3 search results for "woodhams"

The King Says Vote Yes On May 5th

No level of protection for the taxpayer is left, as any defining lines to cross are swept away like sand.

That’s right, ‘the king’ dictates a yes vote.

Enjoy the commercial Rick Snyder has made with taxpayer dollars. All we did was add the funk for all the junk in Lansing’s trunk.

When the bureaucracy cannot (or WILL NOT) tell the difference between an opinion and a directive (express advocacy), no citizen protections are left in play. The Bureau of Elections had already tipped its hand that a denial of my complaint was coming prior to receiving it. The spokesguy Fred Woodhams made that announcement even admitting they had not yet seen it.

How could it possibly be doing its job if it had already made the decision without review of the facts? How could the process be properly run, if the denial of the complaint had to be crafted and spun to fit a predetermined outcome? Strangely enough, Woodhams himself has previously said that no statements about such things should happen prior to review.  In 2012:

“Secretary of State Spokesman Fred Woodhams said that the office had received the complaint as of Friday. Woodhams said the Secretary of State’s office does not comment on allegations until they have an opportunity to review it.”

Pretty FUNKY, yes?

Indeed.  Something stinks in Lansing, and it ain’t the Red Cedar Drain.

You Betcha! (36)Nuh Uh.(1)

Presumptive Bureaucracy And Wagon Pi.

Why would our public servants feel compelled to offer opinion on a matter that is not yet before them?

There are 9.9 million people living in Michigan.

Of that number 77% are of voting age, and most are legally able to cast a ballot. And of those who can and do cast their preferences, most have no clue of their responsibilities beyond placing their mark, and walking out from the curtain a couple of days a year.

Indeed, the roughly 7 million registered voters of Michigan will in their lifetime: Miss votes, Make uninformed Votes, Will unknowingly vote in opposition to their interest, and never truly hold their elected officials accountable to promises and integrity of office. They will not complain when lied to, or even call out their own party’s elected when the situation demands it.

But this one will.

Why on earth would we have platforms, rules, and constantly repeated promises of action when at most we might get lip service and disappointment? Why would we have laws to protect the public from abuses of government, when the slight of legalese is used to exempt the perpetrators from culpability?

And why will so few actually speak up against it? Perhaps it should come as no surprise that those few might not want to be told they are wrong, and won’t try in the first place.

You Betcha! (25)Nuh Uh.(2)