Frustrations of Modern Conservatism

Conservatives must recognize that the Supreme Court’s tidbits of good news today are no counterweight to its steady encroachment on Constitutional liberties. Leaning back on our heels, waiting for our supposed betters at SCOTUS to save us, is a recipe for disaster. - Ben Shapiro

No matter how many steps, however small, limited government advocates make toward pushing back the encroachments of the Obama Administration, radio talk shows hosts, columnists, and eternal critics all will contend "not enough!"

Pressing against the encroachment of the state in itself  will never be enough. This is a fallen earth, and men are not angels. The watchmen of liberty must be ever vigilant. Did they think that the fight would have big victories under which people car loll and relax

As LA Times token columnist Jonah Goldberg once contended, resisting the growth of the federal government as a sole policy is like a priest running a whore house. Resistance alone is not active, or effective enough. Defining the problems and preaching against them do not stop people from doing the bad.

Breitbart understood the importance of God and Country
(Source: Shal Farley)

Offering a woman a better life than whoredom gets her out of the whore house faster than telling her not to sell herself. Offering people good news and the skills and the pathway to a better life will get them off the teat of Big Government.

The "something better" is essential, or it will remain difficult (if not impossible) for conservative to make a case of limited government without a larger narrative to hang the truth of everything.

What is wrong with two men marrying? What is wrong with killing a child in the womb before the baby is born? Conservatives today are not answering this question. They certainly are not presenting them the better life of marriage between one man and one woman.

These are Biblical principles, which require that individuals have a warm respect for the Bible and the God revealed in the Bible. Even many Christians have a wrong understanding of God and His goodness.

Conservative counter-cultural leader (and Internet new media scion
Andrew Breitbart understood the importance of God and Country, but the focus needs to be on God, and then the country part will follow. Otherwise, like the priests who grow weary (
or wayward) with preaching against sin, modern conservatives will find that no one gets better, but the preachers grow bitter and frustrated.

That was not the case decades ago, when young men and women read the Bible, learned the redemptive accounts of Christ as Savior now and forever.

Without this foundation, there is not basis for defining the folly of liberal (in fact, quite illiberal) encroachment of the government into our lives.

Without the revelation of the Scriptures (affirmed by science), what is wrong with the political class taking from the business class to enrich or at least subsist the dependent classes in our communities?

A recognition of an eternal and loving God (most traditional denominations ignore that the love of God sent His Son to redeem us), the source of every absolute disappears, and the dictates the truth of life as the preeminent value dissipates, all other values with it.

Severe libertarians reject this argument, focusing on liberty as the primary value. Arguing from fear instead of facts, many of these libertarians ignore that liberty does not emerge out of nothing, no more than we did. Liberty as a political reality is a relatively new phenomenon. Liberty without the overwhelming care of God is not liberty, but short-lived license which descends into an amoral, then power-made conformity.

The frustrations of modern conservatism rest on the godless or the secular bases for its arguments. Without the proper respect for the domains of the Divine, which is all encompassing, no one can take seriously the arguments of "this is the way it has been" as the last word on maintaining vital institutions such as marriage, the family, the role of government as enforcement of law and protection of right.

Until conservatives today recognize that truth, not tradition; morality and religion, not politics and persuasion, are the essential basis for restoring morality and virtue, conservatives will spurn even the smallest of wins and encounter failure after failure in the face of the moral decay which will corrupt even the most ardent of fiscal conservatives.

SCOTUS: Furthers Walker Victories

The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has issued a number of rulings scaling back the power of President Obama, who has unfaithfully refused to execute the laws of the land while unlawfully issuing directives through executive order.

 

United States Supreme Court

 

However, one of the most important SCOTUS rulings, Harris v. Quinn, has blocked organized labor, particularly the public sector union juggernaut, from forcing non-union members to pay dues to any union which negotiates on their behalf.

Incidentally enough, the appellants in that case launched a lawsuit against Liberal Democratic Governor Pat Quinn who (like Obama,) though executive order required that all in-home caretakers pay dues to the Service Employees International Union, since that labor collective represented all in-home care workers compensated by state funds through Medicaid.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

The key appellant, Pamela Harris, who cares for an adult son in her own home, resented having to pay dues to a union which lobbied for policies and values which she disagreed with. She was right to be angry, and her First Amendment rights have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

 

Hopefully, Illinois residents will not stop with this federal victory, but consider the brave example of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who without initial judicial backing, neither federal nor statewide, instituted collective bargaining reforms to limit the political and financial power of public sector unions.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder

With SCOTUS, plus the reforms of Walker and Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (and possibly support for right-to-work laws in Missouri), the power of the public sector union lobby will be scaled back indefinitely.

Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage Extreme: Why? (What To Do?)

Today, to define marriage as one man and one woman – that is an extreme position. “Since when should marriage be limited to one man and one woman?” Critics argue.

To recognize life at conception and defend life as much as resources permit – that is also an extreme position.

Is it extreme to defend an unborn baby?

How has this transformation in values about life and marriage taken place, and so quickly?

We can start with the faux-libertarian (in reality, narcissistic and self-righteous) argument, the craze from political activists these days: “It’s my body, and I can do what I want with it.”

From the most vocal of activists come the most venal of politicians, leaders in Washington fear losing the majority power or long-term influence in Washington if they do not accede to the limited demands of this childish generation, who want their financial future secure, yet at the same time want to do as they please with their bodies and minds.

This myopic morality has bred the pro-choice (or rather “pro-abortion”) movement. “It’s my body” has given birth to the gay marriage debate, too.

Yet should we blame exclusively the youth culture, or the cowardice of the political establishment, for this “Me first” moral miasma?

In terms of marriage, the transformative Obama Administration has hastened the demise of the institution, pressing on every organization of the federal government acceptance of homosexuality and the “rights” of gay couples to marry.

Looking further back, the judicial fiat of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2004 opened the pandemic of undoing marriage as one man and one woman. At least marriage supporters can point out that the arrogance of judges, not the will of individuals or communities, pushed the perversion of the marital sacrament on this country.

What about abortion?

Unlike the argument about marriage, the definition of life (its beginnings, values, and implications) has endured longer, also from judicial interventionism (Roe v. Wade). Proponents of life and marriage should take heart, since only a court could force the devolution of these values, and only in law (not in spirit). To this day in Massachusetts, there are many who do not recognize nor respect gay marriage as an accomplished fact. The same holds true for abortion.

(Source: University of Toronto Students for Life)

Unlike the marriage argument, the pro-life Movement is growing stronger. From Roe v. Wade in 1973, millions of babies have been aborted, yet the voices to protect those children has grown louder, too. Private interests, including churches, have rallied year after year to speak for those who cannot, the unborn. Laws have changed in locales as distinct as North Dakota and Texas to define the legal time limit for seeking an abortion.

The latest US Supreme Court ruling, McCullen v. Coakley, struck down the 35-ft barrier which prevented pro-life protestors from denouncing abortion clinics. The ruling had been upheld by the Massachusetts State Supreme Court (the same body which arbitrarily redefine marriage). Could SCOTUS undo their undue ruling redefining marriage, too?

Following the disturbing revelations of the Gosnell trial and the inner city abortion clinics (where babies born alive were murdered), the “pro-choice” mantra has been exposed as a pro-murder agenda. Pro-life is alive and well in the United States, even in ultra-liberal New England. Even pro-gay marriage politicians like former US Senate candidate Gabriel Gomez (R-Massachusetts) proudly announce their pro-life views.

Still, the sanctity of marriage is giving way, however, to the insanity of group-think, and the voices speaking out for one man and one woman are not as strong.

Why is our culture turning its back on traditional marriage? (Source epSos.de)

Why?

The problem of marriage goes deeper than two men or two women masquerading as a married couple. The lack of respect for the institution began much earlier, when men and women decided, and local mores acquiesced, that sex before marriage, that parenthood before matrimony, was acceptable.

Perhaps instead of focusing on perversion of the institution, our society must also investigate why so many choose cohabitation instead of marriage, or why adultery has become standard. Casual sex has created a casual attitude about marriage, as the rates of intended pregnancies have increased in key urban areas (New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles)

The consequences of casual and pre-marital sex are getting more attention than before, but the consequences of such loose and unaccountable conduct resists easy documentation. The death of a baby is an immediate and outrageous tragedy. The break-down of restraint before sex and commitment before consummation escapes our notice.

Is there any way to present (and thus prevent) of the diminution (or destruction?) of marriage?

Gay Marriage is Legal (for now?)

 

Studies showing increased depression and suicide following casual sex suggest that the concrete dangers of immoral conduct or prevalent and relevant. The individual accounts of young people (and the crushing fallout) from casual encounters will awaken a new respect for marital love as opposed to “easy sex”. Medical studies documenting th disease, dysfunction, and death associated with homosexuality (and revelations debunking the “born gay” myth) will cause individuals to rethink homosexual conduct.

Legal rulings are supporting life once again. Judges may rule right and strike down mandated gay marriage in the future, too. As Pro-Life goes mainstream, marriage as one man and one woman may return, too.

Justified From All Things and thus For All Things

All is a brand of detergent which cleanses stains from clothes.

Television commercials advertise that you can clean many loads of laundry with one bottle of All.

The blood of Jesus is the very brand which cleanses us from all sin.

The blood of Jesus keeps on cleansing us from all sin, whether we know it or not, and this cleansing sets us up for every blessing under the New Covenant.

"Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9: 14)

We live by the Gospel, because the Gospel is the gift of righteousness bought and paid for us because of what Jesus did at the Cross, and what He does for us at the right hand of God the Father (Romans 8: 31-34):

"Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13: 38-39)

Notice that the law is displaced by the grace of God, which justifies us from all things.

All things:

"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;" (Colossians 2: 13)

Yes, the Blood Keeps on Cleansing (LookingUntoJesus.net)

and then

"[Jesus] gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." (Titus 2: 14)

and also

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John 1: 7)

And then

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1: 9)

Keep in mind, that since John is writing primarily to a Jewish audience, confession of sins has nothing to do with itemizing every perversion, but coming clean about the truth that we are sinners.

The blood of Jesus cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

All. All. All.

This total gift grants us His righteousness:

"15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." (Romans 5: 15-17)

and also

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Corinthians 5: 21)

The gift of righteousness which keeps on cleansing us from all sin guarantees us all things in Christ, too:

"What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 32He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" (Romans 8: 31-32)

This is what we learn also about "all things" in comparison to the riches of Christ Jesus:

"But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ," (Philippians 3: 7-8)

When we understand that Christ is all things for us, then we can receive the answer to this prayer, too:

"6That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus." (Philemon 6)


and

"2Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

 

3According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:" (2 Peter 1: 2-3)

 

Through Christ we are forgiven from all our sins -- all of them -- that we  may receive all things in Christ -- all of them!

Gov Walker: Not a Smidgen of Corruption

Despite the national press’ preening for bad news, particularly against Republican leaders, new outlets have failed once again, intending to fit only the news which prints their limited liberal ideology, as opposed to the truth, which vindicated conservatives and limited government advocates.

Twice this year so far, John Doe prosecutors have investigated Governor Walker for political improprieties related to his campaign efforts and his prior office staff. Twice these concerns have been rebuffed, and for all the cries of wrong-doing, there has not been one “smidgen” of corruption staining Walker’s tenure. Instead of unsubstantiated reports of unethical behavior, the mainstream media should report at length that the Governor of Wisconsin has cut taxes and spending, returned revenue surpluses to the people, and has put the public sector unions in their place, supporting the public. All adding to an economic legacy of collective bargaining rights reforms which will remain standing for the long term.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is one of many Republican state executives overseeing and encouraging an American comeback despite the repeated failures, disappointments, and scandals of the federal government, most of which center on the culture of corruption otherwise known as the Obama Administration.

Instead of barking up the wrong tree of baseless accusations of base behavior coming out  of Madison, the liberal media watch dogs would be doing a true service to their calling and the country if they exposed the endemic, pandemonium of lies, deceit, waste, fraud, and international cowardice which defines the Obama Administration today.

Feinstein's Plea in LA Times - and the Truth

Senator Dianne Feinstein is calling for resources and humane treat for “desperate” undocumented alien children amassing around the Southern Borders of the United States.

Instead of requiring exasperated taxpayers to subsidize illegal immigration with food, clothing, and child advocates, Sen. Feinstein and her colleagues in Congress should demand that President Obama uphold the rule of law.

The President’s 2012 executive orders to halt deportations of illegal immigrant youth helped explode this crisis. In spite of his oath to defend the Constitution and secure this nation’s borders, he has ignored his role as chief executive to faithfully executive the laws of this country, mostly to secure his reelection chances and progressive legacy of pandering to pro-amnesty interest groups.

Calling on Central American leaders to stop drug cartels may slow illegal immigration, but our leaders really need to secure the borers, suspend welfare, and streamline the immigration process for all legal migrants.

McDaniel's Worthy Challenge to Cochran

As a California conservative frustrated by pandering and compromise from representatives who support special interests rather than protecting the public interest, I applaud Mississippi state senator Chris McDaniel’s primary challenge against the decayed, decades long Washington insider Thad Cochran.

Today, Establishment Congressmen and Senators like Cochran are going along with the pay-for-play culture of corruption instead of caring for the rights of the citizens and defending the final authority and integrity of the Constitution. United States Senators need to reclaim the Senate as an institution which holds the President and Congressional colleagues accountable for spending our country’s money while taming the national debt and restoring power to the states and the people.

Cochran refused to defund Obamacare, defame the federalized education take-over called Common Core, or define the proper, limited scope of the federal government in relation to the states and the people. After inheriting his seat in Congress for so many years, Cochran needed McDaniel’s challenge, a praiseworthy as well as necessary effort to engage our government.

The spate of scandals spouting out of the White House, from Operation Fast and Furious to the numerous lies about ObamaCare, to the IRS and EPA abuses, along with the invasion of our privacy from the NSA and the CIA, demand immediate response and retribution from our representatives. Cochran has done nothing. McDaniel will.

The former radio host is an articulate fighter, and we need lawmakers like him to fight back against the institutionalized fraud, deceit, and endemic arrogance of Washington DC.

Is Muratsuchi Afraid Yet?

Al Muratsuchi

Republican contender David Hadley's slight 66 vote lead over incumbent Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) has grown to 552 votes over the last three weeks.

The latest tally from the Secretary of state (as of June 23, 7:32am) should give the Muratsuchi campaign more cause for alarm.

The Democratic machine will pour two million dollars to keep the South Bay seat in Democratic hands.

However, a new machine is growing in the South Bay, the South Bay One Hundred, which has put the fundraising and grass-roots organization of the Democratic Party on guard.

Is Muratsuchi throwing in the towel?

He tried to run for the state senate earlier this year, and then published a press release announcing that he would run for reelection.

Why?

He doesn't want another bruising election?

Maybe he feels a sense of remorse for the nasty slash-and-burn campaign he ran against businessman Craig Huey.

He should.

Muratsuchi probably finds himself running against friends as well as making more enemies.

The tense political atmosphere in Sacramento has turned the stomachs of many politicians.

Gardena Mayor Paul Tanaka was offered the chance to run for state assembly against Muratsuchi, but he turned it down to run for Sheriff, but also because partisan politics bothers him.

"You don't vote the party line, even if you don't agree with it, and you end up in a broom closet as your new office."

Partisan politics pulls a politician not just according to what the constituents want, or the dictates of the Constitution (state and federal), but also the demands of one's caucus in the legislature. Vote-trading is crucial, and a legislator who wants to accomplish anything has to work with both sides, and sometimes has to support bills which he is personally  and politically opposed to, but must vote on to get votes on other crucial legislation.

Constituents, oath of office, and then the demands of the political leaders of one's party can drive a man's allegiances into the ground.

Muratsuchi has experienced a great deal of this pressure, one must assume.

During the primary season, his campaign put out yard signs, but no mailers or fliers. Maybe the Democratic Party won't be sending in the $2 million that Muratsuchi needs to bury his opponent and win reelection, after all.

The former school board member touted himself as a moderate voice, "not an ideologue",  yet his votes are consistently left-leaning compared to the values of his South Bay constituency. He voted to permit transgendered students to enter public school bathrooms; he supported the government forcing the state minimum wage. He also voted for drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants as well as expanding the authority to perform abortions to non-physicians.

He has also support gun control measures and other environmental laws which will hinder business rather than expand economic opportunity. Plus his endorsement for a local control funding formula which has deprived highly qualified and excelling South Bay schools of much needed state revenue.

Muratsuchi has been quite the ideologue and reliably left-wing vote in the state legislature despite his protestations during the 2012 campaign.

Is Muratsuchi afraid yet?

He should be.

Miller Effect Redux in the 31st?

Lesli Gooch

Leslie Gooch, the former aide the hand-picked successor to retiring Representative Gary Miller, did not quite make into the Top Two jungle primary on June 3rd, 2014.

Even though her website listed her as the party favorite, including her win in the Redlands Tea Party straw poll, she didn't win.

Another loss for the California GOP political establishment?

Not necessarily. How much more did she need to beat Redlands Mayor Peter Aguilar for the number two spot? 209 votes.

The slim margin has sparked a recount from her campaign.

The Secretary of State has certified the results, a Tea Party member in the region wants a recount. As long as the Gooch campaign pays the day-by-day costs, the state can recount the votes.

209 votes is a slim margin, and if Gooch's efforts turn up enough votes and she gets into the Top Two, her move will spell more one more defeat for the Redlands-Inland Empire Democratic Party, which has squandered millions with infighting only to clobber themselves and advance GOP opportunities in a "majority Democratic" district.

Congressman Gary Miller was fortunate enough in 2012, playing off multiplied Democratic ambitions to face off against another Republican and win.

California Republican Party leaders could learn from the prior and current outcomes and start investing in off-shoot liberal candidates, too, who can draw away Democratic support and advance Republican chances in otherwise impossible districts.

At any rate, another Miller Effect might be in the works in the 31st, where the Democratic vote was so thinly divided, that two Republicans make into the Top Two once again.

Contacts to the Gooch campaign have not yet been returned.

Paul Chabot, the Top vote getter in the primary, is undeterred, whatever the results.

We won by 5,000 votes, and we are getting out the vote now.

The wide margin in the latest tally all but assures that Chabot will stay in the general election, whether Aguilar prevails or Gooch wins following the recount.

Either way, the election battle is looking better for Republicans in the otherwise strongly Democratic district. Aguilar tweeted on this website that the official tally puts him in the Top Two, but Tea Party efforts and a unlikely recount reversal may shut out Democrats once again in the 31st Congressional District.

Regardless of whether Aguilar flies or falls following the recount, Chabot remains the better for this controversy, since he will devote his time and energy to get out the vote, while his current Democratic challenger wonders whether his efforts will net him the win in November. If Gooch gets into the Top Two, she will have at least a time and fundraising disadvantage.

Chris Matthews: Tea Party Cheerleader?

MSNBC's Chris Matthews

Chris Matthews: TEA Party cheerleader?

He sounds like a supporter now, even though in broadcasts in times past Matthews maligned the conservatives and the Republicans with race-baiting and other misleading slanders.

Matthews shared the following thoughts after the David Brat upset against Eric Cantor, debunking the mainstream media illogic which trashes conservatives, limited government advocates, and TEA Party affiliates as stupid:

Well, first of all, I don’t think you can assume that the liberals are smarter than the conservative professors. I think that’s crazy talk, and it’s exactly the attitude conservatives can't stand. I don't know which professor is more popular but that doesn't mean that's the better professor first of all.

Exactly. Professors in universities often attain their standing in academia by parroting their mentors and conforming with their peers. The academics who stand out and promote reasoned inquiry and truth face an Inquisition of protest and shame, most often by not earning tenure.

Popularity was never the final arbiter of truth, accuracy, or sound teaching. Then again, Mainstream Media colleagues may start labeling Chris Matthews an extremist for his "crazy talk".

Secondly, I think, I was listening to Brat last night, I listened to him today. I think he's very sophisticated for a politician. He's certainly up to the ranks of most politicians I've ever dealt with. He speaks in a speculative manner, in an intellectual manner, he can handle any debate on this program or my program.

Wow! Why the sudden turn of attitude towards Tea Party activists?

This looking down our noses at Tea Party people has got to stop. They have a message, they’re as American as any liberal is, and they’re really angry of the failure of the system.

Thank you, Mr. Matthews.

I was speaking with Tea Party supporters a few days ago, and they are reaching out to Democrats as well as Republicans, as more people in this country, whether liberal or conservative, are getting tired of a Washington political class more invested in enriching themselves than defending our rights, securing our borders, and respect the rights and integrity of the states and the people to govern themselves.

The Tea Party Movement includes Independents and Democrats, not just Republicans. While Democratic Party leaders have stifled dissent on key issues, the Republican Party in different states has not shied away from the movement's concerns about issues. A diverse caucus of ethnic groups and social backgrounds, the Tea Party Movement is still flexing political muscle

The second question comes to mind: why is Matthews changing his tone about the Tea Party movement?

Perhaps he wants to avoid the fate of fellow MSNBC anchors like Martin Bashir, who was pressured to resign following his incendiary comments about Sarah Palin and her comments about the national debt. Maybe Matthews is responding to data which posits him as the most disliked news broadcaster in the business.

Or maybe he is waking up the new media reality, that viewers are fed up with the anti-conservative, elitist snobbery which has dominated the mainstream media for so long?

Whether for gain or for good, Matthew's change of heart about the Tea Party is a gain for the country and good news for all of us.

McCarthy Wins -- Labrador Gracious in Defeat

In a secret ballot of Republican members of the House of Representatives, California Congressman Kevin McCarthy won the majority leader spot replacing pro-Amnesty Eric Cantor, who in a surprising upset lost his primary fight to a vastly underfunded economics professor who touted the former Majority Leader's push for blanket immigration reform, contrary to the best wishes or interests of his constituents.

GOP Majority Leader
Kevin McCarthy

The ascension of McCarthy is a mixed blessing for the Conservative Movement, particularly in California.

On the down side, McCarthy has been floating an irresponsible compromise on immigration reform, which would allow illegals currently in the country to attain legal status, but not the right to vote. Citizenship is meaningless without the right to vote, and granting a partial amnesty encourages more illegal immigration. The immigration crisis of undocumented alien children along the Southern border of the United States is a direct result of all this amnesty talk.

On the up side, McCarthy is 100% pro-life and pro-Second Amendment, an expert networker and fundraiser who has worked with all echelons of political funding, in California and Washington. A vocal, active critic of California Governor Jerry Brown's crazy bullet train boondoggle, McCarthy is not the big spending RINO which virulent conservative agitators have painted him out to be. Even if critics call him "Establishment", I have commented in the past that being a part of the "Network" in itself is not a bad thing. Politicians who want to accomplish anything noteworthy or worthwhile have to learn the wheel-and-deal vote-trading game that gets things done in Washington.

California needs a strong voice speaking on the state's behalf in Washington, and the California Republican Party needs the leadership in Washington to prove that conservative politics are still relevant as well as active in the Golden State, tarnished with unrepentant progressivism for the past twenty years.

Still, McCarthy's detractors fear that his rise in Congress will further water down his conservative credentials, and that he will exploit his power to the advantage of connected elites vs. the conservative grassroots.

Then again, compromise is not a bad thing in itself.

The first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, had to work with Democrats to get the 13th Amendment past. In fact, when he ran for reelection in 1864, he did not run expressly as a Republican, but under a Union Party ticket, with a Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate (Andrew Johnson). Without Democratic Unionists supporting him, Lincoln would have lost reelection, and the United States would not have remained united, with the fate of millions of slaves precarious if not uncertain.

Compromise does not meaning giving up your principles or waffle on one's positions or denying your purpose. McCarthy might better bridge this gap in Washington as Majority Leader than as Majority Whip. McCarthy has six months to present his credentials and skills to the House. Can he work with both sides of the aisle, as well as within the Republican ranks bringing together Insiders and Outsiders, Tea Party enthusiasts and Establishment affiliates? If nothing else, he is a conservative in a red district in Central California, which will grant disaffected voters a chance to challenge him, just like his prior Eric Cantor, too.

Raul Labrador: A Winner even in defeat

And what about Raul Labrador of Idaho? Did his run accomplish anything, even if he lost?

He demonstrated not just grace under fire but grace in the face of defeat. From the Washington Post reported by the Idaho Statesman:

"...Rep. Raúl Labrador (Idaho), wanted to be the conservative alternative to McCarthy. But Labrador started late and never got close. After it was evident that McCarthy had won, Labrador stood up and called for the vote to be declared unanimous as a signal of party unity.

"The caucus roared its approval. The one thing Labrador had done well was handle defeat."

Labrador did not back down on his run against McCarthy, even when the national press announced the (nearly) obvious reality of his limited chance of winning. Citing the frustration from conservative members in the House, the Puerto Rican lawmaker offered that many representatives feel irrelevant. Even when he lost, Labrador accomplished his goal and helped unite the House Republican caucus. His gracious decision to step aside and grant McCarthy a unanimous vote is the first step toward unifying the diverse elements toward better goals for the Republican Party and Washington. 

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/06/20/3244727/labrador-wins-gop-roar-of-approval.html#storylink=cpy

CD-24: Can Conservative Mitchum Cap Capps' Tenure?

Lois Capps: Who's she?

Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara)

Why, she represents Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties in Central Coast, California.

Once again: Lois Capps, who is she?

One of  a small group of  Democratic incumbents whom the CA GOP are targeting this year.

Former Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado challenged her in 2012, and lost. One of the House GOP's Young Guns, Maldonado's storied career of moderation and reform (including the controversial Prop 14) did not translate into a Congressional win in 2012, or even in 2014, as he gave up his run for Governor.

A moderate GOP who had a statewide office failed to bust a cap on Capps.

Now former actor and Screen Actors Guild director Christ Mitchum is challenging her.



Chris Mitchum
 

One party leaders criticized his campaign staff, arrogant and unwilling to listen.

He is constitutional conservative running in a fairly moderate district. Combining the entire GOP vote in the June 3rd primary, Mitchum has a ground-game or Republican voters that could support his win.

He bested one of Capps' 2012 challengers by a small margin, and the incumbent took in an impressive 43% of the vote, which remains a cause for concern.

A local activist told me that Mitchum does not have a chance. His campaign seems well-financed, in spite of concerns about his values and connections with the district, however. For the week prior to the primary, the Internet was covered with ads touting his campaign.

The Republican National Congressional Committee is focusing on her support for Obamacare. "Does she still have her 'I <3 bumper="" obamacare="" p="" sticker="">
Breitbart California has published stories on this one-time non-entity Congresswoman as well, probably to play up her challenger's chances of winning against her. The latest article focused on her support for extended gun control measures.

With  more media support as well as a hostile political climate to Democrats this year, can Mitchum bust a cap on Lois Capps' tenure in Congress?

More likely not, but if GOTV is  strong, and statewide leaders believe that Mitchum has more than a chance, the incumbent Congresswoman will face another fight.

CD-12: Pelosi's Coronation

House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has a 100% liberal rating with the ACLU.

Does she have this stance out of principle?

Not at all.

Check out the demographics on her Congressional district:

Voters rejected Prop 8 by 70%, the widest margin in the state.

Statewide Democratic candidates take in 70% of the vote as well.

When she first won the San Francisco seat in 1987, she was less progressive than one of her Democratic challengers.

Now that she safely reigns as the Queen of Haight-Ashbury, she can aggressively tilt, lean (or fall all over herself) to the Left.

San Francisco -- Safely, Royally Democratic

San Francisco is so liberal, that not even Republican Ronald Reagan won this district, even in 1984, when he swept every state in the union (except Minnesota).

To put it bluntly, San Francisco is a Democratic coronation all of its own.

One a Democrat, or any liberal politician, wins this seat, they don't have to bother campaigning.

Even when anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan challenged Pelosi in 2008, the then-Speaker of the House won more than 70% of the vote. Running to the left of Pelosi still leaves a candidate well-behind.

Many Republicans have left nothing, not even their hearts, in San Francisco.

Except for one: John Dennis.

This man's inspiring yet quixotic efforts earned the attention of the New York Times.

Why would this guy put himself into this certain-to-lose situation?

John Dennis (on the right, fittingly enough)

By the way, Dennis has run against Pelosi twice before.

Dennis the Menace? Not really. In both prior contests, Dennis netted 15% of the vote. Ouch!

The New York Times article from 2010 represented the fanfare this candidate received:

John Dennis, a candidate for California’s Eighth Congressional District, recently stood in a gay bar in the Castro district of San Francisco and came out of the closet — ever so slowly — to a table of six older gay men.

                          

“O.K., we’re all sitting here, we all have a drink here?” Mr. Dennis said, taking a deep breath. “O.K.: I’m a Republican.”

A sense of humor pervades the article, an inevitability since any chance of removing Pelosi is laughable at best, and tragi-comic at worst.

Even though he has a better chance of winning the lottery, Dennis still rakes in the money.

His platform is strongly Libertarian, especially in his outrage at NSA spying on individual Americans.

What about his chances in 2014, with voter outrage against Democrats in general this year?

In the June 3rd, 2014 primary Pelosi netted 74% of the vote, with Dennis taking in the number two spot with 12%.

Pelosi will be crowned the Queen of the City once again. No wonder she seeks and retains the Democratic leadership in Washington year after year.

One Good Argument Against Abortion on Demand

CD-52: GOP Pick-Up (With Very Mixed Feelings)

Before the June 3rd, 2014 primary, before the January First 2014 move to let slip the GOP GOTV, the California Republican Party was targeting CD-52:


GOP outnumbers Dems by three points, and Brian Bilbray was a long-standing Republican in the area, anyway. San Diego is home to Pete Wilson and Jerry Sanders, too, GOP with a strong fiscal bent which cannot be ignored, and is much needed in Sacramento and Washington DC.

Too bad that Bilbray did not overcome the Obama-rama in 2012


Brian Bilbray

So, who won the primary in June? I had hoped that the Republicans would do well enough that perhaps incumbent Peters would not survive to the run-off.

Instead, the stand-off is Peters and DeMaio, with the Republican tally topping Peters' vote.

This week, this article was printed in the San Diego Union-Tribune:
Poll: DeMaio leads Peters

Former City Councilman Carl DeMaio  is the Republican and Scott Peters is the incumbent Democrat, one of five CA Dem freshman who rode the Romney fallout and Obama pushback on Election Day 2012.

Brian Bilbray was a good Congressman, but his wife was ill, so his campaign was hindered somewhat from the outset.

He lost to Peters by a slim margin, and it looks as if Peters will lose to DeMaio by a greater margin in November.

In San Diego, the Republican resurge has a precedent.

GOP Kevin Faulconer won the San Diego mayor's 2014 special election even though the city is trending Democratic, and even after the Dem machine spent ten times as much trying to keep the SD Mayor's seat in Dem hands.

Didn't work out for the Democrats, and the liberal political pundits told the California Democratic Party to be afraid, very afraid.

Scott Peters

 Spread the word, Republicans, break out the flyers, and let fly the rainbow banners .  . .

Well, not exactly rainbows, since some of Faulconer's victory banners had bands of six colors, not seven: the banner of gay pride, in other words.

Faulconer is liberal on the social issues.

And guess what? So is Carl DeMaio.

Openly gay, pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-amnesty. Still, unions hate him, and he blasted the pension issue (using plagiarized info . . .)

Let's look over this once again -- what is GOP about this DeMaio guy, anyway?

Fiscally conservative. OK.

Granted, gay activists have slammed DeMaio savagely, refusing to let up because he is a member of the pro-tradition marriage, pro-life Republican Party.

Except that San Deigo GOP Leaders decided to endorse him (by a slim margin, just barely past 2/3 of county delegates).

Still, there is a deeper cultural current which voters cannot ignore. All of this talk about fiscally conservative yet socially liberally is morally bereft. Conservative radio host Dennis Prager made the argument so succinctly, that I am now more committed than ever to stand on principle rather than waffle for a win with a moderate who is actually trending leftward.

Carl DeMaio

Look, I am all for GOP winning more seats in Congress.

But GOP means standing on principle, and this DeMaio go, aside from his asides on the fiscal issues, is quite liberal.

What a dilemma.

A local activist in San Deigo, a Kirk Jorgensen supporter, quit the GOP after DeMaio's primary victory. The same person informed me that she would campaign against DeMaio and endorsed either not voting at all or voting for Peters.

Not because of his homosexual conduct, but because in her words: "He's a sleaze and he will ruin the Republican Party in California."

I understand the frustration. I have no idea what I would do in that situation.

While I am not so concerned about one election win ruining the party brand outright, the accommodation on these cultural countercurrents cannot be ignored.

Homosexuality is a choice (or an induced form of conduct) and a bad one, not a genetic lifestyle (confirmed by a ex-homosexual Oxford academic among others) one which hurts people's bodies and minds. The agenda has impacted young people in places where gay marriage is legal (by judicial fiat, of course)

Abortion must be a limited resort, for life is the right from which all other rights depend. Prager's exhortation to honor "social issues", when in fact they are moral and economic issues too, deserves more attention.

Is this debate within the GOP over should DeMaio win the CD-52. It depends.

If DeMaio is the only upset in the statewide Congressional conference, conservatives should be concerned. If other upsets take place, depending on the values of the winners, then the DeMaio victory won't mean too much.

I would like to see Republicans win more seats in Congress, but not this Republican.

For my part, I have no idea what I would do if I lived in CD-52. None. Nevertheless regardless of the candidates, CD-52 is very much a GOP pick-up as Peters' chances are petering out without a doubt.

Prediction Affirmed: Labrador Challenges McCarthy

Raul Labrador

Kevin McCarthy (R-CA, Bakersfield) is already causing Establishment Republicans to sweat.

Speaker John Boehner has not endorsed him to replace displaced Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and two anti-amnesty Republicans announced interest in the Majority Leader position this wee.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) ultimately withdrew his interest, and it looked as if McCarthy would coast into the Majority Leader seat.

Not so fast, declared Raul Labrador (R-ID).

A Tea Party favorite who took down a Democratic incumbent in Idaho (the full of extent of how badly Bush blunted the Republican brand), Labrador has been a tough fighter for conservative principles, willing to work with colleagues, yet not afraid to differ with leadership or announce his departure from conferences.

A Hispanic Mormon, Raul's religious and ethnic diversity stand out and inform his views on politics in Washington.

His appearances on national talk shows have furnished his credentials as an effective communicator who not only understands the politics behind messaging and publicity, yet at the same time articulates the concerns of his conference and conservative principles without mistakes or follies.

I sensed from the outset that Labrador would challenge McCarthy for the seat.

Following the 2012 fiscal cliff, Labrador abstained from supporting Boehner, and a few colleagues voted for him as Speaker.

Labrador represents the conservative consensus, yet demonstrates a savvy willingness to work with everyone without compromising. When debating immigration reform, he offered and championed granting citizenship to graduate students in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. The House even passed the STEM Jobs Act.

As one of a select group on immigration reform, he ultimately walked away from the proposal, recognizing clearly and cogently that President Obama was an untrustworthy partner on the effort, since he does not enforce his own laws, and unilaterally ignores other statues.

Labrador would be a worthy leader for the TEA Party movement as well as an accurate representative of the country's growing wariness (and weariness) with President Obama's nightmare DREAM executive orders and deleterious consequences.

Whether the young Congressman from Idaho can carry enough votes to capture the seat remains a point of discussion, but his credentials, experience, and passion as a legislator and a conservative all confirm that he deserves to run and win the position.

CD-23: The Divine Right of Kevin McCarthy

Kevin McCarthy

Now that House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy is in the running for House Majority Leader, replacing ousted Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, his not so conservative record is causing Republicans in Washington and throughout the country to wonder whether he should retain any leadership role whatsoever.

Why has this leadership Republican become so lax in his politics, that his record is less compelling than Cantor's?

Check out his district and demographics:



In fact, McCarthy's seat is so safely Republican, that no one challenged him this year. Not even another Republican, let alone a long-shot Democrat.

This situation is more facile than Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa's coronation, for even a king has to take steps to announce his run and push aside token opposition.

This "election" is an exercise of divine right, as if McCarthy is not only entitled to it, but inherit the seat well.

No wonder McCarthy has gotten away with a voting record more liberal than Eric Cantor? A conservative Massachusetts blogger blasted McCarthy with the following attack:

Rob Eno Kevin oh Kevin acting all conservative for the cameras arr we. #fraud

14 hours ago · Like · 1

Huffington Post listed eleven things that people need to know (or should know) about McCarthy, including his support for amnesty. After Cantor's loss, the Republicans' conservative conference should play a stronger hand in the House leadership, arguing not only the moral necessity of immigration enforcement (not reform) but the political necessity of hearing the American people's frustration with porous borders and unchecked lawlessness from illegal immigration.

McCarthy's reforms on immigration were so brazen, he suggested that illegals should receive legal status, even if they cannot vote. Only US Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) ventures something more risky, labeling illegals "undocumented citizens." Such Orwellian nonsense is unbecoming of a Senator, or a President, and has neither place nor bearing in meaningful discussions of immigration reform.

Despite these controversies, McCarthy current has nothing to fear, since Election 2014 is more like Divine Predestination for him.


Perhaps McCarthy should be the last person to serve as Majority Leader not just because  of his less conservative credentials, or his open political subtlety (yet hardly suitability). How about the fact that he faces less of a challenge to retain his seat, even in a primary challenge?

Such inculcated hubris can only spell more trouble for Washington.

Obama's DREAM: Exploitative Nightmare

Illegal Immigrant Youth Entering the US (Source: Truth Revolt)

In 2012, President Obama issued an executive order which would forbear deportation for all illegal immigrants in the United States who were thirty years old or younger, who had no criminal record, and who were going to school, who were brought to this country when they were sixteen years old or younger. They would not receive legal status, but they could receive provisional work permits (which can be renewed indefinitely) without fear of deportation.

This executive action was immoral lawlessness, and its consequences are on full display along the Southern borders of the United States at this time. The plight of children brought to this country illegally is a tragedy, but to overthrow the rule of law and encourage future illegal immigration not only imperils more youth, but the very stability and opportunity which immigrants (legal or illegal) are seeking in this country.

This past week, a burgeoning humanitarian crisis has erupted along the Southern borders of the country. Thousands of illegal immigrant youth are streaming into the country, goaded by corrupt leaders in their native countries, enabled by the dysfunction and politically conniving domestic policies of the Obama Administration, that once they arrive, they can expect automatic citizenship.

Establishment lawmakers in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats, are responsible for enabling this immoral crisis. As long as Majority Leader Eric Cantor, along with Vice President Joe Biden and others, continued bandying about the argument that young illegal immigrants deserved amnesty, they sent the message throughout the world, particularly to Latin America, that anyone could come and would face token resistance. US Senator Ted Cruz (himself the son of a legal Cuban immigrant Father) indicted the Obama Administration for this crisis, and more lawmakers are demanding enforcement instead of amnesty (except for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who lost his seat in a primary primarily because of his drive for amnesty).

No one should be surprised at this desperation, The International Monetary Fund has recorded that Latin American youth are worried about their financial future, so one can understand the rush of youth surging toward the United States for a better future. However, what have Latin American countries done about the causes and the consequences illegal immigration?

Mexico supposedly guards their Southern borders stringently, although US Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) has offered to help the Mexican government secure it. In a fit of arrogant irresponsibility, the Mexican President Enrique Nieto has castigated the United States for deporting illegal immigrants. The Hondoras Paper La Prensa has encouraged illegal immigration, calling for American military bases to serve as immigration centers. Instead of attacking America, the Mexican government should focus on ending the corruption, crime, and rampant graft driving Mexican citizens to seek a better life somewhere (anywhere!) else.

In this latest migratory push, illegal immigrant youth are now dying or risk falling into the hands of human traffickers. Congressman Darrell Issa condemned President Obama's DREAM Act for creating a "false narrative" of immediate citizenship for youth entering the United States. Border cities are straining to take care of the rising youth numbers.

Proper immigration reform must accomplish the following (including insights from liberal Democrat Barbara Jordan:

1. End the welfare state: no state subsidies for immigrants (welfare, unemployment, etc.) As free-market economist Milton Friedman advocated many times, a nation can offer free immigration to work, but  not to welfare.

2. Citizenship must be a prerequisite to enrolling in any educational facility (primary, secondary, or university).

3. E-Verify and citizenship must be a condition of employment (with enforcement)

4. The United States must implement secure border control, not with a fence, which immigrants have climbed or dug under without opposition, but a large military force with adequate resources to apprehend and prevent border encroachment.

President Obama's DREAM Executive Order has become a humanitarian nightmare, exploiting the hardships of Latin American youth and enabling a horde of illegal immigration to this country. The California State Supreme Court's idiotic decision to grant a bar license to an illegal immigration is one glaring symbol of the immigration problem made worse by liberal lawmakers, but the death and dysfunction of young people, herded into inadequate facilities, should demand nothing less than an end to discussions of amnesty and serious investments into legal reforms which protect citizenship, uphold the rule of law, and maintain a steady legal immigration process.

Or, as Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Jordan asserted:

Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.

President Obama's incredibly immoral DREAM Executive Order  has undercut the national security and border integrity of this country while putting thousands of illegal immigrant youth (and many more Americans, civilians as well as law enforcement) at risk. The discussions about a blanket amnesty, or a path to citizenship must end, and a focus on streamlining legal immigration along with enforcement must follow.

CD-26: Gorell Must GOTV and More

Julia Brownley (Source, Michael Headington)

Assemblywoman Julia Brownley was lucky in 2012.

After the Citizens Redistricting Commission, Republican  incumbent Congressman Elton Gallegly decided that another fight in a different district was not worth the effort, so he retired and opened up an opportunity for Brownley.

Elton Gallegly

Too bad. Despite the six point Democratic advantage, it looks as though a Republican can capitalize on Independent votes and win the district. The statewide Republican candidates won the majority vote, even if by a slight margin. Plus Gallegly's name recognition, he would have had a fight, but one likely more slanted toward him.

Nonetheless, another Republican, state Assemblyman Tony Strickland stood up to Brownley. She won 44% of the vote in the 2012 primary, yet lost by 5 points in November, mostly because of a diminished turn out (thanks in greater part to Mitt Romney).


In 2014, a different crop of candidates ran against the incumbent, and the results suggest that Brownley will be going down-ley.

The June 3rd primary results alone should grant her pause:

Candidate		Votes	Percent
*	Julia Brownley (Party Preference: DEM)	38,091	45.5%
	Rafael Alberto Dagnesses (Party Preference: REP)	6,350	7.6%
	Jeff Gorell (Party Preference: REP)	37,383	44.6%
	Douglas William Kmiec (Party Preference: NPP)	1,926	2.3%

Gorell has represented the 44th Assembly district long enough to have good name ID, and in this year's primary, Brownley won by only nine-tenths of a percent compared to Gorell.

Wow! With the seven percent earned by Rafael Dagnasses, and some of the votes peeled away from former Republican-turned-Independent  Douglas Kmiec, the registration alone tilts in Gorell's favor.

Politcal pundits have taken CD-26 "lean Democrat" to "toss-up".

Jeff Gorrell

Is Brownley going Down-ley this year?

Gorell cannot coast on registration alone. Tea Party candidates alienated voters in other "sure wins" in 2012, and as voters witnesses that same year, voter apathy and disappearance can hurt a candidate's cause.

With the current ground game that got him the Assembly seat, plus his grow list of endorsements, along with an off-year electoral turnout, plus the stronger GOP GOTV trends, Gorell has more than a change of taking down Brownley and switching another Congressional district back into the GOP column in 2014.