Now that the House has passed the Healthcare bill, we're reliant on the Senate to block the bill to stop socialized health care. To help spread information, College Republicans are hosting a Healthcare Townhall, tomorrow, November 10th, at 6:30 in Lane 125. The meeting will feature Dr. Mariannette Miller-Meeks.
After leaving home at the age of 16, Dr. Miller-Meeks enrolled in nursing school at San Antonio Junior College. After completing two years of courses, she transferred to Texas Christian University where she earned her bachelor's degree, graduating summa cum laude. Dr. Miller-Meeks then joined the officer corps of the United States Army as a nurse at the age of 20.
Mariannette met her future husband, Curt, while stationed at Walter Reed Army Hospital. Dr. Miller-Meeks completed her Masters of Science in Education at the University of Southern California, soon before her transfer to Seoul, South Korea. After 6 years of active duty, Mariannette entered medical school at the University of Texas and graduated in the top of her class.
After completing her residency in ophthalmology at the University of Iowa, Dr. Miller-Meeks joined the faculty at the University of Michigan and was then recruited back to the University of Iowa as the first female faculty member in the department of ophthalmology. Mariannette has authored numerous articles, presented national lectures and research, was awarded the Charles Phelps Award in 1995, and has been named one of America’s best doctors several times.
Mariannette retired from the US Army Reserve in 1998 after 24 years at the rank of Lt. Colonel, after which she moved to Ottumwa, Iowa to open a private practice.
Dr. Miller-Meeks is currently the councilor for Iowa to the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO), serves as an associate examiner for the American Board of Ophthalmology, and was inaugurated as the first female president of the Iowa Medical Society in 2006.
Join us in fighting for our freedom this freedom week!
Monday, November 9, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Great job!
A big thanks to everyone who's helped out Mike Nofs this fall. He won yesterday, moving us a step closer to turning MI red. It was a great day across the nation, with some big victories in VA and NJ, and the overhaul of the gay marriage amendment in ME. Just because the elections are over doesn't mean we get a break, however. With yesterday's results, we've seen how much can happen in a year. With mid-term elections only a year a way, it's as important as ever that we spend this year hitting the pavement, so we can bring about a shift in the thinking of government.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Election Day
While not as flashy as last year, today is Election Day, and a critical part of our role as citizens is to make sure we are represented through our votes. So if you haven't already voted on an early or absentee ballot, make sure you get to your polling place today and make your voice heard. Let's let the Democrats in Washington that we're not happy with the 'change' their offering, and we're ready to show with our local leadership.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Who are we? The Future of the G.O.P. from New York
That's the question many Republicans started asking in 2007 as dozens of G.O.P. contenders for the presidential nomination, ranging from the more liberal Rudy Guilianni to the right-libertarian Ron Paul, struggled to define the legacy of Republicanism. After the defeat of moderate-maverick John McCain, that debate continues.
There is nothing new in the history of the moderate-conservative war to own the G.O.P. identity. After the death of the party's leader in Lincoln, the more hardline Republicans impeached the former democratic-moderate President Andrew Johnson in order to prosecute their reconstruction agenda.
Many see the current struggle in New York's 23rd congressional district - a struggle which saw dueling between G.O.P. titans such as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich and ended in the more moderate candidate suspending her campaign Saturday - as a similar conflict between the hardliners and the pragmatists. In that case, they see this as suicide for a minority party crucified on a cross of a "take-no-prisoners" ideology, sacrificing any chance of regaining power for the pleasure of platform purity.
I agree that this purification strategy is what my friend Julie Robinson termed "playing tennis without a net." A "litmus test" conservatism, which hauls to the guillitine any candidate without total adherence to a list of true-believer stances on everything from immigration to the campaign finance reform, is unwise and doomed to fail. It is indeed better, as Reagan noted, to support someone you agree with 70% of the time over someone you disagree with all the time. Realism is important. But I do not think that is what is happening in New York's 23rd.
Republican Dede Scozzafava's specific positions that caused the likes of Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck to endorse the Third Party conservative Doug Hoffman are significant. She was pro-choice, pro-homosexual marriage, and pro-Obama stimulas package. I would argue that these issues are uniquely important. The government "stimulas" that borrowed billions and bailed out mortgages is a fundemental question of the individual's responsibility in society. The social questions are fundementally about the definition of family and personhood, or the basic nature of humanity. In fact, I submit that these issues frame the ultimate question which is at the root of all political debates in every generation of Americans.
That question is this: will Americans self-govern our society under the rule of laws founded in the enduring moral order - the self-evident "laws of nature and of nature's God" - or will we govern our nation on the whims of force and man, devoid of any transcendent truth? This question isn't a question that can be answered with a compromise. You can't agree with me on the answer to this question "70% of the time."
In my view, and I think in the view of those who bucked the G.O.P. establishment and endorsed the conservative third party candidate, the issues of abortion, gay marriage, and government dole-outs are the issues that most clearly frame that fundemental quesiton. If someone disagrees with us on these issues, when it really comes down to it, he or she doesn't share much common ground with us at all. Electing someone who disagrees here is anything but realistic or prudent toward Republican ends.
My hope is that between now and the 2010 congressional elections, the G.O.P. will realize that who we are, and who we have been, is the party that first embraces the freedom of self-government under enduring, transcendent law. I hope we will begin setting up a diverse "big tent" that is staked emphatically on that firm, unifying foundation.
There is nothing new in the history of the moderate-conservative war to own the G.O.P. identity. After the death of the party's leader in Lincoln, the more hardline Republicans impeached the former democratic-moderate President Andrew Johnson in order to prosecute their reconstruction agenda.
Many see the current struggle in New York's 23rd congressional district - a struggle which saw dueling between G.O.P. titans such as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich and ended in the more moderate candidate suspending her campaign Saturday - as a similar conflict between the hardliners and the pragmatists. In that case, they see this as suicide for a minority party crucified on a cross of a "take-no-prisoners" ideology, sacrificing any chance of regaining power for the pleasure of platform purity.
I agree that this purification strategy is what my friend Julie Robinson termed "playing tennis without a net." A "litmus test" conservatism, which hauls to the guillitine any candidate without total adherence to a list of true-believer stances on everything from immigration to the campaign finance reform, is unwise and doomed to fail. It is indeed better, as Reagan noted, to support someone you agree with 70% of the time over someone you disagree with all the time. Realism is important. But I do not think that is what is happening in New York's 23rd.
Republican Dede Scozzafava's specific positions that caused the likes of Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck to endorse the Third Party conservative Doug Hoffman are significant. She was pro-choice, pro-homosexual marriage, and pro-Obama stimulas package. I would argue that these issues are uniquely important. The government "stimulas" that borrowed billions and bailed out mortgages is a fundemental question of the individual's responsibility in society. The social questions are fundementally about the definition of family and personhood, or the basic nature of humanity. In fact, I submit that these issues frame the ultimate question which is at the root of all political debates in every generation of Americans.
That question is this: will Americans self-govern our society under the rule of laws founded in the enduring moral order - the self-evident "laws of nature and of nature's God" - or will we govern our nation on the whims of force and man, devoid of any transcendent truth? This question isn't a question that can be answered with a compromise. You can't agree with me on the answer to this question "70% of the time."
In my view, and I think in the view of those who bucked the G.O.P. establishment and endorsed the conservative third party candidate, the issues of abortion, gay marriage, and government dole-outs are the issues that most clearly frame that fundemental quesiton. If someone disagrees with us on these issues, when it really comes down to it, he or she doesn't share much common ground with us at all. Electing someone who disagrees here is anything but realistic or prudent toward Republican ends.
My hope is that between now and the 2010 congressional elections, the G.O.P. will realize that who we are, and who we have been, is the party that first embraces the freedom of self-government under enduring, transcendent law. I hope we will begin setting up a diverse "big tent" that is staked emphatically on that firm, unifying foundation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)