Obama supporter thinks he can prevail in Michigan's 42nd district Republican Primary.
And man parts the size of watermelons.
That is the only way I can describe one of the ‘Republican’ candidates in Michigan’s 42nd district State Representative race. The former general manager of the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus entered into the four way Republican primary April 11, and apparently offers himself up as the RINO candidate. (sorry Kevin, this one sticks)
Lansing’s legislators who sold their souls during the Medicaid expansion trick are already learning of the failure (job losses, hospital staff reductions, false savings) that they enacted in Michigan by embracing the Obamacare mandate. Unheeded warnings by activists, REAL economists, and a history of failure by government resulted in a number of Representatives, and Senators expanding welfare through healthcare, and accepting a few shekels from the most tyrannical US federal bureaucracy ever.
And now its time for them to pay the piper, and AFP has started its reminder campaign.
What are the various types of “republican,” and how are they defined?
I have learned to despise the term “Republican In Name Only” (a.k.a., RINO). My hatred for it is, likely, because the term is almost always lobbed around thoughtlessly with no regard for meaning or context, but simply as a foul insult meant to disparage a political opponent, and often by someone who’s lacking for constructive rhetoric. (By that standard, “RINO” is no better than “Nazi,” “communist,” or “faggot,” in that the value of the term is cheapened when it’s reduced to a common insult.) Quite frankly, there are better ways to address the intra-party philosophical divide than to randomly sling profanity around; and this is coming from a career Sailor. However, in order to constructively address the problem, because other terms also get abused so badly, I think that perhaps some effort ought to be expended in pursuit of some basic definitions that concisely and completely identify the various types of “republicans” present in today’s party apparatus (both establishment and grassroots).
The War on drugs must end: not working, causes violence, started in racism, many drugs have medical uses, and it just plain costs too much.
First, let me talk about me for a moment. I consider myself a Republican. I am a precinct delegate, a member of the Ingham County Republican Executive Committee, and a frequent delegate/alternate to State Republican Conventions. Let me also say this: I don’t smoke pot. By that I mean, I tried it — once. It wasn’t for me. I don’t judge people who do. It could be completely legal and I don’t see myself partaking in it. Point being, I’m hardly a stoner or a druggy: I don’t have a dog in this fight.
So, that’s me. Now to the issue: we need to end prohibition. I know the headline lured you in thinking I was just talking about Marijuana. WRONG! I’m talking about all of it: Marijuana, Meth, Crack, Cocaine, Heroin, you name it. Why? Let me lay out a few reasons.
1. The War on Drugs Simply isn’t Working!
Yep, that’s right, the war has been going on for decades and we are losing, folks. Back in the early 1900’s, when there was no prohibition the percentage of the population that used what we now consider to be illegal drug as compared to now was actually less. Trillions of dollars spent on the war — how can this be?!?!
By continuing prohibition, you’re actually making an incentive for people to push drugs and I mean push them hard. If these things are a commodity you can buy at any corner store, the profit margin on this stuff is going to be lower — much, much lower. Right now there is a huge profit margin which makes opportunity for adventuring black market entrepreneurs. With a lower profit margin, these things become far less profitable to “push” on a person to person basis.
Greg McNeilly, and the DeVos funded Freedom fund were unusually quiet. The all-things-go except true equality “Freedom Fund” was silent on the issue, offering no opinion, no support, or any insight where it stands with regard to racial preferences. Apparently, this influential, well financed, political advocacy group had no qualms about the state constitution being squashed by activist judges.
The overturning of the Sixth Circuit Court may have positive impact on other Michigan imperatives.
The US Supreme Court decision today was probably an easy one.
In a 6-2 ruling. (see KG’s article for a link) the court upheld the ban enacted by Michigan voters in 2006; Proposal 2, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. Race shall NOT be used in admission policies in our colleges and public institutions, or for purposes of employment or contracting through government. From the Detroit News
The ruling championed the right of the voters to set policy in writing their own state constitutions.
“Perhaps, when enacting policies as an exercise of democratic self-government, voters will determine that race-based preferences should be adopted. The constitutional validity of some of those choices regarding racial preferences is not at issue here,” Kennedy wrote. The decision here “is simply that the courts may not disempower the voters from choosing which path to follow.”
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, who appealed the appeals court ruling, hailed the justices decision.
That was a free promo, Bill. Lets start working on the next battle shall we? – JG
There is no doubt Michigan’s Attorney General carried this one across the finish line, but the argument was simple on a number of levels.
“He’s our hometown boy.” Said one of the executive committee members of a vote taken this last Thursday.
The vote, was one by the executive board of the Grand Traverse County Republican Party on whether to endorse State Senate Candidate Wayne Schmidt over Greg MacMaster in the 37th State Senate primary contest. The vote to choose one candidate over another in partisan (GOP) races would normally be considered off the table except under extraordinary circumstances. At least that is how it is designated in the by-laws of a number of other GOP county parties.
Questions must be asked. Is it prudent or even a legitimate practice? Is it fair to the candidates? Is it fair to the membership, and does it misrepresent the opinion of the party at-large?
Little did the Founding Fathers know that only 237 years after giving George III a boot ride out of America, that a new empire surpassing Britannia’s size would now occupy America.
The number of Americans who were enrolled in Medicaid at any time during fiscal 2013 exceeded the entire population of the United Kingdom, according to new data published by the federal government’s Medicaid and CHIP Payment Access Commission (MACPAC).
Were Medicaid a nation instead of a U.S. entitlement program it would be the 20th most populous country on earth.
“The estimated number of individuals ever covered by Medicaid remained steady at 72.7 million in FY 2013, compared to 72.2 million in FY 2012,” said MACPAC’s statistical report, released on April 1.