Musical production credits God for "favored nation" status

America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
—from "America the Beautiful," by Katharine Lee Bates

Is the United States just another member of the "community of nations?" Or perhaps we are more than that because of our unique belief that, as Newt Gingrich puts it, "your personal rights come from God directly to you, the individual, and you loan the government sovereignty."

The premiere production of the musical Favored Nation will answer these questions unequivocally and remind you why American conservatives think that every day is the Fourth of July. From the production company's web site:

Favored Nation is a dramatic musical that powerfully demonstrates God's hand in the history of the United States. Supported by a large choir, wonderful soloists and a professional orchestra, the musical features beautiful, historical and original songs, dramatic lighting and a powerful story presented in the grand tradition of musical theater! The songs are drawn from many musical styles, and 95% of the script is the actual words of our founding fathers and historical figures, culled from speeches and letters. Through Favored Nation, experience American history, from Columbus through the Civil War, in a way that will move your heart, enrich your mind, lift your spirit and challenge your faith.

Tickets are $15. Favored Nation will be performed at Calvary Church, 5300 France Avenue South in Edina, on June 26 and 27.

Where should some of the HHS cuts come from?

Part 3 of a 3-part series

By Brian W. Grogan

Where should some of the cuts come from?

First, we should be reducing welfare fraud by hiring auditors to eliminate the estimated $10 million in fraud already identified.

Secondly, we need to pay monthly welfare benefits that are in parity to neighboring states so as to reduce the incentive for non-residents to migrate to our state solely for better monthly benefits. We need to enact legislation that denies welfare benefit coverage to people who have lived less than 6 months in our State. We need to deny health care coverage to non-resident Minnesotans and illegal immigrants. In addition, MNCare (State of Minnesota’s Health Care assistance program) should not be available to parents who earn over $30,000.

We also need to understand that the health care system challenges in Minnesota are due predominately to our regulations and laws. Since the early 1990s, legislative leaders have been meticulously building a government-run health care system by passing laws that require private citizens (you and me) to buy more and more coverage benefits whether we want them or not (coverage mandates). In addition, our legislators have passed laws that effectively limit our access to health insurance providers (limit competition). Thirdly, our legislators have refused to pass tort reform.

Minnesota has more mandated coverage requirements (in 2008 there were 64 mandates) than any other state in the nation. For every one mandated coverage requirement, we pay an additional premium so it shouldn’t surprise us when we discover that Minnesota residents pay some of the highest health care insurance premiums in the nation. For example, a 25-year-old must pay for hearing aid coverage and a 55-year-old must purchase fertility drug coverage.

In addition, Minnesota lawmakers have erected barriers to entry of health insurance providers which means our choices are purposely restricted. We are essentially forced to purchase coverage from three companies who control nearly 90 percent of Minnesota’s market.

Do we have a health care crisis in our state? Minnesota has the highest number of insured people (93%) in the nation. We don’t have a health care crisis in our state. We have a health care insurance regulation problem. If we restrict health and human services (HHS) MinnesotaCare access to non-Minnesota residents and illegal immigrants as well as pass legislation to address mandates, tort reform and restricted competition, we could dramatically reduce the growth of HHS.

Brian Grogan, Minnetonka, was the Republican-endorsed candidate in state House District 43B in 2008.

What to do with Sarah Palin?

"My concentration is on bettering our country. I've never been known as an obsessive partisan. In fact, I've taken on my own party. I've run against members of my own party in order to reform at a local level and a state level. And on a national level I'd do the same thing...

"I think those who would criticize what I believe I represent — and that is, everyday, hardworking American families who desire and deserve reform of government — I think they are out of touch with what the rest of the nation is talking about today. It's a reflection of some elitism that assumes that the best and the brightest of this country are all assembled in Washington, D.C., and I beg to differ. You can walk out in the rally that we are going to attend in a minute, and you talk to anyone there, and I believe you will hear the same thing. Enough of that arrogance. Enough of that assumption that unless you are a part of that Washington elite that you aren't worthy of serving this great country."

—Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, "I Haven't Always Just Toed the Line," by Kimberley A. Strassel, The Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2008

"...many in the [Republican] party establishment...would prefer [Sarah Palin] remain in Alaska and leave the party rebuilding to others who may appeal to the broad middle of the country." —"Sarah Palin in, then out, back in -and now again out of fundraising dinner," by Jonathan Martin, Politico, June 7, 2009

How's that workin' out for ya, guys??

The Washington establishment of the GOP knows that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is a solid conservative rock star who can't be counted on to follow the focus group-tested story line and stick to the teleprompter, and neither will her "fans." But Palin is no loose cannon: on the contrary, she is just one of those rare politicians who puts her traditional American values and conservative principles over, well, politics. Palin's remarkable record of cleaning house in Alaskan government speaks for itself, which could be why the Beltway boys are so befuddled about Sarah Palin — and why America needs her now more than ever.

Why are DFL leaders crying foul on HHS cuts?

Part 2 of a 3-part series

By Brian W. Grogan

Since 1960, Minnesota’s state budget (general fund) has grown by over 18% annually. The media, liberal commentators and DFL legislators are trying to tell Minnesota taxpayers that our $4.6 billion deficit is due to the economy, but this is only part of the story. The unsustainable growth of government spending is the real cause for the deficits we are facing. What is the response of the DFL Minnesota House and Senate leaders to this enormous deficit? For the last four months they have been trying to sell Minnesotans on our "shared responsibility," which means an increase in taxes. Let's understand their proposals.

The DFL-controlled Senate proposal raised taxes by $2.3 billion and cut spending by $2.3 billion, but the proposed spending cuts are based on a budget that is increasing by 4.8%. In other words, the DFL leaders in the Senate don't want to actually cut government spending but essentially hold the line at 0% budget growth while increasing our taxes.

The DFL-controlled House wants to raise taxes by $1 billion while cutting expenses by $3.6 billion, which is better than the Senate's approach but it still only cuts overall spending by 5% while raising our taxes. We are in a 12% deficit hole and half of the DFL leaders don't want to cut spending while the other half only want to cut spending by 5%. Gov. Pawlenty wants 12% in spending cuts to address the 12% deficit. Which approach between the three is the most fiscally responsible especially in light of the fact that MN government spending has grown by over 18% annually since 1960?

Do you know any fiscally-responsible person or family that would maintain or only slightly decrease their spending at a time when they have a 12% drop in income and have insufficient funds to pay future obligations? Most financially-responsible families and individuals would be analyzing the books to find out-of-control spending problems and where to make cuts.

There is a reason why Gov. Pawlenty is predominately cutting the Health and Human Services (HHS) budget. It is the most out-of-control piece of the budget and Minnesotans should be greatly concerned that the DFL party refuses to accept the fact that HHS growth is unsustainable. In fact, the only way we can support the DFL’s vision for HHS obligations would to raise personal income taxes to 20% or more.

Unfortunately, our media outlets and liberal commentators are not talking about the reality of the HHS problem. Under current eligibility standards and growth projections, the HHS obligation will grow to over $40 billion by 2025 which would represent 80 percent of the budget. How will our State be able to fund K-12 education in addition to our state college system, city government, law enforcement and prison system if our HHS obligation represents 80% of the budget?

The DFL majorities are screaming how Gov. Pawlenty is reducing benefits to the indigent and uninsurable. This is simply not true.

The 2010-11 budget had HHS growing by 26% ($2.4 billion increase) from its 2008-09 biennium budget. Gov. Pawlenty proposed a $1.7 billion cut from the $11.4 billion HHS 2010 budget which represents a 10% cut. But even after Pawlenty’s proposed cuts, the HHS budget grows by 10% over the 2008-09 biennium budget.

The DFL counterproposal is to cut $500 million in the 2010-11 biennium but then reinstate the cuts in 2012. The DFL is still committed to growing HHS's obligations at an unsustainable pace. Thankfully, Gov. Pawlenty is committed to slowing HHS's growth.

Unfortunately, our media sources are refusing to challenge DFL party leaders during these tough economic times. As a state, we need an honest debate on what we can and cannot provide to Minnesota's indigent population and uninsured residents. I feel strongly that tough decisions need to be made by our political leaders in order to serve our state's long-term interest.

Brian Grogan, Minnetonka, was the Republican-endorsed candidate in state House District 43B in 2008.

MNGOP leadership debate highlights problems, introduces candidates

It wasn't much of a debate.

Last night's event, billed as a "debate" among the candidates for chair and deputy chair of the Republican Party of Minnesota, was really more of a forum to discuss what's broken about the state party out-of-power, and what party leadership can do about it. There was more agreement than disagreement on these points, so the issues were beside the point, although I thought that it was refreshing to finally hear these issues aired out in a public forum.

The evening did provide an unprecedented opportunity for State Central delegates, BPOU (local affiliate) activists, DFLers, and outside-the-party conservatives to meet and size up the candidates, up close and personal. It was also a great warm-up for next week's follow-up event in Maple Grove (more on that later).

So what was the consensus of the candidates on what's wrong with the Minnesota GOP?

• The party has strayed from its conservative roots, exacerbated when certain legislative candidates became incumbents(!).
• Lack of "customer service" to the BPOUs and Congressional District organizations; too much command-and-control.
• Outdated technology. Worst offender: the RNC-driven Voter Vault voter data base.

Starting with the deputy chair candidates, how would each candidate address these issues?

Bob Swinehart, a retired physicist from 3M, would apply his years of experience managing scientific and engineering departments, as well has his experience as an activist in the MNGOP (his is a current BPOU chair). He understands that the party needs to reach out to younger voters.

Dorothy Fleming, current MNGOP deputy chair, has certainly paid her dues, has a statewide network of activists, and knows party operations inside and out. Yet I didn't hear Fleming make the case for why, as an incumbent in the Ron Carey administration, she isn't part of the problem.

Michael Brodkorb, activist and (to say the least) blogger, would bring his familiarity with party workings, tech savvy, and outspoken articulation of conservative vision to the party. I wanted to start calling Brodkorb "Mr. Customer Service" for the number of times he emphasized the party's need, and his own devotion to, customer service to the BPOUs and Congressional district organizations.

As for the chairperson candidates, Carrie Ruud would bring her 360-degrees of experience as a grassroots activist, candidate, and legislator to the table.

Some in the grassroots I have spoken to are quick to dismiss Tony Sutton, current party Secretary/Treasurer as "more of the same," but as he pointed out last night, when he was executive director of the party in the 1990s, Republicans won majorities in the Legislature, which in turn served under a Republican governor. Life was good — so good that the late 1990s/early 2000s became the heyday for "moderate Republicans" who felt so free to stray from the platform and even party discipline that the name Republican became a name only.

Radio host and attorney Dave Thompson may be the dark horse of the field. Although his conservative credentials and skill as a broadcast personality are beyond question, he has no previous experience as an elected official or party boss.

I am not a State Central delegate this year, so I won't be casting a ballot in these elections, but after last night I would give the edge to Thompson and Brodkorb. I think that this duo would make the strongest statement to friend and foe alike that the Republican Party of Minnesota is committed to the transformative, high-velocity cultural change that will be needed to overcome the DFL in the elections of 2010 and 2012.

Your next chance to evaluate the candidates in person is next Thursday, June 4 at the Minnesota Republican Party Leadership Forum at Maple Grove Junior High School.

The most encouraging thing about these events is that they are not official MNGOP events. They are grassroots-driven, after-the-TEA-party efforts, which shows that the conservative movement is not only alive and well, it's gaining in strength and numbers. It appears that all of the candidates for state party leadership have taken notice.

Liveblogging the Minnesota GOP leadership debate

9:00 pm: Wrapping up, thank you, good night.

8:57 pm: Question 9: How would you work with BPOUs and Legislative caucuses? Ruud: communicate with the caucuses, do not interfere with the BPOU selection and endorsement process. Thompson: Ditto. Sutton: Ditto.

8:52 pm: Question 8: What improvements would you make in technology and how? Sutton: Voter Vault: replace with a Minnesota-grown data base, as the Second Congressional District has shown us in 2008. Devote one staff member to social networking, blogs, Internet technologies. Ruud: Voter Vault needs to be replaced. Web sites need to link the BPOUs, the state party can assist. Web meetings to bring outstate BPOUs into the process. Thompson: use the technology to win elections; tailor the communication medium to the voter (demographic). But let's remember that we must use technology efficiently to win elections.

8:49 pm: Question 7: Would you take a salary, why or why not? Thompson: I would take a salary, Chairman would be my first priority. Sutton: I would not take a salary, a volunteer organization should be led by a volunteer. "I am one of you." Ruud: I would take a salary, otherwise you limit who can serve if you don't pay a salary.

8:46 pm: Question 6: What BPOU experiences are needed in the paid staff of the MNGOP? Ruud: paid staffers should come from BPOU ranks and experience. Thompson: BPOU/CD experience is fine, but it depends on the needs of the job position. Sutton: if I am elected chair, the era of East Coast outsider staff is over. Activists expect a resource with experience, seasoning.

8:41 pm: Question 5: Do you believe that the state party has too much control over the BPOUs and congressional districts, and if so how would you fix it? Sutton: yes, and I would put the BPOUs back in control, and support the BPOUs like we did "back in the day" [my paraphrase]. Been there, done that. Ruud: Greater Minnesota needs more support from the party. Thompson: there is a sense that the state party isn't sensitive to the BPOU needs -- it's about attitude.

8:38 pm: [Back after network connection problems.]

8:29 pm: Question 3: What is your number one priority for the party? Sutton: elect more endorsed Republican candidates, to help change our state and country. "See my plan." Ruud: Build infrastructure, win elections, ensure a consistent conservative message. Thompson: elect candidates who will vote the platform, vote our values.

8:25 pm: Question 2: what attributes do you bring to the position of Chair, and why are you the best candidate? Thompson: I can inspire people to rally to the party by communicating the conservative vision of the party, all across the state. We have to stop allowing the Democrats to define us. Sutton: I understand how to run large organizations, I won't need "on the job training," I have a published plan of action. Ruud: I have a broad base of experience of running a BPOU, running as a candidate, being a legislature, running a private business.

8:22 pm: Question 1: What is the role of the Chair, and what should it be? Ruud: to service the BPOUs, give them the tools they need to elect their local candidates, to serve as a liaison to the national GOP, uphold the Constitution and platform. Thompson: communicator-in-chief, communicate the conservative vision. Sutton: set the strategic vision, operate the party to service the grassroots.

8:12 pm: Opening statements (3 minutes). Ruud: I have the grassroots experience and work ethic to help get Republicans elected. Thompson: I understand how to communicate the conservative vision and execute successful campaigns for candidates who will in turn implement the conservative agenda. Sutton: when the MNGOP had a conservative vision and was well organized (when I was MNGOP executive director), we won elections. I have the skills and experience to help us do it again.

8:09 pm: Chair candidates introduced: Carrie Ruud, Realtor, former legislator. Dave Thompson, radio personality, attorney. Tony Sutton, MNGOP officer and activist.

8:07 pm: Deputy Chair debate is concluded. Brief intermission while the stage is rearranged.

8:02 pm: Question 9: How would you repair the relationship between the state party and the "local affiliates" (BPOUs)? Flemming: transparency, decentralize, share "who we are," communicate. Swinehart: the state should lead the effort to share best practices among the BPOUs. Brodkorb: invite activists to become part of the process; leadership summits.

7:59 pm: Question 8: How would you handle conflicts of interest with your "day job," etc.? Brodkorb: Open executive committee, meet in every Congressional District in the state, more transparency. Flemming: I have no potential conflicts. Swinehart: I have no potential conflicts (I am retired).

7:56 pm: Question 7: Would you take a salary, why or why not? Swinehart: would accept expenses only. Brodkorb: would not take a salary, but salaries for Chair and Deputy Chair should be disclosed and tied to roles, responsibility. Flemming: would take a salary, because salary = accountability.

7:51 pm: Question 6: What do you believe is the role of the Deputy Chair in getting Republicans elected to state and local offices? Flemming: encourage candidates and volunteers. Swinehart: provide candidate training and support tools. Brodkorb: what we're doing isn't working, some incumbents don't want to run again, they are not getting the tools to win.

7:48 pm: Question 5: What would your role be in relation to the BPOUs? Brodkorb: customer service, providing to the BPOUs & CDs as I did as a MNGOP field staffer. Flemming: did not directly answer the question, but cited the desire of activists to engage on issues. Swinehart: deliver the tools needed by the BPOUs.

7:44 pm: Question 4: Would you change anything about the platform, and why? Swinehart: The platform could benefit from some "simplification." Brodkorb: I think we need to preserve the path that activists have via the caucuses to modify the platform. Flemming: The people we elect should follow the platform.

7:40 pm: Question 3: What would be your number one priority as Deputy Chair and how would you make it happen? Flemming: get high school students involved, "fix" Voter Vault (voter data base). Get information out to party activists. Swinehart: embrace all demographics (not just "people who look like me"). Talk to your neighbors on the issues. Brodkorb: Build the party, win elections. Win back majorities, retain governor. Help activists feel valued and included.

7:37 pm: Question 2: What attribute to you bring to the party? Brodkorb: technology expertise, communicate, bridge the technology gap. Flemming: I love being with people, listening to them, networking, writing. Getting people involved. Swinehart: management experience.

7:36 pm: Flemming: I enjoy traveling, listening to BPOUs, appearing on radio shows, getting out the message.

7:34 pm: Brodkorb: the party needs to better define the roles and responsibilities. I believe that customer service (for BPOUs and Congressional districts) should be the focus.

7:31 pm: First question: What is the role of the Deputy Chair, and what should it be? Swinehart: No strong opinion, since the by-laws are vague, but the Deputy Chair and Chair should be in agreement on it. I can lead teams, listen; cheerleading, not so much.

7:28 pm: Flemming: The party needs to get better at communication: talking points, putting the "party" back into the Republican Party. (Mentioned the local Red, White & Brew social networking gatherings.)

7:20 pm: Opening statements by each candidate. Swinehart: I have a different background than the other candidates (technical management at 3M). That's what I bring to the party. Brodkorb: The party needs to be in "customer service" mode. The party needs transparency. Committed to serving as a volunteer Deputy Chair. Recognizes the importance of (contact) list development.

7:17 pm: Introducing Deputy Chair candidates Bob Swinehart, retired 3M physicist, MNGOP activist; Michael Brodkorb, activist, blogger; Dorothy Flemming, current Deputy Chair.

7:14 pm: Meeks: Campaign 2010 begins now. Morrissey: We're hoping for change back to conservatism.

7:13 pm: My quick headcount: 125-150 in the seats.

7:10 pm: No questions from the floor. All questions from the stage. Order will be at random. Moderators Annette Meeks and Ed Morrissey being introduced.

7:04 pm: Derek Brigham from SD 45 is calling the evening to order. Most are still in the lobby noshing and hobnobbing. Sharing a table with @noahkunin (Twitter handle).

6:59 pm: Meet & greet underway in the lobby. Cameras & PCs getting set up in the auditorium. Talk amongst yourselves on Twitter, search for #mngopdebate.

6:58 pm: Set up in the press area at the debate!

Visit North Star Liberty tonight at 7:00 pm CDT for my liveblog of the Minnesota GOP Leadership Debate. I will also be monitoring Twitter @mattabe and #mngopdebate for your comments.

The land of the free, because of the brave

American Legion Post 118, Heritage Park, Wayzata, Minnesota, May 25, 2009

I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.

—The American's Creed, by William Tyler Page (1917)