What sworn testimony reveals about unlawful orders, erased elections, and a clerk punished for doing her duty.

A Courtroom Revelation

In a Hillsdale County courtroom this August, what was supposed to be a routine prosecution turned into a stunning admission of government misconduct, malfeasance and tyranny.

On trial was Adams Township Clerk Stephanie Scott, charged with felonies in May 2024 by Attorney General Dana Nessel. Prosecutors accused her of illegally granting access to election equipment and refusing lawful orders.

But under cross-examination on August 11–12, 2025, two of Michigan’s election officials — Jonathan Brater, Director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections, and Abraham Dane, now Hillsdale County Clerk — admitted under oath that they themselves had acted outside the law.

What followed was a revelation: the 2020 election was deleted from Michigan’s history not by rogue clerks, but by state and county officials who knew they lacked authority.

---

The Five Points of Betrayal

1. The Deletion Order With No Legal Basis

Brater conceded his directive to erase 2020 election data from voting machine V-drives was “administrative policy”, not law2025.08.11 P v. Scott Lambert T….
Yet clerks statewide were ordered to comply, even though Michigan law — MCL 168.811 — requires preservation of all election records for at least 22 months.

“They also are required to follow the Michigan Election Law,” Brater testified — even as his own orders violated it2025.08.11 P v. Scott Lambert T….

2. Erasing the 2020 Election

Dane testified that the V-drives contained “cast vote records — a record of each ballot and the votes that were marked”2025.08.12 P. v. Scott Lambert ….
By ordering those drives wiped, the Bureau of Elections effectively erased the 2020 election across every township in Michigan.

3. Seizing Machines Without Authority

Dane admitted he had “no lawful authority” to seize Adams Township’s tabulator and ballots2025.08.12 P. v. Scott Lambert …. Yet he did it anyway. Worse, he pressured other clerks not to loan equipment to Adams, directly obstructing a lawful 2021 school millage election.

4. Ten Dollar Flash Drives

When asked why records weren’t preserved, Dane blamed cost: about ten dollars per flash drive.
The defense pounced: “So for ten dollars, you broke election law?” The courtroom fell silent as the absurdity of the excuse was laid bare.

5. Excessive Force Against a Local Clerk

These were not errors. They were deliberate acts. Brater issued unlawful orders. Dane enforced them with intimidation and seizure. What officials called “election security” was in reality an abuse of authority, enforced through fear.

---

6. The Sheriff Who Looked Away

Perhaps most damning was the role of Hillsdale’s Sheriff. When the Township Supervisor sought his protection to secure the township election records, he refused.

Under MCL 51.68, the sheriff is sworn to “preserve the peace… and preserve to all persons their rights.” That includes defending township clerks and safeguarding election materials from unlawful seizure.

But instead of standing with the law, the sheriff stood aside. His inaction raises a chilling question: did the Sheriff and the Clerk conspire?

At best, this was willful neglect of duty. At worst, it was complicity in an unlawful act that erased part of Michigan’s electoral history.

---

The Real Crime

Scott’s “crime” was following her constitutional duty to preserve election records. For that, she has endured:

• Felony charges
• Years of harassment
• Reputational destruction
• Financial and emotional toll

Meanwhile, the men who admitted under oath to violating the law walk free, their authority intact.

---

Timeline of Events

• November 2020: Adams Township conducts its election using Hart InterCivic tabulators.
• 2021: Bureau of Elections orders clerks to delete 2020 election data from V-drives.
• September 2021: Scott resists, citing record retention laws.
• November 2021: Adams Township school millage election sabotaged after Dane blocks use of spare tabulator.
• May 2024: AG Nessel charges Scott and her attorney Stefanie Lambert with multiple felonies.
• August 11–12, 2025: Brater and Dane testify under oath, admitting their actions were not grounded in law.

---

A Statewide Tyranny

Hillsdale is not an isolated case. The same directives were carried out in every township, in every county across Michigan.

• The Attorney General prosecuted clerks who resisted.
• The Governor sanctioned the Bureau’s directives.
• The Legislature — both Democrats and Republicans — sat by in silence.

This was not a partisan act. It was bipartisan tyranny. Both parties weaponized government power to protect unlawful orders and crush dissent.

The message to township clerks was clear: obey illegal directives, or face ruin.

Quotes + Crimes: What They Admitted Under Oath

---

Jonathan Brater — Director, Michigan Bureau of Elections

The Quote

“Of course [clerks] are required to follow the lawful instructions given by the Secretary of State and the Bureau of Elections, and of course they’re required to follow the Michigan Election Law.”2025.08.11 P v. Scott Lambert T…

The Crime
Brater admitted his deletion directive was “administrative policy, not statute.” By ordering clerks to erase 2020 election records without legal authority, he violated MCL 168.811, which requires record preservation. This unlawfully destroyed federal election records.

How Olsen Exposed It
Trump attorney Kurt Olsen pressed Brater on whether his orders had statutory backing. Cornered, Brater conceded they didn’t — a devastating admission that his statewide deletion orders were illegal.

---

Abraham Dane — Hillsdale County Clerk (then Deputy Clerk)

The Quote

“The V-drives contain cast vote records — a record of each ballot and the votes that were marked.”2025.08.12 P. v. Scott Lambert …

The Crime
Dane confirmed V-drives held official ballot records. Erasing them violated both state and federal election record-retention laws.

How Olsen Exposed It
By getting Dane to define exactly what was on the drives, Olsen made clear that what was deleted were not “spare files,” but the ballots themselves.

---

The Quote

“I had no lawful authority to seize Adams Township’s tabulator or ballots.”2025.08.12 P. v. Scott Lambert …

The Crime
Despite admitting he had no authority, Dane used his county position to seize township election property. This amounted to unlawful seizure and abuse of office.

How Olsen Exposed It
Olsen forced Dane to answer directly: Did you have lawful authority? Dane’s one-word answer — “No” — laid bare the illegality.

---

The Quote

“Preserving the data would have required purchasing flash drives — at roughly ten dollars each.”2025.08.12 P. v. Scott Lambert …

The Crime
Dane admitted the destruction of election records came down to avoiding a trivial cost. Breaking retention law over ten dollars underscored negligence and willful disregard for statute.

How Olsen Exposed It
Olsen cut through the excuse with a single line: “So for ten dollars, you broke election law?” The absurdity was undeniable.

---

The Quote

“We entered the clerk’s office with the township treasurer and one of the trustees to acquire the voting equipment, ballots, and applications.”2025.08.12 P. v. Scott Lambert …

The Crime
Dane admitted to orchestrating a forced entry into Adams Township offices to seize election materials — without lawful authority. This wasn’t routine procedure; it was an illegal raid on a local clerk’s office.

How Olsen Exposed It
By introducing Dane’s own emails into evidence, Olsen showed the act was deliberate and premeditated, not accidental or authorized.

---

---

What’s at Stake

If election records can be erased by “policy memo,” then statutes mean nothing. If sheriffs refuse to defend clerks, then no local official is safe. If legislators from both parties stand by, then the people are left defenseless against their own government.

The real trial is not of Stephanie Scott. It is of Michigan’s election system itself.

---

A Wake-Up Call

Michigan’s elections are neither safe, nor secure, nor honest when:

• Records are erased outside the law,
• Machines are seized without authority,
• Clerks are criminally charged for doing their duty, and
• Sheriffs abandon their oaths.

This was not the failure of one office or one party. It was the coordinated betrayal of an entire system — Democrats and Republicans alike.

The story of Adams Township is the story of Michigan. A government that deletes history, punishes its guardians, and calls it “security” has already crossed into tyranny.

The question now is not whether Stephanie Scott will be convicted. It is whether Michigan citizens will awaken to the truth: that the real lawbreakers are not township clerks, but the state officials who used their offices to destroy both law and liberty and anyone that stood in their way.

in Liberty,
Vice Chair: Lance Lashaway

“Conservatives have not become extreme. They have become the targets of an ideology that is losing control.”

---

The Death of Debate

America once prided itself on being a nation of debate. Disagreements were fierce, but opponents were still neighbors and fellow citizens.

That foundation has collapsed. Today, disagreement is framed as evil, and opponents are treated not as rivals but as enemies. The consequences are not theoretical — they are deadly.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk during a college speech is not an anomaly. It is the logical endpoint of an ideology that cannot tolerate opposition.

---

The Spotlight vs. the Cause

Some argue the breakdown in discourse is the fault of social media, with its algorithms rewarding outrage and division. But that is the spotlight, not the cause.

Algorithms magnify what already exists; they don’t create it. The real cause lies deeper: the rise and dominance of leftist ideology.

For over half a century, Democrats and their allies have captured America’s institutions — schools, media, universities, and bureaucracies — and used them to enforce compliance.

• Taxation forces Americans to fund indoctrination in schools.
• Media bombards citizens with narratives delegitimizing conservative views.
• Bureaucracies punish dissent through regulation and law.

Social media didn’t create this. It exposed it. And that’s why censorship became the weapon of choice: because unfiltered reality undermines the leftist narrative.

---

Republicans vs. Conservatives

Here lies an important distinction. Too often, critics conflate Republicans with conservatives. But Republicans have not defended conservative principle. Many embraced or enabled leftist premises.

Republican presidents expanded government, legitimized progressive framing, and abandoned constitutional limits. This was not conservative failure — it was Republican betrayal.

True conservatives — constitutionalists, defenders of natural rights and limited government — have been boxed in. They are forced to fund schools they oppose, to navigate hostile media, and to fight on terrain chosen by their enemies. Their “failure” is not causation. It is coerced compliance.

---

The Nature of Leftist Ideology

Leftist ideology cannot coexist with dissent. Its nature is totalizing. It does not seek compromise. It seeks dominance.

• Moderates are a myth. When violence strikes, so-called moderates excuse, minimize, or shift blame.
• Dehumanization is the norm. Conservatives are branded “fascists,” “domestic terrorists,” and “threats to democracy.” Once you strip someone of humanity, violence becomes justifiable.
• Violence is a tool. Riots are rebranded as “mostly peaceful.” Assassinations reframed as “backlash.” The pattern is denial of responsibility, celebration of outcome, and vilification of the victim.

This isn’t fringe behavior. It is mainstream. Universities welcome leftist speakers without issue; conservative speakers need police protection. The culture isn’t neutral — it is hostile.

---

“Violence isn’t the failure of leftism. It’s the fulfillment of it.”

---

A Pattern Written in Blood

Small Example Timeline of Leftist Violence in America

• 1960s: Weather Underground bombs police stations, courthouses, and even the U.S. Capitol.
• 1968: Democratic National Convention riots turn Chicago into a battlefield.
• 1970s: Universities normalize violent radicals as professors.
• 2011: Occupy Wall Street devolves into chaos and attacks on law enforcement.
• 2020: COVID
  J6: Our own government attacked us, the media called it an insurrection, and our Representatives complied.
  George Floyd riots leave billions in damage and dozens dead — excused as “justice.”
• 2025: Charlie Kirk is assassinated mid-speech on a college campus.

The pattern is clear: leftist ideology doesn’t debate. It escalates.

---

The False Equivalence

Whenever leftist violence erupts, pundits play the “both sides” card. But the comparison collapses under scrutiny.

• Conservative violence is rare, reactive, and condemned by it leaders.
• Leftist violence is frequent, institutionally excused, and culturally celebrated, provoked by it’s leaders.

Conservatives don’t assassinate leftist professors. Leftists assassinate conservatives. Conservatives don’t burn cities when they lose elections. Leftists do. Conservatives don’t use media monopolies to smear opponents as subhuman. Leftists do.

Pretending it’s “both sides” isn’t balance. It’s gaslighting.

---

The Blood Verdict: Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk wasn’t extreme. He wasn’t violent. He was rational, articulate, and engaging students in open debate.

For that, he was murdered, by a leftist ideolog.

And the reaction? Leftist voices didn’t pause to reflect. They excused, deflected, or even celebrated. The mask slipped. Violence against conservatives isn’t an outlier. It’s the strategy.

---

“Charlie Kirk’s blood is not just on a gunman. It is on an ideology that teaches conservatives are not human.”

---

What Comes Next

Leftist ideology always ends in violence, conservatives must prepare and rebuild.

• Build parallel institutions. Homeschool networks, private academies, independent media. Don’t wait for reform — build alternatives.
• Defend free speech. Stop asking permission. Assert constitutional rights unapologetically.
• Dismantle control mechanisms. This is America, while it will never be perfect, we should always be free.
• Remain principled. Don’t mirror leftist tactics. Show that truth, reason, and principle outlast propaganda and brutality.

The breakdown in America’s discourse is not a shared failure. It is the direct result of leftist ideology — capturing institutions, dehumanizing opponents, and normalizing violence.

Conservatives have not become extreme. They have become targets.

Until this ideology is named, confronted, and rejected, the violence will not stop. Which is why conservatives must build, defend, and outlast.

Because today, survival itself is resistance and we all have some really big shoes to fill now that Charlie has left for us.

“If you believe in something, you need to have the courage to fight for those ideas – not run away from them or try and silence them.” – Charlie Kirk


in Liberty,
Vice Chair: Lance Lashaway

There’s a funny thing about government: the longer an idea sits on a shelf, the more some officials insist it’s “already decided.” Twenty years in a binder becomes holy writ. Consultants sign off, commissions nod, boards vote, and somewhere in Lansing a grant officer sprinkles “bike-lane” dust so the money moves. Presto—your town is “engaged,” your voice “heard,” and your job is to clap politely, no dissent, that’s negative, only troublemakers are negative.

Except Hillsdale isn’t ruled by decree. We live in a republic. And on Wednesday night, standing room only, people backed into the hall, crowed in doorways, showed up and proved it.

---

The meeting they didn’t want

City council members called it a “waste of time.” Road diet supporters dismissed it as “not needed.” But the people came anyway—business owners, homeowners, parents, grandparents. The irony? Only one pro-diet councilman, Wolfram, bothered to attend. All three opponent councilmen of the project came, listened, and spoke to their neighbors. The rest hid behind “the process.” It’s over, why start listening to your neighbors now?

If you want to know what democracy-by-decree looks like, picture this: a packed room of citizens pouring out stories and concerns while the majority of those who voted for the project couldn’t even be bothered to sit in the chairs provided for them.

---

Voices of the people

The beauty of this night wasn’t uniformity—it was variety. You could hear Hillsdale talking to itself. Politely, calmly, passionately. Things the missing council members fail at quite remarkedly.

• Luke Robson (downtown owner): Project funded by TIFFA, Renaissance, City; claims 36 new parking spaces; City pays $135k vs $250k the City would owe for required fixes anyway; killing it later would trigger an MDOT design reimbursement “likely over $100k” and “probably exceed $135k.” Frames Plan A (build) vs Plan B (kill & pay, get nothing).
• The resident on Broad Street shared tragedy: a dog killed by a speeding car, a road-rage crash scattering parts into his yard, a crosswalk he wouldn’t let his children use. For him, slower was safer.
• Penny Swan insisted the plan had been vetted for “nearly 20 years,” passed multiple times, and was no secret. For her, the issue was simple: respect the process.
• On the other side, Ginger from Howell Street shot back: move the trucks off Broad, they’ll pound Howell into rubble, and then the city will slap homeowners with $5,000 special assessments to fix damage they didn’t cause. That’s not safety—that’s punishment.
• Elizabeth and her husband, parents who once opposed the plan, described how they’d changed their minds. Safety mattered. So did the math: $800,000 in infrastructure work rolled into a $1 million project mostly paid by the state. “A 97% return on investment,” she called it.
• Joel Calvert came armed with a book on city planning, quoting studies that three-lane conversions don’t reduce capacity, and often move traffic better.
• Cindy at the Filling Station painted vivid pictures: semis smashing mirrors, plows ripping cars, seniors nearly creamed getting out with a cane. She called the bike lane label a gimmick—“it’s really just a buffer zone so people can open their doors.”
• Former mayor Greg Bailey urged trust in the process, arguing the loudest opponents were a vocal minority.
• Zack Stiger warned that Broad Street’s heritage and the specter of Lansing bike-lane politics mattered: Frames bike lane as ideological/political inroad; stresses democracy over technocracy.
• Middle-grounders like David Hamilton admitted grants are “Satan’s work” but saw value in the drainage fixes. He hated the rushed timeline, hated the sales pitch, but ultimately leaned toward yes, with a grimace.
• And then there were voices like CJ, torn between wanting added parking and fearing bike-lane collisions, and Tim Sullivan, an investor who loves Hillsdale enough to buy downtown buildings but still questioned how the process was rushed past residents.

On and on the stories came—personal, emotional, reasoned, skeptical. This wasn’t Lansing. It wasn’t Ann Arbor. It was Hillsdale.

The shifting price tag

Not even a month ago, residents were told the city’s share would be $200,000. Once Councilman Bentley pressed MDOT, suddenly that number doubled to $400,000. If the numbers are that slippery before a shovel hits the dirt, what do you suppose happens once the change orders start flying? The people deserve clarity—not a moving target that only grows when questioned.

We also heard that turning down the project now could trigger a bill from MDOT for design work—numbers like $100,000+ floated at the mic—and that the city’s outlay is “only” about $135,000 for a project worth around $1 million once the outside dollars are counted.

Let’s speak plainly. Lansing doesn’t print money in Hillsdale. Grants are our dollars laundered through distance, then returned with conditions that reshape local life to fit someone else’s template. The sales pitch always sounds the same: “Say yes fast or you’ll lose out.” That’s not stewardship; that’s a used-car lot with a seal of approval.

If the state tied our hands with a reimbursement clause, that’s not a reason to surrender the town; it’s a reason to expose the clause and demand better terms. Don’t let “we might owe MDOT” become the new “you’ll own nothing and be happy.”

---

Consent vs. decree

Supporters of the road diet want to frame this as “the process has spoken.” But process without consent is not legitimacy—it’s paperwork. In a republic, consent is earned, not assumed.

What Wednesday night revealed is that the people still care. They still want a say. And under Michigan law and the City Charter, they can have one. A petition—filed by a single registered voter, signed by several hundred neighbors—can put this decision where it belongs: on the ballot.

Let the people weigh the promises against the costs. Let them decide if the “97% return” is real, or if the bill creeping from $200k to $400k is the real story. Let them decide if its “slowing traffic” or “increasing congestion”. Here’s a hint, MDOT sets the speed limit and it will not be lowered, this inconvenient fact is it well known and never once mentioned by a supporter.

“Bike lanes” or buffers? Words matter—and so do votes

Another favorite maneuver is the vocabulary flip. We’re told these aren’t “bike lanes,” they’re “buffers.” Fine. Call them jellybeans. The argument isn’t over paint color; it’s over consent. If downtown merchants want calmer traffic and better door clearance, make the case—to the people who live here—and earn a mandate the old-fashioned way. Stop fear mongering.

Supporters quoted books and studies saying three lanes with a center turn can move traffic as well as four. Maybe so, interesting that the plan is for two lanes not three. But in a republic, “expertise” informs the debate; it doesn’t end it. Let the book citations appear beside traffic counts, freight routes, and parking maps in a voter guide—and then let voters decide what trade-offs they accept on their own street. More trivia, did you know all the “data” being used is from the traffic during the middle of winter? It’s almost as if the people pushing this know the people of Hillsdale are very trusting people and don’t consider the information given to them by their government made up of their neighbors would ever purposefully give them misinformation….

“Representative government” doesn’t mean “don’t ask us”

Some argued we’re a representative democracy, not a direct one, so Council’s 5–3 should be the last word. That confuses the point. Representation is the method; consent is the authority. When representation drifts—especially on big, durable, quality-of-life changes—the people have tools to refresh consent. A referendum isn’t mutiny; it’s maintenance. It’s the citizenry saying, “We’ll own this decision together,” which is exactly how a free city stays free.

---

The conservative way forward

Here’s a settlement conservatives can live with whether the project passes or fails at the ballot. This is what consent looks like and Hillsdale is touted around the entire Country as the Premier Conservative bastion. So let’s practice what we preach, shall we?

1. File the petition. Don’t wait. Start now.
2. Lay the facts bare. Publish the true cost, the MDOT reimbursement clause, the parking counts, the truck-routing plan. No more numbers that double when questioned.
3. Tie rhetoric to resolution. If savings are promised, bind them in writing to lower or kill SADs—not in press releases, in law.
4. Vote it up or down. If the road diet passes, it passes with legitimacy. If it fails, fix Broad Street without Lansing’s strings, the City doesn’t have to pay a dime and we keep four lanes.

---

A Republic, “and four lanes” if we can keep it!

The packed meeting proved something hopeful: Hillsdale is still alive. Neighbors still care enough to show up, argue, applaud, and disagree without breaking the community. The only ones missing were those who voted for the project and didn’t want to face the music.

If you support the road diet, sign the petition—you’ll win legitimacy. If you oppose it, sign the petition—you’ll win your chance to stop it. Either way, Hillsdale wins when consent is restored.

Because we don’t live by city-hall decree. We live in a Republic. And in a Republic, the people always get the last word—if they demand it.


in Liberty,
Vice Chair: Lance Lashaway
The Hillsdale Conservatives.

Your Land, Their Rules? The Absurdity of Property Tax in America

America was born on the radical premise that people are free. Free to speak, free to worship, free to defend themselves — and free to own property without asking a king for permission.

Yet here we are, 250 years later, and government has smuggled the king’s crown back onto its head. How? Through property tax.

The Great Illusion of Ownership

You don’t own your home. You rent it from the government, indefinitely. Miss a payment, and watch how fast your county treasurer proves it. Sheriff’s sale, foreclosure, eviction — all without ever having signed a lease. That’s not freedom; that’s feudalism with better branding.

And the excuse? “Local control.” As if your township board is a kindly landlord just making sure you mow the grass. In truth, the property tax is nothing less than a whip in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians, ensuring you never forget who’s boss.

When Policy Overrides Law: The Erasure of Michigan’s 2020 Election Data

In a Hillsdale County courtroom, Michigan’s Director of Elections admitted under oath that clerks throughout the State were ordered to erase 2020 election data — not by statute, but by internal policy. A direct violation of his oath and the law. For what purpose?

The Hillsdale County Clerk went further, conceding that he had no lawful authority to seize Adams Township’s ballots or voting machine, yet he did so anyway — even blocking the township from securing a replacement tabulator. This is the same Clerk who twice manipulated the counties Republican precinct delegate election, proclaiming his devotion to “election integrity” just before being thrown out of his own Districts Convention for the second time.

And the justification for wiping out election records? Cost. Roughly ten dollars for a flash drive.

Here’s the double standard: government shrugs at the erasure of election history because ten dollars is “too much,” yet the same government will seize your home and auction it off if you fall behind in property taxes. Ten dollars is too expensive to preserve a Republic, but not too small a reason to strip an American of their property.

The trial pulled back the curtain. Michigan’s election system is not operating on law but on arbitrary orders — enforced by officials who manipulate the rules when it benefits them. If history can be deleted for ten dollars, then nothing — not your vote, not your rights, not even your home — is safe from government control.

This is, at its core, a Conservative issue

Critics cry, “Without property tax, communities collapse, local control will be lost!” Really? Tell that to Florida, which funds itself on tourism and consumption-based revenue. Tell that to Michigan, nearly on par with Florida in tourism. while also hauling in billions from marijuana sales, the lottery, alcohol, and tobacco. There is no shortage of revenue in America — only a shortage of imagination. Eliminating property tax doesn’t destroy local control; it forces local government to govern instead of extort. It makes them accountable to the people, not to the tax roll.

The idea that government can force you off your land if you can’t or won’t pay them for the privilege of living on it is not just bad policy, it is un-American. The United States was built on the radical notion that citizens hold the natural right to Life, Liberty, and Property. Our Founders rejected the feudal order of Europe, where land was always held at the pleasure of kings or lords and could be seized the moment a subject failed to pay rent to the crown. That old-world system was slavery in all but name, keeping men laboring for the soil they call home without ever letting them truly own it. Yet through property taxes, Americans have quietly allowed that feudal system to slip back in under a new disguise, “our Democracy”. Today, a man can pay off his mortgage, settle every debt, and still be evicted by the sheriff for failing to pay his annual rent to the government. That is not liberty. That is extortion dressed up as civic duty, carried out by the end of a sword, or in modern times, gun.

Opponents of reform know this is indefensible, so they fall back on rhetorical tricks. They accuse critics of being “emotional and extremist,” while themselves leaning on fear-driven appeals about communities collapsing, local governments losing control without property tax. But the truth is plain: all taxes imposed by force violate liberty, yet property tax is uniquely destructive because it denies ownership itself. When the state has permanent claim over your home, you do not own it in any meaningful sense — you rent it from the government indefinitely. That is not an emotional argument; it is a factual one. A sales tax does not do that. A sin tax does not do that. Even fees for services do not do that. Only property taxes carry the implicit threat that the government can strip you of the very ground beneath your feet. That’s extremism.

Some in our own Republican ranks try to dismiss this reality by comparing property tax to income tax, arguing that one is simply “worse” than the other. But this is nothing more than fallacious rhetoric. To argue whether income tax or property tax is worse is like debating whether arsenic is preferable to cyanide. Both kill you, just in different ways. Income tax destroys incentive, forcing Americans to labor first for the State before laboring for themselves. Property tax destroys ownership, making Americans perpetual tenants on their own land. To excuse one form of coercion simply because another exists is not conservatism — it is cowardice. True conservatives do not argue over the size of the chains; they work to break them.

If Republicans are to be taken seriously about liberty, then eliminating one forced tax cannot be treated as the finish line. It must be the starting gun. Abolishing the property tax is not the end of the conversation; it is the beginning of restoring what the Founders intended when they enshrined property rights as fundamental to freedom. John Adams once declared that “property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.” Thomas Jefferson warned that “a right to property is founded in our natural wants,” and that without it, men are reduced to dependence and servitude. They understood that ownership is the bedrock of independence. A man who owns nothing is a man who can be controlled. And in America today, property tax ensures that no American truly owns the home they live in. This was a radical position two hundred and fifty years ago, to claim it still is, absurdity.

America already generates immense revenue through consumption-based systems. The problem is not how to fund government; the problem is that government always reaches first for the most coercive and destructive tool. Property tax is that tool, and it is long past time conservatives had the courage to say so. It is a relic of the Old World, a shadow of monarchy lingering on free soil. To defend it is to defend the very system our ancestors bled to escape and our peers bleed to protect. To abolish it is to finally drive a stake through the heart of feudalism and secure once again the promise that in America, our homes are our Castles — not the king’s income source.

The Republican Responsibility

Democrats will never lead this fight; their ideology thrives on central control and redistribution. Libertarians may speak some truth, but they lack the numbers and organization to act. Independents have no lasting coalition and lean towards more government.

Only the Republican Party has the principles, the platform, and the people to restore liberty in property and labor — but only if it unites around its own stated values.

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Private Property Rights

Free Enterprise

Personal Responsibility

Fiscal Responsibility

Constitutional Government

These are not slogans. They are obligations. They are the measuring rod by which Republicans must judge every law, every budget, every local ordinance, every one of it’s Representatives and candidates. And they speak directly to the issue at hand. Every single Republican claims to stand on these core principles.

Republicans must expose the myth that taxation equals local control. True local control exists when citizens, not bureaucrats, decide how their money is spent. When funding is voluntary, when services are transparent, when fees and assessments must be earned through consent — that is when government becomes what it was meant to be: a servant, not a master.

The Party cannot afford to waste energy on internal factional warfare. Its true task is to wield its energy against the real enemy: big, intrusive government that has forgotten its place. AxMITax is not just a tax reform measure — it is a test. A test of whether Republicans still believe in their own principles enough to defend the right of every American to own property free from the constant threat of forced eviction from their property.

The time for half-measures has passed. This is the moment for Republicans to stand up, unite, and fight for what their platform already demands: liberty, property, and the freedom of the people.

The Path Forward

Critics will cry, “Without property and income taxes, how will government survive?” The answer is simple: the same way families do—by living within their means. The truth is, counties and townships already have the tools to fund themselves without threatening to take someone’s land.

Government can fund operations through direct user fees. If you use it, you pay for it. If you don’t, you don’t. That means building permits, zoning requests, dog licenses, ambulance runs, vital records, park use or boat launch fees, recreation programs, FOIA processing, and other voluntary charges. These are specific, tied to actual usage—not blanket taxes that punish everyone. When governments charge only for what’s used, they are forced to stay accountable, efficient, and respectful of their limits.

Local communities also have the option of special assessments. Done right, these aren’t coercive taxes but voluntary, targeted investments. Neighbors on a road can vote to fund resurfacing; a neighborhood can decide to pay for street lighting or drainage improvements. It’s not socialism—it’s free citizens choosing to invest in their own communities without government force.

Enterprise-based government is another path. Local services can and should operate like businesses—self-sufficient, not entitlement programs. Water and sewer utilities, broadband, parks and campgrounds, public transit, event centers, even county fairgrounds can generate their own revenue. Just like private enterprise, they must operate efficiently or go under. That’s real accountability.

Counties and townships can also contract with each other on a fee-for-service basis—sharing, fire and emergency services, courts, jails, and planning offices. This reduces duplication, cuts overhead, and turns government into a service provider rather than a tax collector, most rural governments have operated like this for a long time.

Beyond that, governments sit on vast land and facilities. Instead of hoarding, they should sell, lease, rent, and license them for use—whether event space, vendor stalls, or recreation. They can sell services, rent unused buildings, and even develop local branding and sponsorship opportunities. That’s how you turn assets into revenue without confiscating property.

Grants, philanthropy, and voluntary memberships add even more flexibility. Fire departments and senior centers don’t need to be funded by seizing homes. They can be supported through endowments, charitable donations, naming opportunities, and even subscription-style memberships—just like public radio or rural volunteer fire departments that already depend on community support.

Finally, tourism and economic development offer long-term revenue. Fairs, festivals, parades, rodeos, farmers’ markets, hiking trails, historical tours, and destination events bring in outside dollars, strengthen local business, and build civic pride—not resentment.

The greatest benefit of ending property taxes isn’t just the money saved—it’s the accountability restored. When government must ask for funding through contracts, votes, or voluntary support, it becomes humble, responsive, and just. When it can seize your property for nonpayment, it becomes arrogant, distant, and cruel.

By removing the guaranteed pipeline of property taxes, we force our governments to make the case, cut the waste, offer real value, and obey the Constitution. That’s not less local control. That’s real, earned local trust.

The Call to Action

The question before us is simple: does government rule its people, or are the people free?

Right now, property tax and income tax give us the answer — government rules. But that can change if Republicans find the courage to act.

We must declare, as free people once did:

“My land is mine. My labor is mine. My freedom is not a privilege.”

This is not extremism. It is the unfinished work of the American Revolution. And it is the Republican Party’s work — if it has the courage to remember who it is, freeing slaves is our heritage, can we not work to free our fellow Americans and ourselves? https://www.facebook.com/groups/axmitax

Dear Fellow Republicans,

Our Party has always stood for liberty, limited government, and the sacred right of property ownership. Yet today, through property and income taxes, government has made itself our landlord and overseer. These taxes reduce free Americans to tenants on their own land and compelled contributors from their own labor. As Republicans, it is our duty to unite around our principles — not fight among ourselves — and to confront this reality with boldness and clarity.

The enclosed article, “A Resolution for Liberty: Restoring Republican Principles on Property, Labor, and Government,” outlines both the historical and present dangers of these taxes and concludes with a resolution that we believe every Republican county, district and state party should adopt. It is not merely a policy statement but a reaffirmation of our platform values: private property rights, fiscal responsibility, and individual liberty. We respectfully submit it for your consideration, discussion, and formal adoption, so that our Party may once again speak with one voice in defense of the people we serve.

Sincerely,
[Name]
[County/District/State] Republican Party / Delegate

Resolution for Liberty

WHEREAS, the Republican Party affirms that rights come from God, not government, and that government exists to secure those rights, not infringe upon them;

WHEREAS, property tax functions as extortion paid to government, reducing ownership to conditional tenancy and violating the sacred principle of private property;

WHEREAS, income tax constitutes a compulsory claim on the fruits of labor, reducing free Americans to compelled contributors to the State before providing for their families;

WHEREAS, both property and income taxes contradict the Republican platform’s historic defense of liberty, property rights, and limited government;

WHEREAS, alternatives exist—including voluntary consumption-based revenues, resource royalties, lotteries, excise taxes, and reduced government spending—which are consistent with Republican principles of free enterprise and fiscal responsibility;

WHEREAS, division and factionalism within the Republican Party weaken the cause of liberty and must give way to unity in principle;

---

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED

That the Republican Party, at every level, commits itself to the following principles of governance:

1. Abolishing Property Tax – Ending government extortion of our land and restoring true ownership.
2. Dismantling Income Tax – Allowing workers to keep the full fruits of their labor.
3. Rebuilding Revenue Models – Funding government through voluntary, transparent, and market-based means requiring the consent of the governed.
4. Shrinking Government Scope – Limiting spending strictly to core constitutional functions.
5. Restoring Constitutional Governance – Ensuring that our governments operate within their constitutional bounds and derive just powers only from the consent of the governed.

---

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED

That the Republican Party calls upon its members, leaders, and elected officials to stand together on principles, platform, and values, rejecting infighting and recommitting to liberty.

---

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED

That this Resolution be transmitted to Republican Party leaders, officeholders, and grassroots members as a statement of intent to complete the unfinished work of our founding ancestors:

“Our land. Our labor. Our liberty.”
[County/District/State] Republican Party

In liberty,
Chair: Josh Gritzmaker
Vice Chair: Lance Lashaway
The Hillsdale Conservatives

Case: People v. Stephanie Scott & Stefanie (Lambert) Junttila
Court: Hillsdale County Circuit Court
Testimony Dates: August 12–13, 2025

HILLSDALE, MI — The case of People v. Stephanie Scott & Stefanie Lambert began as a routine prosecution, at least in the eyes of the state. Former Adams Township Clerk Stephanie Scott and her attorney, Stefanie Lambert, were charged by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in May 2024 with multiple felony counts under Michigan election law. The allegations were serious: giving an outside consultant access to 2020 election equipment, refusing to comply with state election orders, and obstructing the administration of elections.

But after two days of testimony in an August 2025 Hillsdale County courtroom, the state’s narrative began to unravel.

Prosecutors framed Scott as a defiant public servant who ignored lawful commands from the Michigan Bureau of Elections. The defense countered that Scott was doing exactly what her oath required — preserving the 2020 election records to ensure transparency and protect vital election data.

The turning point came when the state’s own witnesses — the Michigan Bureau of Elections Director and the Hillsdale County Clerk — took the stand.

Under cross-examination, the Director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections acknowledged ordering the deletion of 2020 election data from the voting machines flash drive. He also admitted ordering Scott’s removal from her township clerk election duties, a clear abuse of authority.

The defense pressed the point: were these orders based on any Michigan statute, legal, or lawful authority? The Director’s answer was a quiet but stunning “No.” The directives were not grounded in law, but in internal administrative policy.

It was a moment that echoed through the packed courtroom: the man tasked with overseeing Michigan’s elections had just testified that his orders to erase an election’s data were not legally mandated.

The following day, the Hillsdale County Clerk — who served as Deputy Clerk at the time — admitted that he had no lawful authority to seize Adams Township’s voting machine or 2020 ballots. He further conceded that he used his official position to discourage other township clerks from lending Adams Township a spare voting machine for the November 2021 school millage election — an action that directly obstructed the township’s ability to conduct the vote and forced his unlawful actions onto the Adams Township Clerk under the guise of fulfilling his election integrity duties. Ultimately, as testified the Deputy Clerk, along with a few Adams Township officials — unbeknownst to the Adams Township supervisor and clerk — took the township’s election materials, which led to a search warrant for the missing tabulator being signed by the very judge now hearing this case.

When asked why election records weren’t preserved on flash drives, the County Clerk gave a reason that left many in the gallery shaking their heads: cost. Maintaining the data would require purchasing flash drives — at roughly ten dollars each.

Deleted from History

By the end of two days of cross-examination, the defense had laid out a chilling picture. Through the Director’s own orders, data from the 2020 election in every township across Michigan had been deleted — an act, the defense argued, carried out without lawful authority. The consequence for any clerk who refused? Removal from election duties and felony charges.

If the defense is right, Michigan didn’t just mishandle a single township’s election records — it deleted a chapter of the state’s electoral history. And if the prosecution is right, then the law clearly allowed such actions, even at the cost of removing an elected official from their duties and empowering Clerks across the State to violate their Constitutional oaths by any means necessary.

Either way, the trial has peeled back the curtain on an uncomfortable truth: the machinery of election administration in Michigan may be operating on rules that are not rooted in law.

If election records can be erased without lawful authority by one order and Clerks who follow unlawful orders, what else can be?

In liberty,
Vice Chair: Lance Lashaway
Hillsdale Conservatives.

Why It Doesn’t Mean More State Control—It Means Real Local Control

What AxMITax does is simple: it severs the government’s power to take your home just because you didn’t pay them for the “privilege” of living in it. That’s not governance—it’s extortion.

But critics say, “If we remove property taxes, how will we fund local services?”

The answer: the same way every other legitimate service in a free society is funded—voluntarily.

Counties and townships already have the tools to govern without property taxes. They can charge fees for actual services, use special assessments with voter approval, run enterprise-based utilities, rent or lease public assets, partner with other governments through contracts, and tap into grant funding. None of this requires seizing private property.

AxMITax doesn’t destroy local government—it forces it to return to its proper, constitutional role: serving people, not ruling over them.

It’s time to end the lie that taxation equals local control. Real local control means the people—not bureaucrats—decide how their money is spent. And when that money is earned voluntarily, not taken by force, government finally becomes what it was meant to be: a servant, not a master.

Eliminating property taxes isn’t about weakening local government—it’s about redeeming it, by ending the perverse idea that the government owns your land and you’re just renting it. It’s about forcing a return to constitutional principles—limited government, individual liberty, local accountability, and voluntary cooperation. And it’s entirely possible.

Let’s break down the fearmongering and show how local governments—not just cities, but counties and townships in Michigan—can pay their bills without using the threat of eviction against homeowners, and without losing one ounce of true “local control.”

The Myth: “No Property Taxes = More State Power”

This argument is deeply flawed and rooted in a false premise: that the only way to fund local government is through coercion. When property taxes are eliminated, some argue that local governments will “have to go begging to Lansing.”

But here’s the truth: the state already controls much of your local funding. From revenue sharing, to education funding formulas, to statutory grants—local governments are already tangled in strings and dependency. So the question isn’t whether the state has influence—it’s how much more local control we can reclaim by changing the way we fund local government altogether.

Ending property taxes doesn’t shift control to Lansing. It forces local governments to innovate, to operate transparently, to justify every dollar they spend, and to find voluntary, value-driven ways to fund services.

In fact, it does something even more important: it returns control to the people who live and work in each township and county.

The Conservative Vision: Government Without Coercion

What would a local government look like if it couldn’t take your home for non-payment? If it couldn’t rely on a guaranteed stream of money whether it earned your trust or not?

It would have to:

• Provide real value to its citizens.
• Run lean and efficient, instead of bloated and redundant.
• Charge only for services actually used, not for mere existence.
• Ask permission before spending, not seize funding up front.
• Treat taxpayers like customers, not subjects.

This is how local government should work.

How to Fund Local Government Without Property Taxes

The truth is, counties and townships already have the tools to fund themselves without threatening to take someone’s land. Here’s how:

1. User Fees for Services Rendered

If you use it, you pay for it. If you don’t, you don’t. Simple.

Local governments can fund operations through service fees that are directly tied to actual usage. This includes:

• Building permits
• Zoning requests
• Dog licenses
• Ambulance runs
• Vital records (birth, marriage, death)
• Park use or boat launch fees
• Recreation programs
• FOIA and document processing

These are voluntary and specific—not blanket taxes.

When governments charge only for what’s used, they’re forced to stay accountable, improve efficiency, and respect the limits of their authority.

2. Special Assessments—Voluntary and Targeted, YES, Hillsdale City did it wrong, shocking…

Instead of taxing everyone to fix one road, let the people on that road decide.

Special Assessment Districts (SADs) allow neighbors to petition for improvements and vote to fund them—only for those directly benefitting. Examples:

• Road resurfacing
• Sidewalks or street lighting
• Fire or police protection enhancements
• Drainage and water control

This isn’t socialism. It’s voluntary investment—neighbors choosing to improve their own communities without the force of government.

3. Enterprise-Based Government

Local governments can operate services as self-sufficient businesses, not entitlement programs. When done right, these services fund themselves without taxes:

• Water/sewer utilities
• Broadband infrastructure
• County parks and RV campgrounds
• Local transit systems
• Event centers, fairgrounds, or public markets

Just like private enterprise, they must operate efficiently or go under. That’s real accountability.

. Government Contracting & Fee-for-Service Models

Counties and townships can sign agreements with other governments to provide services—for a fee. This includes:

• Sheriff’s departments covering townships
• Joint emergency services
• Shared building/zoning departments
• Regional planning services
• Shared court or jail operations

This turns government into a service provider, not a coercive tax collector. It also reduces duplication and cuts overhead.

5. Rentals, Licensing, and Public Assets

Local governments sit on millions in land and facilities. Time to make them work:

• Rent out unused buildings or land
• Lease space for solar, farming, or events
• Charge vendor fees at local fairs
• Offer licenses and permits for special uses
• Launch county-branded merchandise or media campaigns

This uses existing assets to fund future needs—without stealing from the people.

6. Grants and Philanthropy

Yes, grants are sometimes tied to federal or state programs—but they’re voluntary. Local governments can:

• Compete for infrastructure or emergency grants
• Accept charitable donations
• Build local endowments
• Create naming opportunities or legacy projects

Imagine a senior center built not by tax dollars, but by a local foundation and proud community members.

7. Voluntary Memberships and Sponsorships

If public radio can do it, so can government services.

Imagine fire departments or emergency responders funded by voluntary subscription, not taxes. Citizens get access, priority, and recognition—just like donors to a nonprofit.

It’s not crazy. It’s already happening in rural areas where millages failed but people still care.

8. Tourism and Economic Development

Some local governments will need to earn outside dollars to replace lost taxes. That’s a good thing.

• Fairs, parades, and festivals
• Historical tours, hiking trails
• Public markets or farmers’ exchanges
• Destination events like rodeos or county expos

These bring in outside money, energize local businesses, and create pride—not resentment.

Accountability Through Scarcity

The greatest benefit of ending property taxes isn’t the money saved—it’s the accountability restored.

When government has to ask for funding—through contracts, votes, or voluntary support—it becomes humble, responsive, and just. When it can seize your property for nonpayment, it becomes arrogant, distant, and cruel.

By removing the guaranteed pipeline of property taxes, we force our governments to:

• Make the case
• Cut the waste
• Offer real value
• Obey the Constitution

That’s not less local control. That’s real, earned local trust.

A New Chapter in Local Self-Governance

For too long, we’ve tolerated a lie—that local government needs coercion to survive. That your home must be held hostage so your township can patch potholes. That basic services require taxation by threat.

It’s time to reject that lie.

Conservatives believe in limited government, private property, and voluntary cooperation. We don’t need bureaucrats to rule us—we need public servants who serve only when invited and paid.

Eliminating property taxes won’t destroy local government, nor give the State government more control. It will force it to become what it should have been all along: lean, honest, accountable, and free.

Because in the end, no government that depends on force to fund itself deserves to call itself local, or American.

Want to get involved and help?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/axmitax

In liberty,
Lance Lashaway, V.C.

---

Every few years, our city has a moment where we pause and ask ourselves what kind of community we want to be. This time, it came early due to a shake-up in how City Hall has been governing.

For a long time, Hillsdale has been shaped by a small circle of insiders—what folks around here call the “good ole boys.” Decisions have been made quietly, in rooms most of us aren’t in. It hasn’t always been malicious. Sometimes it was habit; sometimes it was convenience. But the result is the same: a city where big choices are made for us instead of with us. That is how we ended up with crumbling roads, drawn-out redevelopment projects that never seem to finish, and projects that cost millions when they do get shoved through by our bureaucratic masters. A toxic culture at City Hall that feels closed off from the very people it serves.

This year, four candidates are asking for your trust: Scott Sessions, Robert Socha, Cathy Kelemen, and Matthew Bentley. Each of them has a different style and a different vision. And before we decide, we need to think carefully about what good leadership actually looks like and who is best equipped to fight for the people of Hillsdale.

Scott Sessions is not a bad man, just out of touch and unable to recognize that the current “negative culture” is partly his responsibility. Ten years ago, he stepped in to serve as mayor when the economy was rough. But during those years, he built a City Hall that was run from the top down. The staff he called “good hires” became the backbone of a system that answered more to each other than to those living and working in the city. Roads deteriorated, under his staff special assessments multiplied, and under his appointments, big projects like the Keefer House were handed off to out-of-state corporations who never delivered. The Dawn sucked taxpayers dry, sitting idle even now. Today, he wants to return to that office, offering a promise of stability. But there’s a difference between stability and accountability, and we should not confuse the two. He has stated he wants to bring back the staff that has been resigning in mass after being held accountable by a few conservative councilmen and a sudden surge of standing-room-only council meetings demanding accountability for all the horrible decisions being made. Saying Sessions is tone-deaf would be an understatement.

Robert Socha promises a different kind of leadership. He speaks the language of conservative values, but when push comes to shove, his decisions often empower government over the people. He supported expanding city authority to shut down Camp Hope, a privately funded homeless camp on private property. That might sound tidy, but it set a precedent that City Hall can decide what private land can be used for. He has said he prefers to work through sensitive issues behind closed doors. And time and again, he hesitates when clear, decisive leadership is needed. It’s a polished version of the same insider politics that got us here, testing the political wind all the way up until it’s time to cast his vote. Indecisiveness is not a quality a good mayor possesses, and falling back on more government control isn’t what makes a good conservative.

Cathy Kelemen, by contrast, brings a different spirit. She is honest about the problems she sees: the Broad Street redesign that nobody asked for, the toxic culture inside City Hall, and the endless delays on projects like the Keefer House. She has the right instincts—faith, family, and personal responsibility. And she is humble enough to admit she is still learning. That honesty is refreshing. But Hillsdale’s challenges are deep, and they require someone who can lead from day one. Cathy’s time may come, and we hope it does. She has the heart for this, but right now, the city needs a steadier hand.

That leaves us with Matthew Bentley. While the others talk about how they would lead, he has already been doing it. As a councilman, Bentley has shown that he will stand up when it matters. When the county tried to push through a multimillion-dollar bond without transparency, he didn’t sit quietly. He showed up. He stood up. He spoke out. He challenged a system that most local leaders avoid out of fear of ruffling feathers. He has pushed back against unelected managers who most times forget who they work for. He has pulled sensitive debates into the open rather than letting them be hidden behind closed doors. He has fought for reform of special assessments—working for fairness rather than pretending that wishful thinking will make them go away. And on difficult issues like homelessness, he has balanced compassion with responsibility, recognizing that not every problem can be solved with a bigger ordinance or another layer of government. Matthew, at the ire of city staff, dares to lead in questioning the road diet; he speaks for his fellow Hillsdalians, not for government bureaucracy. A sharper and more noticeable contrast that stands out against the other candidates.

What Hillsdale needs now is a mayor who knows that the office is not about control—it is about service. A mayor who listens more than he talks, who asks hard questions, who respects taxpayers’ money, and who understands that government works best when it works for the people, not for itself.

This is not just about the next year. The choice we make this summer and fall will ripple. If we fall back into old habits, the good ole boys will continue to run things from behind the curtain, and we’ll all be left wondering why nothing ever changes. But if we choose accountability, transparency, and courage, Hillsdale can become what it was always meant to be: a community where decisions are made in the open, where leaders work for us, and where ordinary citizens—not insiders—set the course. If that isn’t a drastic change from the status quo of the past few decades, you, the reader, haven’t been paying attention—and you should.

We encourage you to think about the kind of city you want to live in and the kind of future you want to build. Weigh the records. Look past the promises. And when it’s time to vote, choose the candidate who has already proven they are willing to stand up for you.

Our future depends on it.

in Liberty

The Hillsdale Conservatives.

First, we’d like to thank The Hillsdalian for their continued coverage of Hillsdale’s local elections. In a time when most media outlets sit quietly on the sidelines or blindly echo establishment narratives, The Hillsdalian has chosen to engage. Whether we agree on every detail or not, they’re part of the fight to keep our community informed—and that matters.

Now, on to the final candidate in their mayoral series: Councilman Matthew Bentley. Let’s make this simple.

Bentley isn’t just another name on a ballot. He’s not a placeholder. He’s not a career climber. He’s a fighter—and the only candidate in this race with a proven track record of challenging Hillsdale’s entrenched bureaucracy, advocating for transparency, and defending the people’s voice where it matters most: at City Hall and beyond.

A Voice for the People, Not the Staff

In a political climate where most city council members bend the knee to administrative staff and managers, Bentley chose the harder path: accountability. He has consistently stood as a check on unelected bureaucrats who believe their job is to run the city—not serve it.

While others see the role of mayor as a ceremonial nod to civility, Bentley understands what the Founders intended: that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. His opponents, by contrast, seem content with letting the city manager hold the reins. Bentley rejects that entirely—and so do we.

Representing Hillsdale to the County—Not the Other Way Around

Perhaps the most underappreciated aspect of Bentley’s leadership is his willingness to cross jurisdictional lines—not for control, but for advocacy. When the Hillsdale County government attempted to saddle residents with unnecessary debt via the LifeWays bond, Bentley didn’t stay silent. He showed up. He spoke out. He helped build a coalition that challenged an opaque process and stood up for fiscal sanity. That’s more than most mayors in this state can say.

It’s rare—almost unheard of—for a sitting city council member to actively challenge county-level power. Bentley didn’t just talk about accountability—he lived it. That alone makes him stand apart from the field.

Realism and Reform on Infrastructure

On issues like special assessments and infrastructure, Bentley brings a refreshing dose of realism. He doesn’t pander with false promises to “eliminate” SADs (Special Assessment Districts), but instead speaks to what can actually be done—reform, negotiation, and flexibility based on neighborhood needs. That’s the kind of leadership Hillsdale needs: principle-driven, not performative.

Crime, Vagrancy, and the Limits of Government

Bentley also understands the balance between compassion and responsibility. He respects the work of organizations like Share the Warmth, and he supports law enforcement without turning our police into political pawns. He doesn’t call for more bureaucracy or emotion-driven policy—he calls for focus: fix what we can fix, and do it well.

He rightly identifies the lack of county jail capacity as a major bottleneck in dealing with crime—a problem beyond city limits, yet one that affects every Hillsdale resident. Once again, Bentley connects the dots and speaks to root causes, not just symptoms.

---

In Conclusion: Hillsdale Needs a Mayor, Not a Mascot

Bentley gets it. He’s not here to keep the peace at council meetings or smooth over tension for appearances. He’s here to represent you. He listens. He fights when it’s right. He shows up when it matters. And most importantly—he doesn’t confuse good governance with good optics.

If Hillsdale is ready to break free from managerial government and reassert the authority of We the People, then Matthew Bentley is the right man for the job.

And that, fellow conservatives, is the kind of leadership worth voting for.

The Hillsdale Conservatives.

I started watching this AxMITax discussion and made it about 33 minutes in before needing to pause and push back. I was invited on by Russ to have a discussion on this and some other things Monday at 2pm. In taking some notes I figured, may as well support the podcast and give a them a shout out. I haven’t been paying much attention to the axmitax stuff and just began looking into it, those who are for it and those who are against it. After, watching this and a bunch of reading, here’s where I’m at.

First off: this is a Conservative issue—full stop. The notion that government can force you off your land if you can’t or won’t pay them for the privilege of living on it is un-American. This country was founded on the right to Life, Liberty, and Property—not the privilege. Property taxes aren’t just unjust; they’re tyrannical. They are enforced with the threat of government violence. That’s not liberty—that’s extortion.

On Volunteer Labor and Political Will

The claim that this petition somehow “distracts” from volunteer efforts is absurd. In fact, it may inspire more grassroots involvement, especially if candidates have the courage to back it. This tired mindset of “we can only do one thing at a time” is what keeps our communities stuck in the mud an organizations fighting amongst themselves.

Local Control? Let’s Talk About That

It’s said this petition threatens “local control.” But let me ask—why do local governments have control over our property in the first place? Why do we equate control with governance? The communities are already dying, a lot are already dead, what exactly are we protecting, the entity responsible for their demise?

I’ve lived in Michigan my whole life. It’s dead out here. Most towns close by 8pm, if not before. Our villages, once thriving, are now hollowed out. We didn’t get here because of too little government—we got here because of too much.

What Local Government Actually Funds

Local police? Fire? Drains? Libraries? Schools? Courts? Let’s break that down.

• Fire & Libraries: In rural counties like Hillsdale, these entities already rely on donations to stay operational and are mostly volunteer.
• Courts: They can and do fund themselves through fees. It’s expensive for a reason.
• Roads: They’re a disaster. That’s your argument for keeping the current system?
• Drains: Mostly paid by landowners, little gets done by government.
• Police & Schools: A small county sales tax could cover this. Better yet, let’s consolidate—fewer schools, fewer buildings, and more accountability. Schools are not as full as they used to be, this would also help the teacher and staff shortages.

Where’s the Money Going?

Weed. Gambling. Lottery. Sin taxes. Where is that revenue going? Why can’t it fund police and education? The idea that property taxes are the only option is false. Government has options—it just refuses to exercise restraint, responsibility and get dirty doing actually work in figuring out how best to govern.

The Math and the Message

The math is simple: consolidate. That’s what private businesses do. Government refuses. Maybe we don’t need ten schools—maybe six will do. Maybe we don’t need 20 police officers running speed traps—we need a few good ones who actually protect and serve. That cuts down on costs. When was the last time local government did this? Those are just a few examples!

On “Harming the Lower Class”

This “class” rhetoric is a smokescreen. If you have money, you don’t need government. If you don’t have much money, government takes what little you have and claims it’s “helping.” Where does government spend money better than private citizens can?

Show me one government program that outperforms its private alternative. You can’t, it doesn’t exist.

Government doesn’t empower—it controls. If people were taxed less, they could afford to invest in their communities directly—schools, security, services, etc, etc.

And by the way, you still get a bill when the fire department shows up. Rich or poor.

Emotional Arguments and Weak Premises

The opposition leans heavily on emotional arguments while claiming to reject emotionalism. Property taxes are “evil” so is income tax. So what? They all violate liberty, government uses force to steal your land. That’s evil, calling evil an emotional argument when in fact the act of stealing is considered a factual form of evil is dishonest at best.

Sales taxes don’t do that. Sin taxes don’t do that. Charging a fee for a service does not do that. Property taxes do. That’s the difference. That’s not emotional, that’s fact.

The whole Emotional argument about emotional arguments is emotional, not factual.

Comparing Michigan and Florida

Michigan sees roughly 130 million out-of-state visitors per year—nearly the same as Florida. The idea that we can’t shift away from resident-funded taxes like Florida is nonsense and a false premise.

Winter tourism in Michigan only drops 20%. With hunting, snowmobiling, and winter festivals, we remain a year-round destination. We can pivot—we just need leadership with vision.

Final Thoughts

Later in the video it’s actually alluded that schools are already beholden to the State—so how exactly is this petition handing control to Lansing? Another false premise exposed?

Here’s the truth: opponents of this petition are either misinformed, dishonest, or both. I have yet to hear a single fact-based, logical argument for how this petition harms communities or hands control over to the State. If anything, it liberates them.

Government should earn our trust—not extort our property. Good government is supported voluntarily. If the community wants services, they will fund them. If they don’t, then those services aren’t needed.

AxMITax is not a threat to local control—it’s a threat to local tyranny. And that’s exactly what we need.

Please support our Jackson friends and their Podcast. https://www.facebook.com/planpod

in Liberty,
Lance Lashaway