- Ken Cooper Hoekstra or Stabenow; what's the difference...really?Sunday at 3:24pm ·Jeff King The fallout for Amash has been largely positive. Huizenga, you tell me, but I can't think it is that good.Sunday at 3:47pm ·
Ken Cooper Huizenga is disappointing. Give him another credit card to max out, and then another. Hoekstra would have voted the same way, he has a voting record to support it.
Monte 'Andrea Regan' Blachford Reid's Plan and Obama's Plan have NO support, yet we always have to Compromise? The idiots in charged 'caused the mess, Let the people with guts resolve it.
Ken Cooper Dennis, Peter is very similar to John McCain on occupation, and infiltration, as well as invasion of other countries without a declaration of war. No thank you!
Sunday at 6:00pm ·
Monte 'Andrea Regan' Blachford John McCain? Ken, I think you have the wrong Peter.
Sunday at 6:03pm ·
Ken Cooper Nope, I Have the right one. Unless he deleted our correspondence on his FB page, it is all there.
Sunday at 6:10pm ·
Peter Konetchy I support Justin Amash 100%. I would never vote to raise the debt ceiling. The only way this country will survive in the short term is if we cut spending and balance the budget. Once this is done we need to phase out all non-constitutional federal influence from society and allow the people, through the free market, to address societies needs. Congress has proven time and time again that they are unable to cut spending. Please help elect me so that I can be the "Amash" voice in the Senate.
Peter Konetchy, Candidate US Senate 2012, Michigan
Peter Konetchy Ken, Please post my correspondence in full for all to see. I do not delete correspondence and cannot find any addressed to you. For the record this is how I feel about the military:
I believe the military should be used to defend the US when we are physically attacked. I do not believe in nation building, a world police force. or use of the military for humanitarian purposes. The primary purpose of the Federal government is to provide for the common defense. I want the most powerful military in the world capable of defending the US if needed. I want a strong military force to deter attacks against the US through the knowledge that such attacks would incur the full force of the US against the attacker. If you disagree with this concept, so be it.
Jeff King Peter, OK good reasons to vote for you over Hoekstra . But the Republican party animals are going to want someone who they think can win against Stabenow. Tell us why you are a better person then Hoekstra to win against Debbie?
Yesterday at 12:13pm ·
Peter Konetchy Jeff, of course I want support from the GOP, but don’t expect to receive it till after the primary – if at all. The GOP is often a great part of the problem by supporting candidates they feel can win regardless of ideology. (Remember the Arlen Specter debacle where he received the GOP endorsement hours before he switched parties).
This election will be a referendum on the status quo vs tea party type reform. To win I need an educated electorate with the courage to vote in the primary for the candidate which best represents their values. Those wanting to rein back, cut, government back to its constitutional limitations will vote for me. Those wanting a safe candidate will vote for the establishment. Franklin's correct when he states” Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I will win if those desiring liberty vote for liberty over safety.
Jeff King OK, but didn't answer my question. It was again: "Tell us why you are a better person then Hoekstra to win against Debbie?"
Yesterday at 1:25pm ·
Peter Konetchy I'm a better candidate for Senate than Hoekstra because I would not have voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, or for the Auto Bailouts. I will actively work to phase out all functions not authorized by the constitution including the departments of Labor, HHS, HUD, Transportation, Education, Energy, and the EPA. As these programs are phased out, I would like to have a complimentary decrease the direct taxes against the individual.
My long term focus would be to return federal spending to its historical level of less than 5% of GDP. At this level we could eliminate the income tax and once again allowing the fed govt to be indirectly financed as our founders proposed.
I feel that whoever receives the republican nomination will probably beat Debbie.
I disagree with your choice of words. Pete Hoekstra is as good a "person" as I. He simply doesn't have the desire to limit government as muhc as I.
Jeff King Perhaps the reason you are disagreeing with my choice in words, is I've asked the same thing twice, yet you didn't answer it, other then suggesting any Republican can beat Debbie.
Which is not to say your reasons you are better then Pete are not valid, they are, but being able to clearly tell the Republican party animals why you can beat Debbie is going to be real important in getting support. Don't underestimate this...
Yesterday at 1:51pm ·
Peter Konetchy Jeff, I think I've answered the question clearly. The bottom line is that I have a tough up hill battle. We have a year until the primary and I'll work to get me message out. I can't guarantee a win. I don't understand how else I can answer.
Yesterday at 2:27pm ·
Jeff King I was trying to be helpful Peter. Republican party animals are going to be on their hands and knees.... saying how Pete can raise more money then yourself, for example, and how that will be key to beating Stabenow. FUD.... Fear Uncertainly and Doubt. They will also try and marginalize you.
I really wouldn't treat Hoekstra with kid gloves... your reasons for running against him are dead serious and very focused. With regards to his fiscal performance, I would hope you are a much "better" person then he is. I'm not suggesting he tortures small animals, but I am suggesting principles and fiscal restraint have to matter... alot... and if you need to throw some punches, you should.
I still don't get it why he quit congress and is running again, the only thing I can figure is he wants to be President someday, and he knew only one President came from congress (most come from either the Senate or Governor). While I didn't agree with some of his positions, he did have good constitute services and he seemed to have alot of power within congress. He was my second choice for Governor, and I'm sure if Cox hadn't been in the race, he would have won (I was a Snyder supporter and the COX/Hoekstra standoff was a gift).
Yesterday at 2:58pm ·
Robert Wells Well as a Pete Hoekstra supporter let me say no one is perfect and we must stop expecting 100% ideoloigical purity in every office older if we do that is how we end up iwth wingnuts only as candidates. Now we have a good field in this primary good rational men who want to help save there nation but I am supporting Pete Hoekstra because not only does he have a clear conservative record but he can get win, he can take a message across the state, raise the money needed, go after Stabenow on her horrible record. I would remind some of you that we control one half of one branch of government so Amash and Huizenga made there choices to Govern. We all want spending reduced and the budget balanced but the reality is we cannot turn a shit 180 degrees quickly it will take time. So let us get the cuts we can get, hold the line on taxes then when we have a Republican Senate, a Republican house and a Romney/Rubio Administration we can make the real changes.
Yesterday at 3:32pm ·
Jeff King So someone trying to live by principles makes them a wingnut? I see.
I suggest that anyone that thinks Mr. Hoekstra had a "clear conservative record" is the wingnut themselves. He *did* vote for every big goverment program, and more, that Mr. Konetchy mentioned.
Peter, *this* is a good example of the muddled thinking you are going to be facing.
Robert Wells No I am not saying that anyone who has clear principals is a wingnut I have clear principals what I am saying is this idea that "he once voted a way I didnt like hes a socialist" is silly its the reason that good people dont get into politics, look at Pete H record over his 18 years in congress anyone who is intellectually honest will say it is clearly conservative. Yeah so you would rather have someone you disagree with 95 % of the time like Stabenow then 5% oif the time like Hoekstra that makes sense. What I am saying is we must stop with the idea that 100% compliance with ideology is a deal breaker you have to win an election to govern and Id rather have a guy I m gonna disagree with 5% of the time then feel good beat my chest about nominting a perfect ideoliog and LOSE!
23 hours ago ·
Jeff King First of all Robert, we need to operate from the facts and be speaking the same language. Who said Pete was a socialist? Please answer this question as I saw no reason to make this huge jump.
Second, I did look at Mr. Hoekstra's record over the last 18. He got a very good start. At one point, he was called one of the more Libertarian like congressman on the hill. But he faltered seriously in recent years. To reiterate Peter's points, TARP, bailouts, cash for clunkers. Tell me, EXACTLY what is the difference between Hoekstra and Stabenow? Sounds the same to me, in fact I understand Stabenow even voted against one of the Bailout bills.
Robert, if Mr. Hoekstra is your "95% solution" we are doomed. Principles and voting records have to matter. You can call it "wingnuts" or whatever you want to spread fear, but the fact of the matter is, this nation is in trouble, and Mr. Hoesktra was at the helm when it happened. He was in the congress, the Republican congress, that voted us the largest deficient in our history until Obama. That for all their false talk of conservative values, just couldn't stop spending.
No, I contend to you we must stop with these 5% solutions, and instead of party and the special interests, we must think of our country and children.
Robert Wells Pete is not perfect he made some mistakes in his voting record that is for sure he admits that but his record would look noting like stabenows, he would vote for cut cap and balance, for term limits, to protect the second amendment, to cut spending dramatically, to end base line budgeting, and aside from all that he can actually win the election and have a chance to cast those votes. Rocky in 2002 and Bouchard in 2006 and Jack in 2008 where perfect nearly but they lost so all the take was moot. Pete H can win and will be a good conservative Senator
22 hours ago ·
Jeff King Unfortunately his recent record doesn't support your claims. He had 18 years to cut spending dramatically yet failed.
According to the Congressional Record, Congressman Hoekstra:
Voted for over $1 Trillion in new federal spending; (Congressional Roll Call Votes, 1995-2006)
Co-sponsored the “Bridge to Nowhere”; (HR 3, July 29, 2005, Roll Call Vote 453) and
Voted for the $850 Billion Wall Street Bailout (HR 1424, October 3, 2008, Roll Call Vote 681)
The year before he decided to run for Governor, the Club for Growth, a group that tracks up-or-down votes on many individual earmarks, gave Congressman Hoekstra an abysmal 20 percent rating on its annual “RePork Card.”
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/projects/?subSec=14&id= 667
22 hours ago ·
Ken Cooper Peter K: I'm not going to dig through your public posts on your FB page. I am no longer your "friend" either. I asked you about your foreign policy, and we discussed our involvement in these undeclared wars. In short, you told me that you supported what we were doing overseas. That is a deal breaker for me. Other than that, you sound like a good candidate, and I wish you luck, but without my vote.
21 hours ago ·
Peter Konetchy Ken,
You don't need to dig through old fb postings. I did support the war on terror. We did have a declaration of war in that Bush did get congressional approval before going to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We had been under attack for many years by Muslim, Al-Qaida, terrorists. For 20 years prior we ignored them as an uncoordinated series of random attacks, in spite of the fact that Al-Qaida repeatedly stated that they were at war with us. 9-11 crystallized the situation. Bush took, what I consider, appropriate action. I wish that we had used overwhelming force, subdued Afghanistan, and then allowed a non-Taliban to form. Same in Iraq. I’m disappointed that during the entire length of the war the Democrats and press vilified Bush for his effort to defeat this enemy, then miraculously stopped the criticism when Obama became Commander in chief.
20 hours ago ·
Peter Konetchy Bob,
Sorry for the long post.
If my biggest problem is that I’m an idealist then so be it. I revere other idealists such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, to name a few. They could not live under tyranny, and neither can I.
Our current government has morphed into as tyrannical a government as was England prior to our revolution. Fortunately, we have a Constitution which secures our liberty - which our congress not only ignores but thoroughly tramples. The only long term solution to our nation’s problems is to purge undue federal influence from every aspect of society, and return this power to the people. When I say “purge”, I mean phasing out the depts of Labor, HHS, HUD, Transportation, Education, Energy, and the EPA to start.
I agree with our founders that the people, through the free market, or the states (if people desire governmental control) can address these problems much better than the federal government. I do not expect it to happen overnight, but we must start the dialog now. There are currently voices in congress striving to limit government – Justin Amash & Ron Paul to name a few, and I will support these individuals 100%. For the record, my allegiance is to the Constitution, not to party.
Government desires control, and our constitution is the only safeguard against tyranny. I am in no way inferring Pete Hoekstra was the cause of this problem, but neither was he part of the solution during his term in congress.
We are a nation of free men with a government of the people. I’m tired of professional politicians, especially status quo republicans, compromising away our liberties. All I ask is a chance to express my opinions throughout this election cycle and let the people of this great state decide who they want to represent them in the Senate. If the people of Michigan support with my “idealistic” views, I’ll win the primary, then go on to win the general. Otherwise, I’ll continue to be a voice of conservatism to whomever will listen.
Also Bob, Thanks for your friendship. I know you are a good man.
19 hours ago ·
Jeff King Peter, your position on Iraq doesn't make any sense at all. There were no terrorist elements to speak of in Iraq. In fact, it will be one of the most expensive blunders we have made. Iraq was the best counter to terrorism we had in the middle east, and that is why Daddy Bush didn't roll on bagdad in Gulf War 1. Now Iran is our problem, something Reagan knew and played well in propping up Iraq in their 8 year war against Iran.
16 hours ago ·
Robert Wells Pete I think its great that you are idealistic that is a good thing we need more Americans like you to seek public office. I agree with much of what you have to say and I agree we need leaders to stand on principal but I also think that as a leader first you have to govern and second you must understand that while we need serious reform in our Government we cannot expect it to happen over night we must understand that right now we control one half of one branch of government we won the debate in the fact that for the first time in a very long time if not ever we are actually talking about cuts ( I think your idea to get away from base line budgeting is brilliant and must be done by the way)
9 hours ago ·
Robert Wells All I am saying is to the people who say NO NO NO all of it now! That is not realistic. As for our Senate race you are a fine man and would make a great U.S. Senator I simply am Supporting Pete Hoekstra because I have supported him in the past and I believe of the field he is the most qualified of the candidates. You know
9 hours ago ·
Robert Wells that should you be the nominee I will work my guts out for you. I value your friendship and keep running hard and speaking up, viberant primaries are good for everyone.
9 hours ago ·
Peter Konetchy Bob,
First of all, when did I ever say "NO, NO, NO, all of it now"? I have never said that. All I've ever said is that we have to Immediately - balance the budget. Immediately means that the budget proposed for the next fiscal year should be balanced. Thereafter, in years forthcoming, I support cutting federal spending in real terms. I would like to cut non-constitutionally authorized spending by 8-10% so we can eliminate these programs in a short while - 9-12 years, but I realize I'm working with congress and I need to persuade people to follow the constitution. We cant be content with simply slowing the growth of government. The major problem is that virtually none of our current elected officials think cutting. Your arguing that anyone wanting to cut spending and government influence isn't qualified - a "wingnut", and shouldn't be considered. I can't accept the premise.
7 hours ago ·
Peter Konetchy Robert Wells
Second, If I'm elected to the Senate, my focus will be to secure life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - (allowance of the people to choose their destiny). I will be an obstructionist in that I will fight to halt the unconstitutional control of government into our lives. This is very much a full time job. Also, holding 1/2 of congress can stop anything. It could have stopped the debt ceiling increase, it could have forced spending cuts, and it can insist on a balanced budget next year. It's just that the democrats and Obama know that the republicans are so weak that they have no fear of being stopped. I, as one person cannot stop them, but I will be a voice they will need to roll over.
7 hours ago ·
Jeff King A sad day when someone who vows to follow the Constitution and live within their means is labeled as "idealistic".
5 hours ago ·
Robert Wells I wasnt referring that you said those things Pete it seems that is the message being sent by some of my fellow tea party people thats all.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
The Other Peter in the US Senate Race: Konetchy Discusses and Debates with West Michigan Politics Readers
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Dualing Snyder Positions on Right to Work?
What is Governor Snyder's position on Right to Work?
Read this.
Below is an excerpt:
Snyder: right-to-work is “not on my agenda.” “It is a divisive, polarizing issue that will drive people apart when we need everyone at the table working to reinvent Michigan.” Mr. Snyder plans to consult labor and business to “work on what will make us more competitive as a state.”
Then watch this.
Read this.
Below is an excerpt:
Snyder: right-to-work is “not on my agenda.” “It is a divisive, polarizing issue that will drive people apart when we need everyone at the table working to reinvent Michigan.” Mr. Snyder plans to consult labor and business to “work on what will make us more competitive as a state.”
Then watch this.
 |
| Governor Rick Snyder |
Rep. Price Now Claims She Never Had a Private Conversation With Governor Snyder Over Right to Work
According to Ottawa County (Tea Party) Patriots leader Jim Chiodo, State Rep. Amanda Price is denying ever making comments that she had a private talk with Governor Snyder about Right to Work.
West Michigan Politics first reported Price's comments in a post yesterday.
"During the Ottawa County Patriots meeting there was confusion on Gov Snyder comments regarding "right to work" / whether he would or would not sign a bill," Chiodo said. "However, I don't remember hearing Amanda Price say she had a private conversation with Snyder. A call from Amanda about the blog...confirmed she had no such conversation with the Gov."
However, Price DID say she had a private talk with the Governor. Her full quote was "I've seen the Shirkey bill and signed it, but I had a discussion with the Governor and he said he will not sign it. It's off the table." Multiple attendees of the meeting back WMP's reporting.
We are in contact with Rep. Price's office and will update you as soon as we know more.
OF NOTE: We recently profiled what Amanda Price has been up to, and we were fair as always.
West Michigan Politics first reported Price's comments in a post yesterday.
"During the Ottawa County Patriots meeting there was confusion on Gov Snyder comments regarding "right to work" / whether he would or would not sign a bill," Chiodo said. "However, I don't remember hearing Amanda Price say she had a private conversation with Snyder. A call from Amanda about the blog...confirmed she had no such conversation with the Gov."
However, Price DID say she had a private talk with the Governor. Her full quote was "I've seen the Shirkey bill and signed it, but I had a discussion with the Governor and he said he will not sign it. It's off the table." Multiple attendees of the meeting back WMP's reporting.
We are in contact with Rep. Price's office and will update you as soon as we know more.
OF NOTE: We recently profiled what Amanda Price has been up to, and we were fair as always.
WMP Responds to Baseless Claims of "...Until Love is =" Leader Erin Wilson
Recently, WMP wrote a piece noting the political reality in Holland regarding the fierce gay rights debate that has engulfed the city. The fact is that even if a member of council changes their mind, opponents of the gay rights measures will get the signatures to put the issue up for a vote.
That being noted, we advocated for a vote of the people. After all, that's where this issue will be decided-at the ballot box. WMP deals in political realities. We don't live in the Twilight Zone, we don't live on Fantasy Island.
Erin Wilson, a prominent leader of "Boycott Holland Until Love is Equal," said the following of that piece:
"The point of this post is not that a referendum is going to happen, it's that we should remain quiet on this, which isn't going to happen, because it's unjust. The City Council has yet to vote on the merits of the ordinance. They effectively voted on whether they should vote on this at all: several said on the record they voted "no" in order to prompt a popular vote."
WMP wants those advocating for gay rights issues in Holland to stay quiet? Are you kidding? That's one of the oldest tricks in the book: when someone differs from your path, use extreme language to paint yourself as a victim, saying the other side wants to shut you up.
Wilson's claim we're trying to keep them quiet is a baseless accusation that is as untrue as it is ignorant.
First of all, let's take a trip back in time to our post previewing the Council's vote. We got it wrong, we predicted a 5-4 passage with Mayor Dykstra deciding the vote. Mayor Dykstra did decide the vote, but voted against it. Here is the excerpt where we preview Councilman Shawn Miller's vote:
"Miller is a complete coin-flip. For him, the question will be "can government help in this situation?" Given that empirical evidence, as referenced in the Grand Raids Press editorial, shows cities without protections for gays have more instances of discrimination than those without, we think Miller will come down as a yes vote. Miller is big on individual liberty, and if this measure will help uphold the liberty of some of Holland's citizens, Miller won't look at the issue as an inappropriate role for government. Just the opposite-the measure reasonably uses government to attempt to insure the liberty of Holland's gay residents.
In clear and in no uncertain terms, WMP wrote that the measure "reasonably uses government to insure the liberty of Holland's gay residents." Does that really sound like WMP wants to keep these groups quiet?
Second, we have given the group a lot of coverage and have been extremely fair to them. We wrote a vote preview, wrote about the aftermath, and interviewed their spokesman Drew Stoppels, along with some other coverage.
Also of note, City Council members can cast their vote for ANY REASON THEY WANT. Any. Wilson's arguments about forcing the council members to vote through the prism he demands just doesn't hold water. This is why we have elections.
Mr. Wilson is clearly a smart man who passionately believes in this cause. He would do well to step back, take a deep breath, and remember that "my 90% friend isn't my 10% enemy." An old Apache saying tells us "their are many paths to the same place." The movement will never succeed if it refuses to engage people who don't fully agree with them. Former candidate for US Congress Field Reichardt said it best in one of his comments: "Better to do an initiative campaign ... and if you lose, do it again ... then again. Each time you will educate more people, and eventually you will win."
That being noted, we advocated for a vote of the people. After all, that's where this issue will be decided-at the ballot box. WMP deals in political realities. We don't live in the Twilight Zone, we don't live on Fantasy Island.
Erin Wilson, a prominent leader of "Boycott Holland Until Love is Equal," said the following of that piece:
"The point of this post is not that a referendum is going to happen, it's that we should remain quiet on this, which isn't going to happen, because it's unjust. The City Council has yet to vote on the merits of the ordinance. They effectively voted on whether they should vote on this at all: several said on the record they voted "no" in order to prompt a popular vote."
WMP wants those advocating for gay rights issues in Holland to stay quiet? Are you kidding? That's one of the oldest tricks in the book: when someone differs from your path, use extreme language to paint yourself as a victim, saying the other side wants to shut you up.
Wilson's claim we're trying to keep them quiet is a baseless accusation that is as untrue as it is ignorant.
First of all, let's take a trip back in time to our post previewing the Council's vote. We got it wrong, we predicted a 5-4 passage with Mayor Dykstra deciding the vote. Mayor Dykstra did decide the vote, but voted against it. Here is the excerpt where we preview Councilman Shawn Miller's vote:
"Miller is a complete coin-flip. For him, the question will be "can government help in this situation?" Given that empirical evidence, as referenced in the Grand Raids Press editorial, shows cities without protections for gays have more instances of discrimination than those without, we think Miller will come down as a yes vote. Miller is big on individual liberty, and if this measure will help uphold the liberty of some of Holland's citizens, Miller won't look at the issue as an inappropriate role for government. Just the opposite-the measure reasonably uses government to attempt to insure the liberty of Holland's gay residents.
In clear and in no uncertain terms, WMP wrote that the measure "reasonably uses government to insure the liberty of Holland's gay residents." Does that really sound like WMP wants to keep these groups quiet?
Second, we have given the group a lot of coverage and have been extremely fair to them. We wrote a vote preview, wrote about the aftermath, and interviewed their spokesman Drew Stoppels, along with some other coverage.
Also of note, City Council members can cast their vote for ANY REASON THEY WANT. Any. Wilson's arguments about forcing the council members to vote through the prism he demands just doesn't hold water. This is why we have elections.
Mr. Wilson is clearly a smart man who passionately believes in this cause. He would do well to step back, take a deep breath, and remember that "my 90% friend isn't my 10% enemy." An old Apache saying tells us "their are many paths to the same place." The movement will never succeed if it refuses to engage people who don't fully agree with them. Former candidate for US Congress Field Reichardt said it best in one of his comments: "Better to do an initiative campaign ... and if you lose, do it again ... then again. Each time you will educate more people, and eventually you will win."
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
State Rep. Amanda Price's Private Chat with Governor Snyder Surprises Colleagues
The Ottawa County Tea Party Patriots hosted five West Michigan state legislators at a lively meeting Tuesday night in Zeeland.
Patriots leader Jim Chiodo asked questions of Republican State Representatives Holly Hughes, Amanda Price, Dave Agema, Bob Genetski, and Joe Haveman in front of a packed house at the Herman Miller Library.
Legislators were mostly in sync during the meeting, but were noticeably surprised when State Rep. Amanda Price spoke about her private conversation with Governor Rick Snyder regarding Right to Work legislation.
"I had a discussion with the Governor and he said he will not sign (Right to Work legislation)," Price said. "It's off the table."
Some legislators were confused, thinking the Governor was at least open to it.
"Promises he made to the Carpenters Union," Agema said. "That's why. I'd vote for Right to Work. I was a union member but too many unions have pushed too far"
Haveman seems willing to challenge Governor Snyder and anyone else in Lansing to pass Right to Work.
"The Governor doesn't get everything he wants," Haveman said. "Governor Snyder is reluctant. He sees the Wisconsin uproar and doesn't want that divisiveness in Michigan. This is the last big labor thing. We've had a successful few months of taking care of labor issues. (State Rep. Mike) Shirkey is the go to guy on this. You will without a doubt see a resolution introduced. We will start quietly but work diligently. Who do we have? Whose arms need twisting?"
Chiodo led off the night asking how legislators could fight the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as "Obamacare," from Lansing.
"It stinks," Agema said, "I don't like any part of it in any shape or form. Politicians determining what health care you get disgusts me."
Hughes said a resolution is all that can be done.
"I don't want to be a part of it, but the best we can do is pass a resolution," Hughes said. " The 2012 Senate elections are very important on this issue because Debbie Stabenow is 100% behind Barack Obama and Obamacare."
Genetski agreed.
"Send Pete Hoekstra or whoever it ends up being to Washington," Geneteski said. "As far as Lansing goes, a resolution... and supporting Attorney General Schuette's lawsuit is what we can do."
Haveman said State Rep. Tom McMillin is taking charge of this issue and legislators need to "be following McMillin's lead as much as we can."
When it came to illegal immigration, their was no doubt who the "go-to-guy" in the room was.
"Can I defer to Agema?" Price asked. "I'm behind his e-verify bill. I support that."
Agema was eager to tackle the topic.
"Only 3% of illegals work in agricultural jobs," Agema said. " "97% work in hospitality, manufacturing, construction...Illegal immigration cost Michigan 929 million last year. Those who are against me on e-verify don't understand the system. It takes a secretary a half hour one time to check millions of documents, including visas. This isn't just a Hispanic issue, Indians have been coming to the borders. The Northern border is even scarier almost. I t took me three temp agencies to find a legal worker.E-verify has the same requirements as the federal government for contracts. It's nearly 100% accurate."
Haveman supports E-verify and wants to pursue other avenues as well.
"I have reached out to the Hispanic community to see if we can reach a point in the middle," Haveman said. "Shame on the United States Congress that we can do 1,000 things the Constitution doesn't provide for but they can't do anything on this important issue. And as far as Lansing goes, dog gone it, if we can do a resolution about Obamacare we can do one about illegal immigration."
When legislators were asked about "Agenda 21," (read more here) Genetski told a story about the Humane Society of America.
"They came to Michigan threatening our state with a ballot initiative," Geneteski said. " After California, Michigan and Ohio have the easiest states to do a ballot measure. They were threatening us with cows living in condos, chickens living in estates. It was one of the most heavily lobbied bills last term. Eventually we passed a compromise between the Humane Society and the Farm Bureau."
Patriots leader Jim Chiodo asked questions of Republican State Representatives Holly Hughes, Amanda Price, Dave Agema, Bob Genetski, and Joe Haveman in front of a packed house at the Herman Miller Library.
Legislators were mostly in sync during the meeting, but were noticeably surprised when State Rep. Amanda Price spoke about her private conversation with Governor Rick Snyder regarding Right to Work legislation.
"I had a discussion with the Governor and he said he will not sign (Right to Work legislation)," Price said. "It's off the table."
Some legislators were confused, thinking the Governor was at least open to it.
"Promises he made to the Carpenters Union," Agema said. "That's why. I'd vote for Right to Work. I was a union member but too many unions have pushed too far"
Haveman seems willing to challenge Governor Snyder and anyone else in Lansing to pass Right to Work.
"The Governor doesn't get everything he wants," Haveman said. "Governor Snyder is reluctant. He sees the Wisconsin uproar and doesn't want that divisiveness in Michigan. This is the last big labor thing. We've had a successful few months of taking care of labor issues. (State Rep. Mike) Shirkey is the go to guy on this. You will without a doubt see a resolution introduced. We will start quietly but work diligently. Who do we have? Whose arms need twisting?"
Chiodo led off the night asking how legislators could fight the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as "Obamacare," from Lansing.
"It stinks," Agema said, "I don't like any part of it in any shape or form. Politicians determining what health care you get disgusts me."
Hughes said a resolution is all that can be done.
"I don't want to be a part of it, but the best we can do is pass a resolution," Hughes said. " The 2012 Senate elections are very important on this issue because Debbie Stabenow is 100% behind Barack Obama and Obamacare."
Genetski agreed.
"Send Pete Hoekstra or whoever it ends up being to Washington," Geneteski said. "As far as Lansing goes, a resolution... and supporting Attorney General Schuette's lawsuit is what we can do."
Haveman said State Rep. Tom McMillin is taking charge of this issue and legislators need to "be following McMillin's lead as much as we can."
When it came to illegal immigration, their was no doubt who the "go-to-guy" in the room was.
"Can I defer to Agema?" Price asked. "I'm behind his e-verify bill. I support that."
Agema was eager to tackle the topic.
"Only 3% of illegals work in agricultural jobs," Agema said. " "97% work in hospitality, manufacturing, construction...Illegal immigration cost Michigan 929 million last year. Those who are against me on e-verify don't understand the system. It takes a secretary a half hour one time to check millions of documents, including visas. This isn't just a Hispanic issue, Indians have been coming to the borders. The Northern border is even scarier almost. I t took me three temp agencies to find a legal worker.E-verify has the same requirements as the federal government for contracts. It's nearly 100% accurate."
Haveman supports E-verify and wants to pursue other avenues as well.
"I have reached out to the Hispanic community to see if we can reach a point in the middle," Haveman said. "Shame on the United States Congress that we can do 1,000 things the Constitution doesn't provide for but they can't do anything on this important issue. And as far as Lansing goes, dog gone it, if we can do a resolution about Obamacare we can do one about illegal immigration."
When legislators were asked about "Agenda 21," (read more here) Genetski told a story about the Humane Society of America.
"They came to Michigan threatening our state with a ballot initiative," Geneteski said. " After California, Michigan and Ohio have the easiest states to do a ballot measure. They were threatening us with cows living in condos, chickens living in estates. It was one of the most heavily lobbied bills last term. Eventually we passed a compromise between the Humane Society and the Farm Bureau."
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Chiodo: Tell us what your plan is, Mr. President
Mr. President,
Recently you said “we weren’t paying attention and we can’t understand debt complexities” (are we too stupid?). You said 80% want tax increases (a surprise to 79.9% of us). Now you publicly appeal to raise the debt ceiling and scare seniors by suggesting they will not get SS checks.
We do pay attention and understand. It’s not complicated. Debt is due to spending more than you have. Yes, Bush spent too much and we weren’t happy with him but you doubled Bush’s rate of spending and debt.
Despite Bush blamers, numbers don’t lie. Your spending increased the debt $4T from $10.3T when you took office. The failed stimulus, dubious bailouts and increases to every area of government resulted in a 25% spending increase. Worse, it spawned job killing regulations and meddling into the lives of all of us.
As for the debt crisis, you denigrate Republican proposals yet nothing is forth coming from you or Democrats. You say, “Now is the time”. Why wasn’t it time when you submitted a budget early this year, which the CBO said increased spending? Do you still think we can spend our way out of debt?
You’re willing to “discuss” cuts but give no specifics. Please don’t tell us federal salaries will be frozen like you did last year, yet an average of 270 white house staffers enjoyed an 8% pay increase. Don’t tell us we need to sacrifice while you, Michelle and relatives live like royalty with servants, vacations, parties and use the ultimate “corporate jet”.
You talk of taxing the rich, calling them “millionaires”. Tell us please, who are millionaires? Are they small business owners making $250,000? Do closing tax loopholes mean eliminating mortgage tax deductions which you think are only for the rich? Are corporate jet tax deductions (part of your stimulus) any different than deductions of millions of other business? Also, explain how taxing “rich” investors and small business which create jobs will put Americans back to work?
Lastly, reducing discretionary spending is not enough (even if you cut back on parties and vacations). There is no mathematical solution without changing SS and Medicare. Republicans put forth a solution but it was met with jokes and name calling. Pushing grandma off a cliff is an outright lie. The proposal would result in zero change for anyone over 55 yrs old.) Is your “plan” to do nothing (Nero fiddled while Rome burned) and talk about raising taxes?
Please Mr. Obama, tell us exactly what your plan is. Americans want to know why you want to raise the debt ceiling. Is it simply to spend more like Greece, Spain (and California).
JIM CHIODO is the leader of the Ottawa County (Tea Party) Patriots
Recently you said “we weren’t paying attention and we can’t understand debt complexities” (are we too stupid?). You said 80% want tax increases (a surprise to 79.9% of us). Now you publicly appeal to raise the debt ceiling and scare seniors by suggesting they will not get SS checks.
We do pay attention and understand. It’s not complicated. Debt is due to spending more than you have. Yes, Bush spent too much and we weren’t happy with him but you doubled Bush’s rate of spending and debt.
Despite Bush blamers, numbers don’t lie. Your spending increased the debt $4T from $10.3T when you took office. The failed stimulus, dubious bailouts and increases to every area of government resulted in a 25% spending increase. Worse, it spawned job killing regulations and meddling into the lives of all of us.
As for the debt crisis, you denigrate Republican proposals yet nothing is forth coming from you or Democrats. You say, “Now is the time”. Why wasn’t it time when you submitted a budget early this year, which the CBO said increased spending? Do you still think we can spend our way out of debt?
You’re willing to “discuss” cuts but give no specifics. Please don’t tell us federal salaries will be frozen like you did last year, yet an average of 270 white house staffers enjoyed an 8% pay increase. Don’t tell us we need to sacrifice while you, Michelle and relatives live like royalty with servants, vacations, parties and use the ultimate “corporate jet”.
You talk of taxing the rich, calling them “millionaires”. Tell us please, who are millionaires? Are they small business owners making $250,000? Do closing tax loopholes mean eliminating mortgage tax deductions which you think are only for the rich? Are corporate jet tax deductions (part of your stimulus) any different than deductions of millions of other business? Also, explain how taxing “rich” investors and small business which create jobs will put Americans back to work?
Lastly, reducing discretionary spending is not enough (even if you cut back on parties and vacations). There is no mathematical solution without changing SS and Medicare. Republicans put forth a solution but it was met with jokes and name calling. Pushing grandma off a cliff is an outright lie. The proposal would result in zero change for anyone over 55 yrs old.) Is your “plan” to do nothing (Nero fiddled while Rome burned) and talk about raising taxes?
Please Mr. Obama, tell us exactly what your plan is. Americans want to know why you want to raise the debt ceiling. Is it simply to spend more like Greece, Spain (and California).
JIM CHIODO is the leader of the Ottawa County (Tea Party) Patriots
Let Holland Voters Decide Gay Rights Measure
In announcing gay rights groups would avoid a referendum to repeal the Holland City Council's decision not to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the city charter, Bill Freeman opined “Dr. (Martin Luther) King (Jr.) did not ask the people of Alabama to vote for the rights of black people."
That may be true, however, he was seeking someone else's approval-the votes of the US Congress.
Unless we've missed something, pro gay rights groups aren't lobbying Congress, they're focused on Holland-and the council representing the people of Holland has spoken.
The bottom line in this situation is that even if a council member could be convinced to change their mind, even if these gay rights groups were successful in their lobbying efforts, opponents WILL start the campaign to repeal it the next day. They WILL get the signatures needed to put it before voters, and a referendum WILL occur.
Field Reichardt, former candidate for US Congress in the 2nd District, recently commented on one of our posts: "Better to do an initiative campaign ... and if you lose, do it again ... then again. Each time you will educate more people, and eventually you will win."
Reichardt has it right-it's time to go to the people.
Gary Glenn opined that any ballot measure would fail, citing 64% of Hollanders supported the 2004 "Marriage Amendment" that banned gay marriages and civil unions in Michigan. That was 2004 however, concerned marriage, and didn't have the support of Holland's Reformed Church Classis. This measure's original language did have the HRCC's support, concerns employment and housing, and 2011's politics are different than 2004's.
Frank Sinatra said "if you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere." In Holland, "If you can make it with the Reformed Church Classis, you can make it (just about) anywhere." Utilized in the right way, the HRCC's support could make it a very close election.
Use the HRCC's support in every possible way you can, take it to the people of Holland, and engage business owners and those in the religious community who are skeptical but could be won over. Use social media, letters to the editor, phone calls, door to door canvassing, whatever it takes.
One of the pro gay rights groups calls itself "Holland is Ready." Let's find out what the citizens of Holland have to say-the answers may surprise.
That may be true, however, he was seeking someone else's approval-the votes of the US Congress.
Unless we've missed something, pro gay rights groups aren't lobbying Congress, they're focused on Holland-and the council representing the people of Holland has spoken.
The bottom line in this situation is that even if a council member could be convinced to change their mind, even if these gay rights groups were successful in their lobbying efforts, opponents WILL start the campaign to repeal it the next day. They WILL get the signatures needed to put it before voters, and a referendum WILL occur.
Field Reichardt, former candidate for US Congress in the 2nd District, recently commented on one of our posts: "Better to do an initiative campaign ... and if you lose, do it again ... then again. Each time you will educate more people, and eventually you will win."
Reichardt has it right-it's time to go to the people.
Gary Glenn opined that any ballot measure would fail, citing 64% of Hollanders supported the 2004 "Marriage Amendment" that banned gay marriages and civil unions in Michigan. That was 2004 however, concerned marriage, and didn't have the support of Holland's Reformed Church Classis. This measure's original language did have the HRCC's support, concerns employment and housing, and 2011's politics are different than 2004's.
Frank Sinatra said "if you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere." In Holland, "If you can make it with the Reformed Church Classis, you can make it (just about) anywhere." Utilized in the right way, the HRCC's support could make it a very close election.
Use the HRCC's support in every possible way you can, take it to the people of Holland, and engage business owners and those in the religious community who are skeptical but could be won over. Use social media, letters to the editor, phone calls, door to door canvassing, whatever it takes.
One of the pro gay rights groups calls itself "Holland is Ready." Let's find out what the citizens of Holland have to say-the answers may surprise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)