Anyone can call themselves 'conservative', or a supporter of tradition, or even Republican.  Why even the most recent incarnation of the prince of lies, Barack Obama, continues to use the language of conservatism to sell unadulterated socialism:

"I've got a phone that allows me to convene Americans from every walk of life, nonprofits, businesses, the private sector, universities to try to bring more and more Americans together around what I think is a unifying theme: making sure that this is a country where, if you work hard, you can make it," he added."

Instead of marshaling efforts to demonstrate the sin of repeated prevarication from the presumed leader of the free world, some prefer to lash out at those who have made an effort to reveal the path of sin being made clear all around us. Efforts made to appear enlightened and tolerant however, can be quite opposed to what we stand for.

Imagine if you will, the point where we ignore the mugging outside the church to go inside and condemn the minister for his 'hateful' message.

So we can feel the love of the mugger?

Betsy Devos, like so many others, knows what she believes but has fallen into the trap of faux tolerance; one that has no equilibrium, or room for opposing views.  One that has no room in fact, for what she purportedly believes. And when she defends the 'big tent' as to be blindly accepting of those with opposing vision, she undermines her own supposed efforts to promote such institutions as prosperity, family, education, and TRUE equality.

In a Nolan Finley Piece, when she says of Agema:

"He has a right to express his ideas and opinions, but he also has a responsibility to the party. He has damaged his position and his party. He reflects badly on Republicans and on Michigan."

Either he does or he doesn't. To limit an elected committeeman who was selected based on his convictions, to expressing a view that is opposite his convictions is ludicrous.

Agema's statements on homosexuality condemn the dangers inherent to that lifestyle choice.  He shows no disdain for the people themselves, but to the acts which have destructive causality on morality, tradition, and health.  The statistical evidence which is easily available to those who wish to truly entertain enlightenment make his points, no matter how crudely people assume those points are being made.

Agema's statements with regard to Islam, while lacking subtlety, has in their essence, an objection to the dogma that is Islam itself. This 'religion' in its founding, appears to have more in common with a mafia family business, and continues to this day to be the purveyor of "man caused disasters" with absolutely no competition from any other 'religious' or secular sectors. The people who practice it might well become doctors, scientists, or even fight for our country. However, the ideology behind a daily counter that looks like our debt clock leaves less room for trust, than that offered by the true prince of peace, or nearly any other 'spiritually' inclined religion.

But Betsy seems motivated however, to shoot her own foot:

"DeVos is troubled by more than just than a few ignorant statements by a bigot. She is clearly frustrated by the inability or unwillingness of GOP leaders to reclaim the party from those motivated by hate and prejudice.

She describes herself as "disillusioned and disgusted" that Republicans like Agema have been allowed to help guide the party.

If she truly wanted the party to survive, she might control the gag reflex just a little.  What is seen as hate, should be viewed by ANY such self professed conservative as love and consideration for her fellow man.  It should be regarded properly as the concern for health, longevity, and strong traditional families.  As one who cannot read minds, I cannot attest to quantifiable hate in anyone's heart, and I doubt she has those skills either.

Interestingly, she seems to still have an agenda

"Leaders have a responsibility to create an inclusive, welcoming party, not to exclude," she says. "What's going on is cause for concern about our future prospects as a party and our ability to bring people around to our point of view and long-term agenda. We are driving people away who might otherwise support what we stand for."

I am ALWAYS willing to push for an inclusive party!  I stand by an open ended invitation to those who are willing to clear their minds of today's pornographic governance models, limitless welfare promotion, family destroying goals, and intolerable redistributive wishes, to have a seat at a very big table, in a very big tent.  They can leave such ideology at the door, IMO.

Imagine a grand and glorious party at the DeVos household where anyone in the neighborhood is invited who wants high dollar Hors d'oeuvre, before planting muddy feet upon the oaken long table for a cigar.

Right.

Finley's piece includes this as well

"Although no overt threat was made to withdraw financial support, the risk to the GOP is certainly implicit.

"The expectation of leaders in a party is to stand up in situations like this," she says. "Failing to do so will have consequences."

The party certainly did not stand up to Rick Snyder when he pushed for expansion of Medicaid. Already, dozens of those who at one time had solid political careers are being forced to reevaluate the decision to capitulate to such progressive notions.  Notions which run contrary to fiscal responsibility, which DeVos suggests should be of paramount concern:

"DeVos is urging the party to return to its roots and focus its message on sound economic policy and other efforts to improve the American quality of life. Her passion is ensuring all children have access to a quality education, and that's where she's been devoting her energy.

In the meantime, there are other battles being fought that HAVE economic impact that do not need in-fighting and undercutting.  There are very few of us who are willing to be hated by a small number of vocal deviants.  We are fighting the battle for the SOUL of the country, while some fight SOLELY for their personal prosperity.

Who is truly standing up for personal liberty in this situation?  Someone who rejects destructive lifestyle choice advocacy, regards a violent political ideology as incompatible with democratic principles, or someone who would shut the discussion off as a matter of civility?  

When power and money acts to quiet a voice, or erases the work of the pen under the guise of 'tolerance,' is it not a hypocritical act?

I wish to be clear, The DeVos family has made possible a great number of successes in our state and around the world.  I respect that. If it weren't for Dick Devos, and the pressure brought to bear on Snyder for RTW legislation, it may not have happened.  I applaud that.

But it excuses no notion of undeserved civility and acceptance of destructive premises advanced within a party that should remain loyal to a full set of principles; and not one limited to economics alone. This party already has a quite large tent.  This bigger tent is one of tried ideas, and understanding of cause and consequence.  The bigger tent grows by setting tables within that are bountiful with liberty, promise and propriety.

But removing the red meat from the menu that 45% of the party enjoys to be replaced with the hummus of the 2%?