served as a medical volunteer in Tanzania, Africa, and on the Caribbean Island of St. Lucia. For 24 years, I have been a member of Michigan State University’s College of Human Medicine’s volunteer faculty. I have also published articles in both medical journals and history magazines.

On a personal note, I have been married to my wife, Sandy for almost 30 years and we have three children.

Continuing to hold a part-time job while serving in the legislature, demonstrating leadership, serving as a volunteer, and maintaining one’s marriage vows are all important indicators of character which may be important to voters in the gubernatorial race.

3. You will no doubt be reminded during the campaign about your vote on the early morning of 10/1/07 to raise taxes. In retrospect, do you regret that vote, or do you feel that it was necessary? Why?

I do not regret my 2007 vote to raise the state income tax.

It should be noted that in 2007, I voted for a billion dollars in spending cuts as well as voting to raise the state income tax from 3.9 to 4.35%. Together this combination would have been sufficient to balance the budget. Unlike many of my colleagues, I actually voted for a package of bills that taken together would have produced a balanced budget without the need for the adoption of Governor Granholm’s service tax, which I opposed, and which was later converted, to the business tax surcharge.

My vote helped end a government shutdown, and create a balanced budget, which is one of my constitutional duties. Given the circumstances, it was the prudent action to take. (It also should be noted that during nine of the twelve years that Governor Engler was in office, the income tax was greater than its current rate of 4.35%.)

4. You are known to be a history buff. Can you think of any historical parallels in U.S. History to the current state of affairs in Michigan?

There have been several instances of economic crises in Michigan’s past. Boom and bust cycles have been caused by land speculation, canal building boondoggles, timber industry cycles, war, and the great depression. On more than one occasion economic turmoil has contributed to a call for a constitutional convention. The Constitutional Convention of 1961-2, in part, stemmed from state budget problems in the late 1950’s.

Applying the lessons of the past to today would suggest that though Republicans may not support the call for a constitutional convention which will appear on the 2010 ballot, we should be prepared in the event it is adopted.

5. Looking back over your time in the legislature, of what achievements are you the most pleased?

I represent a senate district that, like Michigan as a whole, is about 53% Democratic. My district has voted for Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama and Jennifer Granholm. Yet, I am a conservative, pro-life Republican and have managed to win elections repeatedly there. I am now serving in my ninth year in the legislature. I believe I have been able to represent my district ably because I am a good listener, and because I have found a way to apply Republican principles to the problems of the day in a constructive manner. In a similar fashion, for a Republican to win the governor’s race in 2010, we must have a candidate with the right temperament and skills -- a candidate who knows how to win; a candidate who knows how to use Republican solutions to fix our state.

Thank you, Senator George!

Monday, June 29, 2009

Kalamazoo Discrimination Ordinance to be Voted On Tonight!

The title above is my own, as the ordinance will discriminate against those who live or operate a business in the city of Kalamazoo by forcing them to accept homosexuals (or anyone in the "GLBT" group) in housing, employment, and "access to public accommodations."

According to the Kalamazoo Gazette and widely reported elsewhere, the ordinance is likely to pass, and in fact could be unanimously passed. A similar ordinance passed the City Commission unanimously in December, but was then rescinded in January after an unprecedented number of signatures were turned in for a ballot referendum on the matter. Some minor changes have since been made granting more "protections" to religious groups. Fines for violating the ordinance will be $500 a day plus expenses.

The American Family Association intends to begin circulating petitions Tuesday morning if the measure passes the commission, as most expect it will. Given the fact that no commission members have given any indication of a change of heart on the matter, we need to prepare for this. The previous petition drive was only granted 20 days to collect over a thousand signatures (over the Christmas holiday season, no less), and was successful by a comfortable margin. If you are a registered voter of Michigan and know registered voters in Kalamazoo, you can help in the petition drive. Pay attention to the AFA website and stayed tuned for further developments.

The homosexual movement wants to win as many of these local battles as they can before the inevitable day when their agenda will be placed before Congress. Do your part to promote what is right and godly in your area!

Taking Names....Then What?

The U.S. House voted 219-212 to approve the contemptible "American Clean Energy and Security Act" (a.k.a. "The Job-Killing Act" or the "Plow our Economy Into the Ground Act").

It was widely reported that Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI 3rd District) was considering voting in favor of the bill. He did not vote in favor of the bill.

In the end, eight (8) Republicans voted in favor of the bill. Forty-four (44) Democrats voted against it. You can find the complete Congressional roll call for the vote here. The eight Republicans who voted for the bill should be losers in the 2010 primary elections, as they clearly do not stand for conservative principles or for the principles of the Republican party.

Taking Names? Here are some to consider:

All seven Michigan Republicans in Congress voted "No" on the bill.

All eight Michigan Democrats in Congress voted "Yes" on the bill.

The eight GOP traitors on this vote were:

  • Mary Bono Mack (CA 45th District)
  • Michael Castle (DE)
  • Mark Kirk (IL 10th District)
  • Leonard Lance (NJ 7th District)
  • Frank LoBiondo (NJ 2nd District)
  • John McHugh (NY 23rd District)
  • David Reichert (WA 8th District)
  • Chris Smith (NJ 4th District)
I hope the Republicans in New Jersey, in particular, are mad.

There is a lesson here: Keep your memory. Remember who voted to raise your taxes (regardless of whatever misnomer they may invent for it), usurp more power, and drive a stake into the heart of the American economy. And when you enter that polling place next year, vote them out.

Monday, June 8, 2009

Q&A with Sen. Cameron Brown (R-16th District)

Sen. Cameron Brown is currently a candidate to replace Sec. of State Terry Lynn Land, who cannot run for the office again due to term limits. Sen. Brown represents the 16th District in southcentral Michigan. He graciously took the time to answer some questions about his candidacy.

1) What unique strengths do you feel you would bring to the office of Secretary of State?

Ken, I think my greatest strength as a candidate for Secretary of State is my dedication to my conservative values through thick and thin. I've passed a long list of bills during my time in the legislature - everything from a ban on partial birth abortions to tax credits that will attract logistical and warehousing facilities to our state. But my greatest accomplishment has been earning a reputation in the legislature as a defender of Republican principles whether politically popular or not.

For example, when Gov. Granholm tried to reward big campaign donors with a no-bid contract to build an ill-equipped, $90 million State Police headquarters, I was one of only a few Republicans willing to stand up and oppose this gross waste of taxpayer dollars. There was intense pressure to compromise our core conservative principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility, but I refused to do so. Now, 100 State Police troopers are on the verge of being laid off while a lavish new headquarters is being completed in Lansing for those who remain on the job. This is simply irresponsible.

I've taken tough stands on tough issues like this throughout my career. My conservative values aren't just bullet points on a campaign brochure - they're my guiding principles, and they will continue to guide me as Secretary of State.

2) What are the one or two most important issues facing the Secretary of State over the next five years?

For many Michigan residents, their interaction with the Secretary of State is limited to renewing their driver's or boat license at their local branch office. Certainly, continuing the outstanding efforts of Candice Miller and Terri Lynn Land to improve customer service and capitalize on new technologies will be among my top priorities. However, the greatest challenge facing the next Secretary of State will be the tremendous responsibility of protecting one of our most sacred rights - the right to vote.

We only need to look back to the elections of 2008 for a reminder that this right is constantly at risk from groups like A.C.O.R.N. who would bend, if not break, election law if not for strong, vigilant secretaries of state. Protecting our state and nation's principle of "one person, one vote" will be my top priority as Secretary of State.

3) You are generally considered a pretty conservative member of the legislature, while the Secretary of State's office is viewed by some as "almost" non-partisan. Why should we look at whether a person is conservative or not, when voting on a Secretary of State candidate?

Last year's election is a reminder of the vital role secretaries of state play in our democracy. Some secretaries looked the other way when groups like A.C.O.R.N. attempted to compromise election law. Others, such as Terri Lynn Land, defended the sanctity of our ballot box.

A conservative secretary of state is one that will strictly enforce the letter of state and federal election law, and who will defend our right to vote at all costs. I believe my record of defending conservative values no matter the circumstances has prepared me for this important role.

4) Terry Lynn Land has overseen a number of changes during her time as Secretary of State. Do you expect to retain most of these changes? Are there some you would like to undo? Are there any you would like to take further?

Terri Lynn Land and Candice Miller have done a tremendous job capitalizing on advancements in technology during their time in office. The Secretary of State customer experience is substantially better today than it was decades ago. I will build on their accomplishments and continue to explore ways to make your interaction with the Secretary of State as simple and efficient as possible. I'm eager to explore improvements in internet transactions, as well as bringing branch offices to places you frequent on a regular basis - such as grocery stores or shopping malls.

5) Is there any personal tidbit about yourself that you would want people to know?

When I meet with young people, I often share with them the fact that I attended T.C. Williams High School, depicted in the popular Disney movie "Remember the Titans" starring Denzel Washington. It was a time of great challenges, but entrenched differences were set aside for the common good. Exceptional teamwork led to incredible accomplishments.

The story of my high school's football team is a reminder to young and old alike that to be an American is to be a team player. Citizenship requires participation - it is not a spectator sport. Now, more than ever, we must pull together - like the T.C. Williams Titans did - to meet the challenge of a common goal. This goes for Republicans and for our state as a whole. You can read much more about my background, my wife Helen, and my campaign on my website, at: www.cameronsbrown.com.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Pray For Your Country, Your Leaders, and Michigan

The only word I can come up with is "disaster."

McCain lost. Badly.

U.S. Senate and House seats were lost. Here in Michigan, the only two close races both were won by negative, lying Democrats.

In Michigan, both Proposal 1 (legalizing medical marijuana) and Proposal 2 (legalizing embryonic stem cell research) won.

Cliff Taylor, a great man running for Supreme Court Justice, got whipped.

Carl Levin won another term handily.

Here in Michigan, it looks dismal. Democrats took the biggest majority in the state house that they have had in decades. (Thankfully, the Senate was not up for re-election; GOP has a slight majority there.)

The upshot of all of this: Our leaders are now chosen. Pray for them, that they will seek God's will, and make wise decisions. There will be a lot of electoral planning for the next two years, but we must pray anyway.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Would You Vote For This Man?

I wouldn't. I do not know him. I do not live in his county (he's running for a second term as a Kalamazoo County Commissioner). Until recently, I did not even realize what party he claims. However, his signs are exceptionally annoying; I drive by both of these daily.

And for crying out loud—if your spelling is that bad, you shouldn't hold public office...regardless of the party you claim.

The pictures are here. Notice that his name is spelled differently in the two pictures, also!