.

McMillin Voices Support for Santorum

Rochester Hills lawmaker tells MIRS he thinks Santorum would do a good job.

MIRS, the Michigan Information & Research Service, reported today that Rep. Tom McMillin, R-Rochester Hills, is supporting Rick Santorum for president.

This makes McMillin the third Michigan state lawmaker to openly support Santorum, the former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania who has been campaigning here in Michigan in the days leading up to the Tuesday primary.

"My main reason is that I want a brokered convention," McMillin told MIRS. "But I also do think he'd do a good job as president."

McMillin, chair of the House Education Committee, will have in Oakland Township on the eve of the primary next week.

Scot Beaton February 28, 2012 at 09:12 AM
typo ... BS out there ... sorry
Ed Lambert March 01, 2012 at 09:44 PM
Erin, sorry for the delay in responding. I must begin by stating that the liberalism of today is a far cry from the liberalism even of JFK's day. A liberal is a person primarily interested in using the power of government to create and enforce policies not granted it by the defining documents of that government. A liberal today makes personal responsibility subordinate to the will of the state. A liberal will freely spend money that does not exist and will not alter fiscal practices to reflect this lack of money. Taxation is always the answer for liberals. Here's a good example of a contemporary liberal right from today's news. A college student at Georgetown U in DC testified before Congress that she expects the university to provide birth control coverage for the students, despite Georgetown being a Catholic school. Although birth control is available as cheaply as $5/month, Ms Fluke thinks it is someone else's obligation to pay for it. Erin, it might well be that both of us have the same idea of what constitutes liberalism, or should constitute it. I define it by the exhibition of itself today. When last has anyone heard a liberal refer to the most prominent line from JFK's inaugural address? Today's liberals are statists. They refuse even to discuss defining themselves. Ted Kennedy is famous for dodging that question. They cannot afford to be honest about their beliefs because they know the public will not support them.
Ed Lambert March 01, 2012 at 09:53 PM
Scot, I agree with you! I also commend you for deciding to be your own boss. In the creative end of advertising, you know full well the power of words, and that that power does not depend entirely on the dictionary or "denotation" of words. There's that powerful element of "connotation." One of the reasons liberals today do not identify themselves as such is that alternative media, by exposing the liberal mainstream media, have given the word "liberal" a distasteful meaning. Connotation. As for prayer in school: School authorities have no business planning for it nor requiring anyone to participate in it or even in the organization of it. We agree. At the same time I would refuse the power of government to interfere with prayer situations that arise in other fashions but do not disrupt the primary purpose of the setting itself.
Ed Lambert March 01, 2012 at 09:59 PM
Scot, condemning private property for roads or other public use is expressly permitted by the Constitution. Doing so is not taking from one private citizen and handing it over to another private citizen for development as private property. That's the important difference. Yes, it took a long time to finish I-696. As an eastsider, how well I remember! However, the citizens' rights to sue were preserved, as they should be, which explains the 30 years. Don't forget, too, that there were disagreements among the cities straddling the roadway: like who pays for police patrol along a road in our town (which takes private property off the tax rolls), a road we don't want in our town in the first place? Ah, yes; I remember it well.
Scot Beaton March 01, 2012 at 10:34 PM
Ed, thanks that's why I made I quite clear let the quarterback pray.
Ed Lambert March 02, 2012 at 05:47 PM
Actually, the 27th Amendment had been proposed about 200 years ago. It was only in 1992 that the required 3/4th majority state legislature decided to ratify it. You may have noticed that many amendments have built-in deadlines for ratification.
Ed Lambert March 02, 2012 at 05:52 PM
Yes, Scot, the word "marriage" has many meanings. The meaning under discussion is the traditional social definition that refers to the family structure. Why, do you think, virtually every society has had the male-female notion of marriage as their own? Natural law. This is not to say that society should ban same-sex living together. Don't call it "marriage," however. It isn't. Homosexuals should no more feel badly about this than I should have felt badly over the years because I did not possess the ability to play for the NBA. Am I entitled to play because I want to?
Ed Lambert March 02, 2012 at 05:55 PM
Scot, I suggest to you that we have had marriage long before we have had anything resembling "government." Marriage is part of the structure of society, without which there can be no government at all. Structure is needed for government. No structure, no government. See Somalia and Afghanistan and the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan, to cite 3 examples.
Ed Lambert March 02, 2012 at 06:03 PM
"But I choose for public school science class; the world has been around for 4.2 billion years, and man has only been on the plant for about 500,000 years. These are scientific facts. And only scientific facts should be taught in science class in public school, which is funded with our tax dollars." Scot No argument from me here, Scot. Where "darwinists" go wrong is in suggesting they can explain the origin of all material existence. Heck they still are not able to trace life forms of any sort back into the pre-Cambrian era--you know, a time frame that science itself has devised. One doesn't have to believe in the "Six Days" story to know that science doesn't have all the answers. As for teaching "all the world's great Religions equally," who determines which are "great"? This takes us precisely to the nub of the problem: the setting up of self-proclaimed experts who know what is best for everyone else. That is the liberal mindset, which I am sure you want no part of.
Ed Lambert March 02, 2012 at 06:15 PM
"Since Evolution is still only a theory and Darwin admitted that it has a central weakness, do you object to the mere mention in science classes that this is so and that there are alternative theories offered regarding the origins of matter?" your quote "Ed, ok this is where you totally lose me." Scot How did this lose you? I merely pointed out that science does NOT have the complete answer. By stating that there are other theories--no need to go into detail about them in a science class--the science teacher would only be admitting that the matter is not settled. Pressure groups do not want even this much said about non-Darwin theory. Now, tell me who is fighting tooth and nail about a matter that is not even within its province to discuss? Scot, the past few decades have demonstrated that conservatives are labelled by liberals as reactionary, stuck frozen in a position. When conservatives challenge liberals on their fundamental positions, however, we see clearly who will not budge. I give you the Social Security bruhaha as an example. The structure for "paying" for SS was established over 70 years ago, at a time when the population was growing and job-creation was no problem. Liberals today will hear nothing but raising the FICA--despite the fact that there is a shrinking supply of workers and businesses to support an increasing number of retirees. Tell me who is "frozen in time"! It isn't the conservatives.
Scot Beaton March 03, 2012 at 08:46 AM
Ed,  I was raised Presbyterian, taught "thou shall not judge". I'm not as convinced as you are Marriage has to be between a man and a woman, so I won't judge your opinion. Also thanks to my upbringing I was also taught debate is good too. My opinion : God/Jesus Christ and Homosexuality. Old Testament: Genesis the story of "Lot's House" has been misinterpreted into teachings that God denounces homosexual behavior. Not true the story refers to homosexual rape. It clearly doesn't have the remotest connection to same-gender love or relationships. Or Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. If man lies with a male as with woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death." Again this is not God's denouncing homosexual behavior... but related to the worship of Ishtar the pagan goddess of love and fertility. It was a condemnation of such practices ... pagan rituals such as mandated sex between males or temple prostitution ... that this Levitical law was written. It certinaly does not make any reference to same-gender sex within the context of a committed and loving relationship.  New Testament: Jesus Christ did not denounce or promote homosexual behavior. The only place Jesus really addressed or even hinted at sexuality is found in Mathew chapter 19:11-12 Jesus replied... to be continued...
Scot Beaton March 03, 2012 at 08:58 AM
"Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." A eunuch is a man who has no desire or ability to have sexual relations with a woman. Jesus addressed three types of eunuchs.1... Those born that way. (That's people who are born homosexual.) 2... Those made that way by men. (Those castrated or those sexually abused people who choose to be homosexual as a result of this abuse rather than because it is their natural sexual affinity.) 3... Those who elect not to have a sexual relationship for the sake of the kingdom. (For example a priest or nun. This group makes the decision on their own.) So here, Jesus states that not everyone will marry according to the custom as male and female. He also said that not everyone can accept this. He says that those that can accept it should accept it. Can we accept what Jesus said? Ed, even the Bible states Jesus can accept those who can except same sex Marriage that's me!  But the bottom line with me is, Government should stay out of peoples lives including Marriage... Ed, will agree to disagree with this one.
Ed Lambert March 04, 2012 at 05:00 PM
"Ed, even the Bible states Jesus can accept those who can except same sex Marriage that's me! But the bottom line with me is, Government should stay out of peoples lives including Marriage... Ed, will agree to disagree with this one." -Scot It is only recently that government in the form of activist liberals decided to get INTO people's lives through a redefinition of marriage. Conservatives are trying to keep government OUT of people's lives, and they led the way in the drafting of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to prohibit government meddling. The socialist Obama has publicly stated that he ordered his henchman at the DOJ NOT to enforce this law. Since when, we might ask, does the executive have the right to decide which laws should be enforced? You and I are in agreement. Thus, we both think that the pressure by a government to redefine marriage should be ignored and its elected promoters defeated in November.
Daryl Patrishkoff March 04, 2012 at 05:18 PM
Scot, In reading the dialog you and Ed are having I would like to interject one point. Yes Jesus accepts homosexuals, he accepts all people. According to the bible all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, which is why we need Jesus to intervene to give us forgiveness. This is the foundation of the Christian beliefs. In my view Jesus is not saying homosexual is not a sin, nor any other sin, he is setting the standard. That is what I believe. I also strongly believe that he who lives in a glass house should not throw stones. I have enough trouble keeping myself straight and trying to achieve the standard (I too fall short) to judge someone else. But I do know what the bible teaches as what is right and wrong, which to me is quite clear.
Scot Beaton March 04, 2012 at 06:16 PM
The Republican Liberty Caucus "We support the separation of church and state as a safeguard of religious liberty and freedom of belief. We support an end to any government role in the definition or administration of marriage. Government involvement should be limited to the registration of civil contracts of union." http://www.rlc.org/about/statement-of-principles/#10 Ed, Daryl... thanks for your comments when you have time please read, The Republican Liberty Caucus statement-of-principles, and you will get a real good idea where my head is at when it comes to the way we should be governed. Ed, Daryl, glad to see all of us and Jesus have the same opinion that homosexuality is not a sin. Unfortunately that is not Tom McMillin or Rick Santorum opinion.   
Daryl Patrishkoff March 04, 2012 at 06:58 PM
Scot, You did not read my comment clearly. I did say Jesus accepts all, all are sinners and I believe Jesus says it is a sin. The passage you listed above saying Jesus says it is not a sin is not correct interpretation and out of context. It says he accepts all regardless of their sin, he says we all are sinners. Please read and understand my comments before you declare we agree. Now you may accuse me of being homophobic, that is not the case. I let all make their own choices as long as they do not break the law and infringe on my rights. As stated many times, I am not going to spend my time passing judgment on others; I have enough trouble keeping myself straight. Regarding prayer in school, what is the problem? Back in the early 70’s when I was in high school I was part of a group that met before school started to have our own time in prayer together. The school made a room available to us to use and it was completely voluntary. We let people know about it if they wanted to join us and many did. This was our way of dealing with the trials and tribulations of growing up and helped keep our own personal moral compass straight. As it turned out, we were respected by the students, they did not believe our way, no one pushed anyone’s belief on anyone else. What is wrong with that happening today in our schools?
Scot Beaton March 04, 2012 at 07:31 PM
Jesus Christ did not denounce or promote homosexual behavior. The only place Jesus really addressed or even hinted at sexuality is found in Mathew chapter 19:11-12 Jesus replied "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." Daryl... sorry that I did not interpret your comments correctly, I'm again surprised that you feel you have the right to tell me how to interpret the Bible. "The passage you listed above saying Jesus says it is not a sin is not correct interpretation and out of context. It says he accepts all regardless of their sin, he says we all are sinners." your words Daryl where is the word "sin" in this passage from the Bible? Let's get then the record straight, please tell me if I'm right or wrong. You think homosexuality is a "sin" I don't.
Scot Beaton March 04, 2012 at 07:51 PM
Daryl, "What we need do as a country is define the word 'prayer' every definition I can fine has something to do with a God or has something to do with religion. I can't support that in a public school class room. Can students pray in school yes before or after, between class, on their lunch hour yes... even the quarterback can pray before he throws the ball. My opinion... just don't want to force public school teachers into an awkward situation." my words... Let me try to be more clear in a public school class room when class is in session, or after the bell. Daryl, I think we can agree with the above statement. I never said kids can't pray in school.
Daryl Patrishkoff March 04, 2012 at 07:54 PM
Scot, Again you jump to conclusions, read the comment and understand them before you respond. I clearly stated this is how I believe and my interpretation, I am not telling you that you cannot believe your way. I am telling you that you are taking Jesus’ quote out of context. We disagree on many things including recent US history, as stated before I am not interested in debating recent history, past history or the bible with you. I believe what I believe and so does McMillan and Santorum and we all have these rights, just like you having the right to believe what you want to. Respect needs to go in all directions. I am not forcing anything on you, but you seem to be forcing your beliefs on me and calling us dumb for believing the bible literally. Like I said a while back, you lost me when you said people who believe in the bible are dumb and implied the ones that believe in Darwin are smart. Both creation stories take faith and I choose to believe in God's version. I also believe that not telling the truth is a sin, am I lieaphobic? I also believe stealing is a sin, am I stealaphobic? This is a ridiculous discussion and framed to intimidate others beliefs. What is your comment about my position on prayer in school?
Daryl Patrishkoff March 04, 2012 at 07:56 PM
Scot, Then you must be outraged on how Ohio is dealing with the shooting last week. In the trying times people turn to God and prayer, what is wrong with that? Prayer is talking with God, it is a belief by many people and they have the right to do this regardless of the time and place. No one is forcing this on anyone, to keep making the statements that this is the case is misleading.
Scot Beaton March 04, 2012 at 08:24 PM
Daryl,  Let's get then the record straight, please tell me if I'm right or wrong. You think homosexuality is a "sin" I don't. Was just looking for a yes or no answer. Why is this so difficult for you. I do enjoy typing with you... why would I be "outraged" did I just not restate I don't have a problem with unorganized 'prayer' in school, the Ohio school district is coping with horrible tragedy in many different ways... and for you to even use that horrible incident in a debate with me on prayer in school is totally ridiculous and beyond comprehension... my opinion. 
Daryl Patrishkoff March 04, 2012 at 09:01 PM
Scot, I am worried, you are not reading my comments, I have answered this question several times today and will not again. Please read and understand the comments before you type your responses. As stated, I will not debate recent history, past history or the bible with you, we clearly disagree on many fronts. I brought in the prayer in school based on your comments and brought in my personal experience and position. Sorry for your outrage about Ohio, but if it is not right to pray in schools, then why is ok in this situation? It is relevant. As far as I am concerned I am going to enjoy the rest of my Sunday and wish you a good one. I might even say a prayer for you, JUST KIDDING, adding a little humor. Enjoy.
Scot Beaton March 04, 2012 at 09:24 PM
Daryl,  "Answer this question why are there some in the Republican party that support the 'dumbing down of America?'. Support teaching the Garden of Eden in public school science class? Why are those in the 'party'' that would support building national science Museums w/public money that show man a the dinosaurs lived on the plant at the same time? Why does this "party" want to throw out the last 400 years of scientific discovery...  Daryl, my quote in the Patch... Daryl, This comment refers to public school science class, and my opinion what should be taught. Daryl, Darwin died in 1882 and there have been a ton of scientists who have proven most of his "theory's" to be true. I choose for public school science class; the world has been around for 4.2 billion years, and man has only been on the plant for about 500,000 years. These are scientific facts, and only scientific facts should be taught in science class in public school, which is funded with our tax dollars... my opinion if a student asks the question what created the universe they should be told the truth "we still don't know". Then the teacher could encourage the student when he or she grows up to become a scientist and us find out. But to refer to a book that was written over 2500 years ago as science not a good idea... my opinion. Where do you get in this comment of mine that I think those who beleave in the Bible are dumb? P.S. Like the humor, and also have a great Sunday.
Scot Beaton March 04, 2012 at 09:54 PM
Daryl, P.S. you used the word "outrage" first and formed a blanket opinion on how I would be "outraged" Ohio was using prayer to cope, which would go against my position on prayer in public school? Don't understand your "sorry" comment, but I do enjoy typing with you... have a great Sunday.
Scot Beaton March 05, 2012 at 03:38 AM
Is Homosexuality a Sin? http://dignitycanada.org/sin.html Is Homosexuality a Sin? 19 theologians of differing backgrounds were asked these two questions. Question 1 - In your opinion, does God regard homosexuality as a sin? Question 2 - In your opinion, do the Scriptures object to homosexuality? Rev Dr William R Stayton (Baptist -- minister, certified sexologist, associate professor of psychiatric and human behaviour, servant on faculty of LaSalle University's graduate department of religious studies, holder of master of divinity from Andover Newtown Theological School and a Th.D. in psychology from Boston university): Q1: Absolutely not! There is nothing in the Bible or in my own theology that would lead me to believe that God regards homosexuality as sin. God is interested in our relationships with ourselves, others, the things in our lives, and with God (Matthew 23:36-40). There is nothing in the mind of God that could be against a loving, sexual relationship, freely entered into, without coercion, among sincere adults whether gay, bisexual or straight. to be continued...
Scot Beaton March 05, 2012 at 03:42 AM
Q2: There is nothing in the Bible regarding homosexual orientation. In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with sexual orientation. It does speak out probably against gang rape, male prostitution for religious purposes, and pederasty (sex between an adult and youth). I lead bible study programs on this subject and am convinced that the Bible does not address the issue of a person's sexual orientation. Daryl, before I make an opinion I read up, and I certainly don't believe everything on Fox News, and I never take words out of context, those who do are afraid of the truth. When you have time please read the other 18 opinions... thanks
Daryl Patrishkoff March 05, 2012 at 12:21 PM
Scot, I have formed my own personal beliefs over my years of study and life's experience. I use these personal beliefs as my moral compass to guide my own life as I encounter the day to day events of my life. I am not pushing my personal beliefs on you or anyone, I am disclosing them, and I accept that you and I do not agree on many personal beliefs. As I have stated many times, I can accept you having different beliefs than me and will not discredit you for being different. Why do you keep trying to prove you are right and I am wrong? These are personal beliefs and just accept the fact that not all people agree with you. I will not get into a discussion about current history, past history or biblical subjects it has been established that we do not agree on them. What I do not appreciate is the attacks on anyone who presents their personal beliefs and is the focus of attacks, intimidation and called dumb since they do not believe in the scientists you believe in. Why can't you accept people having different beliefs? Let's talk about the local important issues and why we choose our candidates based on positive reasons, not take down the opponent with harsh words. I have asked many times in this article from several people why they like McMillan’s opponent, not take shots at him. I have yet to see anyone answer that question, just negative attacks on McMillin. That to me is the offensive.
Scot Beaton March 05, 2012 at 04:14 PM
Daryl, I'm just a big defender of LGBT rights and should have not but you in the middle of this issue have great Monday. I don't like bullies, and tired of kids jumping of bridges just because someone video tapes you and calls you gay.
OUFrosh September 21, 2012 at 03:13 AM
I'm doing a report on hate groups. Is Tom McMillin stepping down as state rep? He has major associations with multiple hate groups including AFA.
Kristin Bull (Editor) September 21, 2012 at 11:58 AM
McMillin is running for reelection against Joanna VanRaaphorst. http://patch.com/A-wK17

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »