Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Spirit Day (10.15.15)

On October 15th, 2015, Americans across the country will be showing their support for LGBT youth by taking a stand against bullying. Elephant We Ignore is an official participant with GLAAD's #SpiritDay campaign, and will be wearing purple in solidarity with those who live in fear of being judged for who they are.

As Republicans, we are proud to support the civil liberties and humanity of all Americans.

How to be involved:
  • Wear Purple! (clothes/social media)
  • Reach out
  • Listen
Just showing purple can make someone who needs support feel a little more accepted.

Monday, June 29, 2015

The Slippery Slope of Marriage

We are on a slippery slope regarding our understanding of marriage. Some think it is predefined. Others think it’s defined by consensus. Neither is correct.

When the state regulates marriage, it is not affirming love, reproductive ability, or anything else. The government recognizes certain partnerships for a lot of boring reasons that have to do with taxes.

Government involvement wasn’t required to conceive any Americans; it’s also not required to marry any of us. We have that freedom. Marriage and government recognition are different.

Our government bureaucracy issues us a lot of paper in order to document our status. Driver’s licenses, social security cards, and death certificates are issued upon qualification. No sovereign state has ever given birth to a child, yet each state provides a certificate of live birth. This piece of paper does not give a child life; it’s legal proof of citizenship and parental relationship. Similarly, a marriage certificate is legal proof of an existing relationship for the protection of assets. A marriage isn’t a piece of paper, and a piece of paper is certainly not a marriage.

Can You Marry Your Dog?

The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that marriage between two people of the same sex is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Opponents of the marriage ruling presented several slippery slope scenarios: “What about polygamy? What about incest? What about my dog? Can I marry my dog?” The more depraved the concocted scenario, the more resolute the dissenting side became in their opposition. They might be surprised to learn that marriage is a “personal expression” protected by the 1st Amendment.

So, in fact, someone can marry a beloved animal. They can marry ten! They can marry a wall or a ferris wheel. They can even marry themselves. While none of these personal expressions are illegal, none are legally recognized. Marriage between consenting adults who qualify for state recognition (including same-sex couples) must be recognized.

(Note for those doomsayers: No form of marriage permits a criminal act. Age of consent laws are still applicable. Laws that ban sexual activity with animals remain on the books. Bigamy, not to be confused with polygamy, continues to be unlawful.)

A Piece of Paper

While acknowledging that marriage has evolved over centuries, the Supreme Court granted gay and lesbian married couples access to a piece of paper that represents legal protections; the individuals in the committed relationship already defined their marriage without the help of government.

Currently, most state marriage contracts are limited to two non-blood relatives, which are usually more distantly related than first cousins, bound in exclusivity, as is the case in Wisconsin. Children cannot enter into a legal contract without parental consent. Animals and inanimate objects have no legal contractual rights, so they are precluded from marriage contracts. Unless a state decides to offer plural marriage contracts for polygamist couples, legally recognized polygamy is a moot point. This limits state recognition to be between two consenting non-related adults.

Lesbian and gay couples won equal access to legal recognition, not marriage itself (the expression of marriage was always available). Some dissenters genuinely think government will force churches to perform same-sex weddings or face consequences. The 1st Amendment  expressly prohibits this.

The Not So Conservative Response

Prominent conservative presidential contenders looked stubbornly foolish in the aftermath of the marriage ruling, while others tempered their response with resigned calls for respect. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) called for the Justices to undergo retention elections, a strategy likely to further increase the politicization of the judiciary. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) argued for state defiance of the federal court ruling, a failed strategy previously employed to prevent integration of public schools following the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education court decision.

Gov. Scott Walker’s (R-WI) proposal to introduce a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between “one man and one woman” is the most ham-handed option, violating the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment reads in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech [...].” Yet conservative Walker wants Congress to radically change the law in respect to religion.

In order for Walker to impose his definition of marriage on our constitution, he must ignore American Presbyterians who recognize marriages between same-sex couples. More pressingly, Walker would need to repeal the amendment he intends to protect.

Walker called the court ruling a “grave mistake”. When the growing majority of Americans support marriage equality, Walker has doubled down in opposition. Politically, this issue might bury him.

No wonder these politicians are paranoid the government is intruding on Americans’ lives! They misunderstand the role of law is a means to protect rights. The equal protections clause in the 14th Amendment guides state government behavior, not the whims of those who play gatekeeper of the societal norms.

It appears these outspoken candidates, along with the majority of Americans, have slid into the trap of believing these court rulings are about more than just a piece of a paper that protects property and familial rights. People make the marriage; government recognizes their commitment. These conservatives don’t understand either. Do you?

Saturday, May 30, 2015

Pilgrims, Poets, & Presidents

Republicans and conservatives gathered earlier this month in La Crosse, WI to hold the annual Republican Party of Wisconsin (RPW) State Convention.

On the eve of the convention, the first family welcomed Wisconsin GOP pilgrims seeking political catharsis. During the governor’s reception, Scott Walker led an awkward conga line which included state representatives and party faithful. In a way, this clumsy dance was symbolic of the real goal of the convention: get Republicans in line behind the governor, regardless of how ridiculous everyone looks.

Canned vs. Fresh Ideas

At the main event, Walker delivered his canned speech from a small stage surrounded by an enamored crowd. The governor wore approachable rolled sleeves in front of his supportive backdrop, setting up a folksy photo-op. Walker sounded precise, cadenced, and rehearsed, describing accomplishments like his role in passing Right-to-Work (legislation he reluctantly supported after calling the initiative to pass the bill a “distraction”). Interestingly, Walker’s 2015 achievement needed to be force-fed to him by the Republican legislature only a few months prior. Now Walker has rewritten Wisconsin history. The narrative became his; supporters clapped.

In contrast, Wisconsin 8th District Congressman Reid Ribble reached the podium and asked the crowd to ponder something simple: “Why did you come?” Ribble went on to describe a meeting of Republican members of Congress where one of the guest speakers, Arthur C. Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute, listed three visionary principles that Republicans must take to heart in order to be successful in the future:

1.     (Republicans) must stop fighting against things, and start fighting for people.

The GOP gets stuck on selling their own policy rather than listening to people, then developing solutions. Too often, Republicans refuse to address pleas for help, sweeping them aside as another way government might intrude on people’s lives. “No” is a conservative response to most new and existing government assistance. To regular citizens, “no” is not a vision that makes their lives better; it’s a dismissal of their concerns.

2.     Republicans need to go where they’re not invited.

This should be common sense for a group attempting to grow its tent. Republicans tend to wait for diversity to come to them. At a certain point, Republican outreach requires the party members to actually reach out.

3.     Do not fight for people who like you. Fight for people who need you.

Ribble urged the WI GOP convention-goers to put aside partisan politics and start caring about the individual. He said, “You want to win in 2016? You start to view life through a different prism. [...] It’s not about being red, and it’s not about being blue; it’s not (in many cases) [...] about being right. It’s about caring for people.”

Is connecting with potential voters a core principle or a hassle? Is the Republican Party ready to actually do the work of continuous outreach, or will outreach continue to be a campaign checklist item performed for a few weeks of each election cycle?

O Captain! Where Art Thou?

Walt Whitman wrote O Captain! My Captain! in response to the death of Abraham Lincoln, a father of the original Republican Party. The three-stanza poem expressed sorrow and exultation for a man with noble ideals who was cut down too soon. A man who understood that reaching out and helping others was part of being a Republican. Lincoln was a captain.

Today, the modern-day GOP remains without a true captain. The Republican National Committee (RNC) leadership talks about increasing the party’s racial and gender diversity, yet they’re oblivious to their insular homogeny (see the 2015 “Your America” Calendar reference, which has since been taken down from the RNC’s website).

Pockets of minorities and union workers who live in strong blue areas are written off as automatic Democratic voters. Republicans need to go beyond their comfort zones, go where they’re not invited, and listen. This is how Democrats have been successful earning the majority of minority votes.

Walker has proven himself to be an unworthy skipper, acting as a windsock rather than a captain. When not leading a conga line, Walker follows where the opportunistic winds blow (and claims credit for passing bills like Right to Work).

As 2016 approaches, Ribble’s speech reminds us that the GOP is a grand vessel left in decay with no one worthy at the helm. We have no one worthy to be president. We are a party adrift. O captain! Where art thou?

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

When Life Matters

Wisconsin Republican legislators introduced a bill that would ban abortions 20 weeks after fertilization, an effort to narrow the window of when life can be legally terminated. According to supporters of the bill, this is the point in human development that pain can be felt. (9 out of 10 abortions are performed within 12 weeks – most are performed before 9 weeks.) Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) has vowed to approve such legislation, a move that wins points with social conservatives in Iowa, site of the first presidential battleground.

This bill is dishonest in its very mission, finding a backdoor around Roe v. Wade when Republicans should confront it head on. Instead of leading on the basic fundamentals of human rights, they have missed an opportunity to protect lives. I think 20 weeks is too late. In this case, half steps are tactical missteps.

Life matters from the beginning until the end.
Hypocritical Oath

The Republican Party needs to do more than simply adjust messaging; they need to adjust their attitudes toward the value of all stages of life.

GOP inconsistency begins early. The initial conservative reaction to food stamp programs, a life sustaining measure, is disgust. Select Wisconsin conservatives have shown their disdain by drafting legislation that would restrict certain types of food purchases for citizens on food stamps, requiring increased government involvement and oversight (hardly a fiscally conservative stance that does nothing to reduce waste). “Beggars can’t be choosers” is the default mentality of the conservative wing of the Republican Party; all the while those in need struggle to get by.

To be fair, Wisconsin state Republicans seem to genuinely care about providing quality education and health care to citizens, though Gov. Walker’s $127 million cuts proposed to K-12 education shows cost aversion outweighs long-term investment. Cutting programs that provide a net-positive contribution to society is shortsighted. Republicans are saving for the next quarter, not investing for retirement.

When conservatives aren’t displaying indifference toward quality of life, they’re perceived to callously disregard the value of individuals.

According to Pew Research, Republican support for capital punishment remains steady at 77%, contrasted by only 40% support from Democrats. How can a group hold the sanctity of life in one hand and flip the execution switch with the other?

Democrats are hardly innocent, being a party for social justice, yet resigned to allow humans to be aborted. There is a detestable pride that accompanies the majority of pro-choice Democrats in their efforts to deprive a fetal human’s right to life.

For both parties, parsing exactly when life has value, and when the public good trumps that value, is not pro-life or pro-choice; it’s pro-convenience.

The majority of Democrats have proven a willingness to postpone the moment human rights matter (preferably after the birth certificate is stamped). Wisconsin Republicans are hypocrites for proposing legislation that reduces the time frame for abortion instead of ending the practice outright.

In the absence of boldness and clarity of vision, people will die as they wait to be born.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

The Court of Public Opinion

Did you notice some justices’ skepticism today over the impact of their ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case deciding the fate of same-sex marriage bans? Chief Justice John Roberts voiced his concern over a ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor, saying, “I mean, closing of debate can close minds, and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted.

Timing v. Prudence

What if the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t wait a century to end Jim Crow? Schools would have been integrated; violators of civil rights would have been brought to justice. The fact that it took roughly 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation to end Jim Crow is proof that patience on the subject of rights is no virtue.

In hindsight, every moment an American citizen is forced to live under illegal and unjust laws is unconscionable. We certainly could wait for the same-sex marriage debate to drag on for a few more decades, or we can right the wrong immediately.

Does Roberts' comment reveal a crack in our nation’s defense of individual rights? Popularity is not necessary to ensure equality. When the equal right to marry was denied as a result of public referendum in the various states, it was the role of the courts to step in, regardless of public opinion.

Yet public opinion is inextricably tethered to the heart of this issue. And the justices appear cognizant of this reality.

“People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it, than if it's imposed on them by the courts,” Roberts offered. Is he trying to avoid a situation like the aftermath of Roe v. Wade that galvanized the pro-life movement, leading to a cultural civil war still alive today? Is Roberts more concerned about potential cultural stress than the immediate and just relief of the ignored?

Jury is Out

For the pro-LGBT community, the result of this court battle seems like it should be crystal clear: marriage equality is a 14th Amendment guaranteed right (Equal Protections Clause). While nothing seems to be guaranteed (including guaranteed rights), there is optimism among advocates that the time for LGBT equality has come. The question remains whether the justices agree the timing is right. The jury is still out.

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

An Un-American Democracy

Democracy is a threat to our country.

Professor of economics at George Mason University and nationally syndicated columnist Walter E. Williams stated, “The ideal way to organize human conduct is to create a system that maximizes personal liberty for all. Liberty and democracy are not synonymous and most often are opposites.”

Williams, a laissez-faire capitalist, takes strong libertarian positions on issues such as eliminating the minimum wage, affirmative action, and the Federal Reserve (opinions I do not share). Nevertheless, as far as articulating the contradictory nature of liberty and democracy, Williams is on point.

We Were Warned

Democracy wasn’t always a celebrated ideal. In its pure form, a slight majority can eliminate the rights and privileges of a minority by voting them away. Pure democracy is mob rule. American revolutionaries avoided this system, preferring the more equitable republican system of government.

James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that a republican system protects the rights of the minority through representative government while democracy solidifies majority power by any means possible. Alexander Hamilton said of American governmental structure: “We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship.”

The founders were right, yet modern politicians use pure democracy to their benefit. These opportunists rely on the mob. Some are even running for president.

We the Mob

“We the People”, borrowed from the opening line in the U.S. Constitution, is a popular slogan used by right-wing politicians. It is used by states’ rights (mob rule) ideologues to claim a popular consensus rather the original intent of the phrase: liberty and justice for all. Liberty is an inconvenient concept to people who want to force their ideas on others. It’s much easier to convince a mob to turn on the minority.

Mob rule ideologues rely on the human desire to align with the pack, not the outcast. Pack mentality is primal, uncivilized. Mob rule conservatives have harnessed the notion of “We the People” as an excuse to illegally block individual rights (most recently, LGBT rights). Pure democracy in action.

(Full disclosure: I am Vice President of the Log Cabin Republicans of Wisconsin, a pro-LGBT group.)

The entire premise of mob rule trumping civil rights is based on democracy. “We the People” voted, so we get our way, right? -- WRONG. Unfortunately, most Republican presidential candidates celebrate pure democracy, abandoning their republican ideals in return for popularity. Most notably, Texas Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz (a states’ rights conservative first, Republican second) has chosen the wrong side in the debate on same-sex marriage: The mob.

Cruz made this statement following the Supreme Court’s decision allowing lower court rulings on same-sex marriage to stand: “This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens.” Cruz’s immediate response was to propose legislation (S. 2024) limiting marriage to be between a “man and a woman”. Apparently the 1st Amendment slipped the constitutional lawyer’s mind (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [...]”).

Marriage is a right. The Supreme Court has already ruled in Loving v. Virginia (the landmark 1967 case that struck bans on interracial marriage), “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men” (emphasis mine). Every individual’s right to marry is protected from Cruz’s aggression. Minority rights are never subject to popular vote.

The Face of Democracy

The states’ rights conservative movement has long embraced pure democracy. National Organization for Marriage (aligned with conservatives Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee) and the equally harmful Wisconsin Family Action (WFA) make a daily effort to chip away at the rights of the LGBT community.

WFA President Julaine Appling said of Wisconsin’s overturned marriage ban, “The people of Wisconsin voted to protect the definition of marriage. One liberal judge overturned the will of the people [...]”. That IS the purpose of the judiciary. Constitutional rights aren’t intended to be stripped by democratic means. In a republic, rights are guaranteed to even the smallest minority.

Republic for Which We Stand

We the people are individuals with God-given rights. To hell with democracy! It’s time to remember the ideal America was founded on: Republicanism.

Sunday, April 5, 2015

The RNC is at it again

We'll keep this very short. If the Republican National Committee (RNC) and Chairman Reince Priebus have decided they will be endorsing Christian theology in official party publications by claiming "He is Risen", it's time to reclaim our party.

A better way to wish people a happy Easter who celebrate the holiday is to say "Happy Easter". This isn't rocket science.

Sunday, January 18, 2015

MLK Day of Service (2015)

"Life's most persistent and urgent question is: 'What are you doing for others?'" 
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Help with your own act of service. Find a Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service event in your area.

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

The Unofficial Party

The major two-party system in American politics has existed since our nation’s infancy. 
While President John Adams warned against the dueling party system as “the greatest political evil under our Constitution”, it is a pillar of our republic. Today, Democrats and Republicans account for the majority of modern-day political party affiliations.

The two parties don’t need to be enemies, rather complementary civic partners. Though the opposing camps differ on policy decisions, both support the individual citizens of our country with their unique visions. However, Republicans and Democrats have dealt with a hidden opponent – an unofficial group that parasitically attached to both parties over the past 100 years, yet never represented the ideals of either host.

Who is this shadowy “unofficial party” slipping between political tents?

Exposing State’s Rights

The unofficial group I’m talking about has a single goal: promoting the interests of the majority regardless of individual constitutional rights. With this mentality, popular opinion is sacred, minority rights are expendable, and the State is king.

These popular majority supporters point to the 10th Amendment as their justification to supersede others’ rights. Though the 10th Amendment guarantees the states powers that are not reserved for the Federal government, it does not invalidate individual rights.

Following the American Civil War, nearly every constitutional amendment beginning at Reconstruction is systematically ignored by Southern voters in what appears to be a desperate attempt to pretend the Confederates never lost. (Reconstruction Amendments 13, 14, and 15 respectively abolished slavery, ensured equal protections of citizens of each state in the union, and prohibited suffrage restrictions on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.) Unsurprisingly, the Southern states continued to infringe on African-American equal protections and voting rights well into the 20th century. And this illegal restriction of rights endured in the South for over 150 years behind the passionate defense of a single group: The state’s rights conservatives.

Don’t confuse limited government conservatism and state’s rights conservatives. The two are very different. Limited government conservatives focus on reducing the size and scope of government to its most efficient scale. State’s rights conservatives rely on the power of the state to push forward the will of the majority. Really, state’s rights advocates are just big-government conservatives who want to centralize unquestioned majority power at the state.

State’s rights conservatives seem to believe the 10th Amendment absolves states from their obligation to respect each citizen’s constitutional rights. Their ideas don’t belong in either party -- and they know it. It’s why these conservatives are transients, seeking a home wherever they will be accepted (deriding the establishment party along the way). State’s rights conservatives give good conservatives a bad name.

The Great Conservative Migration

Today, Republicans are regarded as the conservative party, but it wasn’t always this way. The Republican National Committee (RNC) began as a progressive anti-slavery movement prior to the American Civil War. Being Republican meant supporting civil rights, economic freedom, and social justice. Republicans favored racial equality while the Democratic Party remained conflicted between its conservative wing in the former Confederate South and the liberals residing in Northeast.

The Klu Klux Klan (KKK) and Jim Crow segregationists of the early 20th century are often associated with Southern Democrats. In fact, Southern conservative Democrats, in an effort to protect their ability to keep segregation legal and counter the liberal Democratic support of the civil rights movement, briefly split during the 1948 presidential campaign, forming the Democratic State’s Rights Party (AKA “Dixiecrat” Party). “State’s rights” was their motto, yet these were not Democratic ideals.

As the civil rights movement progressed into the 1960s, liberal Democrats pressed for anti-discrimination legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which offered protections based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. State’s rights conservatives revolted. Opportunistic Republicans, a desperate minority party in 1964, sought to expand their tent. They implemented a scheme to pull Southern white conservatives to the GOP, an action dubbed the “Southern Strategy”. It was successful and the state’s rights movement had a new home in the GOP.

Rise of the Un-Republicans

50 years ago, RNC leadership turned on the Republican values of civil rights and racial equality in order to build a winning political coalition. In a way, they sold their soul to win national elections. Party leadership began to embrace more conservative state’s rights principles and the un-Republican movement began to grow within the RNC. The Southern Strategy was executed flawlessly, helping swing Presidents Nixon (1968) and Reagan (1980) into office with the newfound support of the conservative south. The change of white southern conservative support brought Republican victories, yet may have changed the RNC’s political philosophy forever.

In the most recent civil rights discussion of same-sex marriage, a strange parallel has surfaced with how state’s rights conservatives responded to the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision in 1954. The courts ruled that segregation based on race in public schools violated the 14th Amendment rights of students facing discrimination. State’s rights conservatives howled that judicial activists were supplanting their state sovereignty with federal mandates. Conservative politicians like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) now claim that the Federal courts are full of judicial activists disregarding the “will of the people” who voted to oppose marriage equality. Potential conservative presidential contender, former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL), called the marriage rulings “disappointing”, claiming states should be able to decide on these matters.

In a typical state’s rights maneuver, these conservatives have ignored the 14th Amendment equal protections of gay and lesbian couples in favor of their popular majority. Although conservatives typically support religious freedom, they deny it to American Presbyterians who recognize same-sex marriage. Would conservatives allow their religious freedoms to be subject to popular vote? -- No chance!

The RNC seems to agree with Sen. Cruz and Gov. Bush, and now includes the un-Republican state’s rights sentiment in their official national platform, though the courts are ruling against the state bans on marriage equality at rapid pace (37 states and counting). Apparently, many conservatives don’t care about constitutional amendments added after the Confederate South fell. Are the RNC leadership and politicians with similar positions on state’s rights (including Sen. Ted Cruz, Gov. Jeb Bush, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Gov. Rick Perry, Sen. Rick Santorum, etc...) just Dixiecrats in Republicans’ clothes?

The real RINOs

The RNC now touts their values as “conservative” rather than Republican. Candidates don’t run as Republicans, they run from the label. This was the case with Wisconsin 6th District Congressman Glenn Grothman, who in the 2014 election proudly displayed political advertisements claiming he is fighting for “conservative values”. Grothman subsequently beat his moderate challenger. Republicanism, in large part, was eschewed in favor of conservatism. Conservatives want to elect “true” conservatives into office, not Republicans. While Republicans cheer a massive blow to Democrats by claiming majorities in both houses of Congress, this wasn’t their victory; it was the conservatives’ -- the usurpers of the Republican Party.

Today, conservatives claim to be the base of the RNC. Yet how can the framework of Republican values such as individual liberty and limited government be built on a political base bent on its destruction? State’s rights conservatives favor popular majority enforced by a powerful State, while Republicans protect the minority from majority will. These positions are polar opposites.

Though state’s rights conservatives have been a part of the Republican Party for decades, their values never really belonged. Conservatives were frustrated with liberals when they were misfits in the Democratic Party. Now conservatives are frustrated with moderate Republicans who better represent the GOP’s founding mission. The irony isn’t lost when the most un-Republican conservative groups refer to moderate Republicans as RINOs (“Republicans-in-name-only”).

Crashing the Party

The Republican Party correctly seeks to be more inclusive. Unfortunately, the RNC has only been successful at including groups whose mission is to extinguish Republican ideals. At this point, RNC leadership has strayed so far from the original party line, they have forgotten what being a Republican is all about: Individual civil rights that are NEVER subject to popular vote. Have Republicans allowed themselves to be kicked out of their own tent?

If only the RNC had not implemented the Southern Strategy, Republicans might still be the party of civil rights. If state’s rights conservatives had not infected the party founded to stop them, Republicans would be fighting for minority rights, not majority comfort and supremacy.

Real Republicans recognize the party’s cancer. The growing state’s rights conservative movement has mutated the Republican message from empowering individuals to overpowering them. Until Republican voters realize their party has been unofficially taken over by the mentality the GOP was founded to thwart, Republicanism is lost.

(Also published at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - Purple Wisconsin)

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Resolve to Be Bold

"Each person must live their life as a model for others."
Rosa Parks

This year resolve to be bold. Happy New Year!