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.
“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.
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.
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.
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?
Additionally, 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.
Though we apply a decent dose of critique and praise at times, we don’t always officially endorse from here.
History will demonstrate that its hard to do so, without a near guarantee at some point that we eat crow. Some folks make mistakes, and we might even be associated with those mistakes when, and if, that time comes. In fact, associations are often a good indication of a candidate’s character, or at the very least, his or her ability to discern the good from the bad. An occasional judgment lapse doesn’t define a person, and as well, a minor success or effort does not either. However, we must embrace those who bring the whole package in a productive manner.
We must look at the big picture.
Today, we start with the recognition that our young voters have not only been misled by current political events, but their indoctrination in our failing public education system completes the corrosive understanding of government and politics. Folks, we recognize the need to concentrate first and foremost on that big picture by stepping up our outreach to our younger voters and activists. We need to embrace them. Not only to rebuild their trust in traditional conservative values as espoused in our Republican platforms, but get them involved as it is THEIR future we are fighting for.
To reach them, RightMichigan.Com endorses the selection of Blake Edmonds for the Michigan Republican Party Youth Chair.
Blake has been fortunate enough to have had a solid family values background, a sense of self reliance, work ethic, and skills that have allowed him to develop a college Republican organization that has kept the interest of his peers for more than a single meeting. He is willing to expand upon those skills statewide with a realistic strategy of growth by inclusion and involvement. This last point cannot be over-emphasized. Without a sense of belonging, its hard to rally the effort needed to win elections and spread a constitutional Republican message. A history of his efforts point to a likelihood of success as youth Chair.
We note the clearly conservative voices in support of Blake as well with Jen Gratz (HERO of Michigan’s MCRI effort) Sarah Ledford, (incumbent youth chair) Jeff Sakwa, (2012 candidate, MSU trustee) and Dave Agema, who has demonstrated that there is room in the Republican party for ethical conservative leadership. On Blake’s site one can find some quite favorable commentary. Association with these conservative stalwarts, along with a well considered plan of action, complemented by results already achieved by bringing a conservative Republican message to our youth, seals the deal.
A last word needs to be said however. for Blake, and others whom we may endorse in the next few days, it is important that he is allowed to accomplish what needs to be done. That requires a commitment to a party environment that fosters inclusion. Clearly, it would be helpful to consider a change at the top of our state party, so that such talent is not held back by a repressive central control.
Often I marvel at the complete disconnect associated with the left, and its assumptions on all manner of issues.
It is incredibly difficult to hold back an utter contempt for the mental state suggesting that defense of personal liberties requires the use of force and abrogation of others’ rights. And frankly, its hard to overcome disgust with such wretched thinking that suggests protecting children from [the possibility of] abuse is best done by murdering those children before they can take their first breath.
And someone having the nerve to state objections to such obvious violence, invites scorn from a part of society that has disconnected itself from humanity. It draws fire from those who have had their souls stripped from them by expanding relativity and acceptance of violence toward fellow human beings through ‘new media’ entertainment, virtual slaughter, and the promotion of abortion as morally superior to the possibility of abuse.
The air around people such as these can be quickly consumed with tiresome rhetoric and hyperbole. The vacuous assumptions, and particularly the words spewing like flame, burn all that is breathable and starve those who inhale too deeply, of that which allows recognizable conscious discourse. In fact one might assume the dream state of the affected left is nearly complete when seeing the responses to a simple statement of fact as reported recently by our local newspaper:
“Commissioner Jason Gillman rallied other commissioners against the grant application. Gillman said he couldn’t support providing any type of aid to Planned Parenthood of West and Northern Michigan, regardless of the program.
“The organization is designed to kill babies,” Gillman said. “The nicer side of it is only there to mask its evil intent. That is to kill babies.”
The report was accurate. It was what was said to the reporter when the interview was given a day before publication. It was a statement of what should appear obvious when looking at the history and outcome of planned parenthood’s operations.
“Craig Hexham I’ve never been an “advocate” for PPNWM, but following are some of the services described by them. “Comprehensive physical exams (male/female); Breast, cervical, testicular cancer screenings Colposcopy, biopsy; Birth control methods and emergency contraception; Pregnancy testing and options information/referral; STI testing and treatment; HIV testing (results in 20 minutes); Condom distribution (three free per day); Treatment of genito-urinary infections HPV vaccine (for women ages 18-26).” I looked, and didn’t see “kill babies” ANYWHERE in their website or other locations.
Some of these things speak for themselves about what PP promotes through its programs. Basically, “its OK to go out and mess around – we’ll get you ready for your next round of promiscuity”. In fact, if one were to look at the promotion of bad choices to an extreme, looking HERE can drive home the point quite well:
“One of the hardest things about dating, sex and relationships is the possibility of being rejected by someone you are attracted to or in a relationship with. You may worry that your current or potential partner(s) will reject you if they find out you are living with HIV.
.. Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else. These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges.
Uhh .. what?
And the newspaper reporter had in fact looked at this and said “that’s planned parenthood international – It isn’t the same”. So this information didn’t make it into the article, though it was discussed at the meeting where the grant request was “Spiked”. And likewise, the very argument is being made about PP of Northern Michigan. “We don’t do abortion service up here..” Yet as even alluded to by the Hexem comment above, (pertinent in bold) they provide ‘referrals’ for those who are ‘afflicted’ with the ‘disease’ of pregnancy; including bus fare and recommendation of termination elsewhere.
But Hexem’s words are likely the most reasonable coming from those in support of PP.
The other comments:
“This County Commissioner should be banned from public office the next voting cycle.”
“Jason Gillman: Your closed minded and cold hearted views are such a disappointment to me.”
“What a moron and embarrassment to the community.”
“YEAH!!! Jason Gillman’s term as a county commissioner as ended. Beware, he will turn up on another board or worse yet run as a state legislator.”
All just angry emotional outbursts. But these same folks who scoff at terrorist tea partiers, decry gun violence, and want hands off their bodies are eager to advocate violence:
“Sally Neal maybe he should have something else cut off…..after he’s endured COMPULSORY PREGNANCY……
Sally Neal how bout we institute a required IQ test for public office; it would definitely prevent this kind of moron from ruining womyns’ lives…..probably the only thing he has control of…….anyone know where he lives?
Is that a threat Sally? Oh my.
And that is just a small part of the disconnect. It continues when they seem to think that the feelings of Planned Parenthood have been hurt. Enough so that it warrants a lawsuit.
Sue them! Sue this guy.
Someone put this to the courts, please. You can’t do it and we can’t allow him or them to get away with it. They thumb their noses without a hitch because they think God is on their side and therefore are above the law… and heaven awaits them. It’s no better than suicide bomber thinking.
Yeah.. because its pure terrorism to want to protect a life. And because there are some who profess the truth about certain organizations, its actionable.
Yawn. Predictable, insipid, unimaginative, and impossibly frequent.
And of course all the moral authority that makes the killing babies option superior comes from enlightenment that is simply not available to tea folk. Humble bumpkins that we are, cannot understand that “abstinence training prevents the abortions” that we abhor. Add to this how at the same time condoms and pills do the same. Why if we would just understand that the money being asked for was only for that, then it would be clear we wouldn’t have to oppose the killing of the defenseless in the womb.
“Planned parenthood provides free or low cost birth control to women, and studies clearly show that this results in a SIGNIFICANT reduction in abortions – nearly 80%. And considering that abortions are a very small percentage of Planned Parenthood services, defunding this organization actually increases abortions from unwanted pregnancies. Kind of missing the forrest through the trees for the dumbed down, don’t you think?”
If WE would only understand how the duplicitous agenda of planned parenthood is for the best after all.
Perhaps its best to ignore the fact that PP promotes irresponsible active sexuality on the one hand, as mentioned with the pamphlet mentioned above, and the birth control programs, in order to appreciate the value of its ‘abstinence’ and promiscuity training.
There is no doubt in my mind, to reach that point in understanding, the canary is dead, the flame is out, and the head must be under water.