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

Law and the Founding Fathers

This information was compiled by a friend of mine, who wishes to remain anonymous. I found it very interesting and well worth a read.

Many of the voters this election season have wistfully been wishing for "citizen legislators", "the way it used to be--like the Founding Fathers". There also seems to be a prevalent anti-lawyer sentiment. It may be worth noting that a great number of the Founding Fathers actually studied law prior to becoming involved in the fight for American independence.

John Adams studied law at Harvard, was admitted to the bar in 1761, and gave up many years of his private practice for service to his country. He was concerned about payment for this service to country due to the fact that he could not pursue his law practice and thereby provide for his family.

Jefferson received a classical education from William and Mary, later read law with George Wythe and was admitted to the Virginia bar in 1767. He was considered a political philosopher and a man of the Enlightenment. James Madison studied political philosophy and law at College of New Jersey (now Princeton). According to accounts, Madison was never admitted to the bar, but some historians relate that he practiced law prior to serving on the Virginia state legislature. The fact that Madison practiced law is disputed by some historians.

Alexander Hamilton, born in the British West Indies, attended King's College (now Columbia University). His studies included military history, and he became a lieutenant colonel in the Continental Army, serving under George Washington. After leaving the army, he was admitted to legal practice in New York.

"Well before his 30th birthday, then, Hamilton had had a distinguished military career, knew intimately most of the leaders of the American Revolution, had achieved high social standing, and was recognized as one of the leading lawyers in the country."(The American Revolution) http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/hamilt.htm

John Jay attended King's College (now Columbia University). After reading law and being admitted to the bar of New York in 1769, John Jay established his own law office in 1771.

George Washington had what he considered "insufficient education", and his formal education apparently was finished by age 15. He excelled in mathematics and learned the rudiments of surveying, probably at a school near his home.

Patrick Henry, who failed at business and did not apply himself initially to his studies, later studied for six weeks and took the bar exam, which he passed, and begin work as a lawyer. In 1764 he moved to Louisa county, Virginia, where, as a lawyer, he argued in defense of broad voting rights (suffrage) before the House of Burgesses.The following year he was elected to the House.

Although the backgrounds and education of the Founding Fathers were diverse, many had formal educations, many were lawyers, and a great number had served in some capacity in their local governing bodies, state legislative bodies, or House of Burgesses prior to their service in shaping the new United States of America. In writing the Charters of Freedom, they drew upon the philisophical writings of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and the Baron Charles de Montesquieu.

This disparate group of revolutionary thinkers came together at aunique time in history to forge the necessary bonds that were to become the new United States of America.

Where's the Conservative?

By

David Losey

I was doing some research today on moderate politicians when I was swept off on a tangent leading to a serendipitous discovery that raised my blood pressure a few notches. I was comparing Lynn Jenkins' voting record with Dennis Moore's. I was startled to find that she voted with Moore 56% of the time. With a heightened sense of gotcha I looked at how Moran and Tiahrt voted in comparison to Moore. Lo and behold, Moran voted with Moore 52% of the time and Tiahrt 51% of the time. (I am sure that some votes were procedural or routine.) But, now I was hooked! What votes did they agree upon? Make a guess. APPROPRIATIONS BILLS! They voted together ten times to spend more money on routine appropriations! By this time I was furious! Where's the conservative? Which one of Kansas' Congressmen (all who claim to be fiscally conservative) voted against increased spending? Not Tiahrt! Not Moran! Not Jenkins! Not Moore! NOT ONE OF THEM!

Now I am spittin' mad. My blood is boiling. The first bill I looked at in detail was H.R. 915, The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009. This bill authorizes spending by the FAA for 2010, 2011, and 2012. Department funding increases ranged from 2.5% to 5.3% for 2011 over 2010 and 2.4% to 8.3 % in 2012 over 2011. OMG! Our debt is skyrocketing, the economy is in the toilet, and the tax burden is unsustainable and yet they voted to increase spending at the FAA! They all must be drinking the same kool aide!

OK, OK, maybe this was just an exception. So I looked at a second bill, H.R. 1404, the FLAME Act. This bill reauthorizes catastrophic emergency funds to fight forest fires on federal lands. First it should be understood that other government agencies such as the Department of the Interior, The Department of Defense, etc. already have budgets that include funding for fighting forest fires. This funding, however, is in case the normal agency funding runs out. How much is appropriated in this bill? IT DOESN'T SPECIFY! It is to be no more than the average actual expenditures over the last five. That is unless the department manager specifies in writing that he is going to run out of emergency funds and then additional funding will be made available. This bill puts the tax payers are on the hook for an unspecified amount of money! IS THIS ANY WAY TO DO BUSINESS! I can tell you in nearly twenty years of corporate management that I never had a slush fund available in case I over spent my budgeted amounts! It was made perfectly clear to me that I would live within my budget, period. Upon occasion when I failed to do so, I was severely admonished that if it continued I would be replaced.

I could not stand to look at the details of any other bills. I will send them to anyone who would like to look at them. As for me, enough was enough!

The bottom line is that we have representatives in Congress who claim to be fiscal conservatives but are not! They are going along to preserve their elected positions. They do not care about righting the ship of state. They are not acting to put our economy on sound footing. They will, of course, all be replaced in 2010 with the exception of Jenkins. She should go, too!

You may wonder, is there anyone who has voted to reduce spending? Is there anyone in the House who is a real fiscal conservative? Ron Paul, arch-conservative, is one. He voted with Moore only 38% of the time. He voted “No” on nine of the ten bills and abstained on the other. So it is possible to vote against spending and retain your seat. We need to find some men/women in Kansas who will have the courage to vote to reduce out-of-control spending, restore our country to sound fiscal footing, and not be afraid to be voted out in two years. History tells that if the government will reduce spending and cut taxes the economy will quickly recover. (See the recession of the 1920s and the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts as examples.)

In light of our current fiscal irresponsibility it is extremely crucial that we elect men/women that understand that continuing to spend like drunken sailors will surely bring about economic collapse.

I believe that we have two candidates running for Congress in Kansas that grasp this fact and can be trusted to vote accordingly. I would ask that you look closely at Craig McPherson in the 3rd District and Jim Anderson in the 4th. Determine for yourselves if they have the courage to stand up and say, "Enough is enough! Stop the nonsense!" I believe they do!

Ride To The Wall

Each year, a week or so before Memorial Day, a group of Viet Nam veterans assemble with their motorcycles on the west coast and begin a ride across the country, to arrive at the Viet Nam Memorial Wall in Washington. D.C. for Memorial Day. They call it The Ride To The Wall.

The Ride passed through Las Cruces, NM this morning. Each year, they stop here for a welcoming ceremony at our Veterans' Memorial Park, then press on, eastward. Here is a portion of the caravan parked on the street by the park. (On the far right side of the photograph, behind the row of motorcycles, can be seen the bronze statue that is a Memorial to veterans of the World War Two Bataan Death March.)

If The Ride passes through your city, get some friends together and go out to welcome them. A warm welcome from a grateful nation is long overdue for these veterans who didn't run to Canada, didn't hide in a deferment, but answered their country's call, obeyed the law and served in one of the most difficult conflicts in our history. We wish them a continued safe journey.

Craig McPherson: A Vanishing Breed

It is no secret that I strongly support Craig McPherson for Congress in the Kansas 3rd District. His performance at the March 20th Candidate Forum, coupled with the obvious understanding of founding principles he evidenced during his interview with the Independence Caucus more than convinced me that he is, by far, the most qualified candidate in the race. There simply is no comparison - he is a professional in a field of amateurs.

At the time I wrote my endorsement of Mr. McPherson, I did not know him as a person - I had met him on one occasion, but had no time to talk to him, to get a fuller measure of the man. In the weeks since, I have had a great deal more contact with Mr. McPherson, and each encounter has served only to strengthen my support. Craig McPherson is truly a vanishing breed - he is an honorable man.

Earlier this month, I attended a Meet and Greet event for Mr. McPherson. I had an opportunity to speak with him at length, and found him open, sincere and passionate in his convictions and desire to restore limited government and fiscal responsibility in Washington. After making a presentation to the gathering, he opened it up for questions. After the serious questions had been answered, I asked about something quite trivial.

Some time ago, I became aware of a Facebook group called 100,000 Pledging to Help Elect Conservative Candidates. The premise of the group was that they would select and endorse five candidates across the nation, and each member who joined the group would pledge a $10.00 donation to each of the five. When I joined, they had already made two endorsements: Tim Burns, who is running for John Murtha's seat in Pennsylvania, and Chuck DeVore, the darling of California Tea Partiers seeking to unseat Barbara Boxer, both fairly well known nationally. Their third endorsement pleased me a great deal - Craig McPherson. The final two were also well known candidates, Pat Toomey, running against Arlen Specter, and Doug Hoffman, the NY-23 veteran. While I certainly approved of their choice of Mr. McPherson and felt it entirely fitting, I was a bit curious how he had ended up in a field of much better known candidates. So I asked.

Mr. McPherson acknowledged that he was aware of the group, but did not know its creator. He said that it was a guy, he believed in California, who had become aware of McPherson while researching Chuck DeVore (like McPherson, DeVore attended Claremont McKenna College), had called and talked with McPherson for some time, and decided to endorse him.

It's a group on Facebook, certainly not anything terribly important, and has fewer than 3,000 members, not the 100,000 billed in the name of the group. I had asked the question out of pure curiousity, nothing more. I joked that, given the greater name recognition of the other four candidates, I had wondered if it was a friend of his who created the group as a way to promote his candidacy. We all laughed, then moved on to other topics, and I completely forgot the encounter.

A couple of days later, I received a message from Craig McPherson on Facebook. Apparently my question had made him wonder, so he had taken the time to investigate the group, and had learned that the creator of the group was, in fact, a friend of a friend. He wrote to tell me that, saying that I was correct that there was some "home cooking there." He did not want me to be misled.

You could have knocked me over with a feather. There was no reason for him to bother to check this group out - it was a trivial question with no bearing on the race whatsoever. But he did check it out, and, when he learned that there was a connection, he felt it important to reveal that connection to me, in the spirit of honor and full disclosure. After years of receiving form letters from my elected representatives, listening to phony politicians paint themselves as near saints and parsing through countless hours of political speak from the other candidates in this race, trying to ascertain what was fact and what was fantasy, I had found a man who went out of his way to reveal the truth, even when it might (albeit only slightly) damage my image of him. That small act of integrity absolutely sealed my support of this candidate.

Kansas, indeed America, needs to send this man to Washington. I urge you to please visit his website, make a donation, tell your friends about this truly unique and amazing candidate. Never has our nation been more in need of an honest man - Craig McPherson is that man.

Yoder Is Targeted By Special Interests!

By David Losey

I have uncovered some additional information that is not readily available through the usual media sources. Kevin Yoder has become the favorite of a special interest group that wishes to secure his election. It has more money than you and I and, thereby, places us at a disadvantage. The reason this is important is that when the time comes to consider legislation which effects you and me will Yoder consider our wishes and what is best for Kansans or will he be influenced by big money, choosing to ignore us like our current Congressman, Dennis Moore?

I have previously reported,

“According to recent campaign contribution data posted on opensecrets.org QC Holdings has contributed $7,400 to Yoder's campaign. QC Holdings was the top contributor to Moore's campaign in the 2008 election cycle with over $25,000 contributed.”

New research indicates that neither QC Holdings PAC nor any of its corporate officers (or their spouses) have previously contributed to any of Yoder's campaigns. However, now that he is running for Congress QC Holdings PAC has contributed $5,000 to his campaign. This is the second highest amount given to any candidate to date in the 2010 election cycle. Heath Schuler (D-NC) is #1 with $6,000. (Lynn Jenkins is tied with Yoder at #2 with $5,000 and James Barnett, candidate for Congress in the Kansas 1st District, received $1,000.)) Three officers/board members who contributed to the PAC, in fact, live in Yoder's House District and they never contributed a single penny to any of his campaigns for State office. Why the sudden interest in supporting Yoder now?

Darrin Andersen, President and COO of QC Holdings, has made personal contributions to Dennis Moore and to Kevin Yoder. He contributed $4,600 to Moore in both 2007 and 2008. In addition, in 2008, he contributed $2,000 to Kay (Barnes) for Congress, $4,600 to Senator Tim Johnson from S.D., $2,200 to Luis Gutierrez Congressman from Illinois, and $2,200 to Claire McCaskill Senator from Missouri. He also contributed $2,000 in 2009 to Senator Harry Reid. Note all are Democrats. Then, in 2010, he changed his pattern and gave $2,400 to Yoder, a Republican . His spouse, Jill, also gave $2,400 to Yoder in 2010. Why the sudden interest in supporting Yoder in 2010?

In order to give a possible answer to this question I will need to set the background. QC Holdings is the holding company for QC Cash Loans. It is a leading provider of short-term loans with 556 branches in 24 states. Its typical customer does not have easy access to a bank account or credit card. He is more likely than not a low-income and minority or immigrant consumer. Short-term loans are convenient and, although the average transaction fee is low the annual percentage rate is exorbitant.

As one would expect government laws and regulations have a dramatic impact on this industry. For example, in the last year Virginia and North Carolina have banned short-term loans altogether. The risk to the industry revolves around changing laws/regulations and/or the interpretation of existing laws. For example, the Obama administration is pushing for a Consumer Protection Agency and a cap on interest rates. In addition, the media portrayal of the industry impacts both the public perception and the perception of State and Federal legislators which influences current legislation.

With an income of $21.0 million dollars and an increase in their stock price of 40% in 2009 one can see that QC Holdings has a great deal to protect. And it certainly cannot afford to spend money casually. Therefore, it donates money where it will be most effective. It desperately needs to have “a friend in high places” to help mitigate the current industry risks. Enter Kevin Yoder!

With Moore retiring, it is clear that QC Holdings intends to continue to have access and influence by supporting the election of Kevin Yoder. Management is clearly banking on Yoder winning the election. Why else would they contribute so heavily to his campaign?

It looks like Moore of the same.

We must not elect another Moore. Yoder or Stephene!

Hornet's Nest!

Wow! Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson makes an appearance on Hannity and the result reminds me of the old cartoons where a guy smacks a hornet's nest with a stick and unleashes a veritable storm of buzzing, stinging fury!

Everyone is talking about that interview! All the young liberals are on fire because Johnson speaks the truth about the war on drugs... namely that it has cost billions and accomplished nothing. Okay, that part is true.

But as a New Mexican I'd like to tell you what I think about Johnson. First, you have to admire his lifestyle. Does he smoke the marijuana he proposes we decriminalize? Not a chance! He doesn't even drink Coke. Or Pepsi! Or anything with alcohol in it. When he first ran for governor, he traveled the state on a bicycle! A bicycle! This guy is the absolute prime example of clean living. You want an athletic role model? He's your guy!

But that is all weekend and evening stuff. On the job, in the governors office, we knew him as Governor Veto. Our state is lop-sided Democrat. But every spending bill that reached his desk met the same scrutiny... is it really necessary for the people of New Mexico? Does it really make sense economically? Often the answer was no, and he struck the thing with his veto pen! All this compassionate conservative baloney fell on deaf ears when it reached Governor Johnson's office.

Did we miss any of those spending programs the Democrats pushed? Not one! Were we worse off or poorer for the loss of any of the Democrats proposed programs? Not a bit! When Gary Johnson left office at the end of the Constitutionally permitted two terms, New Mexico was in great financial condition! Better, I dare say, than any state today!

I love Gary Johnson! Forget the pot thing. Like Johnson, I believe it is a sign of weakness to indulge in any mind-altering activity. But, realize if you will, how many Americans tonight will sleep in a jail cell because of some stupid drug thing! Yes, end that nonsense! Forget the DARE programs and start teaching young people how to drive. Foolish and reckless driving is what is killing our teens, not smoking marijuana!

But, if we really want to save our country, we have to get out of debt. We have to teach our youth what our founding fathers taught: never make poverty comfortable. Let it hurt! Teach people the real way to ease that pain... teach them to be self-sufficient, proud, independent citizens.

Quit looking for "electability". Quit looking for fund raising ability! Start looking for character! Start looking for logic and reason and an intelligent approach to solving national problems! Take a long look at Gary Johnson!

Taking a look at the ICaucus in Kansas

Note: This was written by a friend of mine. Though he is referring specifically to Kansas issues, and the details may differ, similar problems can be found in nearly every one of the fifty states. Those of us in Kansas consider ourselves very fortunate to have a man of Larry's caliber as our state iCaucus director.

Like the vast majority of you I was not an active participant in the political process prior to the 2008 election. Of course I voted and talked to people about the elections and candidates but more on a casual basis.

I can remember sitting around the dinner table years previous trying to talk to the family about political matters only to see their eyes glaze over rather rapidly. It was not a subject matter that would induce a great deal of discussion and usually lead to calls for an early nap. I suspect this was probably a common experience around a lot of tables. Like most people I assumed, incorrectly, that the conversations could wait and that surely those we elected were very busy watching out for our best interest.

How many of us in the recent past would have looked at the makeup of our Kansas House and Senate and just naturally assumed that we were in good shape with the apparent conservative majority in control of both chambers. The past year has provided quite the eye opener to this false assumption. Despite the conservative platform to restrain government spending, spending at the state level continues to rise. Despite the conservative platform to not raise taxes, taxes at the state level continue to rise. Despite a failing public education system, spending in this area continues to rise, over forty percent in the past five years. Despite declining revenue from business taxes, increasing unemployment with the loss of nearly 70,000 private sector jobs state wide, state government and government employment continues to grow. And, despite a professed belief in individual liberty and limited government intrusion in our lives the marauders of personal liberty masquerading in the state house stepped on private business, failed to secure our tenth amendment rights or even pass a meaningful non binding resolution and denied our citizens the right to choose if they would allow their health care to be dictated by an even more diabolical and all consuming federal government. Yep, this big tent deal is really working out well for Kansas.

And, where is the Republican Party during this masquerade session and why are these not so conservative and really quite progressive Senators and Representatives wearing the party logo to begin with? This big tent is more like a cheap carnival in which our citizens should not expect any greater odds of winning. I suggested a while back to the consternation of more than a few in the local area that the Republican Party is such in Name Only and really represents the old Democrat and Republican Party combined, especially when you consider the Democrat Party of today no longer represents the Party many of our parents and grandparents belonged to and many of us could at least tolerate. Today they are really chomping at the bit to proclaim their socialist beliefs and have recently become less constrained in the public arena even in that regard. I think the answer lies in the party desire to retain power (influence) at any cost and we now see Democrats serving as supposed Republicans. It is a deceitful reality at best, damn near criminal, and should require that they wear a visible disclaimer across their forehead that would alert the average Kansan to the fact that they are not what they appear to be. Ok, maybe just a special blue jacket with a fancy red fringe would do.

We have all watched over the past year as the Republican Party first dismissed us and stood at a double arms length away from us when we began to voice our opinions at the local and national level. As we came to recognize the danger and a threat to our liberty we rushed toward the fire in growing numbers with only superficial participation of most party insiders and elected officials. Actually, the Party seemed to consider us as just a bunch of adolescents that would need to be herded in some fashion or the other to a remote corner of the tent (if room could be found). To be fair, there were a few (very few) politicians that actually stood at once and took a prominent place on the fire line. However, time and the approaching election (come on November) brings about those miraculous conversions one would only associate with a tent revival or a Sunday morning healing at one of the televised super centers. We should take care not to be smitten by yet another illusion.

So where does the Independence Caucus fit into this discussion? For me personally, I see the ICaucus as an opportunity for average citizens to become informed about the candidates vying for their vote. I see it as an opportunity for the average citizen to determine for themselves which candidate will receive that vote without the corrupted and compromised, power driven, win at any cost, party influence. The ICaucus provides Kansans the opportunity to ignore the televised campaign infomercials and still step into the voting booth with confidence that their candidate can be located on the ballot with or without the customary party initial next to their name. In practical terms, the Independence Caucus provides Kansans the opportunity to interview the candidate for the job we are hiring them to do. But perhaps most importantly, the Independence Caucus provides our Kansas citizens the opportunity to participate and meet their personal responsibility, as tasked by our Founders, with regard to their governance. If you have had enough or you are just befuddled and do not know where else to turn then perhaps the Independence Caucus would be a good start.

One or more have asked in pointed terms if the Independence Caucus is a “Miracle or Myth”. I suspect time will tell. However, given the choice of continuing down the same old path, with the same worn out promises (we will fix it this time) and our same old gullible expectations that just bring about more of the same, I will cast my lot with the Independence Caucus. However it did or did not work elsewhere is of less importance as to how it works here in Kansas. I would suggest that the relevance or impact of the Independence Caucus in Kansas politics sits squarely in our laps and depends solely on what we make of the opportunity. We can adapt, improvise and overcome the obstacles placed in our way or succumb to the petty ridicule of others or those fearful of losing their entrenched status and power. This time the choice is ours or more specifically yours.

Certainly we have our work cut out for us. Our membership growth depends on the message each of us carries to our neighbors and they in turn carry to others. We are not driven by corporate sponsorship nor supported by federal grants, our energy is our own to expend. Our Founders left us a simple guide in simple language. We need only follow it. It is not negotiable but it is amendable.

Before I go, I want to apologize for the revivalist and super center comparisons to political conversions. I do not believe the spending habits of a drunken sailor should be compared to the political pros either. I am well aware of God’s work in my life and my own life’s experiences are enough to convince me that I am only here today by his grace with the specific mission of standing for my posterity. Some twenty one and a half years ago, following my last drink and with little expectation that faith in a power greater than myself would restore me to sanity a loving but hard old sponsor suggested that if I didn’t have faith that I should just act like I did, until it did, so I did. I think these are Patrick Henry days and again I do not know if I posses Patrick’s bravery so I think I will just act like I do until I do. Like those days long ago it would be a tad easier if there was someone to stand with. Hope to see you in the Independence Caucus. http://www.icaucus.org/ or http://icaucus.ning.com/.

Larry

For want of a few good men

The Founding Fathers clearly understood that liberty cannot exist without morality and responsibility. It is not my intent to justify this statement - it has been done by more educated writers than I. Read, for example, The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen. The absence of these qualities necessitates the growth of government, at all levels, to protect the law abiding from the unscrupulous.

I had a brief conversation yesterday with a moderately left-leaning friend who recently returned from a trip to Great Britain. He noted that the police there do not carry guns - and that the murder rate is very low. He said that he had heard of only one murder during the entire two weeks he was there, but that he hears of shootings in the Kansas City area almost every day. The unspoken implication, of course, was that guns cause murders. I suggested to him that immorality coupled with freedom was the more likely cause.

Several months ago, Glenn Beck put out a call for what he termed "Refounders." He sought members of Congress who would put principle ahead of party and speak out against the corruption and graft that is eating away at our nation. Drawing on the number of signatories to the Declaration of Independence, he sought 56 such leaders - just 56, out of 535, barely more than 10% - who would take a stand for all that is good and just about America, and help root out the corrupt and unscrupulous. After several months, he has found eleven. Only eleven!

A little over a year ago, when I first stood in a field at Johnson County Community College, shoulder to shoulder with 10,000 of my city's finest, most concerned and informed citizens, I believed that we were different. There were many little signs: the absolute void of trash left behind indicated responsibility; the warmth and welcoming nature of everyone I met indicated morality, trust and respect.

When I stood with 1.7 million such people on Capitol Hill on September 12th, 2009, the feeling was greatly intensified. I spent much of that day in tears - so great was my delight at being reminded that good people do still exist. Again, it was little things. Despite the fact that the wait to use one of the hundreds of Porta-Potties was around a half an hour, all day long, the elderly, disabled and pregnant women were immediately moved to the front of the line, with unanimous consent of all they bypassed. There was no access to food or drink to speak of, but there were no complaints. The trains were jammed beyond belief, but everyone did their best to allow more to board, and seats were gladly given up for those more in need of them. Yes, these are all small things, but they were small things which, in aggregate, indicated character. They were things which were noticeable because of their absence at most other large gatherings I have attended, where people jockey for position in queues, look with suspicion on the person next to them, expect the worst from their fellow man and frequently receive it. I couldn't help thinking of our Tea Partiers as "throwbacks" to a kinder, gentler, simpler time. A time of ice cream socials and town squares. A time when no one felt a need to lock their door at night. A time when being an American was something special, because we shared the common bond of liberty cherished. These feelings gave me hope, and a belief that, as long as these people still exist, there is still potential for real greatness in our country.

The last couple of weeks have shaken that faith. I have found far too many signs that the rot that is permeating our society has taken hold within those I thought to be untouched by the greed and corruption. Individuals I know personally and previously respected have revealed themselves to be little better than those we seek to subdue.

I am part of an organization called the Independence Caucus. It's sole mission is to "take back politics from 'Big Money' interest groups." In theory, this goal is to be accomplished by a rigorous vetting process of candidates for public office and an endorsement vote by principled, informed members. An eighty question questionnaire is the first step of the process - and they are not softball questions. They deal with complex Constitutional issues, objectionable Supreme Court precedents and a broad spectrum of other topics. Only if a candidate receives a score of at least 70% can they proceed to the next step of the process, the interview. Our interview panel in Kansas is pretty tough. They invest two hours in each candidate, probing deeper than even the questionnaire, making every effort to expose weaknesses and hypocrisy. In the Kansas 3rd Congressional District race, they did an excellent job, producing four recorded interviews for the members to review.

The responsibilities of the members are quite simple and straightforward: agree to remain uncommitted until after all interviews have been heard. Any other vetting that a member is able to do on their own is, of course, fine, and should be taken into account. But there are two points from which members should never stray - neutrality, and giving all candidates a full hearing.

After all interviews for a given race are released, there is a one week discussion period, during which all members are welcome to state their case for, or against, each candidate. This discussion is to be conducted in a respectful manner, toward candidates and fellow members alike. At the conclusion of the discussion period, the members vote on their preferred candidate. If one candidate receives 60% of the vote, they receive the endorsement. If more than two candidates are running, and none receives the required 60%, there is a runoff vote between the top two. It's a fairly simple process, and one which gives the voter a great deal more information about each candidate than has been available during previous elections, where TV commercials were the primary source of information. Never underestimate the value of hearing a candidate put on the spot by a tough question! Their demeanor under pressure speaks volumes.

The discussion period for our 3rd Congressional District race began on April 18th. My own endorsement of Craig McPherson was the opening salvo in this discussion. It has been spirited, to say the least. Sadly, the process as a whole has not been principled.

Since April 18th, I have read dozens of arguments for and against the various candidates. Very few have mentioned objective qualifications for serving as a representative of the people - nearly all have focused on subjective measurements of the candidates. Some have tried to convince others that their chosen candidate will be the best choice for the job because of their "real world" experiences, building relationships and winning people over. I do not seek another "good ole boy" in Congress who will win the Miss Congeniality award! It is a corrupt institution - I seek a candidate whose alliance is with the Constitution and the Founders! I have heard arguments about honesty, compassion, parenthood, and "Mom moments," in which, apparently, maternal instinct reveals the true nature of a candidate's soul. I thought the Tea Partiers were different! I thought we were going to choose our candidates on principles, not a popularity contest or "gut instinct."

Many have argued for a certain candidate based on "electability" aspects - their belief that the candidate has better fundraising abilities, or superior name recognition. No one has better fundraising abilities or name recognition than Barack Obama - would they support him, too? The Republican party and the media have united behind a former Democrat, turned Republican, whose fundraising and name recognition, by comparison to any of our four Tea Party candidates, seem insurmountable. If those factors are to be our standard, we should abandon principle now and throw our support to the frontrunner.

Worse still, I have learned of many instances of gaming the process. I have been told that the interviews and discussions were irrelevant, and that members did not need to listen to them to make up their minds. I have heard of members who joined iCaucus with no intention of listening to the interviews or wasting their time debating - they knew who they supported when they joined, and are only there to support their candidate. I know of people who have donated hundreds of dollars to a particular campaign, prior to the completion of the vetting process, who cast their vote for that candidate with flagrant disregard for the intended process.

I have been deeply disappointed by my fellow Tea Partiers during this ordeal. I thought they were different, I thought they stood for principle and would resist, to the end, the old ways of choosing our representatives. I have been proven wrong.

Are there no people of character left in this country? Has our indoctrination been so complete that we are unable to break free from its grip? Is America doomed to failure for want of a few good men?