Wednesday, October 1, 2014

California GOP v. Rhode Ilsand GOP

Jerry Brown v. Neel Kashkari
I am dismayed with the choices facing me this November.

The two gubernatorial candidates are too similar on the issues, and their stances are antithetical to the Republican Party platform.

Need I remind anyone reading: one of the candidates is a Republican (in name only).

There is no nice way to avoid stating the obvious: Neel Kashkari is too liberal, and on too many issues.

He supports gay marriage, when he should support getting the government out of marriage.

He is pro-abortion (that is not a pro-choice position, especially for the unborn child).

He believes that climate change is an existential threat, despite the scientific consensus rising against the hyperbolic fears surrounding this issue.

He is pro-Common Core, which is a massive federalization of public education, plus a source of desperate frustration among students and parents. Where's the argument for school choice, for vouchers, for reforming tenure, aside from support for Vergara v. California?

I have heard very little regarding Kashkari's defense of the Second Amendment.

He favors sending the illegal immigrant youth home, yet at the same time he supports allowing illegal immigrants to drive legally in the state of California.

Huh?

I cannot vote for this man. I like many of the powerful statements he made during his one debate with Governor Brown. Despite my initial concerns, Kashkari differed on a great deal with Brown.

Still, Kashkari is Democrat-lite. He voted for Obama twice, and never ran from those endorsements, either. He is a RINO.

Even Democrats recognize that Kashkari is not a Republican, when it comes to the platform and the values.

However, not only are the candidates a disappointment, so too are the party leaders and the financial wing of the party.

CA GOP Chairman Jim Brulte took union money, and he has neither secured nor enforced the key platform of the party. Granted, the GOP is stuck at 29% registration in California, but how does watering down the bold colors of a political party ensure that future voters will register GOP? New stats suggest that Californians are fed up with both parties, and the ranks of Independent (or decline-to-state) are rising considerably.

Statewide campaigns are ignoring  their fellow candidates, and local races are competing with the statewide one for campaign cash. A wealthy physicist, Charlie Munger, funds attack ads against other Republicans in 100% GOP districts. This disunity is discouraging.

Mark Smiley
In contrast to the largest state in the union, the Republican Party in Rhode Island (the smallest per geography) could teach the CA GOP by example.

The new Chairman, Mark Smiley, won the chairmanship by one vote last year. The bitterness which erupted among Republicans was devastating, at first. Despite suggests for a co-chairmanship with the second-place winner, Dr. Dan Harrop, elected Republican officials told the convention to stop the fighting and settle on Mark Smiley as the winner.

Mark Smiley, a member of the Rhode Island Republican Assembly, articulated the societal concerns related to gay marriage, including sex education instruction to minors. Those cultural currents disturbed him and they should awaken concern from all conservatives on the gay marriage issue.

Fundraising has proceeded apace in Rhode Island, and Chairman Smiley did not sell out by taking union money to do it. There is no campaign debt, and the RI GOP has established a new headquarters in Warwick.

In the gubernatorial primary, Moderate Party candidate Ken Block switched parties to run as a Republican. Like Neel Kashkari in California, he voted for Obama, was pro-choice, pro-gay marriage etc. His challenger, Cranston Mayor Allan Fung, is also pro-choice, but solidified his opposition to abortion on demand and partial birth abortion. He received the endorsement of the Rhode Island Right to Life movement.

He also opposes drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, unlike Kashkari.

Allan Fung
In many ways, Fung is more of a Republican than his California counterpart.

Strangely enough, though, Rhode Island is the most liberal state in the union, and Republicans account for only 9% of registered voters, with Democrats at 40% and Independents at 50%.
Despite the number disadvantage, Rhode Island Republicans are standing their ground on the issues. They have not watered down their party's platform, and the two cities which boast a high quality of life, Warwick and Cranston, have Republican mayors.

Plus campaign donations are unifying the party rather than dividing them.

Instead of running from issues, instead of giving into popular pressure and watering down their values, the Rhode Island GOP has reestablished its ground game, and with a strong gubernatorial candidate running for an open seat, the state party may pick up seats in the state legislature this year, too.

Gay Marriage Has Peaked (And Why)

Image result for pew research center

A recent poll from the Pew Research Center recorded that support for gay marriage has peaked, and is now declining:

According to the poll, 49 percent of Americans now support same-sex marriage and 41 percent are opposed. That’s a drop of five percentage points since February.

Another result from this poll was more disturbing:

Forty-seven percent of respondents said that businesses should be allowed to refuse to provide wedding services for same-sex couples for religious reasons, while 49 percent believe they should be required to provide these services.

A slim majority thinks that private businesses should have to cater to same-sex couples, even if they disapprove of the lifestyle?

One of the comments about this poll explains why this attitude is slightly more prevalent:

File:Gay marriage NYC.jpg
Has gay marriage peaked in the US?
"The argument in support of marriage as the union of a man and woman hasn’t been heard and rejected; it simply hasn’t been heard,” said Anderson [of the Heritage Foundation]. “But when it is heard, people respond accordingly. In the long run, the truth about marriage will prevail.”

Exactly.

The only people arguing (in fact, demagoguing) this issue are the gay "rights" activists who want to redefine marriage as well as the role of the government in the family.

Now, what are some specific reasons why support for gay marriage is losing support?

Stories like these:

Aaron and Melissa Klein of Gresham, Oregon were forced to close down their bakery. Why? Because they refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

Doesn't private enterprise include the freedom to refuse service to anyone? This cake decorator refused to cater to a neo-Nazi couple because of the clients' beliefs. Why not the Oregon bakers?

The Kleins called out the intolerance of Left, and the lawsuit bullying they rely on to force people to accommodate their choices, or fail:

Our culture has accepted 2 huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. Second is that to love someone means that you must agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.

Gay rights militants disagree, vehemently.

Mozilla CEO  Brendan Eich was pressured to step down earlier this year. Why? Because he donated money to the California Prop 8 campaign, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman in the state constitution.

Should men and women be forced out of their jobs because of their political or religious beliefs?Homosexual marriage agitators think so.

In Rhode Island, the homosexual movement stands out, and former mayor now mayoral candidate Buddy Cianci is fighting a lawsuit, in which he forced Providence fire fighters to march in a gay pride parade, whether they wanted to or not.

In Torrance, CA, a gay rights protester or vandalized a local Chik-Fil-A in 2012 with a graffiti message: "Tastes Like Hate!"
Chick-fil-A Vandal Comes Out of the Closet
from DefendChristians.org

Even gay blogger Perez Hilton blasted this crime:

We understand how hot this debate has become, but breaking the law to get your message across is NOT the answer!

Unfortunately, for  the left, including gay agitators, this recourse to criminality and lawsuit coercion has been the only way to impose gay marriage in many states.

Massachusetts, the first state to have gay marriage, forced the accommodation of this lifestyle by judicial fiat. Massachusetts residents do not necessarily support gay marriage. If they do, coercion not persuasion was the vehicle which imposed this radical redefinition of a long-standing tradition.

What has happened in the Bay State since the imposition of gay marriage by judicial fiat?

MassResistance.org documented the moral as well as political upheaval which ensued followed. Because homosexual marriage became a legally recognize status, the agenda infiltrated all major facets of public life, with disturbing consequences, including explicit sex education lessons for Massachusetts youth, without the parents' knowledge or permission. This agenda has even descended into elementary schools, where kids are taught that they could be gay. Residents have lost their jobs when they share their disagreements with the homosexual lifestyle.

These trends are disturbing, and they all seeped into Massachusetts following the forced introduction of gay marriage.

File:Bill Maher by David Shankbone.jpg
Bill Maher: "There is a gay mafia.
And you get whacked!"
More Americans are beginning to disagree with the disagreeable tactics of homosexual marriage enthusiasts, though.

Liberal-tarian comic-politico Bill Maher called out the gay mafia, and how they hit those who disagree with their agenda.

Gay libertarian Camille Paglia denounced the Stalinist tactics of the gay marriage left, as well.
File:Tammy Bruce.jpg
Tammy Bruce
Lesbian conservative Tammy Bruce despise these tactics, as well.

Matt Walsh has rebuked the fascism of these gay rights groups.

Gay marriage, and the militancy of the gay agenda in the states and federal law, have begun alarming American voters. Family groups are waking up to the problems. Other groups are organizing their opposition to the destruction of marriage, too.

Legal challenges to homosexual marriage are succeeding, and the legal challenges against true marriage are failing:

Black pastors organized a petition to impeach now-resigned Attorney General Eric Holder because he refused to defend marriage in federal court.

The US Supreme Court blocked the overturning of Virginia's gay marriage ban, even though a Virginia federal district court and appeals court had ruled in favor of the gay challengers.

A federal judge in Louisiana upheld the Pelican State's gay marriage ban.

Other events expose the corrupting influence of redefining marriage, but in a tongue-in-cheek fashion:

Two straight men in New Zealand got married to take advantage of an offer for free Rugby tickets. This kind of counter-attack may prove instructive for future responses.

Support for gay marriage is peaking in the United States, not just because of successful legal challenges protecting true marriage, but the nation's growing disgust with homosexual militants offensive tactics to promote their agenda.

Maxine Waters Goes to Hell

File:Maxine Waters, official photo portrait, 111th Congress.jpg
Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Torrance

In 2011, Congresswoman Maxine Waters was worried about her reelection chances.

She was not concerned about an uprising from Republicans, since conservatives have not established a long-term ground game in the inner cities, where she and other Democrats have been dominate for decades. She was worried about challenges from other incumbent Democrats, including then House Rep. Laura Richardson and Karen Bass.

Because of the 2011 Citizens Redistricting Commission, Waters could have ended up in a district against two other African-American lawmakers.

To preempt any election upsets, she hosted a jobs forum in Inglewood with the other Congresswomen.

One of the features, empty dinner plates, highlighted the blight of poverty and lack of opportunities in these areas. Instead of taking responsibility for the fact that her and her President's poor policies have created these problems, she blamed another group:

"I'm not afraid of anybody. This is a tough game. You can't be intimidated. You can't be frightened. As far as I'm concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell."

There was another part she added:

"And I intend to help them get there!"

I began wondering: what would hell be like for Rep. Maxine Waters?

One embarrassing encounter for the Congresswoman provided some insight. She experienced discomfort when Fox News reporter Jesse Watters ambushed her in the halls of Congress after her tirade.

For the first time in decades, Maxine Waters did not fight, but kept her mouth shut. Jesse Watters tried to get her to speak:

"You said that Fox News 'chokes us and lies to us'. . ."

Congresswoman Waters said nothing, smiled, and looked straight ahead, trying to escape the reporter.

"Who's 'us' and what are the 'lies'"?

Still nothing.

"Congresswoman, you said you weren't afraid of anybody. You're not afraid of me, are you?"

Silence reigned supreme with Queen Maxine.

Hell for Maxine Waters would be world free from
government induce conflict and liberal activism
"You also said the Tea Party should go straight to hell. You don't really believe that, do you?"

Finally, Waters escapes into an elevator, but even as the door closes, Watters comments:

"That's not very nice rhetoric."

So, hell would be a place where politicians like her have no say, no influence, where they cannot incite conflict, where they do not get away with rude, race-baiting falsehoods.

Perhaps hell for Maxine Waters would be a world where the Tea Party's principles of limited government, individual liberty, and Constitutional rule prevailed, instead of unfettered, immoral liberalism.


I imagine the opening scene, like Dante's Inferno, but instead of getting lost in a Dark Wood, Waters finds herself in a wealthy suburb, like Manhattan Beach, or Central Torrance (which now belongs to her congressional district).

Milton Friedman
Then the spirit of free market economist Milton Friedman confronts her, tells her that she has lost her way.

"Let me take you on a journey through a free society."

Waters quivers in terror: "No! I won't go!"

But it's too late. She must go to hell, or at least the places which she would consider hell on earth

Maxine Waters socialist
(Courtesy of Independent Sentinel)
.

Friedman introduces her to many successful African-American businessmen and women, civic leaders, entrepreneurs, individuals who did not depend on subsidies from the state but through faith and hard work accomplished great things.

File:Herman-cain-ttu-2011-tn1.jpg
Herman Cain: Successful businessman,
Presidential candidate, told the Occupy Protestors:
"Get a job!"
Friedman would force Waters to witness the impact of black business owners who improve their communities, who refuse to feel sorry for themselves or blame their failures on the past. Instead of gang-banging, Waters would witness after-school programs and mentorships where inner-city youth learn that there is more to life than the thug life, and they are not defined by their circumstances or the color of their skin.

Of course, all of this would be intolerable for Waters. She would feel the flames on the side of her face. She would meet young men and women of all colors, who start out earning a basic wage, then work their way up through education, experience, and investment.

"We are earning a minimum wage now, but we don't intend to stay in a low-pay job. We are already on our way to getting promotions because we come to work on time and do a good job."

File:Edward Brooke.jpg
US Senator Edward Brooke (R-Massachusetts)
"Government should not do for a man what he can do for himself"
Then, she would got hospitals like a newly, privately-owned Drew-King Medical Center in Willowbrook. Instead of Obamacare, individuals are paying for their health care directly, but pay much less than for their insurance premiums. Because they have jobs, because they have their own wealth, they don't worry about not having enough money to pay their health care bills.

Some of them even have Health Savings Accounts, so they get tax credits.

"What?! They don't need government money to stay healthy?!"

Then, Friedman would take Waters to local schools in South Los Angeles, independent charter schools where parents chose to enroll their children, rather than having to settle for a local government schools just because they occupy the same zipcode.

"No! This can't be happening. Young minority children learning the true history of their country, their God-Given rights, the power a work ethic, instead class warfare and race-baiting! I can't stand it! Get me out of here!"

Friedman would remind her that school districts like Wiseburn School District, now unified from the irrepressibly corrupt Centinela Valley District, are thriving because of their private school model which invites children from all over the West Los Angeles area to enroll in their schools.

But Friedman is not done yet.

Then he takes her back to Hawthorne and Inglewood, shows them the power and initiative of individual entrepreneurs who have invested time and energy into their cities. Through their industry, they put away the blight and brought back the light in their cities.


Friedman would then introduce her to well-functioning city councils, where public employees make a decent wages and invest their money their own way, absorbing the consequences and reaping the benefits of wise planning, rather than depending on unsustainable, insecure government pensions.  Instead of union dictating their will to city councils, representatives are making the hard decisions to cut spending and expanding opportunities.

"What? No unions?! How can I bully cities into doing what I want them to without taxpayer-funded thugs?"

Friedman responds:

"When you give people choices, when you recognize that they have talent, that they can achieve without forced subsidies from the state, individuals choose liberty over government dependence every time. Then they don't feel the need to coerce and fight one group of people to take what they make."

Waters would probably go into shock, then block her ears with her trembling hands. Trying to run away, she would confront visions of wealth and prosperity, American banners flying in the wind surrounding her. Patriotic songs would fill the air.

She tries to escape into a local church, where she has often gotten away with preaching faith in government instead of Christ. Instead of a warm welcome, pastors and parishioners reject her anti-authority, anti-conservative hate speech. Local churches would be preaching the Gospel according to the Bible instead of unity according to Karl Marx.

"I can't take it any more! Get me out of here!"

Then Friedman would respond:

"What, I thought you weren't afraid of anybody!"

Indeed, Waters is afraid.

She is afraid of a world which would not need politicians, a country established on the rule of law, based on the US Constitution and not the arbitrary will of  President or a party boss, where Americans, regardless of their color or cultural background, learn the value of godly character based on Biblical principle, as opposed to government fiat.

In other words, a world where Tea Party principles reigned supreme, not Queen Maxine.


Oh No!
Now I've gone straight to hell!



Tuesday, September 30, 2014

The Minimum Wage Fight (and How To Fight It)



In the last segment of his latest edition of the Southern California Political Round-Up (Sept 28), radio host John Stammreich discussed the minimum wage fight as the "Third Rail" topic.

John Stammreich
 

 
Referring to his guest on the Sept 21 episode, recently-elected mayor Suzanne Fuentes of El Segundo, Stammreich expressed dismay that few Los Angeles area mayors challenged LA Mayor Eric Garcetti's plea to raise the minimum wage to $13.75 an hour or more.


 
Then he criticized Republicans for ignoring this issue, for refusing to talk about it.

Last of all, he remarked that a number of local cities in the South Bay didn't throw huge celebrations because of Garcetti's policy move against hotel franchises in LA City.

Because the costs of running a hotel will increase with the minimum wage, and the charges which will pass on to the clients, the smaller cities who are not raising the minimum wage will gain extensive increases in business from travelers going in and out of LAX.

El Segundo will definitely benefit, and is planning on expanding their hotels in the city.

Yet the question remains: why do Republicans, conservatives, and limited government advocates avoid refuting the minimum wage talking points on the Left?

On its surface, what could be more cruel than suggesting that individuals should work for the minimum wage? Who would not support seeing American workers making more money for their labor?

The reality is that Republicans do not want to see workers struggling under stagnant wages. Yet with all the government interventions in the economy, the unintended consequences of statist policies like raising the minimum wage do not burst forth immediately.

Yes, the individual employee finds himself taking home a little more money right away in the paycheck, without doing anything more to earn it.

What the community does not see, what the liberal economists do not take into account, what the general public never follows on, are the following:

1. Businesses end up hiring fewer people.

2. Higher-level workers usually do not receive a similar pay increase, inducing them to leave their jobs or put pressure on their employers for a commensurate salary increase.

3. Employers and businesses which do not want to endure a shortfall in their profit margins will pass on the costs of this increase in the price of the goods sold. In some cities, the regulatory burdens have forced businesses to charge a distinct tax to cover those costs.

4. With the rise in employee costs, businesses not only can freeze hiring, but they can close their businesses for a final sell-off, laying off workers, and move operations to another city (or country).

Explaining the devolution of a business in a sound bite is not an easy task.

Another part of the problem lies in the language employed by liberals, by the left on the minimum wage.

"Raise the minimum wage" is misleading. Governments, laws, politicians do not raise anything but taxes, spending, and the costs of doing business.

When legislators or city councils enact laws requiring a higher minimum wage, they are in fact forcing businesses to make difficult, costly decisions. The politicians are not paying anyone, since the salaries do not come out of their pockets.


Margaret Thatcher
Republicans need to relearn the lesson mastered by Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher:

Define the terms of debate before your opponent.

All this rhetoric about "raise the minimum wage" is a false premise in itself, as far as governments are concerned.

“Forcing the minimum wage” is more accurate, and puts liberals in a less pleasing light.

Also, these minimum wage agitators have reshaped the argument to “living wage.” As if? Entry-levels jobs are that: entry level. They were never meant to be the ongoing wage on which any worker survived.

On one hand, conservative can gleefully agree with their liberal opponents: "I support raising the minimum wage!"

But how? They can then explain their plan: allowing individual businesses to profit and hire employees, and granting those employees the opportunities to further their potential through promotion and education.

Then Republicans follow up with inquisitorial questions:

Why are you making it harder for young children to get a good education, a good job, and better themselves?

Conservatives can then recite liberals' resistance to school choice, vouchers, internships, plus the regulatory burdens which hurt businesses and thus individual workers.

They can also shame liberals' profound ignorance about economics with a question:

 How are you going to raise the minimum wage of working Americans? Are you the one paying them?

Once again, the brutal fact about government interventionism is that the law does not create wealth, but merely redistributes it by force.

The Republicans can declare: "You want to force the minimum wage. You can't raise anything!"

This kind of rhetorical shift will put away the notion that Republicans, conservatives, etc. want to keep people poor, and instead shift the blame denounce the bullying nature of the left toward ordinary Americans, including Mom-and-Pop small businesses, because liberal politicians are preventing Mom-and-Pop businesses from making their own decisions and help their communities.

Republicans should revisit another piece of advice from Prime Minister Thatcher, who reminded her Conservative peers:

 Economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul.

The moral argument is missing for Republicans. While Republicans insist that Democratic policies don't work, Democrats attack Republicans with personal invectives, invoking a war on women, minorities, gays, etc.

Instead of a dry economic treatise, Republicans have to call out minimum wage agitators on the truth, but with emotional appeals:

1. They believe that people are too stupid, lazy, or incompetent to rise above an entry-level job.

2. They want to see poor and minority youth at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to job-training and resume building.

(In other words, it's a racist policy to force (not raise) the minimum wage.)

3. They have never run any business, but want to run businesses into the ground or out of the state.

More dramatic assaults may be necessary. If US Senator Elizabeth Warren believes in a higher minimum wage, why doesn't she start by practicing what she preaches? If Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) wants to force the statewide minimum wage, why doesn't he start by paying his interns? Why not cover the costs with his own money?


What? I have to pay
their wage increase?!
 



 
In a striking example of this liberal hypocrisy, philosophical reporter Jan Helfeld exposed a younger Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, who had failed to follow through on the minimum wage rhetoric with her own Congressional staff, many of whom she paid nothing. Republicans could have a lot of fun shaming minimum wage agitators on their own greedy duplicity.

 
Congresswoman Bachmann Blitzed Sanders on the minimum wage issue

For a strong example of debating this issue, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann superbly slapped down Socialist US Senator Bernie Sanders' class warfare diatribe about the minimum wage in one debate. First, she pointed out that Australia, with its $20 an hour minimum wage, also has high unemployment. Then she personalized the subject, discussing the plight of a single mother who wanted a good job, and better education to get a better job in the future. She even had the foresight to call out the "Democratic War on Women" because of the terrible economic policies under President Barack Obama.

Other novel responses can include success stories of individuals who started out on the minimum wage, then worked their way into prominence and prosperity in their respective professions. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has done a phenomenal job of relying on individual success stories in his state following the economic reforms he implemented.

These moral appeals are more effective than economic arguments.

Republicans need to employ these offense-as-best-defense tactics in the minimum wage debate. Out of fear or lack of knowledge, conservative politicians skirt the subject or push it aside quickly with an economic explanation, one which never wins the hearts and minds of voters.

A change of mind, an aggressive push to define the debate,  one depicting the liberal agenda in its true light, and Republicans can end liberals' minimum wage agitation, which hurts businesses and deprives good workers of better opportunities.

Breitbart Fail: Fung Opposes DLs for Illegals

File:Breitbart CU.jpg
Andrew Breitbart led fight
against corrupt media

Breitbart.com has become one of the leading voices in the New Media.

While the mainstream media wasted weeks covering the private prejudices of a basketball owner, and the overblown, soap-opera lawsuits which followed, the conservative website exposed the illegal immigrant youth crisis amassing along the Southern Border. While the mainstream media has given a pass to the Obama Administration’s floodgate of scandals, websites like Breitbart have attacked the corruption with an unwavering assiduousness.

Reporters have even written about the Republican surge in New England, where liberal Republican Charlie Baker has polled twice with a slim lead ahead of Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley, Still smarting from her 2010 election loss to Scott Brown,

After reading his piece on Charlie Baker, I reached out to Matthew Boyle, and told him to report on Mayor Allan Fung’s gubernatorial run as well. He was enthusiastic and appreciative, because up to recently he was not paying attention to the Rhode Island race. Looking at the statistics and the demographics, there are enough reasons why conservative reports would ignore Rhode Island: small state, almost hidden in New England under Massachusetts and behind Connecticut, with a liberal Democratic legislature in power for over eight years.

Those dynamics may change this year, though, if the national unrest against Democrats hits the Ocean State. Other local activists in Rhode Island have signaled to me the importance of national attention on this race. In a deep blue state, when a Republican gubernatorial candidate is running neck-and-neck with a Rhodes Scholar pension reformer, party heads should turn.

File:Mayor Allan Fung visits Providence.jpg
Republican Mayor of Cranston Allan Fung -- Opposes DLs for Illegals
Boyle’s latest piece, however, contained one error:

In Rhode Island, Cranston's GOP mayor Allan Fung is running slightly less aggressively than Baker or Brown on the issue of immigration, saying that he supports driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. But he has made clear that he opposes the efforts of the administration to use Rhode Island as a spot to place illegal aliens as part of the border crisis, and according to some recent polling data is within striking distance of Democratic nominee state treasurer Gina Raimondo. Rasmussen's latest survey had him just seven points back—a pretty impressive feat for a Republican in a state as blue as Rhode Island.

The statement that Fung supports driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants is untrue. In fact, he and his former primary challenger Ken Block are on record opposing the policy:

Block and Fung said they would advocate for immigration reform on the federal level and indicated they oppose driver’s licenses for undocumented residents. They each pledged to restore the state’s use of eVerify background checks for state employees, a program that Chafee abolished on his first day in office in 2011.

Part of the reason politicians left and right should champion this stance against illegal immigration is as a nation of laws, every person living here legally should have access to these privileges, simple enough, but not those who have entered the country illegally.  Allowing law-breakers any legal privilege, like driving on American streets, only enables more illegal immigration.

Unfortunately, some Republicans are caving in on this issue, like California Republican gubernatorial candidate Neel Kashkari. While explaining that compassion and open borders would not solve the illegal immigrant youth crisis, he still supports drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.

File:Neel Kashkari marching in the 2014 San Diego LGBT Pride Parade.jpg
CA GOP Kashkari supports DLs for Illegals
"They can’t stay here, but while they are here, they can still drive."
Confusing and contradictory polices like this one are turning off voters in California. How does this kind of pandering help the Republican Party win Hispanics votes, and elections in the long-run? Besides, DLs for illegals ends up trapping states into sanctuary status. Why should illegal immigrants leave when one can get away with driving legally and not worry about getting deported if pulled over?

Supporters for this controversial policy will contend that allowing them to drive legally will create safer roads and reduce crime. The exact opposite has occurred in San Diego, and other states enacting this policy. Fraud and human trafficking have become commonplace in many locales, too.

I contacted Mayor Fung and Matthew Boyle, who had written the story about Fung. The mayor affirmed his opposition to DLs for illegals, but Boyle has not yet gotten back to me.

In this Internet-driven media market, misrepresentation of a politician’s stance no longer goes unnoticed without immediate responses. While mistakes like the one mischaracterizing Mayor Fung may be more common because of the rapid increase of news production and consumption, readers and commentators can take direct action to correct those stories when errors arise.