Those of us on conservative right are refusing to rest on the laurels of the 2010 election results, and already some have a plan to drive the dialogue as the presidential primary season begins.  A group of Christian conservatives and film-industry professionals will be bringing social issues to the forefront of the GOP’s presidential nomination process by scheduling the red-carpet previews of their controversial film, The Genesis Code, smack dab in the middle of both the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses.  The movie has already earned mentions on Drudge (http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2011/01/25/sharron-angle-heads-to-iowa.aspx or http://drudgereport.com/) and Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0111/Angle_to_Iowa.html?showall) for getting Sharron Angle to appear as a VIP at the Iowa screening, and it seems like that’s just the beginning of the controversy it will generate.
The Genesis Code picks fights on three major social issues: science vs faith, the discrimination against Christians on college campuses, and the right to life.  To view the trailer for the film, click here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p4Cs_QkwsM

These guys mean business.  This is the first endeavor of American Epic Entertainment, a production company aimed at producing well-made, family-friendly Christian films that shape our culture.  The Genesis Code boasts a stellar production quality and a star-studded cast including Fred Thompson, Catherine Hicks of 7th Heaven, and Academy Award winners Ernest Borgnine and Louise Fletcher.  The film will hit theaters across the country this February.

Each candidate must now step up to the line in the sand that grassroots conservatives have drawn in order to secure a chance at the presidency.  Even though the revolt against big spending has been hogging the political headlines during the past years, The Genesis Code shows that these social issues are still just as potent as ever for voters.  For the latest updates on the movie and the ripples it’s been making in the political waters, visit the movie’s blog here: http://blog.thegenesiscodemovie.com/

Smaller Government

For those who don’t remember, early in the 2000 presidential campaign there was a divide in the Republican party over the use of the term “compassionate conservative”.  For many in the party, the need for the distinction was quite obvious.  Conservatives were mean, unless they were the religious type, and that type were just extremists.  Perhaps you know the concept better from a popular illustration.  “Regular” conservatives wanted to teach the poor to fish, while liberals wanted to give the poor fish to eat.  Conservative pointed out that at liberals were foolish, because they would need to keep feeding the poor everyday for the rest of their lives and their children and grandchildren as well.  In essence, they would become permanent wards of the state and loyal voters fearful of losing their handouts.  This was contrary to the American dream.  What about hard work?  Rugged individualism?  Self reliance?   To only feed a man a fish was to subjugate him to near slave status and to be at the mercy of others.  It robbed him of dignity and the ability to achieve his right to the pursuit of happiness.  Liberalism, it was reasoned, was wholly un-American.

Liberals of course, scoffed at such a view.  So, they argued, a man and his family will starve to death while taking fishing lessons from someone who takes the fish he does catch and deducts the cost for the pole or nets and the training and then takes his profit off the top.  This leaves the man with mere scraps with which to feed his family.  The greedy fisherman who owns the boat and hires the man lives in luxury and profits greatly while the man who is desperate has no clout and must take what he gets.  Is this the “brotherly love” conservative claim to champion?  Is this the American way?   Must a man live in poverty his whole life while making someone else wealthy off of his sweat?  This seems to resemble slavery as well. 

For the morally conservative in the Republican party, this was a serious issue.  These conservatives were conscious of the PR image that they were fighting.  Americans may as a whole be politically ignorant, but they recognizing injustice and compassion when they see it.  Neither solution of “teaching” or “feeding” were sufficient; but if only one was to be chosen, a man needs to eat first if he is to have the strength to work.  Perhaps this will explain the liberal’s argument about free school breakfast and lunches in public schools. 

Enter the term “Compassionate Conservative”.  Why not do both!  Genius!  If we allow welfare, but limit its duration and require the recipient to seek employment, it’s a win-win.  A “kinder and gentler” America.

Other Republicans were aghast.  The term “Conservative” does not need a qualifier.  How dare anyone suggest that there was a need for the adjective “compassionate”.  It was self evident.  The true definition of conservatism was dripping with compassion.  To suggest the need for the adjective compassionate was to concede the point to liberals.  This became a struggle over who could be more “compassionate”?  Conservative Republicans would thus join battle on the Liberal Democrats terms.  A battle conservatives were sure to lose. 

Today we are poised to fight this battle once again.  As conservatives gain more and more control in congress, the question of compassion will return.  How can Republicans cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the budget without hurting the poor and needy? 

The answer is not simply to preach self-reliance, but to focus on what the Founding Fathers witnessed firsthand.  Christian Charity.  Liberals have done their best to remove the concept of individual charitable acts.  They reasoned that only governments could and should address the inequalities in society.  Too many Americans were fine with passing off the responsibility of showing compassion to neighbors or strangers.  What’s a few extra buck in taxes if it frees me up on weekends from working at the soup kitchen?  If Conservatives in Washington are going to have success, it falls to conservatives on main street to step up and step into the lives of people they may not yet know exist. 

Let’s practice what we preach.

My Letter To Attorney General Mike Cox

Address Removed

September 17, 2009Hon. Mike Cox, Esq.
Attorney General of Michigan
G. Mennen Williams Building, 7th Floor
525 W. Ottawa St.
P.O. Box 30212
Lansing, MI 48909

Dear Attorney General Cox:

I recently read about your commitment to disclosure by candidates for public office and their spouses and applaud the steps you have taken in this regard.  Transparency is important for both candidates for, and holders of, elected office and I support your position that all money from lobbyists over $250 should be disclosed.

I’m a member of the Society of Professional Journalists and have started a blog that is covering the race for Governor, among other things.  In studying the issues, I came across two non-profit organizations that bear your name.  The first, the Attorney General Cox Committee, was formed on January 21, 2003, and is a lobbying organization. The second, called the Mike Cox Pay Kids Foundation, was incorporated on August 6, 2003.  It is a tax-deductible, charitable foundation. 

Together these organizations have raised and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars.  I believe your spouse was one of three board members for both organizations, and was the foundation’s treasurer.  Much of the spending of these organizations went to pay for advertising that carried your name.

I obtained public record information for these organizations, but cannot find a document that discloses who funded them.  Could you ask the boards of these organizations to disclose a list of who contributed to them – above $250?

According to the latest annual reports (2008) filed for these organization, the boards consist of Michael Garavaglia, Shannon Price, and Laura Cox; and Michael Garavaglia, Laura Cox, and Thomas Furtaw, respectively.  Your assistance in getting these board members to cooperate in disclosing their sources of funding over $250 will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Tim Jerzyk