Thank you and "Farewell"

Today marks my last day as a State Representative. It is a bittersweet day. Not so much because I am leaving office, but for other reasons. Today I attended a funeral service for a young man I did not know. He was the son of a friend who died at the age of 31. His death was sad, tragic and unexpected. As the father of a son who is the same age, it gave me pause.

This event gave me the opportunity to reconsider what are the most important "core principles" in life. First, is my relationship with God, and second are my relationships with family and friends. It reminded me that what I do is not as important as who I am and to whom I belong. I am, before anything else a sinner saved by grace. After that, I am a husband, father, and grandfather. The title "Representative" is far down the list of those things that define me.

As I leave this job and look ahead to a New Year, I am inclined to look back at the mistakes I made. But I do so with the resolve to do better, to make positive changes. Here is my New Year's resolution:

I will try to take more time to say thank you to so many who have helped me along the way, I will try to be a better husband and father.

If you are one of those who voted for me, contributed to a campaign, gave some of your time to help me get elected, sent a note of encouragement, or said a prayer on my behalf, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I have not said thank you enough, but I really do appreciate all you have done.

Today, I say "farewell" as your state representative and I look forward to the challenges, opprtunities and most of all, the relationships 2009 will bring. I want to wish you a very happy and rich new year. May you, too, have the opportunity to grow in your relationship with family, friends and your Creator.

God bless,
Jack Hoogendyk

Thank you and "Farewell"

Today marks my last day as a State Representative. It is a bittersweet day. Not so much because I am leaving office, but for other reasons. Today I attended a funeral service for a young man I did not know. He was the son of a friend who died at the age of 31. His death was sad, tragic and unexpected. As the father of a son who is the same age, it gave me pause.

This event gave me the opportunity to reconsider what are the most important "core principles" in life. First, is my relationship with God, and second are my relationships with family and friends. It reminded me that what I do is not as important as who I am and to whom I belong. I am, before anything else a sinner saved by grace. After that, I am a husband, father, and grandfather. The title "Representative" is far down the list of those things that define me.

As I leave this job and look ahead to a New Year, I am inclined to look back at the mistakes I made. But I do so with the resolve to do better, to make positive changes. Here is my New Year's resolution:

I will try to take more time to say thank you to so many who have helped me along the way, I will try to be a better husband and father.

If you are one of those who voted for me, contributed to a campaign, gave some of your time to help me get elected, sent a note of encouragement, or said a prayer on my behalf, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I have not said thank you enough, but I really do appreciate all you have done.

Today, I say "farewell" as your state representative and I look forward to the challenges, opprtunities and most of all, the relationships 2009 will bring. I want to wish you a very happy and rich new year. May you, too, have the opportunity to grow in your relationship with family, friends and your Creator.

God bless,
Jack Hoogendyk

MRP: Party of Yob or Anuzis?

Greetings!

In this letter, I discuss the ongoing spat within the Michigan Republican Party and some of my plans for winning in 2010.

Much has been made lately about the apparent feud between Chuck Yob and Saul Anuzis. It has deteriorated over the last couple of years to the point where there seems to be open disdain, one for the other, not so visibly between Saul and Chuck themselves, but between their supporters.

The open warfare has been destructive to the party. It has caused us to take our eye off the ball and forget whom the real opponent is. It reminds me of professional sports teams who keep losing games. After awhile the players start blaming each other for the miscues and losses and forget about playing as a team in a unified effort to win.

What is ironic about all this is that, as far as I can tell, Saul Anuzis and Chuck Yob are conservatives. Both have espoused limited government, low taxes, a staunch support for the right to life and protection of the second amendment. Both have been dedicated to victory. So, why the problem? Why has the relationship soured to the point where, when the state committee wanted to unanimously endorse Saul for RNC Chairman, some members of the "Yob Team" insisted on having their names listed as those who refused to endorse Saul? What is the point of that?

I believe what happened was a departure based on personality, not philosophy. I'm not sure when it started, but in the recent election cycle, it was a fight between those who supported Romney for President (Saul) and those who supported McCain, (Yob). Charges and counter-charges were leveled, accusations were made, sides were taken and many players chose sides.

Today we are in a situation where the team is dispirited and divided. Fingers are being pointed, blame is being laid...and the Democrats are having us for lunch. What has been especially damaging is the damage that has occurred to the youth of the party. We need College Republicans and Young Republicans pulling together to grow the party, but too many of them have become distracted and dissipated by the ongoing feud.

It is time for real, meaningful change. We need to once again become united as a party, and start planning for victory in 2010. Victory cannot be achieved on money and will alone. We must have a strategy. It must include recruiting 110 candidates for the House and 38 for the Senate. Every candidate needs to be united on core issues that move votes. There will be differences on local issues, but the first principles should never change. I submit three concrete issues every candidate in Michigan can and should run on.

1. Never vote for a tax increase


2. Vote for a budget freeze for the next two years.


3. Support downsizing government, by voting for a part-time legislature.

I served in the legislature for six years. Over the last four years I traveled 100,000 miles throughout Michigan. I've sent e-newsletters to over 9,000 solid Republicans for nearly two years. The message I heard everywhere I went, and in e-mail after e-mail it is this: "Government is too big, spends too much, wastes too much time, and it is the responsibility of the Republicans in Lansing to do something about it!"

As your party chairman, I pledge to do what I can to end the feud, lay aside the petty differences, unify this party under the banner of the core principles and build a strong team that is prepared for victory.

WHERE I STAND ON THE ISSUES

Many of you will be attending the state party convention February 20-21, 2009, where you will have an opportunity to vote for your next party chair. But how can you make an intelligent decision if you do not know the candidates? In this letter, I will tell you where I stand and how I have voted on various issues key to the future of Michigan. Look them over and challenge the other candidates in this race to tell you their position on the issues and reveal their record.

• Spending - I routinely opposed irresponsible increases in state spending when it has been demonstrated that the state wastes your money regularly. I only voted for budgets that stayed within the rate of inflation. In 2007, I was one of four legislators who voted NO on a $1.4 billion increase in spending in a year when almost no one saw their income go up.

• Taxes - In six years as a state legislator, I never voted for a tax increase.

• Regulations - I opposed additional regulations that greatly hampered economic expansion. Businesses have reduced their investments in Michigan because of too many taxes and over-regulation.

• 2nd Amendment - I faithfully supported the second amendment and am rated "A" with the National Rifle Association.

• Property rights - I am a staunch supporter of private property rights and supported legislation to fight eminent domain for economic development and regulatory takings.

• Education - I believe in accountability, transparency, and efficiency in public education. I introduced legislation to make public schools more accountable to the taxpayers. I supported parental choice and the expansion of public school academies.

• Life and marriage - I have a 100% pro-life voting record and I supported the Marriage Amendment to the state constitution.

• Equal rights - I openly supported the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.

• Embryonic stem cell research - I opposed the destruction of human embryos for any purpose.

• Right to Work - I introduced legislation to give workers the right to join or NOT join a union at their place of employment.

• Transparency - I introduced legislation to put the state checkbook online for easy review.

These issues represent the foundation of the Republican Party. Every one of them is in line with the majority of voters in Michigan and an overwhelming majority of Republicans. These are the positions that conservative voters and donors expect from their elected officials.

We will not win elections without the work and support of the grassroots party members and the finances of our Republican friends. Neither will come if they don't believe their candidates will fight for these issues. And why wouldn't we if the majority of voters support them?

Now that you know my record, you can compare it to my good opponents, Ron Weiser and Norm Shinkle. I invite you to ask them where they stand.

Get campaign updates at: www.JackForMichigan.org

If you would like to add your name to the long list of endorsements for state party chairman, you may do so here. If you have any questions, please call me at 269-806-4626 or email me at JackForChair@gmail.com.

Read my latest blogs and archived newsletters here.

Grassroots Activist, Ready to Serve

For the last six years I have done my best to represent you in Lansing on the issues of limited government, low taxes, personal responsibility and individual liberty. My goal was to stand on my principles and leave with my integrity intact. I went to Lansing to be a public servant and an activist, not a politician. The word politician has taken on the connotation of someone who has compromised his values and sold his good name for personal gain.

An "activist" on the other hand is someone who advocates or opposes a cause or issue vigorously, especially a political cause. I have worked actively to keep taxes low and government small. I actively pursued better quality education, protection of private property rights, the second amendment and the right to life. I actively supported the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.

I would hope that when you talk to the people in Lansing or those who supported me financially, they would tell you I couldn't be bought. Contributors gave because they respected and supported me for my principles.

I am a candidate for chairman of the Republican Party, running as a grassroots public servant and an activist. I intend to be accountable to the principles that guide me and the good Republicans who elect me.

It has been said that money is the mother's milk of politics, but without strong principles, the recipient will only be corrupted by it. Just ask Rod Blagejovich.

Before serving in the legislature, I was a salesman, manager, and director of a non-profit organization. I have never been a "professional politician." As your party chairman, I will work tirelessly for the good of the entire Republican Party. Coercion, backbiting, and divisiveness will not be tolerated. If we are to once again become leaders in this state we must be unified and willing to work together as one team.

I look forward to serving this great party. I am committed to unifying the grassroots under the banner of conservative principles. If we all pull together, utilizing the financial and human resources at our disposal, we will start winning again.

There is a Rat Head in My Coke!

Imagine your reaction if you were to pull a 2-liter bottle of Coca-Cola off the shelf in the grocery store and see that floating inside! Certainly you would not buy that bottle of Coke, but you might just decide to become a Pepsi drinker. Hey, if Coke's quality control is that poor, maybe it's time to switch.

I am happy to say Coca-Cola has never had such a quality problem. If fact, quality and consistency is the hallmark of the company. You can purchase a Coke anywhere in the world and know exactly what you are going to get, that sweet and refreshing flavor and fizz.

My 15 years of professional sales experience taught me that I could be a great salesman with low prices and fast delivery, but if my product quality was suspect, I lost the sale. Customers are not going to buy a product if it isn't what they paid for. It's known in the trade as brand ID. You must always protect and uphold the brand.

We have experienced this with the Republican Party lately. In this case the customers are the voters and donors. They have been buying a particular product from the GOP. But they have not always been getting what they paid for. Not every elected official in the party has let them down. In fact, the majority of Republican candidates have held to their principles. The problem is, when one Republican fails in his commitment to the principles of limited government, individual liberty and personal responsibility, he spoils the brand for the entire party.

Simply stated, a Republican who votes for a tax increase is regarded by many as a rat head in a Coke bottle. I have talked to many faithful Republicans all around the state and have heard it over and over again. They are losing faith in the product, they don't believe in the brand anymore.

As your Party Chairman, it will be my responsibility to lead us to victory in 2010 and raise the funds necessary to make that happen. The first step is repairing our brand ID. We must be sure we know what we stand for and restore voter confidence. The candidates we put on the ballot must follow through when elected to office. Fund raising will become much easier when the contributors have confidence in the brand.

We want to be sure that when the customer purchases the Republican brand, he gets the same quality every time, not a "rat head in a Coke bottle."

---------

Get campaign updates at: JackForMichigan.org

---------

The campaign for Party Chair is going well. I have been honored to receive hundreds of endorsements. I will be publishing a new list soon. Meanwhile, I would love to have your endorsement as well. If you would like to add your name to the long list of endorsements, you may do so here. If you have any questions, please call me at 269-806-4626 or email me at JackForChair@gmail.com.

---------

Read my latest blogs here and archived newsletters here.

---------

*Thanks to Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform for his brilliant word picture. It has helped illustrate what needs to be done to bring the GOP back to prominence. You can read more from Grover and ATR here.

Sir, We've gone plaid.

 

Can you believe we have survived these many years in Michigan without a "state tartan"? No longer! I am pleased to report that the House of Representatives has passed HB 5904, establishing an Official State Tartan for Michigan. I thought the rationale presented for why we needed this was compelling. In the caucus document explaining the bill, under the heading of "Arguments in Support", this was the reason given: "Michigan shouldn't be left out when almost half the country has adopted an official state tartan."

Sir, We've gone plaid.

Can you believe we have survived these many years in Michigan without a "state tartan"? No longer! I am pleased to report that the House of Representatives has passed HB 5904, establishing an Official State Tartan for Michigan. I thought the rationale presented for why we needed this was compelling. In the caucus document explaining the bill, under the heading of "Arguments in Support", this was the reason given: "Michigan shouldn't be left out when almost half the country has adopted an official state tartan."

Practicing Architecture Without a License to become a Felony

Thank goodness the House is here to protect you! We just passed HB 4937. 

HB 4937 creates a new felony for the third offense of practicing the profession of architect, professional land surveyor or professional engineer without a license. Sentencing guidelines need amending to allow judges to create sentences for this crime. Well, we have lots of room in the prisons...don't we?

Practicing Architecture Without a License to become a Felony

Thank goodness the House is here to protect you! We just passed HB 4937. 

HB 4937 creates a new felony for the third offense of practicing the profession of architect, professional land surveyor or professional engineer without a license. Sentencing guidelines need amending to allow judges to create sentences for this crime. Well, we have lots of room in the prisons...don't we?

How Do We Keep America Strong?

Much has been made of the recent "bailouts" and loan guarantees offered to private banks and corporations in the United States. It brings up the question of what the proper role of government should be and what would be best for all of us in the long run.

Individual (and Corporate) Responsibility vs. Government Assistance
Among the concepts that have made America a great and strong nation is one of personal responsibility. We are not a nation of wimps. We were founded on the principles of self-reliance and responsibility for our actions. If we were successful in our endeavors, we reaped the rewards; if we failed, we took our "lumps", retrenched and tried again.

Over time, we have begun to lose sight of this concept. Today, we have a Congress that appears to no longer believe in risk and reward, success and failure, individual liberty and personal responsibility. The action by Congress in regard to the Wall Street and banking failures, and now with the automotive manufacturers has been characterized as "capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down." The message is it is OK to take risks while you are succeeding, but if failure looms, the government will swoop in to save you.

The problem in the long run is the loss of the sense of responsibility. Risk has been largely removed. Corporations may get the message that they can take all the chances they want, be lazy, complacent, inefficient, even corrupt. No problem. The government will rescue you with the taxpayers' dollars. When there is no risk of failure, individuals and corporations lose their sense of fear and responsibility; greed begins to take over. What are the lessons we are teaching our children, who will one day run the small businesses, farms and corporations in this land?

It takes courage to be a Republican, to stand tall and say it is not the government's responsibility to step in when businesses fail. But it is the best thing for everyone concerned in the long run. Businesses will learn to be better, smarter, and wiser.

We understand that when a business fails, people lose jobs and livelihoods. We need to be cognizant of that and provide every opportunity for those individuals affected to find new employment and business opportunities as quickly as possible. In a truly unencumbered free market, opportunities will be available for people to start over and build wealth. If we hold to these core principles, we will all be better off as individuals and as a nation.

How Do We Keep America Strong?

Much has been made of the recent "bailouts" and loan guarantees offered to private banks and corporations in the United States. It brings up the question of what the proper role of government should be and what would be best for all of us in the long run.

Individual (and Corporate) Responsibility vs. Government Assistance
Among the concepts that have made America a great and strong nation is one of personal responsibility. We are not a nation of wimps. We were founded on the principles of self-reliance and responsibility for our actions. If we were successful in our endeavors, we reaped the rewards; if we failed, we took our "lumps", retrenched and tried again.

Over time, we have begun to lose sight of this concept. Today, we have a Congress that appears to no longer believe in risk and reward, success and failure, individual liberty and personal responsibility. The action by Congress in regard to the Wall Street and banking failures, and now with the automotive manufacturers has been characterized as "capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down." The message is it is OK to take risks while you are succeeding, but if failure looms, the government will swoop in to save you.

The problem in the long run is the loss of the sense of responsibility. Risk has been largely removed. Corporations may get the message that they can take all the chances they want, be lazy, complacent, inefficient, even corrupt. No problem. The government will rescue you with the taxpayers' dollars. When there is no risk of failure, individuals and corporations lose their sense of fear and responsibility; greed begins to take over. What are the lessons we are teaching our children, who will one day run the small businesses, farms and corporations in this land?

It takes courage to be a Republican, to stand tall and say it is not the government's responsibility to step in when businesses fail. But it is the best thing for everyone concerned in the long run. Businesses will learn to be better, smarter, and wiser.

We understand that when a business fails, people lose jobs and livelihoods. We need to be cognizant of that and provide every opportunity for those individuals affected to find new employment and business opportunities as quickly as possible. In a truly unencumbered free market, opportunities will be available for people to start over and build wealth. If we hold to these core principles, we will all be better off as individuals and as a nation.

Restoring the Republican Brand

As we move through the process of selecting a new Chairman, it is important that you have as much information as you can get to make an informed decision. Over the next few weeks, I will be sharing with you some of the specific plans I have to turn the Republican Party in Michigan around.

Rebuilding a Strong Republican Party, Step One

The first thing we must do is "restore the brand." Republicans have been known for years as the party of less government, strong defense and social conservatism. More recently, who we are and what we stand for has become fuzzy in the minds of many voters. At the federal level, huge budget increases and the recent bailouts of private companies have tarnished our image as fiscal conservatives. Early missteps in the prosecution of the Iraq war and the constant drubbing by the press since have obscured the real successes we have achieved and have further hurt our image. Additionally, we have become splintered on some social issues.

In Michigan we were all damaged when a few members of the Republican caucus voted for parts of the biggest tax hike in state history. Over the last six years, since gaining a huge 63-47 majority in the House, we often went along with targeted tax and fee increases and too much growth of government. As our economy sputtered, we were unable to distinguish ourselves as the fiscal conservatives ready to offer solutions to turn things around economically.

Where do we go from here? This party has exactly what the voters and taxpayers are looking for. The problem is, we have not communicated nor carried it out effectively. How do we turn this around?

First, I am ready to work with the leadership in the Senate and the House to craft policy and a message that clearly communicates to the voting public that we stand for the things that matter to them, and we are willing to work hard to carry them out. As a six-year veteran of the House, I have experience with the workings of policy and politics in the legislature.

Second, I am ready to work with the district and county leadership of the party statewide to articulate our message as a party and begin to identify community leaders who can win House and Senate races. I traveled the state extensively in 2005 and all of the past year as a candidate for US Senate. I learned that while our key principles do not vary from one region of the state to another, they do have to be tailored and crafted for each district and county. One size does not fit all.

This will be challenging, but I believe it is the only way we will win back our donor and voter base and start winning elections again.

I look forward to your input and questions. I would be honored to have your endorsement. You may sign up here.

Time for Bold Leadership. For instance...

It is time for the Republican Party to exhibit bold leadership. From the bottom to the top, we need activists, elected officials and leaders who are ready to pull together and lead this party out of its malaise. Being "against" things is not good enough.. "I'm not a democrat" surely will not do. It is time to be for things that will move Michigan forward. We need to win votes in the urban centers of our state. We simply need to lead on the issues that people in the cities care about.

For example, since Proposal A was passed more than a decade ago, funding for public education has increased at nearly double the rate of inflation. Detroit receives more than $10,000 per student. On top of that, we have "No Child Left Behind", the ill-fated federal program that is now pumping $55 billion per year into public education. And yet, we see virtually no improvement. In fact, in most urban centers we see decline. Detroit only graduates 25% of its students! What bold, positive steps can we take that will earn the respect, support, and votes of Michigan residents?

We can advocate for teacher merit pay. We need to tell hard-working, dedicated public school teachers that they should be rewarded for their efforts rather than carry the weight of others who are not putting in the effort. The weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal published an editorial about Washington, D.C. school Chancellor, Michelle Rhee who is taking on the education union in the District. She is quoted as saying, "Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits unions." Ms. Rhee has proposed reforms that would allow teachers to earn merit increases of nearly 100% in exchange for giving up tenure.

We should commit to expansion of parental choice in public education. Let's give the parents of Detroit and many other areas of the state, who are locked in a failing, bankrupt school system the option of placing their children in public school academies, "charter" schools. These schools are funded by the state, but run by independent chartering agencies. There are many operating in Michigan already, and most have done well. Their achievement scores are above the traditional schools in the same geographical locations. But, the state has placed an artificial "cap" on the number of new charters that may be opened. Detroit is maxed out, even though virtually every charter school in Detroit is full and has a long waiting list.

The parents of this state deserve better, and we have the opportunity to provide it to them, but it will require boldness on the part of legislative leaders. It will take courage to challenge the MEA and the Detroit Federation of Teachers to reform. But for the sake of the students, they should allow merit pay for teachers and the expansion of charter schools. But I believe that if we, as a Republican party take these bold steps, we will see an improvement in public education in Michigan and we will see voters coming back to the Republican party because they realize we have the bold solutions to improve Michigan. If we lead, the voters will join us at the ballot box.

Can We Get the Donors Back?

Contributions to the Michigan Republican Party are apparently down. One might ask why. What happened to cause a decline in contributions?

I was in sales and marketing for 15 years before spending 7 years in the non-profit business and six years in full-time elective office. I learned some valuable lessons in my sales career. One of those was that you can be a very good salesman, sell products at a very competitive price and deliver the goods on time, but if your product was inferior, before long you would lose the business to a competitor. It is important to deliver the product as it was represented and keep the quality up.

In my travels around the state over the last year while running for US Senate, I talked to hundreds of loyal Republicans. Many expressed frustration with "product quality." One donor I talked to told me he was very frustrated with Republican elected officials who voted to raise taxes and spend more money. As he put it, "I am not mad at the Democrats, they told me they would raise taxes and spend more. I am angry with the Republicans because they said they were for low taxes and less government." To paraphrase another large donor who stopped giving, "Why should I give to the Republican party? I can get the same thing from the Democrats for nothing!"

No question about it, we must improve the quality of our "product". What does that mean for the Republican party in Michigan? I believe it means we must clearly define who we are and what we stand for and then recruit candidates who will "sell" the product as represented and "deliver" the product when the order is placed.

Another lesson I learned in sales, it is much easier to sell the product when the customer trusts you. For the party this means we will raise money much more effectively and easily if we keep the pledge to our constituents to represent those core principles that made the Republican party so successful in years gone by.

My pledge to you as your State Party Chair is to rebuild the party into one with a top quality product that is delivered as it is represented.

Change or Change Back?

"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order - or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, 'The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.'"

-Ronald Reagan, October 27, 1964

The above quotation came from Ronald Reagan's speech, "A Time For Choosing," which he delivered in October of 1964. Isn't it amazing how timely his words are forty-four years later?

This year's election cycle was all about change: "Change we can believe in." But what does that really mean? There is no question that voters are looking for change, but I wonder if perhaps they are truly seeking what used to be. I believe the people want to go back to the days when government did what it was designed to do: "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Where does the ever-expanding role of government in our everyday affairs fit into that description? Do taxpayers really want to be told how to raise their familes, educate their children, care for their personal property, and run their businesses? Do they believe that government should come to the rescue of giant corporations that are facing bankruptcy? Do they trust government to provide for the general welfare? Or do they recognize that these actions are leading us "down to the antheap of totalitarianism"?

I belive that we as Republicans need to lead this nation in a return -- a change back -- to the abiding principles that made this the greatest nation on earth: those principles that put trust in the people, that empower each individual to chart his own course, to succeed without government's assistance, and to reach "the maximum of individual freedom, consistent with order."

It is time to begin the long journey back to core principles. These principles, if we articulate them, believe in them, and carry them out faithfully, will provide the best opportunities for all our citizens to achieve the things they dream about for themselves, their families, and their businesses. Now is our opportunity. Are you willing?

Change or Change Back?

"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order - or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, 'The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.'"

-Ronald Reagan, October 27, 1964

The above quotation came from Ronald Reagan's speech, "A Time For Choosing," which he delivered in October of 1964. Isn't it amazing how timely his words are forty-four years later?

This year's election cycle was all about change: "Change we can believe in." But what does that really mean? There is no question that voters are looking for change, but I wonder if perhaps they are truly seeking what used to be. I believe the people want to go back to the days when government did what it was designed to do: "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Where does the ever-expanding role of government in our everyday affairs fit into that description? Do taxpayers really want to be told how to raise their familes, educate their children, care for their personal property, and run their businesses? Do they believe that government should come to the rescue of giant corporations that are facing bankruptcy? Do they trust government to provide for the general welfare? Or do they recognize that these actions are leading us "down to the antheap of totalitarianism"?

I belive that we as Republicans need to lead this nation in a return -- a change back -- to the abiding principles that made this the greatest nation on earth: those principles that put trust in the people, that empower each individual to chart his own course, to succeed without government's assistance, and to reach "the maximum of individual freedom, consistent with order."

It is time to begin the long journey back to core principles. These principles, if we articulate them, believe in them, and carry them out faithfully, will provide the best opportunities for all our citizens to achieve the things they dream about for themselves, their families, and their businesses. Now is our opportunity. Are you willing?

Jack for State Party Chairman

I sent many of you an email early on Friday morning about my interest in running for state party chair. The response has been overwhelming. Hundreds have already written back and nearly everyone has been encouraging.

The Republican Party in Michigan is hurting. Since I took office in January of 2003, we have lost 20 House seats, three Senate seats, two Congressmen, a Supreme Court Chief Justice, and countless township and county officials. We failed to regain the governor's mansion in 2006 and we missed on US Senate seats in 2006 and 2008. We have consistently lost the debate in the battle of ideas.

It is time to make an evaluation of the situation and resolve to make some significant changes. There is no point in dwelling on personalities or looking back. What is important is that we right the ship before it sinks.

In my letter from Friday, I mentioned that I was waiting on Chairman Anuzis. My expectation was that his decision regarding party chair was imminent. I was inclined to wait for his decision before announcing mine. He has since let me know that it may be "a week" before he decides. So after much evaluation, I have decided to go forward and announce that I will be a candidate for Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party.

I would like to share with you some of the things I believe we need to do:

• We need to unify the party around the core principles that define who we are as Republicans. The Number One priority is reducing the size of government.


• We need to identify the key issues that identify Republicans and which will win at the ballot box.


• We need to begin working with local county leaders to identify strong candidates for House and Senate who will grasp the issues and commit to supporting them.


• We must organize our ground game to build strength in the high schools, universities, and grass roots organizations.


• We must improve communication between state leadership, the districts, the counties and the membership.


• The party has lacked transparency and accountability. We need to audit the books and become a lean, efficient operation. Vendors need to earn their business through a bidding process.


• It is time for the party to go on offense, to engage the voters in an issue-based campaign.

Over the last three years, I have traveled all around Michigan and gotten to know many of you. I have heard your concerns as well as your ideas about how to once again win elections.

Too many times, the message coming from Republican leadership has been that we need to moderate, compromise, be bi-partisan. I can tell you that in the House, the message for six years was one of compromise, conciliation, and moderation. Instead of going on offense, we played defense; we surrendered our principles to the point that we went from a 63-47 majority to a 67-43 minority. And yet, the voices of "reason" continue to say that we keep losing because we are too far right.

I can tell you from experience that the voters and taxpayers of this state feel differently. Republican and independent voters want to see us take the bold steps of leadership that we have been unwilling to take. There are many examples. Whether it is keeping taxes low and spending under control or giving parents choice in education or protecting private property rights, we have missed many opportunities to lead.

I pledge to you that as your chairman, I will work to bring the core principles to the forefront and in so doing, help us win back the majority for the Republicans so we can once again bring real conservative leadership and a strong economy back to the great state of Michigan. As we move forward in this process, I will be communicating ideas on how we can regain the majority in the legislature and elect a Republican governor in 2010.

I will be calling you soon to answer your questions and ask for your support. Meanwhile, please feel free to send me an e-mail or call me at 269-806-4626.

Regards,
Jack Hoogendyk

Jack for State Party Chairman

I sent many of you an email early on Friday morning about my interest in running for state party chair. The response has been overwhelming. Hundreds have already written back and nearly everyone has been encouraging.

The Republican Party in Michigan is hurting. Since I took office in January of 2003, we have lost 20 House seats, three Senate seats, two Congressmen, a Supreme Court Chief Justice, and countless township and county officials. We failed to regain the governor's mansion in 2006 and we missed on US Senate seats in 2006 and 2008. We have consistently lost the debate in the battle of ideas.

It is time to make an evaluation of the situation and resolve to make some significant changes. There is no point in dwelling on personalities or looking back. What is important is that we right the ship before it sinks.

In my letter from Friday, I mentioned that I was waiting on Chairman Anuzis. My expectation was that his decision regarding party chair was imminent. I was inclined to wait for his decision before announcing mine. He has since let me know that it may be "a week" before he decides. So after much evaluation, I have decided to go forward and announce that I will be a candidate for Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party.

I would like to share with you some of the things I believe we need to do:

• We need to unify the party around the core principles that define who we are as Republicans. The Number One priority is reducing the size of government.


• We need to identify the key issues that identify Republicans and which will win at the ballot box.


• We need to begin working with local county leaders to identify strong candidates for House and Senate who will grasp the issues and commit to supporting them.


• We must organize our ground game to build strength in the high schools, universities, and grass roots organizations.


• We must improve communication between state leadership, the districts, the counties and the membership.


• The party has lacked transparency and accountability. We need to audit the books and become a lean, efficient operation. Vendors need to earn their business through a bidding process.


• It is time for the party to go on offense, to engage the voters in an issue-based campaign.

Over the last three years, I have traveled all around Michigan and gotten to know many of you. I have heard your concerns as well as your ideas about how to once again win elections.

Too many times, the message coming from Republican leadership has been that we need to moderate, compromise, be bi-partisan. I can tell you that in the House, the message for six years was one of compromise, conciliation, and moderation. Instead of going on offense, we played defense; we surrendered our principles to the point that we went from a 63-47 majority to a 67-43 minority. And yet, the voices of "reason" continue to say that we keep losing because we are too far right.

I can tell you from experience that the voters and taxpayers of this state feel differently. Republican and independent voters want to see us take the bold steps of leadership that we have been unwilling to take. There are many examples. Whether it is keeping taxes low and spending under control or giving parents choice in education or protecting private property rights, we have missed many opportunities to lead.

I pledge to you that as your chairman, I will work to bring the core principles to the forefront and in so doing, help us win back the majority for the Republicans so we can once again bring real conservative leadership and a strong economy back to the great state of Michigan. As we move forward in this process, I will be communicating ideas on how we can regain the majority in the legislature and elect a Republican governor in 2010.

I will be calling you soon to answer your questions and ask for your support. Meanwhile, please feel free to send me an e-mail or call me at 269-806-4626.

Regards,
Jack Hoogendyk

The Silver Lining for Republicans

It is an obvious understatement to say last night was an historic one for our country. But something remarkable happened for the Republican party in Michigan that many might have overlooked. For the first time in over 100 years, voters elected a black Republican to the House of Representatives.

Michigan, in fact, elected two black Republicans - Larry DeShazor and Paul Scott.

I heard one lady in Chicago's Grant Park last night say, "Now, blacks have shown they can do anything!" Indeed, but this truism is something the party of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr. have believed for a long time.

Larry DeShazor and Paul Scott overcame the overwhelming wave of Democratic victories across the state by winning two races that one would have predicted as wins for the Democrats. This is no fluke. I know both Paul and Larry, and I can tell you they are bright and articulate future leaders for the party and our state.

History was made across this country; it was also made right here, in Michigan. I am confident that Larry and Paul will be more than just members of the caucus. They will bring the leadership skills our Republican caucus has sorely needed. As I leave the House caucus at the end of the year, I regret that I will not have the opportunity to serve with these two fine young leaders for our party.

Larry and Paul, my congratulations to you both for winning hard-fought primaries and general elections. You have been tested and you have proved your mettle. I look forward to you leading the way for this great party and for our state. I believe that you two will be keys to bringing our party back to prominence as the party of individual liberty and opportunity for all.

The Silver Lining for Republicans

It is an obvious understatement to say last night was an historic one for our country. But something remarkable happened for the Republican party in Michigan that many might have overlooked. For the first time in over 100 years, voters elected a black Republican to the House of Representatives.

Michigan, in fact, elected two black Republicans - Larry DeShazor and Paul Scott.

I heard one lady in Chicago's Grant Park last night say, "Now, blacks have shown they can do anything!" Indeed, but this truism is something the party of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr. have believed for a long time.

Larry DeShazor and Paul Scott overcame the overwhelming wave of Democratic victories across the state by winning two races that one would have predicted as wins for the Democrats. This is no fluke. I know both Paul and Larry, and I can tell you they are bright and articulate future leaders for the party and our state.

History was made across this country; it was also made right here, in Michigan. I am confident that Larry and Paul will be more than just members of the caucus. They will bring the leadership skills our Republican caucus has sorely needed. As I leave the House caucus at the end of the year, I regret that I will not have the opportunity to serve with these two fine young leaders for our party.

Larry and Paul, my congratulations to you both for winning hard-fought primaries and general elections. You have been tested and you have proved your mettle. I look forward to you leading the way for this great party and for our state. I believe that you two will be keys to bringing our party back to prominence as the party of individual liberty and opportunity for all.

Seen this Movie Before...?

I Think I've Seen This Movie Before...

The $700 billion financial services bailout, with its attendant $150 billion in "sweeteners" a.k.a. pork, has been in place for only a couple of weeks. But now something interesting is starting to happen...

You Have Your Tax-eaters and Your Tax-payers...

One of the things I learned in my six years in Lansing is that the population of Michigan can be divided into two groups: those who pay taxes into the state treasury and those who withdraw tax dollars out of the state treasury.

Those who pay in (the large majority) do not have much representation in Lansing, a.k.a. lobbyists. They can't afford it. The groups who benefit from the largesse of government have a great deal of representation. They can afford it because they use some of the public money they receive to hire the lobbyists. Nice deal, huh?

The attached story is instructive. It tells what happens when the government hangs out a sign that says. "Free Money." Well, OK, this money isn't totally free, but nonetheless, everybody wants a piece of the action. This is the danger of Washington giving out low interest loans to certain distressed industries. Others raise their hands and say, "me too!" Can you blame them?

We are over $10 trillion in debt, having added $1 trillion in the last month alone. We are bankrupting our future and putting our descendants in serious financial jeopardy. When will the demagogues in Washington stop trying to make everyone in America into a dependent?

"Companies Start Competing for Bailout Money"

WASHINGTON (AP) - The bailout is now the hottest lobbying game in town.
Insurers, automakers and American subsidiaries of foreign banks all want the Treasury Department to cut them a piece of the largest government rescue in U.S. history.

Read full article here.

Hoogendyk and Levin to Face Off in Two Debates

US Senate Candidates Will Meet in Detroit and Grand Rapids

Michigan - October 2, 2008 - US Senate candidates Jack Hoogendyk and Carl Levin have agreed to participate in at least two debates this election season. The first, scheduled for October 19th, will be hosted by WGVU and Grand Valley State University. All seven of Michigan's public television stations have agreed to broadcast the debate live at 7 pm. The second debate will be the following day, October 20th, at the Detroit Economic Club.  Click here for tickets to debate in Detroit.
 
"The unusual thing about these debates is that no negotiations were involved whatsoever -- at least, not that our campaign knew about," said Hoogendyk. "Senator Levin's office sent a letter on September 2nd offering to open up negotiations regarding potential debates, but since that time no one from my campaign has been able to begin to negotiate or even to make contact with the Levin campaign. Phone calls, letters, and e-mails received little or no response. Finally we were contacted by the debate hosts to inform us that Senator Levin had agreed to the debates.
 
"However, I am glad that Senator Levin recognizes the value of making himself available to answer the voters' questions and make known his positions on the issues. I look forward to the opportunity to tell the voters why reform is needed in the US Senate, and how I plan to bring that about."

Levin Sinking in Polls

In the most recent poll from Public Policy Polling, 30-year incumbent Carl Levin is down from a high in May of 58% to only 50%! And that is before he voted FOR the $700 billion dollar bailout of the corrupted Fannie Mae, that had $150 billion in earmarks added to it by the Senate.

The House and Senate have just approved the biggest bailout in American history. The American people have been fooled, maybe for the last time. They are on to the fact that leaders of Government Sponsored Enterprises like Fannie Mae were corrupt. Taxpayers are angry about the fact that not only are they being asked to pay the tab for $700 billion in losses, but now they have had an additional $150 billion in earmarks foisted on them.  That's $500 worth of pork rinds for every man, woman, and child in this great country, including the illegal immigrants!

I believe the people of this state will become even angrier when they find out how much the Democrat leaders in Congress protected their corrupt friends and swept these huge financial failures under the rug.

And where was Carl Levin as all of this was going on? When the Community Reinvestment Act was greatly expanded in the early 90's, forcing banks to give zero down mortgages, he was there. When attempts were made to repeal the CRA, he was fighting it. When the financial markets were DE-regulated, he voted for it. When attempts were made several times to put regulations in place to stop the bleeding, he was there, doing absolutely nothing about it.

What is especially curious about this is that Carl Levin is the Chairman of the Senate Permanent Sub-committee on investigations which is charged with investigating "federal waste, fraud, and abuse." But a brief perusal of his web site reveals that while Carl Levin loves to investigate private corporations and businesses, he apparently doesn't see any corruption in government!

The most massive abuse of taxpayer dollars by government agencies in American history happens right under the Senator's nose and he never notices? Not even after several congressional hearings and legislative proposals to address the problem? Come on, senator? Where were you?

Senator Levin's inaction in spite of red flags waving and alarm horns blaring is evidence that he has been in Washington long enough. It is time for a Senator who will not vote for earmarks, a senator who will not vote for budgets that are out of balance, a senator who will not be bought off by lobbyists or special interest groups. We need a Senator who is paying enough attention to notice when the taxpayers are being ripped off by a bunch of Wall Street "golden-parachute" fat cats and liberal friends of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

If you have any doubts about these assertions, I invite you to watch this.

My pledge to you is that I will keep doing in Washington what I have been doing in Lansing for six years, protecting your hard-earned tax dollars.
 
Please help spread the word! Forward this letter to your entire mailbox; tell them to remember to vote for not change, but REFORM!

If everyone who reads this can just tell a few friends, we will win! Click here.

Send a contribution. As little as $10 will make a huge difference. Contribute here.
 

Hoogendyk: Levin is on the Side of Big Government

US Senate Candidate Calls for Action in Favor of the Market

Michigan - October 3, 2008 - US Senate Candidate Jack Hoogendyk expressed his strong disagreement with Senator Carl Levin's vote in favor of the bailout package. Two days ago, Michigan's US senators split on the bill: Senator Stabenow voted against it, whereas Senator Levin voted for it.
 
"I applaud Senator Stabenow's 'no' vote," Hoogendyk said, "but it does not come as a surprise that, once again, Senator Carl Levin has chosen to put himself on the side of the 'we-know-better-than-you' government rather than on the side of the people, individual potential, and the free market. If Congress does indeed pass this legislation, we will have missed a golden opportunity to reduce the burden of taxation and misguided regulation."
 
"The capital gains tax, the corporate tax, and the mark to market rule of accounting are all examples of government burdens that, if removed, would produce immediate results for the economy. While I recognize the urgency of this crisis, I cannot support a government solution that may provide short-term relief but will further hamper economic growth in the long run."

In Spite of Financial Crisis, Levin wants to fund LightHouse Restoration

Michigan's senators want to create a federal
program to help pay for the preservation of historic lighthouses.


U.S. Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow have introduced a bill
to let states and nonprofit organizations apply for competitive
grants to restore and maintain lighthouses.


The two Democrats say the pilot program would distribute $20
million a year for three years. Funds would be distributed based on
the percentage of historic lighthouses in each state.

Michigan has more lighthouses than any other state.


The bill was introduced Wednesday and referred to the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 
Read more here.

In Spite of Financial Crisis, Levin wants to fund LightHouse Restoration

Michigan's senators want to create a federal
program to help pay for the preservation of historic lighthouses.


U.S. Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow have introduced a bill
to let states and nonprofit organizations apply for competitive
grants to restore and maintain lighthouses.


The two Democrats say the pilot program would distribute $20
million a year for three years. Funds would be distributed based on
the percentage of historic lighthouses in each state.

Michigan has more lighthouses than any other state.


The bill was introduced Wednesday and referred to the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 
Read more here.

Is Carl Levin Having a Convenient Lapse in Memory?

When asked last week by WJR morning radio host, Paul W. Smith whether there was blame to be laid for this "market meltdown", Carl Levin could not help but place it on President Bush. He said that the "economic policies and deregulatory policies of this administration are the major cause of this economy being where it is at."  Either Mr. Levin is playing on the ignorance of the voters, or he has forgotten what role he himself played in this mess.
 
It All Started With the Community Reinvestment Act  
 
Unless you just returned from a three-month fishing trip in Yellowknife where there are no radios, cell phones or Internet, you certainly know that the financial markets are in difficulty. It seems all these mortgages that so many folks obtained with little or no equity or credit rating, have suddenly crashed around all of us.

The genesis of this collapse is the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977. This act which was championed by President Carter required lending institutions to offer credit and home ownership opportunities to "underserved populations." This happened as a result of pressure from community organizers and groups like ACORN.

What it ultimately led to was a large number of no-money-down or poor-credit-rating mortgages. These mortgages were only moderately risky as long as housing prices continued to escalate. In 1995 under Bill Clinton, the CRA was liberalized to "generate billions of dollars in new lending and extend basic banking to the inner cities and to distressed rural communities."

Now that the housing market is in full collapse, the chickens are, as they say, coming home to roost. Could this have been foreseen? Could this have been prevented? Of course. If all of us had exercised a little common sense added to a strong dose of personal responsibility, this would not have happened. Short of that, some solid regulation would have helped.

In fact, regulatory reform was proposed in the U.S. Senate in 2005. The bill, S.190 was introduced by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel and co-sponsored by Sens. Dole (R),  Sununu (R), and McCain (R). It would have put some good controls in place to largely prevent the meltdown that is occurring today. The bill was supported by four Republicans and no Democrats. Where was Senator Levin on this? I cannot find any evidence of his support for the bill and, in fact, it was Democrats that effectively killed the bill out of committee.

President Bush had proposed a significant regulatory overhaul of the housing finance industry in 2003. It even included reducing the power of the administration. The New York Times reported on it. Democrats opposed it. Again, Carl Levin does not appear to have supported it. Congressman Barney Frank (D), said it was unnecessary. It never saw the light of day.

Going back a little further, a bill was introduced in 1999, S.900, which would have put some controls in place and, in effect, "weaken" the Community Reinvestment Act. Carl Levin opposed it saying this, "I oppose the provisions weakening the CRA included in S.900, a bill intended to modernize the financial sector of our economy."

It certainly looks like Carl Levin and his Democrat (and some Republican) colleagues passed on numerous opportunities to address the crisis that was rising on the horizon as far back as 1994. Legislation was offered to reign in the problem. Senator Levin is certainly motivated to find answers now, but where was he in 1994, 1999, 2003, and 2005? It's no wonder that in his interview with Paul W. Smith, he mentioned that we should not look back, but rather, look forward. 

Not Everyone in Michigan is Suffering

We received the following letter, and thought you'd find it interesting.

Jack,

Big supporter - can't wait to see some debates.  I thought I would pass this thought along to you.

When Levin took office, Michigan was a boom state as was the whole Midwest. Since he has been supposedly taking care of us, we have seen the area from Gary, Indiana to the eastern side of Pennsylvania become known as the Rust Belt. In the same time period, I employed 11 people and had an average salary over that time period of $80,000. I now have a total of $18,000 reserve cash, about $100,000 in IRA, and have business and mortgage debt of around $900,000.

Now, Mr. Levin has wealth beyond my dreams, no debt that I know of, has a retirement fund in the millions, more cash than I have ever seen in one place, [and] lives in an incredible home in a fancy upper class neighborhood. All this and his average income over the same period is less than mine.
 
How can a supposed public servant do so drastically much better then I, a small business owner, who has had his financial security on the line the whole time? I stuck my neck out there to actually create jobs and to try and secure financial security for my family. I have to match all of my employees' Social Security, effectively making me pay 11 times the amount of a non-business owner. And, the feds have spent it.

I or my family will never see even a fraction of the money I have put into Social Security. I would have been better off putting it into a savings account. My business property pays $25,000 a year in property taxes. (I have yet to make anywhere near this on my property investment -- value down, rent income flat or not able to rent space etc). The government makes the money off of my investment.

I tell you it is all wrong, and the list goes on. I read that the state of Michigan owes the feds for unemployment money and that we business owners may be hit with their penalty charges, and the list goes on. I would love to be able to ask Levin questions in a public format.

I beg you for us out here, don't give him an inch. Call him on everything. We need some real support for us and our state in DC.

Thanks for being there.

[Name Withheld]

Not Everyone in Michigan is Suffering

We received the following letter, and thought you'd find it interesting.

Jack,

Big supporter - can't wait to see some debates.  I thought I would pass this thought along to you.

When Levin took office, Michigan was a boom state as was the whole Midwest. Since he has been supposedly taking care of us, we have seen the area from Gary, Indiana to the eastern side of Pennsylvania become known as the Rust Belt. In the same time period, I employed 11 people and had an average salary over that time period of $80,000. I now have a total of $18,000 reserve cash, about $100,000 in IRA, and have business and mortgage debt of around $900,000.

Now, Mr. Levin has wealth beyond my dreams, no debt that I know of, has a retirement fund in the millions, more cash than I have ever seen in one place, [and] lives in an incredible home in a fancy upper class neighborhood. All this and his average income over the same period is less than mine.
 
How can a supposed public servant do so drastically much better then I, a small business owner, who has had his financial security on the line the whole time? I stuck my neck out there to actually create jobs and to try and secure financial security for my family. I have to match all of my employees' Social Security, effectively making me pay 11 times the amount of a non-business owner. And, the feds have spent it.

I or my family will never see even a fraction of the money I have put into Social Security. I would have been better off putting it into a savings account. My business property pays $25,000 a year in property taxes. (I have yet to make anywhere near this on my property investment -- value down, rent income flat or not able to rent space etc). The government makes the money off of my investment.

I tell you it is all wrong, and the list goes on. I read that the state of Michigan owes the feds for unemployment money and that we business owners may be hit with their penalty charges, and the list goes on. I would love to be able to ask Levin questions in a public format.

I beg you for us out here, don't give him an inch. Call him on everything. We need some real support for us and our state in DC.

Thanks for being there.

[Name Withheld]

Levin outsmarted by blogger

Here is a great blog that explains how Carl Levin is demagogue-ing and
misleading the public on corporate taxes...

Leah writes,

"As a journalism major, I'm always interested in stories that have to do
with journalists, their education, and their schools. Where is the
major going? And what do experts have to say about it?

I recently read a blog that brought a large error to my attention. In the New York Times, there was an article about corporations not paying taxes.
Go follow the link and head to the bottom of the page. You'll find a
correction there - apparently their journalists (or editors, for this
case) didn't know the difference between revenue and profit."

Read Leah's entire post here.

Levin outsmarted by blogger

Here is a great blog that explains how Carl Levin is demagogue-ing and
misleading the public on corporate taxes...

Leah writes,

"As a journalism major, I'm always interested in stories that have to do
with journalists, their education, and their schools. Where is the
major going? And what do experts have to say about it?

I recently read a blog that brought a large error to my attention. In the New York Times, there was an article about corporations not paying taxes.
Go follow the link and head to the bottom of the page. You'll find a
correction there - apparently their journalists (or editors, for this
case) didn't know the difference between revenue and profit."

Read Leah's entire post here.

I Guess this Question is Above Carl Levin’s Pay Grade, Too.

Carl Levin is a learned man, a lawyer, I believe. He has been serving in the US Senate since 1978. And, yet, he cannot figure out when life begins. In a recent letter to a constituent, his response to the question of overturning Roe V. Wade was as follows:

“Until there is a greater consensus among medical, scientific, and religious leaders about when life begins, I am unwilling to support legislation which would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and weaken a woman’s right to make an individual decision on abortion.”

Either Senator Levin is the biggest coward since Barack Obama, or he can’t accept good scientific evidence. Or perhaps the good Senator is so deep in the pockets of the pro-abortion lobby that he has chosen to ignore information that is as plain as the spectacles on his nose.

I guess if you really think about it, Mr. Levin is pretty clever. He didn’t say, “until there is compelling evidence” because the evidence is very compelling. What he said was, “until there is greater consensus.” So, apparently Mr. Levin’s courage goes about as far as the door to his office. I can only assume that he will continue to support the legal right of a doctor to slaughter the innocents until 100% of all doctors, scientists, and clergy agree that life begins at conception.

Levin doesn’t care about truth; he only cares about opinion. Is this the kind of principled, courageous leadership you want from your US Senator?

I Guess this Question is Above Carl Levin’s Pay Grade, Too.

Carl Levin is a learned man, a lawyer, I believe. He has been serving in the US Senate since 1978. And, yet, he cannot figure out when life begins. In a recent letter to a constituent, his response to the question of overturning Roe V. Wade was as follows:

“Until there is a greater consensus among medical, scientific, and religious leaders about when life begins, I am unwilling to support legislation which would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and weaken a woman’s right to make an individual decision on abortion.”

Either Senator Levin is the biggest coward since Barack Obama, or he can’t accept good scientific evidence. Or perhaps the good Senator is so deep in the pockets of the pro-abortion lobby that he has chosen to ignore information that is as plain as the spectacles on his nose.

I guess if you really think about it, Mr. Levin is pretty clever. He didn’t say, “until there is compelling evidence” because the evidence is very compelling. What he said was, “until there is greater consensus.” So, apparently Mr. Levin’s courage goes about as far as the door to his office. I can only assume that he will continue to support the legal right of a doctor to slaughter the innocents until 100% of all doctors, scientists, and clergy agree that life begins at conception.

Levin doesn’t care about truth; he only cares about opinion. Is this the kind of principled, courageous leadership you want from your US Senator?

Levin's True Colors

By Matthew May

Most readers are no doubt familiar with Carl Levin. He has been seen in action recently attempting to undermine Gen. David Petraeus, putting him in line with the vile MoveOn.org. Sen. Levin voted against confirming Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court. He voted for $51.9 million worth of funding toward something called "21st Century Community Learning Centers." He rates an astonishing 0 percent from the National Right to Life Committee and rarely meets an expansion of federal money to public schools he does not like – yet he voted against letting parents of schoolchildren in the District of Columbia utilize vouchers (1997). The list goes on forever because Sen. Levin has been in Washington forever. He is a living, breathing argument for term limits.

• He criticized General Petraeus
  


• He voted against Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court
  


• He voted for $51.9 million for a "21st Century Learning Center"
  


• He rates a 0% with Right to Life
  


• He voted against giving parents free choice in public education in Washington DC
  


• read more here...

Levin's True Colors

By Matthew May

Most readers are no doubt familiar with Carl Levin. He has been seen in action recently attempting to undermine Gen. David Petraeus, putting him in line with the vile MoveOn.org. Sen. Levin voted against confirming Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court. He voted for $51.9 million worth of funding toward something called "21st Century Community Learning Centers." He rates an astonishing 0 percent from the National Right to Life Committee and rarely meets an expansion of federal money to public schools he does not like – yet he voted against letting parents of schoolchildren in the District of Columbia utilize vouchers (1997). The list goes on forever because Sen. Levin has been in Washington forever. He is a living, breathing argument for term limits.

• He criticized General Petraeus
  


• He voted against Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court
  


• He voted for $51.9 million for a "21st Century Learning Center"
  


• He rates a 0% with Right to Life
  


• He voted against giving parents free choice in public education in Washington DC
  


• read more here...

Real Change in Michigan – and Washington

by Matt May

Translated from the Latin, the official motto of the state of Michigan declares that "If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you." A fitting motto for the state of Michigan might be "If you seek the yield of leftist governance, look about you.

"Hoogendyk can quicken the pace of the sort of self-reliant change
envisioned by the Founders – the change McCain-Palin pledge to bring."

Last week was a perfect storm of the wreckage Democrats have wrought on the state and its largest, once-bejeweled city. Our ineffectual Governor Jennifer Granholm convened a hearing to determine if Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick should be ousted from office, the hearing coming at the request of the city council.

Before its conclusion, Kilpatrick took a plea deal that requires him – among other punishments - to surrender his office, spend three months in jail, and refrain from running for any public office for five years. Defiant as ever, Kilpatrick bid a temporary farewell to the city by vowing to reappear as he invoked the stirring eloquence of Lincoln or Webster: "Y'all done set me up for a comeback." He wasn't kidding. Kilpatrick's mother is the caustic Carolyn Cheeks-Kilpatrick, head of the Congressional Black Caucus. Do not be surprised if she manages to hold on to her seat and retire when her son is allowed to run for office again, and do not be surprised if the dismal voters of that district aid and abet anointing another Kilpatrick to "serve."

While the mayor resigns on his way to the cooler, and the wife of Rep. John Conyers (the notorious head of the House Judiciary Committee) calls the incoming mayor "Shrek" during City Council assemblies and harasses hotel employees during the DNC convention, high taxes are driving those who can afford it and are lucky enough to sell their house out of the state for good. The major American auto manufacturers continue their dance of mutually assured destruction with unions who seem to grow more strident and demanding the more their products are rejected. The public schools turn out functional illiterates unprepared for the next grade level, let alone college – yet their teachers demand higher salaries and more benefits.

Unfortunately the institutional rot foisted upon the state by the Democratic Party and its many enablers is not confined to the borders. This is most evident in the presence of Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow representing Michigan in the United States Senate. Sen. Levin stands for re-election again this November. Should he win, he will begin his 30th year in the Senate. Thirty years. Thankfully someone is standing in his way. His name is Jack Hoogendyk. He is a first generation American and a member of the state legislature. He is the diametric opposite of Sen. Levin.

Most readers are no doubt familiar with Carl Levin. He has been seen in action recently attempting to undermine Gen. David Petraeus, putting him in line with the vile MoveOn.org. Sen. Levin voted against confirming Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court. He voted for $51 million worth of funding toward something called "21st Century Community Learning Centers." He rates an astonishing 0 percent from the National Right to Life Committee and rarely meets an expansion of federal money to public schools he does not like – yet he voted against letting parents of schoolchildren in the District of Columbia utilize vouchers (1997). The list goes on forever because Sen. Levin has been in Washington forever. He is a living, breathing argument for term limits.

It is one thing to vote against someone, especially someone as grimly addicted to power and its privileges as Sen. Levin. But voters – everyone – enjoy being for something more so than against. Those of us who believe in limited government and the freedom of the people have a champion in Hoogendyk, who is a conservative and legislates as one. He has a perfect record on anti-abortion legislation and upholds the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. He is highly unlikely to strike deals among various "gangs" within the Senate that end up protecting the interest of incumbent senators rather than the interests of their states or the union. Do not look for a Senator Hoogendyk buying into the witch hunt mentality Democrats like Levin have employed in defaming indispensable Americans like Petraeus, Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Justice Alito – even if a Democratic president is doing the nominating. Hoogendyk understands and respects the Constitution and the limits that the term "advice and consent" have as outlined in The Federalist Papers.

Hoogendyk can quicken the pace of the sort of self-reliant change envisioned by the Founders – the change McCain-Palin pledge to bring. It is indeed vital that Barack Obama be denied the keys to the White House. Yet little will change if people like Carl Levin are permitted to continue to obstruct, harangue, and impede while expanding the reach of federal power. Real political change is brought about not by one or two individuals, but by a movement of individuals committed to fundamental principals of republican governance. Hoogendyk is one such individual. He deserves the support of not only Michigan conservatives, but conservatives everywhere. Hoogendyk is not Democrat-lite, which means Democrat. He is not Lindsey Graham.

Sen. Obama is correct – though not in the way he means – when on the campaign trail he huffs "Enough is enough." Indeed. Conservatives fed up with squeamish Republicans in Congress have an opportunity to back a real conservative who understands that we live in a democratic republic, not a direct democracy wherein every single need of the people must be promptly addressed by the federal government. Jack Hoogendyk stands for conservative principles and should be supported in his bid to unseat the symbol of entrenched power, Carl Levin.
 
If Michiganders fail again to vote for real change, we have only ourselves to blame.

Matthew May welcomes comments at matthewtmay@yahoo.com

Real Change in Michigan – and Washington

by Matt May

Translated from the Latin, the official motto of the state of Michigan declares that "If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you." A fitting motto for the state of Michigan might be "If you seek the yield of leftist governance, look about you.

"Hoogendyk can quicken the pace of the sort of self-reliant change
envisioned by the Founders – the change McCain-Palin pledge to bring."

Last week was a perfect storm of the wreckage Democrats have wrought on the state and its largest, once-bejeweled city. Our ineffectual Governor Jennifer Granholm convened a hearing to determine if Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick should be ousted from office, the hearing coming at the request of the city council.

Before its conclusion, Kilpatrick took a plea deal that requires him – among other punishments - to surrender his office, spend three months in jail, and refrain from running for any public office for five years. Defiant as ever, Kilpatrick bid a temporary farewell to the city by vowing to reappear as he invoked the stirring eloquence of Lincoln or Webster: "Y'all done set me up for a comeback." He wasn't kidding. Kilpatrick's mother is the caustic Carolyn Cheeks-Kilpatrick, head of the Congressional Black Caucus. Do not be surprised if she manages to hold on to her seat and retire when her son is allowed to run for office again, and do not be surprised if the dismal voters of that district aid and abet anointing another Kilpatrick to "serve."

While the mayor resigns on his way to the cooler, and the wife of Rep. John Conyers (the notorious head of the House Judiciary Committee) calls the incoming mayor "Shrek" during City Council assemblies and harasses hotel employees during the DNC convention, high taxes are driving those who can afford it and are lucky enough to sell their house out of the state for good. The major American auto manufacturers continue their dance of mutually assured destruction with unions who seem to grow more strident and demanding the more their products are rejected. The public schools turn out functional illiterates unprepared for the next grade level, let alone college – yet their teachers demand higher salaries and more benefits.

Unfortunately the institutional rot foisted upon the state by the Democratic Party and its many enablers is not confined to the borders. This is most evident in the presence of Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow representing Michigan in the United States Senate. Sen. Levin stands for re-election again this November. Should he win, he will begin his 30th year in the Senate. Thirty years. Thankfully someone is standing in his way. His name is Jack Hoogendyk. He is a first generation American and a member of the state legislature. He is the diametric opposite of Sen. Levin.

Most readers are no doubt familiar with Carl Levin. He has been seen in action recently attempting to undermine Gen. David Petraeus, putting him in line with the vile MoveOn.org. Sen. Levin voted against confirming Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court. He voted for $51 million worth of funding toward something called "21st Century Community Learning Centers." He rates an astonishing 0 percent from the National Right to Life Committee and rarely meets an expansion of federal money to public schools he does not like – yet he voted against letting parents of schoolchildren in the District of Columbia utilize vouchers (1997). The list goes on forever because Sen. Levin has been in Washington forever. He is a living, breathing argument for term limits.

It is one thing to vote against someone, especially someone as grimly addicted to power and its privileges as Sen. Levin. But voters – everyone – enjoy being for something more so than against. Those of us who believe in limited government and the freedom of the people have a champion in Hoogendyk, who is a conservative and legislates as one. He has a perfect record on anti-abortion legislation and upholds the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. He is highly unlikely to strike deals among various "gangs" within the Senate that end up protecting the interest of incumbent senators rather than the interests of their states or the union. Do not look for a Senator Hoogendyk buying into the witch hunt mentality Democrats like Levin have employed in defaming indispensable Americans like Petraeus, Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Justice Alito – even if a Democratic president is doing the nominating. Hoogendyk understands and respects the Constitution and the limits that the term "advice and consent" have as outlined in The Federalist Papers.

Hoogendyk can quicken the pace of the sort of self-reliant change envisioned by the Founders – the change McCain-Palin pledge to bring. It is indeed vital that Barack Obama be denied the keys to the White House. Yet little will change if people like Carl Levin are permitted to continue to obstruct, harangue, and impede while expanding the reach of federal power. Real political change is brought about not by one or two individuals, but by a movement of individuals committed to fundamental principals of republican governance. Hoogendyk is one such individual. He deserves the support of not only Michigan conservatives, but conservatives everywhere. Hoogendyk is not Democrat-lite, which means Democrat. He is not Lindsey Graham.

Sen. Obama is correct – though not in the way he means – when on the campaign trail he huffs "Enough is enough." Indeed. Conservatives fed up with squeamish Republicans in Congress have an opportunity to back a real conservative who understands that we live in a democratic republic, not a direct democracy wherein every single need of the people must be promptly addressed by the federal government. Jack Hoogendyk stands for conservative principles and should be supported in his bid to unseat the symbol of entrenched power, Carl Levin.
 
If Michiganders fail again to vote for real change, we have only ourselves to blame.

Matthew May welcomes comments at matthewtmay@yahoo.com

You Do Remember Woodstock, Don't You?

You Do Remember Woodstock, Don't You?

Senator Levin: Looking for Favors?

Thanks to Taxpayers for Common sense and blogger Andrew Moylan for calling attention to some of Carl Levin's questionable earmarks on the Defense Authorization Bill. Read it here.

What Senator Levin did was stuff over $198 million in earmarks into the bill, including two for General Motors Corporation worth $10 million. These earmarks are for military technology research.

This leads me to several questions: if these are are essential military expenditures, why were they not part of the original Defense Bill in the first place? As Chair of Senate Armed Services, isn't Carl Levin capable of figuring out how to appropriate for essential military needs in the bill? Is he trying to hide something?

And, one final question: does that fact that Carl Levin has received over $29,000 in campaign contributions from General Motors already this election cycle have anything to do with it?

Don't get me wrong. I would love to see General Motors get more defense contracting business.  Everyone knows in this state that we have lost thousands of defense contracting jobs in the last thirty years. My concern is with the methodology.

I would be happy to hear Mr. Levin's explanation...

Senator Levin: Looking for Favors?

Thanks to Taxpayers for Common sense and blogger Andrew Moylan for calling attention to some of Carl Levin's questionable earmarks on the Defense Authorization Bill. Read it here.

What Senator Levin did was stuff over $198 million in earmarks into the bill, including two for General Motors Corporation worth $10 million. These earmarks are for military technology research.

This leads me to several questions: if these are are essential military expenditures, why were they not part of the original Defense Bill in the first place? As Chair of Senate Armed Services, isn't Carl Levin capable of figuring out how to appropriate for essential military needs in the bill? Is he trying to hide something?

And, one final question: does that fact that Carl Levin has received over $29,000 in campaign contributions from General Motors already this election cycle have anything to do with it?

Don't get me wrong. I would love to see General Motors get more defense contracting business.  Everyone knows in this state that we have lost thousands of defense contracting jobs in the last thirty years. My concern is with the methodology.

I would be happy to hear Mr. Levin's explanation...

Levin takes risky (non)action

Levin takes risky (non)action

September 11, 2001

Let us...

...never forget that there are those who seek to destroy us and our way of life.

...always remember our troops who gave the full measure to protect our freedom and liberty, and our first responders who step in harm's way to bring us to safety.

...ever be thankful for the blessings we have as Americans.

...continue to pray for our leaders who make decisions every day that keep us free and safe.

May God bless the United States of America.

September 11, 2001

Let us...

...never forget that there are those who seek to destroy us and our way of life.

...always remember our troops who gave the full measure to protect our freedom and liberty, and our first responders who step in harm's way to bring us to safety.

...ever be thankful for the blessings we have as Americans.

...continue to pray for our leaders who make decisions every day that keep us free and safe.

May God bless the United States of America.

Jack at McCain | Palin Rally

Jack at the McCain/Palin Rally in Sterling Heights, MI on Friday Sept. 5th. standing next to Jack is Congressman Joe Knollenberg.

Jack at the McCain/Palin Rally in Sterling Heights, MI on Friday Sept. 5th. standing next to Jack is Congressman Joe Knollenberg.

Jack at McCain | Palin Rally

Jack at the McCain/Palin Rally in Sterling Heights, MI on Friday Sept. 5th. standing next to Jack is Congressman Joe Knollenberg.

Jack at the McCain/Palin Rally in Sterling Heights, MI on Friday Sept. 5th. standing next to Jack is Congressman Joe Knollenberg.

The Bounce - Convention bounce bodes well for Jack

(L-R) US Senator Orrin Hatch, Jack, US Senator John Ensign, Los Angeles County Commissioner Howard Winkler, & Lee Greenwood.

There's no doubt the post-Convention polls reflect that Americans like straight-talk, positive reform, and candidates to whom they can relate.  Polls out today show McCain | Palin up by as much as 10 points.  Jack's post convention appearance with the Presidential ticket reflects greater party unity, a commitment to Michigan, and belief that we can win!

The Bounce - Convention bounce bodes well for Jack

(L-R) US Senator Orrin Hatch, Jack, US Senator John Ensign, Los Angeles County Commissioner Howard Winkler, & Lee Greenwood.

There's no doubt the post-Convention polls reflect that Americans like straight-talk, positive reform, and candidates to whom they can relate.  Polls out today show McCain | Palin up by as much as 10 points.  Jack's post convention appearance with the Presidential ticket reflects greater party unity, a commitment to Michigan, and belief that we can win!

Thompson speaks. Crowd awaits Palin.

It was great to hear Senator Thompson tell the full story of John McCain's sacrifices in Vietnam and how he faced down the enemy and would not break. The crowd was really charged up. Everyone is excited about seeing Sarah Palin tonight. She is a real "rock star" in this race.

To the left, Jack signs in at the Michigan delegation on the floor of the convention.