Jason

Feds: “Maybe If You Were A Democrat”

Not stated directly, but it would probably help him out.

Implied by Tim Skubick, and more directly stated by a commenter; “Snyder is a Republican, so he will not get the $250 million for the customs plaza necessary to complete his end-around bridge play.”  Tim says:

Can’t you see it now? The governor shows up with shovel in hand, let’s say in October, one month before the election, for the launch of the bridge project. He could boast – although he says he does not take credit – that 20,000 jobs are being created with a whole host of them aimed at union workers in vote-rich southeast Michigan.

The Democrats want this state back.  And even though Michigan’s Governor Rick Snyder has ‘progressed’ their goals in many ways, he still wears the R flag, and is by association to it; the enemy.

A solution of course, would be for Mr Snyder to own up to his meandering left of center on so many issues, and simply switch.

You Betcha! (1)Nuh Uh.(0)

This Too Shall Pass

Abraham_Lincoln-1858Abraham Lincoln from  in an address before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society, September 30, 1859, offered a thought that offers both hope and caution. (from The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln )

“It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: ‘And this, too, shall pass away.’ How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride! How consoling in the depths of affliction!”

As Lincoln opined, things both good and bad; as a part of the flow of time, will eventually, simply, cease.

Whether one is to take it as a warning, and advisement to actively protect what has been made good, or a promise that certain blemishes will eventually fade is certainly upon the perspective [of the] bearer of such impairment or achievement.

And it is the perfect sight of historical fact under which we can see both sides in play.  The abolition of the American slavery, and the more recent loss of Liberty earned by the blood of our forefathers.  The routing of a scourge of man set to control man, and the promise that would prevent it from ever happening again disappearing under the most false pretense of populist desire.

Recent events involving an organized effort to remove a Michigan defender of what is good, through such false pretense has in its operative design a working model of historical precedent.  To make great achievement ‘pass’ all that opposition must do is wait for a plausible flaw.

Be it truth or not matters little to those of destructive intent; when the objective is to make what is good, wither and fall.

I await eagerly, the passing of a current pretense of despair that will indeed happen; but knowing that with time, it too, shall return.

You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)

Winning Our Future

By now, migrating readers of sunsetting RightMichigan are probably familiar with the Michigan Republican Party’s obsession with destroying Conservatives within their “all inclusive” endeavors.

It’s unfortunate and disappointingly true, that the Left’s agenda has crept deeply into the Grand Old Party. Instead of explaining WHY a large Welfare State is not healthy for the individual as well as their families, some Republican legislators are following the pied piper Nerd of Ann Arbor and are growing it. Instead of Reminding us of the Party’s stated mission that high taxes are destructive to economies, some Republican lawmakers wish to fiddle with drastic increases in Use Taxes instead of correcting poor existing allocations. Instead of ‘True love’ as an answer to gross mismanagement for decades, Detroit leadership’s irresponsible behavior would instead be rewarded by a Republican Governor who pretends a bailout of hundreds of millions of dollars is .. well .. somehow not a bailout. The same Republican governor who advocated transparency in his campaign, but vetoed a 100% UNANIMOUS bill demanding transparency; a condition that could be effortlessly over ridden, yet forgotten by Republican and Democratic leadership in both houses.

Add to this, Republican Party leadership who in the face of all this remained mute, leading us to believe there was no problem? That Republican Principles as stated, were doing just fine. That no diametric anomaly was present, and all was well?

You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)

Welcome To Right MI

logo-2For folks coming over to post, comment or simply read.

Registration is currently open.

Commenting will NOT require registration, but posting will.

This site is hosted on a heavy backbone of a Lansing, MI based server farm, so if you can never reach us, its because YOUR power is out.

You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)

Setting The Wrong Table

Truly a loss to the GOP if Betsy DeVos remains committed to her recent effort of removing Dave Agema from the position of Republican National Committeeman.

There was a reason he won the position in the first place; as someone who would hold TRUE to conservative Republican principles, and strengthen them in the national platform.  While the establishment Republicans are decrying Democrats as “bad,” Committeeman Agema was rebuilding the foundation so Republicans could say why.  Real fiscal restraint, real solutions aimed at preserving families and traditions that have made this country great.

And the feeble sensibilities of an offended malcontent within the party continuously stirs up sympathy for the other side’s (progressive Dems for those of you who remain unsure) point of view?

“Hey look at me! I am a Republican and I don’t like your stand on what I like to do, so you better tolerate my perverse lifestyle or I will forever more divide the party until I get what I want!  You can call it a big tent if you want.”

And like the ‘Tasmanian Devil’ of the cartoon world, shredding the bonds of good conservatives, and instilling doubt upon the conscience of a party that once at least as a promise, stood for decency and honor.

When moral restraint is removed in one way, it certainly follows that the caps are off in others too.

A sin is a sin is a sin, right?

So lets talk more below the fold.

You Betcha! (2)Nuh Uh.(0)

Something A ‘Republican’ Michigan Governor Won’t Do

Christmas-govCelebrate Christmas.

Alaska’s governor Sean Parnell has traditionally had a Christmas Video out. The newest expected anytime

Titled “Seasons Greetings,” Indiana governor Mike Pence uses “Christmas” no fewer than 6 times in three full paragraphs. Add a “Blessing” or two, and we Definitely get the message!

Florida’s Rick Scott posts a “Christmas” message celebrating “.. a time to celebrate the blessings that are bestowed upon us and the birth of our Lord.”

My Goodness, Wyoming‘s SOS has “Merry Christmas” and a story to go with it right up on the state’s website. The Governor, Matt Mead even posts an audio “Merry Christmas.”

Maine Governor Paul LePage also posts an audio “Christmas” message for Mainers

You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)

Rand Paul’s Folly – Or Snyder/Paul 2016

RandThis Is NOT Your Daddy’s ‘Paul’

Some of the ideas are familiar, but limited in ways typically embraced by establishment Republicans.

Rand Paul’s visit to Detroit was precipitated by a conference call being reported by the Detroit News. In it, Senator Paul speaks of enterprise zones, with taxes so low as to “bail yourselves out”. Adding to this an loosened visa incentive for a flow of foreign “entrepreneurs” into the city.

Paul, widely considered a 2016 potential presidential candidate, said he will introduce legislation Monday to create “economic freedom zones” by dramatically lowering taxes in depressed areas and loosen visa rules to encourage foreign entrepreneurs to immigrate to the city.We hope to create taxes so low you essentially are able to bail yourselves out,” Paul said Thursday in a conference call outlining his plan.


So now instead of “jobs that Americans don’t want to do,” perhaps we will be talking about cities that Americans don’t want to live or work in.

I wonder how that would work?

Maybe something like this?

Mr Chen, you are welcome to stay, invest, develop, and work in our country. However, you are limited to this particular region. If for some reason you are not satisfied there, I guess you are out of luck.”

Or in other words,

Welcome to the Hotel Detroit. Love it, or get the hell out of our country..”

Right, somehow I can’t see THAT happening.

Which of course begs the question of what happens to those who emigrate, and decide to move somewhere a little safer than Baghdad of Michigan? When “loosening visa requirements,” it seems that a genie let out is a little hard to stuff back in the lamp. Its hard to imagine ‘restrictive’ movement placed on those who simply seek a better life, and upon finding out that Detroit is no better than the hole they left, it is highly likely that they will indeed “seek” such a place.

And it seems we have heard those words about foreigners feeling welcomed before.

You Betcha! (3)Nuh Uh.(0)

Second Class Lion Taming

The question of whether or not to ‘allow’ marriage to persons who identify based on their activities is absurd.

Is that not what the supreme court is being asked to validate? In the case before our Nation’s highest court, the justices are being asked to determine whether California’s 2008 Proposition 8 as enacted by voters is constitutional.  they are being asked to either affirm the decision of United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker,  who overturned it on August 4, 2010; his argument being a violation of both the Due Process clause, and Equal Protections clause of the 14th amendment.

A inaccurate understanding of the 14th amendment if ever there was one.

Due Process guarantees a process under which something might be taken.  It allows the imposed upon person or class to prepare a defense or answer to actions being used to deprive an individual, or group, a particular thing.  It also requires law to be sufficiently understandable or substantive.

So is language prohibiting marriage between same sexes vague or understandable?

The ballot text reading “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. should be considered clear.  Based upon that, voters by a 52-48% margin agreed to it.  The motivations of the voters nor understanding of the full ramifications of passage cannot be legitimately parsed by a court and if so, under only the most subjective terms.  Being clearly stated, the language defines well enough the result of passing such a measure.

The other possible Due Process violation is the depriving from one class by law; something to which it is entitled, or has a right to. Jim Crow laws which forbid public services that whites enjoyed, to blacks, would be a classic and easily understood example.  The argument was then presumably, heterosexual partners enjoy a recognition of marriage, not afforded to homosexual couples.  In fact the conclusion by the judge:

“Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation”

And he then uses an explanation of Due process, as that which

“protects individuals against arbitrary governmental intrusion into life, liberty or property. “

Except, there is no intrusion.

The “Right To Marry” as demonstrated by the citations in the decision, has been recognized.  However, Judge Vaughn purposefully sought to ignore the more broadly accepted definition of marriage, which would have settled the matter without further argument; the part being that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.  Plaintiffs in the case were essentially arguing that the judiciary must redefine that which has thousands of years of tradition, and has no reason to be changed except to suit their desired outcome; one that voters in the state of California deemed to be illegitimate.

The Plaintiffs were never denied due process, as their arguments were heard, and simply rebuked as non conforming to the definition they wished to have assigned to their relationships.  They were never denied equal protections, as they too could exercise marriage, which by definition is a covenant between a single man and a single woman; but not something they ‘desired’.   They could still seek another of opposite sex for marriage as anyone else might.

The burden of reaching any particular designation rests squarely upon the person seeking it.  If ‘Marriage’ is what a woman wants, then there is nothing that government can do to prevent her from seeking and marrying a man; and a man likewise seeking a woman for said purpose.  No unfair burden has been placed on the persons seeking marriage, except that for it to be recognized that they should be of opposite gender.  Their rights are IDENTICAL to those who would naturally seek out such a relationship.

Because calling it marriage doesn’t automatically make it so.  No more than calling me “Dr. Gillman. ”

I haven’t earned the title.  I haven’t the prerequisite skills, or knowledge, yet under the redefining of institutions nothing like this should be off the table.  Its my ‘RIGHT’ to be a doctor. I demand my title! Oh and by the way, Catholics are Jews, and Jews are Catholics.  And any freak who thinks they can sing can be called Lady Gaga.  And while we are at it, Dennis Lennox is a lion tamer.  No experience necessary, just toss him in there, because defining him as such makes it so.  No really.. do that, and I buy the argument.

Right?

The judge in his ruling is attempting to DEFINE marriage based on his own subjective analysis, when it’s recipe has been a clearly established static since before the destruction of Sodom.  It simply IS what it IS.  Up is up, down is down, and water is wet.  Imaginative claims that redefine our language, and thus, our cultural norms, do not become more relevant because we are more accepting or tolerant.  Words have meaning, and in this case, it is no different because of an immature refusal to accept what it is.

Immaturity so quickly displayed with the language used toward anyone who might challenge the assertion that homosexuality is normal, and particularly now as rational people decline to agree with a broad brush of definitions re-casting standards in our culture, for the sake of the 2%. Displayed too easily when  temper tantrums might well be celebrated by media outlets, and make great reporting.  Immaturity and name calling tantrums that hardly advance any socially redeeming discussions.  Should we craft policy and change our language to suit those who throw them?

MarriageClubAdditionally, under Judge Vaughn’s ruling, the right to marry carries over into other bizarre possibilities.  His opinion and published claim of “irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation” might well meet a new threshold of tolerance someday when a judge who uses Vaughn’s decision as precedent, declares his own claim of “irrational classification on the basis of mammalian orientation” with a man or woman in love with their dog, or wildebeest.

Or whatever it is that Mooooves them

You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)