Jay, meet Adolph!

I was just a little kid, not yet in school, when the Nazis staged their big 1934 book burning in Berlin. Obviously I do not remember the actual event, but I have heard it demonized all my life. Today, the very concept of book burning - the literal attempt to destroy the ideas of persons who disagree with your own ideas - is a horror to me. I don't like MSNBC, or the Huffington Post, but let them exist! They are their own worst enemy.

You can then imagine my shock and surprise this week when a United States Senator, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, actually said he wanted the F.C.C. to shut down MSNBC and Fox News Channel. Of course, he really meant to say only Fox News Channel. Comcast is about to acquire NBC - and MSNBC - so the fate of that cable network, as we know it, is already sealed.

Sure, I meet people who demonize CNN and MSNBC. But they are not United States Senators!

I think the good people of West Virginia, loyal Americans beyond a doubt, should demand that their Senator apologize for his Nazi-like comments.

An Open Letter to the Republican Party

This piece was written by Larry Halloran, a true patriot and dear friend. I agree completely and feel his words should be shared far and wide.

While the election results of this past Tuesday were impressive, the natural tendency for jubilant celebration was tempered, at least for some of us. We realize that the difficult task ahead is to awaken our party and fellow citizens to the awesome responsibility that comes with the victory. We can not allow ourselves to simply become the empowered party and granters of favors but must assume the more difficult task of providing principled leadership.

The progressives in both the Republican and Democratic parties would have us believe that they have evolved beyond the mortal status of our Founders and are no longer shackled with the frailties of human nature. Our Founders rightly understood that if unrestrained power and wealth were concentrated in government, the scourge of the earth would soon arrive at the doorstep to relieve the citizens of both. We would be hard pressed today to find any citizen that does not look to government for the benefit of an unhealthy promise.

This is not a time for political deal makers to prevail and claim victory. Rather it is time for citizens to stand boldly and break the chains of political corrections. It is time to both teach and live our heritage. It is time for the party to assume a role in that task and provide a rallying point for the greatness of America that resides in self government and the fervent independence of its citizens.

The Tea Party represents the heartbeat of America and it’s greatest attribute; the citizen. The Republican party would be wise to exercise great humility in the victory of Tuesday night. Those elected must hear clearly the mandate of the citizen - HONOR our trust in you and your OATH to us. We appreciate that hard decisions lay ahead and unlike the past we do not expect that you carry the weight solely upon your own shoulders. We must do our part as well and we look forward to participating in our own governance. Concentrate on fulfilling the obligations of your office and let us concentrate on whether we will return you to that office or not.

As the Republican party moves toward reorganization it would do well to remember from where its victory came else it find itself again sitting in the bleacher seats. The Tea Party is not a prize to be co-opted or taken advantage of but an advantage to be incorporated and encouraged. The choice is yours.

Larry Halloran. Chairman
Wichita - South Central KS 912 Group

What I learned on 11/2/10

Having now lived through 42 national elections, I thought I had seen everything. Nope.

This year, for the first time in my experience, awakened voters (especially we seasoned citizens) fully realized that people we had trusted and elected had let us down. We said "No more!" to business as usual.

A percentage of us got off our butts at primary time and looked over the field of hopeful candidates. Then we actually worked for and went to the polls and voted for people we thought would not let us down. Certainly not always "attractive" candidates in the usual sense of the word. But we felt the usual attractive candidates were the ones who had failed us (like Harvard Law School grads who had made it to the U.S. Senate). Better to have a new kind of candidate, the kind we believed was telling us the truth - warts, if any, notwithstanding. We chose our nominees.

Ah, but here is the next new part. A lot of folks, largely the ones Angelo M. Codevilla called The Ruling Class, decided we had chosen our nominees stupidly and proceeded to trumpet their opinions far and wide. The opposition party instantly grabbed those opinions and made their negative political ads.

Sadly, many members of our party's electorate who had sat out the primary cycle, bought into the poor choice syndrome and bypassed the general election - or actually voted for our nominee's opponent.

Some fresh, new candidate choices lost. Would they have been good leaders? No one knows. But I remember when candidate Ronald Reagan was considered a low-class Hollywood type, not appropriate for high political office! And we all have read that self-educated Abraham Lincoln was considered a bumpkin log-splitter.

I may or may not live to see my 43rd national election. But I would hope that when it does roll around, all the smart guys work for and vote for their choice of candidate. When the primary winner emerges (your choice or your neighbor's) support them or just change parties, but spare the world your learned opinion.

Who Owns Chris Biggs?

Chris Biggs makes a lot of noise about keeping the Kansas Secretary of State's office non-partisan:

“I believe that partisanship should have nothing to do with the Secretary of State’s office,” said current Secretary of State Chris Biggs,“Elections in Kansas are fair, accessible and non-partisan.”

“That will change is if Kris Kobach is elected,” continued Biggs. “It’s clear that Kobach and his partisan allies are pursuing a political agenda that will destroy Kansas’s proud tradition of non-partisan Secretaries of State and make it harder for eligible Kansans to vote.”

All very noble, Mr. Biggs - too bad you don't practice what you preach.

The truth is that nearly 60% of Mr. Biggs recently reported (10/25/2010) campaign donations came from labor unions, special interest groups, lawyers, law firms and political sources.

Mr. Biggs' is his own single largest benefactor, having loaned his campaign $30,000 during the reporting period. This generous contribution is dwarfed, however, by the $61,562 he received from various lawyers and law firms. Contributions from legal and governmental interests represent a whopping 45.40% of Biggs' total fundraising efforts.

Labor unions and special interest groups were also very generous to the "non-partisan" Biggs campaign, kicking in nearly $30,000, or another 13.35% of Biggs' funds.

All total, 58.75% of Mr. Biggs' donations came from these highly partisan sources. By contrast, his opponent, Kris Kobach, reports a mere 12.74% of his donations were received from lawyers, governmental and special interest groups.

Who is the real "partisan" candidate, Mr. Biggs? What kind of favors will your contributors be expecting should you be elected?

I voted!!!

On October 19, exactly two weeks before Election Day! In my case, that says a lot about how important this election is to me.

I have always loved Election Day. You start your day knowing that voting will be the top priority of your day. So you begin the day by deciding exactly when you will go to the polls. Since retiring from a 9-5 job, we try never to vote in the early morning. Lots of people have to get to work, so best not to crowd the polls between 7 and 9. Same holds true for the noon hour, and the last two hours, 5-7, when people who had to be at work early will be trying to vote on their lunch hour, or on the way home from work.

It was always fun arriving at the polling place and sometimes having to wait for a parking place. Then standing in line. I remember one election day when the lines were so long they extended out the door and we shivered in the cold for about ten minutes before the line moved us indoors.

But this election is so much more important. Ever since I first read one of the ancient Greek philosophers discuss the fragility of man, I adhere strongly to the principal of not putting off until tomorrow. So, when the time for early voting began, we hurried to the temporary polling place.

In keeping with President Obama's view that this year's voters are angry and fearful, I voted like a angry, frightened old man. Democrats have controlled Washington, and our New Mexico state government, and I do not approve of their job. Years ago, a business client suggested that an employer should not hesitate to fire an employee who is not doing their job. His reasoning is that firing them from a job they do not like (why else would they do a poor job?) helps both the employer and the employee... forcing them to find a job where they will be happy.

So, I voted a straight Republican ticket for all candidates, and voted against every proposed Constitutional Amendment. If you want to amend my Constitution, don't spring it on me on a sample ballot while I am in line at the polling place. You are gong to have to spend some time convincing me.

I also voted against every bond proposal. Before I agree to any spending, prove to me that the population as a whole will suffer in the absence of the spending.

When Republican Gary Johnson was in our state house, he viewed every spending bill from the angle of how it would benefit all the people of New Mexico. If it didn't pass that test, he vetoed it! I learned a lot from Gary Johnson!

Yesterday a campaign worker approached my wife with some literature supporting some candidate. She said, "Sorry... I've already voted!" It feels so good!

Kansas Democratic Secretary of State Needs Ethics Lesson

A couple of weeks ago, the Kansas Secretary of State, running for reelection and lagging in the polls, decided that the official website of the office needed to be redone to make the site "as helpful and user friendly as possible." Problem is, it's still a rotten site - the major change is that it's now a full page ad for Secretary of State Biggs, featuring a large picture, and this text (emphasis added):

About Us

Secretary of State Chris Biggs is one of only four state officers authorized by the Kansas constitution and elected state-wide every four years. With his vision and leadership, our office serves all Kansans by performing numerous statutory duties related to the administration of statewide elections, business entities, and the uniform commercial code. The Kansas constitution created our office, but statutes define our daily duties.

Chris Biggs is "authorized by the Kansas constitution"? And the office only runs, I'm sure, because of his "vision and leadership." Transparently political...from the man who harps constantly about how non-partisan the office is supposed to be.

Today, we learned that Biggs is spending $159,000 of taxpayer money to run this ad:



He calls it a public service announcement. Just educating the public, he assures us. I'm sure it's important for the public to hear the name of the Secretary of State in order to learn about advance voting options in Kansas. Another blatantly political move, less than three weeks before the election.

The gall of an elected official spending $159,000 in taxpayer funds to display his mug all over the state this close to an election is incredible. And, by the way...how do we know he's spending $159,000? Because his campaign communications director, Tyler Longpine, tells us it is so. Why would anyone from his campaign need to be involved with the public service duties of the Secretary of State?

This is an outrage, and as a Kansas taxpayer and voter, I urge you to reject this transparent ploy and send this slimy politician packing. He has no respect for our money or our intelligence and is not fit to preside over elections for class president, let alone for the great state of Kansas.

Remembering 1972

It is a surprise to me that none of the political commentators are mentioning the 1972 elections. My guess is that Richard Nixon was so demonized that that election has been purposely ignored.

Mr. Nixon was the Republican incumbent. The Democrat nominee was George McGovern. For a running mate, McGovern chose Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton.

Throughout the campaign, McGovern's left-leaning philosophies proved to be out of step with the American people. (He was tagged as the candidate for "Abortion, Amnesty & Acid") His choice of Thomas Eagleton, only added to that image.

Mr. Nixon was quite popular and there was every indication of a huge Republican victory. Then, just before the election, it was discovered that Mr. Eagleton had undergone electro-shock therapy for depression. That sealed the election outcome. Eagleton withdrew and was replaced by Kennedy brother-in-law Sargent Shriver. It did not help the Democrats.

McGovern won only the state of Massachusetts and The District of Columbia - 17 electoral votes in all. Nixon won 49 states and 520 electoral votes. It was, and remains, the biggest presidential landslide.

Toward the end of the campaign, some members of the Nixon campaign staff foolishly decided to break into the Democrats National Headquarters at the Watergate Complex and plant listening devices. The left-leaning media, spurred-on by the anti-Viet Nam War protesters, rode that break-in scandal mercilessly. As investigations unfolded, Nixon and his White House staff, hoping to protect their colleagues, made cover-up attempts which led to Nixon's resignation. Thus, our most spectacular election victory was followed by the first ever resignation of a U.S. President.

November, 1972 was 38 years ago. If you were 18-years-old then, you would be 56 today. It is not surprising that most of today's voters do not remember 1972. What they do know of the election is what the liberal media have taught... that Nixon was a crook.

Now, these 38 years later, I am seeing another landslide Republican victory in the making. And, following the election, I worry that there will be a relentless search to find some small infraction on the part of Republicans, Conservatives or Tea Party members, which can be exploited and blown into a Watergate-like bomb.

What a gal...

Many of us feel pride on those special days... a child is born, a wedding event takes place and your son or daughter walks down the aisle looking handsome or lovely. A patriotic day is cause for pride and celebration, but it isn't often that one can look at every day and feel proud of his/her relationships. I am one of the fortunates that can address that feeling every day of my life, I have the pleasure of awakening every day with my wonderful wife. She is the reason for my pride. She gives of herself freely to the call of helping others. She has been working tirelessly for conservative candidates at the local, district and statewide level. She isn't just stuffing envelopes or making phone calls, although they are important activities as well, she is taking responsibility for seeing to it that volunteers are showing up by the carload to support our candidates. The candidates put up with me because I have a convertible and drive it in their parade assemblies. But April does it all. She walks the parade routes, walks the precincts knocking on doors and distributes literature, sets up and attends fund raisers, takes over web sites and adds her magic to their appearence. She has been praised by everyone with whom she works.

Now you can see why I awaken with such joy every day of my life. I am married to one of the most wonderful, caring, intelligent women in the world.

I am a lucky man!

Memories I'd just as soon not have.

It was about 1975. I was having a conversation with a young TV sales Rep, recently out of college. The conversation turned to the activities of radical young people, like the SDS (Students For A Democratic Society). The Viet Nam War had wound down in what I believed then and now to be disgraceful policies of the United States Government. Our conversation ranged over some of the influence the young radicals may have extended on politicians.

The U.S. Military was working toward the extraordinary state they enjoy today... a well-educated, all-volunteer force of top rated professionals. The college R.O.T.C. was an important building block toward that goal. This starting point for training future officers began with young people obtaining a college education. The military was then suffering from an ill-deserved reputation and building a corp of better educated officers should have appealed to everyone. Not so. Earlier, at the University of Kansas, an important ceremony in the progress of R.O.T.C. training had been interrupted, and in fact abruptly ended, by a rowdy group of protesters carrying pro-North Viet Nam posters and shouting a chant that contained the phrase "Ho Chi Minh will win, win, win!"

I am loathe to express hate. But I freely admit I hated the SDS. Again, my unchanged belief is that they inflicted great harm on this country I love. Most of these young radicals were from affluent families. Few had ever done an honest day's work. They truly were reaping all the luxurious benefits of the country their parents and grandparents had built, and which they chose to destroy. As part of their protest, they were largely unwashed, long-haired - perhaps with a flower in their dirty hair - weirdly dressed, drug using bums... demonstrating their difference from, and indifference to, society. Of course, they felt they were hip, and we called them hippies.

The Bob Fosse film "Cabaret" had been out a couple of years but was still being widely viewed. This story of a bawdy girl (brilliantly played by Liza Minelli) was set in pre-World War II Germany, and chronicled some of the rise of the Nazi's Third Reich. There was a scene in the movie that was set in an outdoor beer garden. A large number of patrons were quietly enjoying their evening when suddenly a teenage boy, clean-cut and washed, wearing a simple brown shirt, stood up and began to sing, in a loud clear voice, a song stating that "Tomorrow belongs to me." So infectious was his singing, adult patrons began to join him. Soon the entire crowd was on their feet singing with the Nazi youth.

Meanwhile, in 1975 America, there was widespread and deep felt disdain for the young American hippies. Remembering the beer garden scene from Cabaret, I told my friend that these young Americans were fools. If they wanted to sell their philosophy, they should learn from the Nazi youth of the late 1930s. Boy, do I regret that thought. Maybe the hippies had seen Cabaret. More likely, they learned from the same tutors as did the Nazi brown shirts. They did bathe. They did cut their hair and go back to school. They became college professors. They became the architects of much of what is happening in our government today. Can I say Bill Ayers? Bernadine Dorn?

I still hate them. And they are still hell-bent on destroying America.

Tears.

Nine years ago my wife and I stood in front of our TV watching images of the horror unfolding in New York, our eyes red and sore from hours of crying. At one point some new piece of news flashed on the screen and my wife sobbed, "I just can't cry any more." I agreed. There just couldn't be any more tears left in our bodies.

But there were more tears. We have cried since - cried at the loss of young Americans lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.... and Ft. Hood, Texas. These were not bad people, finally caught perpetrating some evil deed. They were good people who had sacrificed a career, a peaceful civilian life, to serve their country.

We have cried as we tried to understand why anyone would want to kill them. We have cried as we tried to understand why people would want to destroy our beautiful America, this land we love so much.

We have tried to understand our enemy, and tried to understand why we cannot seem to defeat them.

We cry as we hear that some Americans, persons blessed with citizenship in this extraordinary nation, have joined al qaeda and their fight against America. One of those citizens born right here in my city while his father attended the very university later attended by members of my family.

Today we cry again as we hear anew of the suffering of so many. We cry as we realize that people with radical ideologies hold reins of power in our nation; people who seem to demonstrate that they do not share our devotion to this nation; people who seem to resent America's exceptionalism and want to bring her down.

Yes, there have been more tears. And, nothing gives us cause to believe the sadness will soon end.

Made in China - Paid in U.S.A.

Mark Steyn revealed a disturbing fact this past week. Strangely, I've not heard any news medium mention it.

Simply put, Steyn looked at the annual payment the United States is making to China just to cover the interest on the money we have borrowed from them.

Then he looked at the total Chinese Defense Budget. Guess what... the figures were nearly equal!

Steyn then conservatively projected the increases in our interest payments - as borrowing continues and interest rates rise - and arrived at the astonishing fact that in a very short time, the good old American taxpayer will be completely paying for China's military. All those fancy Chinese jet aircraft. All those massive Chinese aircraft carriers. All those millions of Chinese soldiers. All paid for by you and me.

When I was a kid, attending a small country school, we once scheduled a baseball game with an even smaller school. But there was a problem: that school did not have nine players to field a team. We had to give them several players so we could have a game. That worked out okay - we still won. But I have never heard of one nation equipping another nation with an army so they could have a battle!

Now, I don't think we are on the verge of a war with China, but imagine if we were! Think of all the good paying Chinese jobs, building war materials for both sides... all paid for by America!

Congress! Go Home!

A crude riddle used to float around bachelor parties and locker rooms:

Question: What food is guaranteed to kill a woman's sex drive?
Answer: Wedding cake.

I have a variation:

Question: What act is guaranteed to turn an intelligent person into an idiot? Answer: Elect him to Congress.

The answer to problems is often clear and simple to anyone but an idiot. Congress rarely sees the simple answer.

Consider government spending. In Congress, it works this way: various departments of government submit budgets calling for a 5% increase over the previous year. For the purpose of illustration, let's assume that, spread over many departments, those 5% increases add up to $150 billion. Congress ponders these budget requests and decides to give the departments, on average, only a 3% increase. Then they proudly trumpet that they have cut spending by $60 billion.

Wrong. They increased spending by $90 billion.

The correct solution? Eliminate the department. A classic example is the Department of Energy, formed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It has not. Eliminate the Department. Billions saved.

The Department of Homeland Security. Formed in the nervous days following 9/11. We have the FBI, the CIA, the Army, the Navy, The Marine Corps, The Air Force, The Coast Guard, The National guard... all able to secure the homeland. Eliminate the Department of Homeland Security. More billions saved.

How much more spending could we cut? How many more departments are there in the federal government?

In Congress, they talk endlessly about doing the nation's work. Bulletin to Congress: The nation will work fine without you. Take a vacation!

An Open Letter to Craig McPherson ...from your biggest fan

Thank you.

Thank you for renewing my faith in the American political system, for showing me that there are still principled, intelligent men of character willing to make the personal sacrifices required of those who choose to run for office in today's climate. Unlike most in the arena today, your motives are pure - you seek to serve for the good of the country, not for personal aggrandizement. I didn't believe such people existed any longer, and will be forever in your debt for proving me wrong.

Thank you for allowing me to share this amazing journey. You have taught me more than any professor and found strengths and abilities in me that even I did not know I possessed. You have challenged me to be and do more than I would have thought possible, not through pressure or demands, but through your leadership, inspiration and quiet inner strength. I will never understand how you came to possess centuries of wisdom in your relatively few years, but will always be grateful for having had the opportunity to be a small part of your story.

Thank you for the countless hours it must have taken to amass the incredible body of knowledge you possess regarding the founding and history of this great nation. I share your love of America and your deep patriotism, but lack your dedication. You did not become the man you are today through luck, charm, or special favors, but through hard work and self-discipline, qualities which are rarely found among your generation. You evidence a respect for America's greatness that is a tribute to a forgotten time - a time which was all but forgotten even when I was a child, when personal responsibility and mutual respect were as commonplace as they are now exceptional.

Thank you for giving new meaning to the phrase, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game." You have played by the rules, consistently, even when no one was looking and you might have gained much by bending them a little.

Being associated with your campaign is an enormous honor for me. Whatever the outcome, I wouldn't have missed it for the world. Thank you.

Might the Tea Party Actually Be the Culmination of King's Dream?

by Craig McPherson, candidate for U.S. House of Representatives (KS-03)
July 13, 2010

With Michelle Obama's comments yesterday and the NAACP's resolution condemning "racist elements of the Tea Party" likely to be passed today, it seems clear that branding the Tea Partiers as racist or at least intolerant is a strategy that the left intends to pursue to mitigate electoral damage this November.

The touchstone of this allegation has been, of course, the symbolic march of the majority party through the Tea Party protest on the afternoon of the House Health Care vote. The procession of government officials through private citizens was supposed to, I guess, represent the victory of freedom and equality over tyranny and racism. The irony here is that government power has been the greatest institutional facilitator of racism in our nation's history.

Many remember, of course, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision for America in his majestic “I Have a Dream” speech. Fewer, however, quote the factor which drove him and hundreds of thousands of others on that sultry August afternoon.

“So we’ve come here today…to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.”

The great question facing the Republic today is just how big is that check and can we or any state possibly carry enough in its account to cover it? Is the check for liberty, freedom, and equality under the law? Or does it also cover the government guaranteed right to a fair wage, home ownership, protection from economic fear and unemployment, health insurance, carbon neutrality, a religion free public square, a college football playoff, and whatever else those with 50% plus one of the vote believe to be good for us?

It is clear that our founders and the giants whose shoulders they and King stood on believed only in drafting checks you can cash.

In writing the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson borrowed heavily from John Locke, a Christian political philosopher who suggested that God rather than man or government was the source of our rights to life, liberty and property.

Alexander Hamilton explained, “the sacred rights of mankind…are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power”. Our government was put in place by a social contract of the people, who consented to cede a limited amount of their sovereignty to that government so as to have those God-given rights protected.

In his first inaugural address, President George Washington stated that “the foundations of our national policy would be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private (i.e. not government) morality”.

The unifying thread for The Tea Party movement is a modest expectation for what government can guarantee and immodesty in their expectation for what free people of good will can achieve.

Perhaps because this thread runs to the core of who America has always believed herself to be, The Tea Party movement now is being embraced by long time Democrats and long time Republicans, those with high levels of education and those with little education, those who have never before participated in political events, and political veterans. Although there are obviously some leaders who are trying to bring organization to the movement, by and large, events and protests are driven by those citizens willing to stand, even in the rain, to convey their message.

Despite how they have been portrayed, according to Gallup, members of the Tea Party are a remarkable cross-section of American life, diverse, taken as a whole from society at-large. This is surely a sign that The Tea Party movement has tapped into something deeply rooted in the American experience.

There is another story about King: that after the march from Selma to Montgomery he sat in the Montgomery airport and looked around the terminal, taking note of the incredible diversity of people there who had marched with him—white, black, young, old, rich, poor, Northerner, Southerner. This encouraged King and was a sign to him that the Civil Rights movement had moved beyond its original bounds and on was its way to becoming something truly socially redemptive and transforming. King’s name for this was the “Beloved Community.” And it was within this diverse community where America’s ultimate hope lay not with the government against whose oppression he marched from Selma to Montgomery to oppose.

We are again in the midst of a great civil debate about the nature and character of freedom and liberty. One party believes that government is our best hope, that they are the ones we’ve been waiting for and that good intentions make for good government. This is not what has made the American spirit so strong. America’s greatness has always been in her people not in her programs. America’s greatness has been in the town square and the fellowship hall, the small business and the Rotary Club, the Church and the school on the corner. It’s the spirit that flows from these, which truly governs America and makes her great.

King went on to say that promissory note was a guarantor to the inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I do not want to speculate about where Dr. King would fall politically today. But the King of 1963, whose life had been one long struggle against government encroachment, thought to only mention negative rights that day under the shadow of the Washington Monument. A decent home, a fair wage…may have been on King’s mind that day—but as he looked over the assembled crowd, his request for a better society was mainly for government to set them free.

By the way, those marchers too were accused of being violent, unruly and race-baiters.

How Will Yoder Vote?

By David Losey
July, 6, 2010

Any venture into predicting how an elected representative will vote is rife with uncertainty. It is so uncertain that one might question the sanity of anyone who might attempt such a task. However, I will attempt to bring some sense of clarity to this issue by looking at a critical factor that will shed some light on what can be expected from Kevin Yoder should he be elected to Congress.

That critical factor is who is financing his election. Knowing who is financially supporting his campaign will reveal a great deal about how he might vote if elected. Determining how he will vote on specific issues is extremely important because we need to know if he will represent us or will he represent special interests who financed his election. Voters of the 3rd District should be especially sensitive to this lest we get into the same situation like we did with Dennis Moore who ignored phone calls, faxes, e-mails, and letters from his constituents and repeatedly voted for more spending, more debt, and more government control over our lives.

The scope of this article will be to predict with some certainty how Yoder will vote on bills that come before Congress regarding the repeal and/or modification of the current law, the Affordable Health Care For America Act. The likelihood of this happening is high because the law was written in such a manner that it left a lot of details and regulations to be determined at a later date. For instance ... “Congress left it to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to craft the guidelines for what is acceptable expense for use in the medical loss calculations and NAIC committees are working to have those written by the end of July” according to Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, who chairs the NAIC committee that is drafting the guidelines. “One of the subcommittee's working on this is still haggling over how to define these things,” Praeger said. (http://www.khi.org/news/2010/jun/28/health-reform-without-cost-control-unsustainable-i/.)

I have previously reported that Cerner, Corp. has contributed over $11,500 to Yoder's campaign. Cerner is an international information technology health care corporation located in Kansas City, Mo. It is the leader in HIT (Health Information Technology) that will be at the forefront of putting everyone's health information in electronic form so that all health care providers, insurance companies, and government agencies can access it. It has considerable financial interest in this with an estimated $2B of stimulus money coming its way. It, also, estimates that the CPOE (computerized physicians order entry) system has a potential revenue of $8-10B (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9Mzg3MTMxfENoaWxkSUQ9Mzg5NTE1fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1)
This order entry system “includes embedded alerts and protocols that help providers make the best care decisions.” ( http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2009/08/24/story3.html?b=1251086400^1971701)

(Note: Who sets this protocol? What are the penalties for not following the protocol? Reduced payment? Does this mean that you and your doctor no longer determine your treatment? What about those with serious health issues or terminal illnesses? Do they get treatment?)

Cerner's revenue for 2009 was $1.67B. The stock price in March, 2009 was below 40 and traded above 90 in April, 2010. This represents a paper profit of over $250M for Neal Patterson, Chairman and CEO. This is big business! Cerner, as a corporation, and Mr. Patterson and the other executives, as individuals, have a great deal to protect! Is it any wonder that they would want to have a friend in high places to protect their interests? A friend who would vote in such a manner that would benefit them.

They are clearly not in the habit of wrecklessly spending money. Their investments are made wisely and prudently. It is, therfore, not too far of a stretch of the imagination to speculate that their investment in Yoder's campaign is done with the hope of having such a friend.

If one were inclined to dismiss this as an isolated case let me assure you it is not! I will briefly recap others in the health care and related industries who have contributed to his campaign.

1. One donor is HMS. It is the strategic source for innovative cost containment solutions that benefit government and commercial healthcare programs. One of their main objectives is to make efficient and appropriate use of public healthcare funds. In a time of economic recession HMS reported the following exceptional financial growth.

Q1 2010 Revenue of $65.0 million (+30%y/y), Net Income of $7.6 million (+33% y/y) and EPS $0.27 (+29% y/y) 2010 EPS Guidance Increased to $1.38 from $1.34 (+27% y/y)

2. Health Management of Kansas provides a full range of long-term care services. The scope of its operations include in-home service to 1250 Home Care clients, two Assisted Living facilities, a 171 bed skilled nursing facility in Coffeyville which includes 43 Special Care Alzheimer’s beds plus a 60 bed skilled nursing facility in Iola. Other services provided to aged and disabled clients include two transportation programs, outpatient therapy, adult day care, respite care, weekend Meals on Wheels, community education programs and support groups. The Executive Director has contributed to Yoder's campaign.

3. A member of management for Visiting Nurse Association made a contribution. VNA provides quality home health care to Kansas City and the surrounding metropolitan area regardless of the patient's ability to pay.

4. A member of the American Academy of Family Physicians also made a contribution. It has joined other leading physician associations in establishing Principles of Reform of the U.S. Health Care System as a guide to help Congress to improve both individual health and the collective health care system in the U.S.
Among them are
a.) Health care coverage for all is needed to ensure quality of care and to improve the health status of Americans.

b.) The health care system in the U.S. must provide appropriate health care to all people within its borders, without unreasonable financial barriers to care.

c.) Access to and financing for appropriate health services must be a shared public/private effort.

d.) Cost management is critical to attaining a workable, affordable, and sustainable system.

e.) Comprehensive medical liability reform is essential to ensure access to quality health care.


5.The owner of S & S Drugs has also contributed. This Drug Store business also delivers medical supplies and equipment to all of North Central Kansas.

6. Lockton Companies has given nearly $10,000 to Yoder's campaign. It is the world's largest, privately owned, independent insurance brokers. It is headquartered in Kansas City, Mo. and specializes in creating comprehensive and integrated benefits strategies for clients.

In addition to the six companies detailed above the following companies' corporate executives or management have contributed to Yoder's campaign.

• Menorah Medical Center
• Forest Pharmaceuticals
• Health Care Financial Advisers
• United Bioscience
• Discover Vision
• Durrie Vision Centers
• Haake Insurance Cos.
• Biomedix Vascular Solutions
• Farmers Insurance
• MW Pulmonary Consultants
• Peppes Dental
• Delta Dental
• Childrens Mercy Hospital
• Medicis Pharmaceuticals

How significant are the contributors cited in this article? The three industry groups represented (Health Professionals, Insurance Cos., and Computer/Internet) have a combined total of over $29,000 in contributions representing over 10% of total contributions (as of March 31, 2010 according to opensecrets.org) . Combined they represent the third largest industry behind Lawyer/Law Firms and Finance/Credit Cos.

On his web site Yoder states,

Fourth, I will work to repeal portions of the Obama/Pelosi Healthcare Legislation that will drive up costs, increase the deficit, grow bureaucracy and lower the standards of health care that Americans expect. I support making healthcare more affordable for all Americans. But what I can’t support are pieces of legislation rammed through Congress that will raise our taxes, increase insurance premiums, and promise to make drastic cuts in Medicare. Americans deserve better than this bill. I will work to re-write this act and build true health care reform that focuses on free market competition, patient choice and high quality of care.

To his credit he sounds like he is going to take a stand against Obamacare. But upon further review it is clear he only wants to repeal portions of Obamacare. Mr. Yoder, which portions do you support? Do you support the electronic entry of every American's health information into a system that can be viewed by all health care providers, insurance companies, and government agencies. Do you support protocol that will dictate how a doctor can prescribe care? Do you support cost controls that will be needed in order to have a sustainable system but will of necessity result in rationing? Do you believe that sufficient taxpayers' funds must be made available to cover every person within our borders whether they are legal or illegal residents? How can coverage be expanded without increasing costs? In 2014, Medicaid eligibility will be expanded to include all adults earning 133% or less of the federal poverty guidelines. How will this be done without increasing taxes?

A major concern that Mr. Yoder fails to address is the fact that mandated universal health care for all Americans is unconstitutional. No where in the Constitution does it allow for the federal government to require citizens to buy something and penalize them if they don't! Mr. Yoder, I would expect that anyone who wishes to represent the people of the 3rd District would know the enumerated powers listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. This is what restrains the federal government and dictates what it can and cannot do! Mandated government health care is not one of them! One final question, Mr. Yoder. Will you follow the Constitution and vote accordingly or will you be persuaded to vote as the special interest groups who financed your election dictate?

In conclusion, there is one basic economic fact that Mr. Yoder does not seem to grasp. In order for health care to be available for all current residents of the United States, health care costs will increase, the deficit will increase, government bureaucracy will grow, rationing will occur, taxes will increase, insurance premiums will go up, and there will, by necessity, be cuts in Medicare. It appears obvious! Mr. Yoder, like his predecessor, wants to tax, tax, tax and spend, spend, spend! It looks like Moore of the same!

Craig McPherson Announces America's District

In a bold move sure to rock the U.S. House of Representatives race in the Kansas 3rd District, Craig McPherson today announced a new initiative designed to address America's entitlement problem. America's District represents a direct assault on the historically untouchable "third rail" of American politics, and is a strong indicator that Mr. McPherson will bring a completely new approach to achieving real fiscal responsibility to Washington, D.C.

McPherson's plan is to build a coalition of churches, charities, medical professionals and volunteers at the local level that is designed to replace federal programs for those in need. In his remarks announcing the initiative, Mr. McPherson said the following:

"America’s District will shine brightly as a different kind of district, a district where we take a hands-on approach to solving our own problems, where we proudly say, no, thank you, to federal largesse. We will lead by example by forming a local coalition of churches and charities that will work together to train those in need to become self-sufficient, teaching them not only the value of hard work and personal accomplishment, but also the miracle of self-respect. We will work together to lift the downtrodden, giving of our time and knowledge to aid those less fortunate. My Congressional office will spearhead this initiative, reaching out to the wonderful, compassionate citizens of our district who rightly feel a moral obligation to help those in need, but reject the notion that their obligation should be mandated by bureaucrats in Washington. We will stand as an example to those across the country who have tired of seeing their tax dollars squandered on inefficient federal programs and will seek to spread this authentically American idea, like a wildfire, from coast to coast.

"I ask you to join me, to commit to building this program as its charter members. We will be hosting a number of events here at the campaign headquarters in the coming weeks to begin building our network, and seek the input and support of every charitable institution in the district. Reach out to your churches and to the organizations where you may already be doing volunteer work, and ask them to join us. We will emphasize the strengths of each organization to build a network across our region that is prepared to support our own in troubled times, to set them on the path to self-reliance, rather than condemning them to dependence on government programs."

This is exactly the kind of thinking that is needed to reverse the trend toward ever larger federal government and return responsibility to the people. Mr. McPherson is to be applauded for his courage and fresh approach in tackling this hot-button issue. Visit the America's District website here.

The Vetting of Kevin Yoder: Conservative or Stealth Progressive?

By David Losey

We, conservatives, have become a suspicious lot! And with just cause! We have been fooled time and time again by candidates who tell us one thing while campaigning and then do the exact opposite after being elected. I believe that much of the problem lies in the candidate vetting process.

Vetting means to evaluate thoroughly or expertly. Who is responsible for doing this? All too often we have relied upon the media to do it. However, the media has a woeful record of failing to reveal a candidate's true positions. It generally fails to challenge or follow-up on answers from candidates that are non-responsive to the question being asked or hopelessly vague. In addition, the media, on most occasions, fails to do its homework and, therefore, is incapable of asking for details that would lead to further clarification. It would rather accept generalizations and move on to another topic. For instance, if a candidate declares himself to be a fiscal conservative the interviewer should know his voting record and immediately point out that his voting record either substantiates his claim or it doesn't.

Another source of proper vetting could/should be the political parties. For example, the Republican Party should find out before allowing a candidate to file as a Republican if the candidate supports the party platform. This clearly is not happening! Party leadership openly declares that its primary goal to get as many Republicans elected as possible. The following statement was heard by this writer during the 2008 Kansas Republican Primary Caucus. A state leader of the Republican Party declared that “his job was to see that John McCain was elected because polls showed that he had the best chance of winning.” There was no discussion of his qualification, his stand on issues, his support of the platform or his character. If he could win the Republican Party wanted him!

So I guess that leaves you and me, John Q. and Mary Q. Public to perform the vetting of candidates if we want to have any chance of electing true conservatives. By conservative I mean those who support the Constitution in all cases, who believe that it constrains the federal government and not citizens, that rampant spending must end, that our rights come from God not government, and that the law must be applied equally to all citizens.

Two grassroots organizations that are designed to help in the citizen vetting process are the Independence Caucus and Project Vote Smart. ICaucus asks candidates to answer an 80 question questionnaire and then participate in an extensive interview with a vetting committee. The interview is recorded and made available to the public. Project Vote Smart asks candidates to take a Political Courage Test. The test is designed to allow citizens to determine where candidates stand on issues they will likely vote on if elected.

One candidate running for the 3rd Congressional District seat is Kevin Yoder. He refused requests to be vetted by both organizations! In light of this I offer the vetting of Kevin Yoder relying on third party sources. It is meant to be the beginning of the process of discovering what his real positions are and how he will vote if elected. It will suggest questions that he must be asked in order to allow him to clarify his past positions and affiliations and his past and current financial support that seem contrary to his current efforts to convince voters he is a right-of-center conservative. The information that I will present is intended to help us answer the following questions. Will real change occur if he is elected or will things remain the same? Will we continue to have big government forced down our throats whether we like it or not? Will he follow the example of Dennis Moore who assumed he knew what was best for us and ignored input from his constituents? Voters have the right to know: Is Kevin Yoder a real conservative or a stealth progressive?

(The vetting process by its very nature is detailed. The reader should note that one isolated fact does not make the case but it is the accumulation of evidence or as they say in court, the preponderance of the evidence, that makes the case. I will state my conclusions at the end and allow you to come to your own. Whether we agree or not is secondary. The point is that all candidates need to be honest and clarify who they are and what they truly stand for if they expect us to vote for them. No one should get a vote just because they have an “R” or a “D” behind their name!)

Let me begin with evidence that indicates there has been a recent transformation in Yoder's political views that are cause for concern. The basis for this concern begins with his days as a student at Kansas University where he was Student Body President for the 1998-1999 school year. (Note: It would be a stretch of the imagination to believe that a liberal university like KU would elect a known conservative as Student Body President.) All indications are that he was conscientious and dedicated to doing the very best that he could. He was quoted in the Lawrence Journal-World, “I really want to do a good job of making this my life for the next year.'' He clearly understood that the decisions of the Student Senate would effect the lives of all students. After all, the Senate controls thousands of dollars, being charged with deciding how funds will be allocated to various campus groups. In addition, it serves as a watch dog organization that addresses student concerns with the administration, the State Legislature, and the Board of Regents. One of the concerns he focused on was the increasing cost of education. “The financial burden,” he said, “has increasingly fallen to students. I think right now KU students spend too much money (percentage-wise) on their education. I'd like to reverse that trend.” (Note: By implication, he believed the state taxpayers should shoulder a larger portion of the cost. This is certainly not a conservative position.) In order to bring pressure on legislators to increase state funding he proposed publicizing the voting records of the five best and the five worst legislators in terms of supporting additional spending for KU students.

In addition to serving as Student Body President he served as the Chief Justice of the Inter-fraternity Council's Judicial Board, President of the Young Democrats, and President of the Student Bar Association. (Note: Hardly positions one would expect to be held by a conservative.)

Douglas County records show that a Kevin Yoder, living in Lawrence, was registered as a Democrat in 2001. This would almost certainly be true since he was President of the Young Democrats.

After graduating with his Law Degree from KU in 2002 he moved to Johnson County and was offered a position with Speer & Holliday of Olathe where he still practices law. He immediately ran for the District 20 House seat in Overland Park which was being vacated by Gerry Ray. Does this seem too well orchestrated to any one besides me? Student graduates, does not return home to Hutchinson, accepts an offer with a law firm in Olathe, but chooses to live in the precise district in OP where the current state rep is retiring, and decides to run for this seat not as a Democrat but as a Republican. From an outsider looking in it appears that some one in the Kansas Republican Party tapped him on the shoulder and indicated that he was the Chosen One. (Note: The author has a first hand report from a member of the House that RINOs from Johnson County when confronted with the fact that since they repeatedly vote with the Democrats , should simply join the Democrat Party, respond, “I would never do that! I couldn't get elected as a Democrat in Johnson County!”)

The Kansas City Star reported on July 13, 2002 that Yoder's political experience included serving as a Legislative aide to Senator David Adkins and Representative Dean Newton. Mr Marty Keenan, a former political appointee of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, characterizes both as moderate Republicans. (http://www.kansasfreepress.com/2010/04/kevin-yoders-left-to-right-political-odyssey.html). Keenan suggests that this did not represent a big change in ideology for Yoder since moderate Republicans frequently joined with Democrats in passing liberal legislation.

In his first campaign in 2002 it was reported on his web site that he received the following endorsements.

Endorsed by:

Johnson County Sun

Johnson County Republicans for Education

Kansas Agri-Business Council

Former Senate President Dick Bond

Former Senator Audrey Langworthy

Senator Barbara Allen

Senator John Vratil

Representative Dean Newton

Current 20th District State Representative Gerry Ray

Mainstream Coalition

The Squire

Friends of Kansas Education

Educating All Children in Kansas (EPAC)

I will focus on the Mainstream Coalition endorsement and leave the reader the option of exploring the other endorsements. In its September 28, 2002 edition the Kansas City Star indicated that the Mainstream Coalition endorsed Kevin Yoder for the District 20 House seat. (For the record Mainstream Coalition is a 501c4 organization. Therefore its endorsements must legally come from its MAIN PAC arm. But in reality it is all the same people.) Information of the on-going association between him and the Coalition is sketchy but it is a matter of record (pictures are on the Internet) that in 2006 Yoder manned a table promoting his re-election campaign that year at a Mainstream Coalition picnic. His presence at this Candidate Rally indicates that in 2006 he definitely received the endorsement of the Mainstream Coalition.

The MAIN in mainstream stands for Moderate Alliance of Informed Neighbors. The spark that started the Coalition was the alleged harassment of Republican State Representative Nancy Brown in 1993 over her pro-choice stance. It was formed out the the belief that an organization was needed to support moderate politicians against the attacks from the religious right. Its founders were David Goldstein, Judy Hellman, Rev. Bob Meneilly, Carol Sader, Nancy Brown and Rabbi Mark Levin. Shortly after the initial meeting Dr. Bob Meneilly, senior pastor of the Village Presbyterian Church, preached a sermon regarding the threat of the religious right. (It was later printed as an OP-ED in the NY Times on August 29, 1993.) He characterized the religious right as intent upon electing candidates who would use the power of the federal government to impose its extremist views on the entire nation. He called them “stealth candidates” who were “dangerous for local communities and the nation.” He suggested that they would advocate the teaching of creationism in our schools, gutting the sex education programs, and eliminating school breakfast programs and day care for children of poor working parents. He went on to accuse the religious right of censorship of books and that “the Framers of our Constitution ... insisted on a system of separation of church and state that guarantees religious freedom for all.” (He made this claim in spite of the fact that “separation of church and state” is never mentioned in the Constitution. It, in fact, first appeared in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802.) He goes on to say that “the religious right extremists have been conniving in every political way to get state-mandated prayer and Bible reading back into the public schools....” Summing up, he says that the religious right is a bigger threat than communism!

Out of this sermon grew the Coalition's mission statement, “To promote the separation of church and state with an emphasis on education and religious freedom.” The political arm focuses on “building its influence on people in regard to policies” and telling people who to vote for. It is not shy in declaring that it intends to maintain moderate/progressive, nonpartisan, reasonable leadership in the state legislature. On the national scene, “Longtime observers credit the repeated wins of ... Dennis Moore to the Mainstream Coalition. It (the Mainstream Coalition) has become the 'mainstream voice' of moderate and progressive citizenry. We are about to see some dramatic changes in areas as Democrats and progressive Republicans work together toward common ends. We are seeing evidence of a more civil politic... with the working together of Democrats and centrist republicans.” (Bob Meneilly in an interview with Mark Anderson, January 29, 2007.)

I have found it personally confusing the way the terms moderate, centrist, and progressive seem to be used interchangeably. Do they in fact refer to groups that share the same core values and beliefs regarding the role of government? I believe they do! In this next section I will try to give a face to moderates. This is important in order to see what specific policies and issues they support. To begin with I googled “moderate candidates” and found the following.

Scott Wiener – Chairman of the San Francisco Democrat Party, member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, former co-chair and treasurer of the LGBT Community Center.

Dede Scozzafava -- moderate, social liberal, pro-choice, supports same sex marriage, gay rights, and abortion rights. She ran as a Republican for the NY 37th Congressional District race but when she dropped out she endorsed the liberal Democrat candidate rather than the conservative Republican. This is a clear example that moderate Republicans are more closely aligned ideologically with Democrats than conservative Republicans.

Moderate – pro-working families, pro-union and pro-green jobs.

Lincoln Chafee – former GOP Senator from Rhode Island who repeatedly opposed tax cuts and became an Independent in 2007.

Moderates are often referred to as RINOs (Republican in-name-only). When looking at list of RINOs, one finds the following: Senators Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, George Voinovich, John McCain, Chuck Hagel, and Lindsey Graham. Congressman Michael Castle (referred to as one of the most important voices for centrists) and Mark Kirk. And former Congressmen Christopher Shays and Jim Leach.

Other notable RINOs are Arnold Schwarzenegger, Colin Powell, George Pataki, Rudy Giuliani, Tom Ridge, Dede Scozzafava, Michael Bloomberg, and Ray Lahood.

An organization listed on Google as a moderate organization is the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC policy agendas include expanding and securing home ownership for all Americans, universal access to college, universal retirement and pensions, health care for all Americans, fiscal responsibility, opportunity through globalization, trade supports, supporting WTO's Doha Round talks dealing with global initiatives, investment in clean energy technology, supporting cap and trade legislation, requiring tailpipe emission reading on all individual vehicles, and mandating that 25% of America's energy come from bio-fuels. (Any reader having a little difficulty swallowing this as moderate? I am!)

Past Chairmen of the DLC include Bill Clinton, Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman, and Evan Bayh. The current Chairman is former Representative Harold Ford from Tennessee. It is noteworthy what Evan Bayh in his Inaugural Address upon becoming Chairman in 2001 said in reference to the beginning of the DLC in 1985.

“And so the Democratic Leadership Council was formed. Not as a group of rogue Republicans. Not as a group of soulless pragmatists only interested in the quest for political gain, but as the true progressives -- the modernizers of our time....

“We must continue to stay ahead of the pace of change, to be a source of dynamic ideas, and to bear the true mantle of reform. We must stay true to our dedication to fiscal responsibility, not because it is a sterile accounting principle, but because we know it is the necessary predicate to progressive government.”

(Note: It is unclear to the author how progressive support of an ever expanding government can be compatible with fiscal responsibility.)

A partial list of elected officials who are members of the DLC include Max Baucus, Russ Carnahan, Hillary Clinton (appointed), Byron Dorgan, Rahm Emanuel (appointed), Dianne Feinstein, Bob Kerry, John Kerry, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Dennis Moore, Ben Nelson, Gavin Newsom, Debbie Stabenow, and Tom Udall. Members not currently holding office are Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, and John Edwards. Again the reader must decide. Is this a list of moderates or a list of far-left liberals/progressives who support the expansion of the federal government at every opportunity? It is the belief of this author that when voting records are examined it will be clear that they all fall into the latter category. (It will be left to the reader to do a detailed study of the individual voting records as this falls outside of the scope of this article).

From a a DLC Project Description of May 20, 2008 it is clear that the DLC sees themselves as a progressive organization. (http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=450006&subid=900182&contentid=254646)

“In this election year, progressives are facing a rare opportunity: the chance to build a governing majority that can last.

“While much of the attention is understandably focused on the presidential race, there will also be vital elections at the congressional level nationwide. It is in Congress that progressives can deliver a legislative program that helps working families, promotes our national security, and builds a prosperous and healthy future for our children and grandchildren.”

This does much to solidify the connection between moderates and progressives.

Besides looking at those who share the moderate/progressive camp with the Mainstream Coalition it is enlightening to see who they have supported besides Kevin Yoder.

The Mainstream Coalition as an organization contributed $500 to both Moore and Boyda in 2006. And in 2008 it contributed $500 to both Kay Barnes and Jim Slattery.

Individuals who gave to the Mainstream Coalition also gave to Dennis Moore, Nancy Boyda, Kay Barnes, Jim Slattery, Claire McCaskill, John Kerry, Robin Carnahan, Barrack Obama, Emanuel Cleaver, Hillary Clinton, the Kansas Democrat Party, the Democrat National Committee, ACTBLUE, and Moveon.org.

Returning to the chronology of his entry into politics at the state level, there are other facts indicating that Yoder is a moderate with more in common with liberal/progressives than with conservatives. While in his initial campaign he indicated that effectively supporting schools would necessarily mean increasing taxes. He soundly criticized the previous legislature for merely giving lip service to supporting schools and in the end doing “a great disservice to our state.” (KC Star, July 13, 2002) In the same article he stated his opposition to school vouchers. He believed that vouchers would take money from public schools at a time when funding is already strained. In addition he stated he stood firmly behind current abortion laws. (Most would agree that theses are not indicative of conservative views.)

Additional indication of his liberal/progressive views is that within the first four months of the very first legislative session in which he served he, along with fifteen other freshmen legislators, challenged House and Senate leadership by proposing a $266 million tax increase. According to the Topeka Capital-Journal (April 29, 2003), “... the freshmen unveiled a plan that would increase sales taxes by 0.5 percent and impose an across-the-board income tax surcharge of 3.5 percent. They also would call a halt to the deceleration of the sales tax rate, from 5.3 percent to 5 percent, over the next two years.

“The freshmen propose dumping an additional $28.9 million into K-12 education, $16.3 million into higher education and $21 million into the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services to eliminate waiting lists for social services. They also would increase state contributions to KPERS by $25 million annually to try to help save the faltering retirement system.”
The Johnson County Sun confirms this account adding, Yoder said, "... we believe there is strong public support for increasing funding for education and other basic services." (Johnson County Sun, May 1, 2003.) According to a quote in the Sun from Scott Schwab, freshman legislator from Olathe, freshman conservatives were shut out of the process. (Once again by all accounts Yoder is not a conservative.)

In trying to further determine his political persuasion it would be helpful to consider who has supported him in the last eight years with campaign contributions and who they supported besides him.

1. QC Holdings, the largest contributor to Dennis Moore's campaign in 2008, has given Kevin Yoder $19,400 from its PAC. Personal contributions from corporate executives and/or their spouses totals at least $4800. The $19,400 from the PAC is the largest contribution to Yoder's campaign so far in the 2010 election cycle. It has also given to nine members of the House Progressive Caucus. On the Senate side it has given to such well known liberals as Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, and Patty Murray. Corporate executives and/or their spouses have in previous elections supported Harry Reid, Dennis Moore, Lynn Jenkins, Kay Barnes, Claire McCaskill, Tim Johnson, and Luis Gutierrez.

2. Stephen Cloud, former RNC National Committeeman from Kansas, gave at least $6500 to Yoder and also supported Jim Barnett (candidate in the 1st District Congressional race), Lynn Jenkins, Dede Scozzafava, Mike Pompeo (candidate in the 4th District Congressional race), Jim Inhofe, Jerry Moran, Rick Boucher (Democrat Congressman from Virginia), John McCain, Pat Roberts, Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, George Bush, Chuck Ahner, Jim Ryan, Susan Collins, Mark Kirk, Scott Brown, Kit Bond, Adam Taff, Greg Musil, and George Voinovich.

It appears that Cloud generally supports moderate Republicans but is not adverse to supporting those leaning to the far left like Scozzafava, Chafee, Snowe, and Collins. But beyond that he has supported the Republican Leadership Council PAC contributing at least $4,000 since 2008 based upon FEC data reported by The Center for Responsive Politics. This raises a red flag due to the fact that the RLC has given $20,000 since 2006 in PAC-to-PAC contributions to the Republican Main Street Partnership. Other contributions to RMSP have been made by well known left-leaning groups such as SEIU, AFL-CIO, National Education Association, Planned Parenthood, Marijuana Policy Project, Humane USA, and the Human Rights Campaign.

In addition, contributions to individual candidates by RMSP included Olympia Snowe (rated the most liberal Republican in the Senate by the National Journal based upon her voting record), Mike Castle (noted previously as an important voice for centrists and rated the most liberal Republican in the House by the NJ) followed by seven other Congressmen who fall in the top 10 most liberal Republicans in the House. While purporting to be a fiscal conservative and centrist-right group, RMSP is clearly a left of center liberal group based upon who it supports financially. It would be difficult to understand how Mr. Cloud would not be aware of this given his close associations within the RNC.

3. Crossland Construction has given Yoder $12,000 on top of. personal contributions from corporate executives of at least $3500. This places Crossland #4 on his list of top supporters. They also contributed to moderates Jerry Moran and Lynn Jenkins.

4. The HCA Kansas Good Government Fund has contributed at least $1600 to Yoder's Kansas House races since 2005. The HCA Good Government Fund has in the 2010 election cycle given over $100,000 to Democrat candidates and $50,000 to Republicans. It has supported such notable liberal candidates as Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Robert Bennett, Charlie Crist, John Dingell, Orin Hatch, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Barbara Mikulski, George Miller, Patty Murray, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Arlen Specter, and Henry Waxman. Its largest contributions were $10,000 each to Pelosi and Waxman. In the 2008 election cycle it gave Charles Rangel, Pat Roberts, and John Sununu $10,000 each.

5. Watco Companies is the second largest contributor to Yoder's congressional campaign with $15,400. It has previously supported Jerry Moran, Blanche Lincoln, Corrine Brown, and Kendrick Meek (all Democrats except Moran). It has also given to the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee. Company executives have personally supported a wide variety of candidates. Those from Kansas include Brownback, Roberts, Moran, Ryan, Jordan, Boyda, Tiahrt, Slattery, and Huelskamp They have also supported many outside of Kansas including Blanche Lincoln, Kendrick Meek, Corrine Brown, Roy Blunt, Earl Blumenauer, Arthur Davis, Max Baucus, John Thune, Jim Talent, Charles Grassley, and Arlen Specter.

6. Although two PACS, Polsinelli, Shalton, et al and Polsinelli Shughart PC, are maintained as separate entities they, in fact, represent employees at the same company following a merger. The former PAC has given Yoder $11,298 in the 2010 election cycle while the latter has given $7,300. The firm has been very supportive of him over the years with contributions of both PAC money and personal contributions. Other candidates supported in the past are Roy Blunt, Robin Carnahan, Emanuel Cleaver, James Clyburn, John Dingell, Dick Durbin, Barney Frank, Charles Grassley, Steny Hoyer, John Lewis, Blanche Lincoln, Kendrick Meek, Dennis Moore, Patty Murray, James Oberstar, David Obey, Chuck Schumer, Ike Shelton, and Edolphus Towns.

The Polsinelli Shughart PC PAC gave to a similar list of candidates in the 2010 election cycle to date with $45,500 going to Democrats and $7,500 to Republicans. The top recipients in the Senate are Charles Schumer-- $4,800, Patty Murray--$4,600, Byron Dorgan--$4,300, Charles Grassley--$3,000, Kendrick Meek--$2,000, Robin Carnahan--$2,000, and Roy Blunt--$2,000. In the House leading recipients are James Oberstar--$2,500, John Dingell--$2,300, Ike Skelton--$2,000 and Emanuel Cleaver--$2,000.

7. Ongoal, LLC is the 3rd largest contributor to his congressional campaign with $14,399. This company owns the Wizards, the professional Soccer team, and has received $275 million in public funding to build a soccer stadium. The five principles of the corporation and their spouses have contributed over $21,000 to his campaign. Other candidates they have supported are Blunt, John Kerry, Brownback, Graves, Talent, Bond, Bush, McCain, and Huelskamp The principles of Ongoal are also principles in Cerner Corp. which has contributed $11,592 placing them 5th in total contribution to date.

8. The $250 contribution to the Yoder campaign by the Stinson Morrison Hecker PAC is insignificant in and of itself but the PAC”s other contributions are revealing. It gave $26, 754 to Democrats and $10,250 to Republicans to date in the 2010 election cycle. Notable contributions are $2,000 to Henry Cuellar, $1,500 to Steny Hoyer, $1,000 to Nancy Pelosi, $1,000 to Shiela Jackson-Lee, $1,000 to Emanuel Cleaver, $1,000 to Harry Reid, $1,000 to Dick Durbin, and $1,000 to Robin Carnahan.

9. J. Roy Holliday, partner at Speer & Holliday where Yoder practices law, has supported Dennis Moore in every election since 2000, having contributed at least $3,750. This year he has chosen to support Yoder for Congress with contributions totaling $1,950 to date.
In more general terms Yoder's to-date contributions come primarily from Lawyers/Law Firms (nearly $35,000) with Finance/Credit Companies coming in second at $27,000. He has received nearly $134,000 from out-of-state sources.

There is much more that could and should be done to thoroughly vet Yoder but additional vetting will be left up to other interested parties. However, the vetting process would not be complete if all one did was to examine data. One must look for trends in the data and draw conclusions and formulate questions to be asked. The following is intended to be a starting point but by no means is intended to be an exhaustive list of questions to be asked and answered before one chooses to vote for him..

1. The preponderance of evidence certainly indicates that the Mainstream Coalition supports liberal/progressive candidates and it is a logical conclusion then that it considers Kevin Yoder to be of a like mind. It seem reasonable to assume that they are relying upon him to work with Democrats to bring about dramatic changes. Does he really believe that the religious right is more dangerous than communists?

2. After examining the moderate/progressive legislative agenda as revealed by the DLC one must ask him to answer the following questions.

Do you support card check?

Do you support the LGBT's efforts to legalize gay marriage, extend health insurance and retirement benefits to gay spouses, and child adoption by same sex couples?

Do you believe that global warming is man-caused and that economies must be forced to collapse to save the earth?

Do you support cap and trade?

Will you read the entire bill before voting on it?

Will you vote for legislation that both helps and harms U.S. Citizens?

If a bill is unconstitutional will you vote no?

Will you vote the party line in order to gain party support for your re-election?

Will you support global governance that will allow global organizations to violate constitutionally guaranteed rights of U.S. citizens?

Will you allow our military to serve under international commanders outside the authority of their Commander-in-Chief?

Do you support sealing our borders/building a fence?

Will you support amnesty?

Will you vote to extend Social Security to illegal immigrants?

Will you support allowing non-citizens to vote?

Will you support the nationalization of private businesses?

Will you support universal access to a college education, home ownership for all Americans, and
universal retirement and pensions?

Voters have the right to know. As a moderate/centrist/progressive, what do you stand for?

3. It would not be a stretch of the imagination to suggest that Stephen Cloud is representative of the Kansas Republican Party. His support of moderate/liberal/progressive candidates and organizations indicates that he supports the status quo, an ever expanding government and out-of-control spending. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that he supports Kevin Yoder because he expects him to join with Democrats to pass additional progressive legislation. (It is extremely important to note that progressives blatantly refuse to be restrained by any provisions of the U.S. Constitution. They fully intend to advance their agenda without regard for States' rights or individual liberties! See John Podesta's book, The Power of Progress )

4. Items 3-9 will be considered in toto. The contributions of PACs and individuals form a composite indicating continued support of moderate/liberal/progressive candidates by those who currently support him. I believe they support him for one of two reasons or in some cases, a combination of the two. One, is self-preservation. They wish to have a friend in high places that they can count on to protect their business interests. Or, two, because they are sympathetic to the moderate/liberal/progressive agenda of bigger government, more spending, and less individual liberty and wish to see it advanced through government intervention. There is little doubt that they expect Yoder to advance this agenda. (Regarding #7 Ongoal. For the life of me I cannot figure out why owners of a professional soccer team are contributing to a congressional candidate.)

There is one last question readers must answer before deciding whether or not to vote for him. Are you comfortable with the fact that a candidate who receives his largest contributions from Lawyers/Law Firms and nearly $134,000 from out-of-state interests will vote in a manner that will make your life better? I clearly am not! I believe voting for Yoder means Moore of the same!

Sources for campaign contribution data:
opensecrets.org
fec.gov
campaignmoney.com