Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Governor LePage, Tell the Critics: "Kiss My Butt!"

If conservatives fear that Donald Trump is an enfant terrible, then they haven’t been paying attention to their sprawling, engaged coalition of Republican governors for very long.

I’m not talking about Dem-lite Charlie Baker (who has done some good, but really needs to go, now that he has signed off on allowing men into women’s bathrooms), and I am not talking about Governor-to-be Phil Scott of Vermont.

There’s already a true red conservative in blue New England who gets headlines (sometimes) for the wrong reasons, but deserves credit for substantial reforms on tax cuts, improvement of the state business climate, expansion of Second Amendment rights, and heightened state security.



I am talking about Maine Governor Paul Richard Le Page.

I love this guy. He campaigned on a message of ending bureaucratic entanglements, bringing back jobs, and telling President Obama to “Go to hell!” Once elected, he told off the NAACP when they shamed him for not attending one of their events: “Tell ‘em to kiss my butt!”

LePage won his first term on a slim, five-way plurality. The second time around, he gathered more support. I have been a fan of his since the day he announced his bid for Governor. When I wrote a review on the governor last year (Maine’s Paul LePage: Conservative Kicking Butt), his one-liners alone merited his election. Fellow conservatives in California admitted to ne that they had never heard of him. Yes, this praise is strange coming from a conservative in a cozy, crime-free section of Los Angeles California, but Governor LePage’s commands a bravery—and bravado—which should be celebrated on a national scale.

Even though he has never worked with an entirely Republican legislation in the blue state of Maine, LePage has signed off on tax cuts, welfare reform, and shall-issue for concealed-carry weapons permits.

Then I read the latest headlines that Governor LePage was stepping down.

What?!

Evidently, LePage made it into the news (again) for conspicuous reasons.

He left an obscene voicemail for state assemblyman Drew Gattine (D-Westbrook):

“Mr. Gattine, this is Gov. Paul Richard LePage,” a recording of the governor’s phone message says. “I would like to talk to you about your comments about my being a racist, you (expletive). I want to talk to you. I want you to prove that I’m a racist. I’ve spent my life helping black people and you little son-of-a-bitch, socialist (expletive). You … I need you to, just friggin. I want you to record this and make it public because I am after you. Thank you.”

Of course, the governor let off more steam, admitting the he wished he could challenge Gattine to a duel and shoot him “right between the eyes.”

First of all, a little context.

The lawmaker allegedly asserted that the governor was a racist because of his welfare reform policies.

LePage adopted a black kid. Racist? Really?!

What does welfare reform have to do with racism? That’s a racist assertion, connecting welfare use (and abuse) with certain people.

Gattine has since disputed the claim that he called LePage a racist.

Second of all … LePage’s tirade was offensive.

To his credit, LePage has pushed the limits of political incorrectness, especially on race.
This is a discussion executives need to tackle, especially in New England, where drug dealing has eroded a once vibrant region of the country. Lest we forget, the retiring Governor Peter Shumlin of Vermont spent the greater part of his State of the State speech discussing the heroin epidemic devastating his own state.

Who is doing most of the dealing? If the criminal element is mostly black or Hispanic, then every state government should investigate the underlying reasons. Is it just race, or are class and cultural elements involved—as is often the case?

Most people are not aware of the New England opioid epidemic, which is ravaging Maine, too. Despite some insensitive remarks about the ethnic background of these evil drug pushers, LePage rightly challenged the press for not exposing this deep problem.

No matter how justified his anger, LePage should not have left that abusive message.
The governor lost his temper, and his statements were patently unacceptable.



But public pressure has mounted for the governor’s resignation.

A recent Townhall.com article suggested he might do just that:

“I’m looking at all options. I think some things I’ve been asked to do are beyond my ability. I’m not going to say that I’m not going to finish it. I’m not saying that I am going to finish it.”
“If I’ve lost my ability to help Maine people, maybe it’s time to move on.”

My response: He has not lost his ability to serve the Maine community.

Look over his Twitter feed.

Jobs are growing in the Pine Tree State. Check this index for proof.

Maine has languished in economic stagnation for years, until recently.


Maine has long been one of the freest states in the country personally and one of the least free economically—the opposite of Alabama. Since 2009, however, the state has gradually improved on economic freedom.

LePage was elected in 2010. Correlation perhaps?

The governor has been an asset, not a liability for Maine and for the country.

His bold stance on issues, coupled with his rags-to-riches upbringing, command respect and should inspire emulation.

Within minutes of hearing of a possible resignation, I contacted the Maine Republican Party and told them to stand by their man.


Good for him!

LePage needs to watch his mouth. So does the Republican Presidential nominee. Trump delivers careful policy speeches. His polling rises. LePage can follow the same path to future victories.



Republican governors who fight for their constituents need to know that all of us have their backs and will support their efforts. So, I say to Governor Paul LePage, if he has any aggressive detractors who want him gone, he should respond:


Bye-Bye: Remembering Conservative Providential Father John McLaughlin

A famous Rhode Islander whom many did not know was a Rhode Islander, John McLaughlin of the eponymous political show, died August 16th, 2016.

Indeed, something good came out of Providence.

Born in 1927, he studied to become a Jesuit priest.

He was a preacher, a teacher, then a politician.

His students referred to him as “Father God” for his authoritarian stance and presence.



The boom and doom of “Wrong!” that shook Catholic high school classrooms would overtake the airwaves in years to come.

A liberal Republican—no kidding and no longer a Democrat—defined by his opposition stance on Vietnam, McLaughlin challenged United States Senator John Pastore in 1970. The 43-year-old priest got walloped, even though the incumbent struggled with how to attack a challenger whom he had to call “Father.”

Pastore probably stopped going to confession by then, if he ever went at all.

Six years later, Pastore retired, and former Republican governor John Chafee would be the next US Senator, even though Democrat Jimmy Carter was knocking out a Republican Presidential incumbent the same year.

One has to wonder if the priest-turned conservative pundit hastened Pastore’s departure and Chafee’s pre-eminence …

By then, McLaughlin was speech-writing and politicizing. Laicized from the Catholic Church, the Rhode Islander still issuing his opinionated edicts like holy writ).



Owing his career to Pat Buchanan (who also ascended the DC ranks as a speech writer), McLaughlin turned to editing, headed the National Review, then his own talk show, starting in 1982.

One moderator, four commentators, the sharpest minds and the hardest talk squared off every week.

How did I meet the McLaughlin Group, this wary, brilliant yet brazen band of opinionators?

First, MAD Magazine carried an intriguing spoof, gleefully covered by caricaturist Gerry Gersten.


Then, my Dad used to watch the Group, laughing at the commandeering insouciance of the head honcho. “He just cuts people off and doesn’t care what people think.”

At first, I thought that McLaughlin was boorish, brute, and just plain rude.

Then I began watching the program off and on, starting in high school and on the weekends. The first episode I remember from beginning to end, McLaughlin was dissecting President Bill Clinton’s admission on national television that he did indeed “have sex with that woman.”

He lied to the public, had an “inappropriate relationship” with another woman, and he would have to settle that problem with Congress, with the public, and with his god.

McLaughlin gave him a “C - - for showing up.”

Usually, the Saturdays at 6pm or 6:30pm were the best times for me to watch him. Cerebral types like me had to use the weekends to catch up on the ideological tremors of the previous week.

He discussed the most pressing, and sometimes the most inconsequential issues of the day. But no matter what the topic, the engagement from Buchanan to Blakely (later James Rogan), the back-and-forth bickering, and in extreme cases the intellectual sniper fire was invigorating.

The McLaughlin Group was like reality TV for political junkies, and sharpened my own mind to discuss, to descant on, then write at length about the commanding topics of our times.

McLaughlin earned an A+ for having the best forum with the strongest, revealing exchanges.

Issue One: Diversity of opinion, not just ethnicity.

The McLaughlin Group brought to the forefront the dire necessity to look at all sides of an issue. How sorely lacking that insight has become in our times. Sound bites and digital bytes have replaced mental might and editorial light. Let’s really talk about issues, and call out the other side on their unswerving adherence to what we recognize to be untrue.

The bluster and bruising of the leading immoderate moderator was something to behold. He was right, even when he was wrong, or at least held to his convictions on the discussion of the moment, and delivered his answers even after his four guests had their say.

He was a strange breed of conservatism, one which demonstrated its intellectual superiority without the timidity to confront the confirmation bias of unhinged liberalism.

He fiercely distrusted the power of the state to regulate economies. He disliked interventionist foreign policy, including George W. Bush’s decision to invade Ira in 2003.

He invited then embraced a unique coven of talking heads, warring minds who fired off their arguments on the issues with the hardest talk.
Issue Two: Rigor of facts and research, not emotionalism.

Before Ben Shapiro declared the obvious (though not apparent to our oblivious generation), McLaughlin demonstrated in action and word that facts do not care about our feelings. The struggle and clash of opposing world views meant putting aside our feelings, and the transparent biases of our media culture did not have to hide, but could be challenged.

Issue Three:  He combined mid-day talk show with political commentary in the most entertaining way.

Meet the Press and Face the Nation attempted to bear a banner of impartial reporting.

McLaughlin understood that the events, the outcomes, and their implications could not be conveyed without a proper respect for who was telling the story, and how the narrator viewed the telling of the tale.

From paleo-conservative nationalist Pat Buchanan to socialist liberal Eleanor Clift, McLaughlin’s presented of the entire spectrum. ensured a broad balance of who’s in, who’s out, and what was going on in the world.

Father John’s funeral took place at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. How tragic that I could not be there. Too few well-wishers paid their respects. He served our country, our political discourse with an intense immensity. Review his video archive, and find an expansive, impressive panoply of political history which we must not forget.



Prediction: McLaughlin’s absence will signal the growing harshness and blandness of modern politics, and I fear that his legacy will be too soon forgotten. That would be a tragedy in itself.

This busy, second-to-second world acknowledged his passing, but moved on too quickly.

John McLaughlin, In Memoriam.

Bye-Bye.

California MassResistance: Tell Gov. Brown "VETO SB 1146!"

Dear California MassResistance members:

Your work is more than appreciated.

Because of your heavy lobbying and activism, State Senator Ricardo Lara was forced to back away from the worst parts of his horrific Senate Bill 1146.

Unfortunately, the bill in its amended form is still very bad.



Despite the moving statements of opposition against this bill in the state senate, SB 1146 passed, but with one Democrat abstaining.

The legislation now heads to Governor Brown’s desk, where he has until the end of September to sign or veto the bill.

This legislation is based on the false theory that LGBT behaviors constitute a civil right.
The bill violates the supremacy of the individual’s First Amendment freedoms.



SB 1146 is just the first of more attacks to come against the First Amendment, against religious schools, and all people of faith.

We have more lines of offense, though, and our fight continues.

Call, write, contact Governor Brown and urge him to veto SB 1146.

Governor Jerry Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 445-2841
Fax: (916) 558-3160

Use this link to email Governor Brown. Click here.



For California residents: Do not hesitate to share with his staffers which county you reside
For non-California residents: You are free not to share with the Governor’s office where you live.

Do not be discourage, team!

As State Senator John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa) mentioned in his opposition to SB 1146, this bill has finally awakened the sleeping giant of Christians, conservatives, and concerned Cafiornians fed up with the arrogant state legislature and the destructive LGBT agenda harming our state, our schools, and our future.


Keep up the fight. We have the power, and we are finally putting it to use!

Sincerely.

Arthur Schaper
Director, California MassResistance


Los Latinos de California Gritan: Vote for Donald Trump!

Over the past month, I have followed a flurry of Twitter feeds showcasing Latino support for Donald Trump.  Were those social sites a front, a set of troll sites just to stir people up, or the real deal? One tweet announced a Latinos por Trump rally in Anaheim, California for August 28th, 2016.

I decided to check it out. I thought it was too good to be true, but I made it. Traffic on a Sunday afternoon going down the 405 freeway (the main artery for traffic throughout the South Bay section of Los Angeles County) was not the obstacle I had feared. For this occasion, I thought it would be appropriate to wear my Remembrance Project T-shirt with Marcello Bisarella, a young man killed by a drunk-driving illegal alien last November … in Santa Ana, right next door to Anaheim.



Orange County has transformed into a hotbed of discontent over immigration, and this fight has clashed for the worse along the ethnic fault lines of the emerging Hispanic political powerhouse against the long-standing conservative and patriotic impulses which define Orange County.

Anaheim California has turned into the middle-ground battleground. Anaheim, the heart of Orange County, is heavily Hispanic now, much more Democratic, currently represented by liberals in Sacramento and Washington. Loony Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (of the infamous war-whoop and silly Christmas cards), had defeated conservative firebrand Robert B-One Bob Dornan by 900 votes (and a lot of voter fraud) in 1996. Now she’s running for U.S. Senate to replace Barbara Boxer, and two more Democrats will compete for the entrenched entitlement of taking her place (Thank you Prop 14, NOT!).

 One candidate, an openly gay Vietnamese mayor of Garden Grove, who majored in Social Justice, will compete again former State Senator Lou Correa, the expected open-borders establishment pick who never held a real job in his life (who wanted to expand the number will likely cruise to victory and inherit the seat for another twenty years. Unless Republicans start reaching out to Latinos on the issues that concern everyone, the blue hue overtaking Anaheim will swallow Orange County whole.
Perhaps Latinos por Trump will strengthen the conservative brand again.

As soon as I arrived, I noticed a brimming crowd assembly at Anaheim City Hal.

Yes, Latinos por Trump is the real deal!



Sure, I had met a few in the past, but most of them stood out in isolation or whispered under their breath to their closest conservative confidants (not necessarily their family members) their support for El Donald. As I had written last week—challenging and shaming RINO Rosario Marin for selling out her party and her country for Crooked Hillary—Americans of diverse Hispanic descent are supporting Donald Trump. Undocumented Latino supporters for Donald Trump are coming out of the shadows.

On August 28th in Anaheim California, they were definitely not hiding.

Like other Californians, they are fed up with an entrenched, corrupted political class which has turned the Golden State into a sanctuary state for illegal aliens. They also despise the Washington DC two-step of self-satisfied globalists who enrich themselves through crony capitalism and government maneuvering.

Above all, they want to stop the contagion of lawlessness.

They want:

1. Lower taxes

2. Less government

3. More liberty

4. A Presidential candidate who will stand up to ISIS and fight terrorism.

5. An end to government welfarism in place of opportunity

4. And they want a big beautiful wall to secure our porous border.

The leader of the group praised his adopted country. “You gave me a home. You gave me a career. You gave me a wife!”



Unlike liberal pro-amnesty advocates and their Soros-backed hordes, these Latinos love this country, and they are grateful for everything they have earned here. They don’t hold back their disgust with illegal immigration, and they don’t want unfettered open borders ruining the promise of the American Dream for them or for their children.

The crowd in front of Anaheim city hall was large, diverse, and lively.

A number of “wise Latinas” are all out for Trump, too, including one woman whose parents and grandparents had emigrated from Eastern Europe to Mexico, and finally to California.

One out and proud Latino Trump supporter, Jorge Herrera, shamed the Democratic demagoguery talking points:

“The Democrats tell me that Donald Trump is going to deport me! But I am a legal resident, a citizen of this country!”

Everyone in the crowd laughed out loud.

These proud Americans slammed the Democratic Party for their “Operation Taco Bowl” branding attempts. The DNC does not own any one group of people. Latinos like Herrera are denouncing the Democratic leadership in this state—and across the country—for taking advantage of Hispanic voters, hispandering to their worst fears with the race card, plus lavish (but thankfully unkept) promises for open borders and lax immigration enforcement.

Chants of “Lock her up!” and “Build that wall” burst out of the assembly while one Latino—and Latina—Trump supporter after another informed the media and the world at large that they were stumping for Trump.


A large media presence swarmed the area. They tried to downplay the crowd as a small turnout in light of the large and growing Hispanic population in Orange County. Jorge Herrera and others denounced the liberal media, including CNN (the Clinton News Network), and they thrashed the Obama-Clinton-Alinksyite machine of bigotry and racism. The shame and blame game is no longer working, and these Latino Trumperos are not falling for the lies.

After an hour of speeches, I attended a fundraiser at the Four Seasons Hotel in Beverly Hills. There, I met another Hispanic for Trump, an architect from Peru. His parents were Hungarian Jews who fled the Nazis. Today, he is hoping for more Trump support, and the chances of a conservative resurgence taking back Los Angeles if Tea Party groups would reach out to Orthodox Jewish communities.

I look forward to more Hispanics’ boldly shouting their support for Trump in the months to come!


Monday, August 29, 2016

Pennsylvania: Returning to Trump?

An editor in Pennsylvania informed me of the following development:

I am in the part of Pennsylvania that resembles rural Alabama, an hour west of State College. We have more deer than people. It is definite Trump country here, solidly Republican. I am in a teeny minority, one of 160 registered Libertarians in Jefferson County; Dems have about 9,000 registreees, Republicans 16,000, all others 3,100 or so. You see some Trump signs, almost no Hillary signs, just one Gary Johnson sign (mine).



So there isn’t much fluctuation here. The few Democratic areas hate Trump. The many traditionally Republican areas hate Hillary. This election will be the most negative in my memory (I am 73). I’m willing to bet that more than half the votes cast hereabouts will be “neverTrump” votes, people holding their noses and voting for Hillary because Trump scares them, or “neverHillary” votes, people holding their noses and voting for Trump because they don’t trust Hillary.

It’s just hard to predict what will happen when people stand in front of those machines.

I’d love to be more specific, but it just boils down to “nobody knows.”

Pennsylvania is back in play.

Republican lawmakers are making a difference in Philadelphia.

Republican U.S. Senator Pat Toomey is a strong contender for his seat.

He won by 1% against an outsider Democratic House Rep.

The current challenger is far left, and out of touch.

This will be an interesting year in Pennsylvania politics.

CALL CA State Senators: Urge NO VOTE on SB 1146!

Dear  Californians:

California MassResistance is making its mark in Sacramento.

Lawmakers up and down the state are getting more fearful of the pressure posed by our group of pro-life and pro-family activists!


Now more than ever, we need to double down and kill SB 1146.

This remains an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment and religious liberty.

This bill would be the first step of many from the radical Left and the destructive homosexual agenda to confine, limit, and ultimately eliminate Christian colleges—and Christianity—from public life.
Imagine the following:

1. Colleges forced to allow men into women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and dormitories

2. Pastors, preachers, and professors forced to silence themselves and teach pro-homosexual curricula
3. Christian colleges forced to accommodate homosexual activities, like “gay” weddings, gay 
adoptions, etc.

4. Christian colleges forced to close

5. Men and women of conscience forced to silence their views or face termination from their jobs, fines, or even jail time?!

SB 1146 is the only beginning, and unless we show real strength and opposition, the intrusion of government tyranny will only get worse.

This bill is one more step on the radical LGBT agenda, based on falsehoods and not facts, based on lies and not truth.

The bill is still in play, but the deadline is fast approaching—August 31—for all bills get passed out of the California state legislature and to Governor Jerry Brown’s desk.

Your phone calls are working! Your offices are making a difference, too. The bill has only two more days before it dies in this session.

1. Call these Democrats—all of them—this Tuesday and Wednesday.  Do not identify yourself or where you live.

Use this script or something like it: “I urge Senator …. To vote to stop SB 1146 from getting to the Senator Floor. I also urge Senator … to vote NO on SB 1146. This bill is an intrusion of the state into private institutions, and a violation of the First Amendment rights of all Californians.”

  •  Benjamin Allen (D): (916) 651-4026
  • Jim Beall (D): (916) 651-4015
  • Marty Block (D): (916) 651-4039
  • Kevin de León (D): (916) 651-4024
  • Cathleen Galgiani (D): (916) 651-4005
  • Steven M. Glazer (D): (916) 651-4007
  • Isadore Hall, III (D): (916) 651-4035
  • Loni Hancock (D): (916) 651-4009
  • Ed Hernandez (D): (916) 651-4022
  • Robert M. Hertzberg (D): (916) 651-4018
  • Jerry Hill (D): (916) 651-4013
  • Ben Hueso (D): (916) 651-4040
  • Hannah-Beth Jackson (D): (916) 651-4019
  • Ricardo Lara (D): (916) 651-4033
  • Mark Leno (D): (916) 651-4011
  • Connie M. Leyva (D): (916) 651-4020
  • Carol Liu (D): (916) 651-4025
  • Mike McGuire (D): (916) 651-4002
  • Tony Mendoza (D): (916) 651-4032
  • Holly J. Mitchell (D): (916) 651-4030
  • Bill Monning (D): (916) 651-4017
  • Jim Nielsen (R): (916) 651-4004
  • Richard Pan (D): (916) 651-4006
  • Fran Pavley (D): (916) 651-4027
  • Richard D. Roth (D): (916) 651-4031
  • Bob Wieckowski (D): (916) 651-4010
  • Lois Wolk (D): (916) 651-4003



2. Call these Republicans -- without identifying yourself and no matter where you live -- this Tuesday and Wednesday.

 In addition to the same script above, urge these Republicans to "Please SPEAK and FIGHT against SB 1146 on the Senate floor":

Anthony Cannella of Ceres, Merced, Salinas
(916) 651-4012

Andy Vidak of Fresno, Hanford, Bakersfield
(916) 651-4014

Jeff Stone of Murrieta, Indio
(916) 651-4028

Janet Nguyen of Garden Grove
(916) 651-4034

Jean Fuller of Bakersfield, Yucca Valley
(916) 651-4016

Tom Berryhill of Fresno, Oakdale, Jackson
(916) 651-4008

Patricia Bates of Laguna Hills, Encinitas
(916) 651-4036

Ted Gaines of El Dorado Hills,
(916) 651-4001

Bob Huff of Brea
(916) 651-4029

Jim Nielsen of Roseville, Yuba City, Chico
(916) 651-4004

John Moorlach of Costa Mesa
(916) 651-4037

Mike Morrell of Rancho Cucamonga
(916) 651-4023

Joel Anderson of El Cajon, San Marcos
(916) 651-4038

Every effort you take makes a difference, so keep up the pressure, and keep up the great work!

Sincerely

Arthur Schaper,

Director, California MassResistance


Rise Up, Body of Christ, Call Your Senator to Vote NO! on SB 1146

Pastor Frederick Price Jr. of the Crenshaw Christian Center just contacted me on Twitter about SB 1146:

I informed him that the fight is not over. But as of right now, the California State legislature has two more days to pass legislation.

 The deadline is August 31.

Now more than ever, everyone needs to press ahead and pressure their lawmakers, their state senators to reject SB 1146!



 This bill would be the first step of many from the radical Left and the destructive homosexual agenda to confine, limit, and ultimately eliminate Christian colleges—and Christianity—from public life.

Imagine the following:

1. Colleges forced to allow men into women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and dormitories

2. Pastors, preachers, and professors forced to silence themselves and teach pro-homosexual curricula

3. Christian colleges forced to accommodate homosexual activities, like “gay” weddings, gay 
adoptions, etc.

4. Christian colleges forced to close.

5. Men and women of conscience forced to silence their views or face termination from their jobs, fines, or even jail time?!

SB 1146 is the only beginning, and unless we show real strength and opposition, the intrusion of government tyranny will only get worse.

This bill is one more step on the radical LGBT agenda, based on falsehoods and not facts, based on lies and not truth.



The bill is still in play, but the deadline is fast approaching—August 31—for all bills get passed out of the California state legislature and to Governor Jerry Brown’s desk.
Your phone calls are working! Your offices are making a difference, too. The bill has only two more days before it dies in this session.

1. Call these Democrats—all of them—this Tuesday and Wednesday.  Do not identify yourself or where you live.

Use this script or something like it: “I urge Senator …. To vote to stop SB 1146 from getting to the Senator Floor. I also urge Senator … to vote NO on SB 1146. This bill is an intrusion of the state into private institutions, and a violation of the First Amendment rights of all Californians.”

  • Benjamin Allen (D): (916) 651-4026
  • Jim Beall (D): (916) 651-4015
  • Marty Block (D): (916) 651-4039
  • Kevin de León (D): (916) 651-4024
  • Cathleen Galgiani (D): (916) 651-4005
  • Steven M. Glazer (D): (916) 651-4007
  • Isadore Hall, III (D): (916) 651-4035
  • Loni Hancock (D): (916) 651-4009
  • Ed Hernandez (D): (916) 651-4022
  • Robert M. Hertzberg (D): (916) 651-4018
  • Jerry Hill (D): (916) 651-4013
  • Ben Hueso (D): (916) 651-4040
  • Hannah-Beth Jackson (D): (916) 651-4019
  • Ricardo Lara (D): (916) 651-4033
  • Mark Leno (D): (916) 651-4011
  • Connie M. Leyva (D): (916) 651-4020
  • Carol Liu (D): (916) 651-4025
  • Mike McGuire (D): (916) 651-4002
  • Tony Mendoza (D): (916) 651-4032
  • Holly J. Mitchell (D): (916) 651-4030
  • Bill Monning (D): (916) 651-4017
  • Jim Nielsen (R): (916) 651-4004
  • Richard Pan (D): (916) 651-4006
  • Fran Pavley (D): (916) 651-4027
  • Richard D. Roth (D): (916) 651-4031
  • Bob Wieckowski (D): (916) 651-4010
  • Lois Wolk (D): (916) 651-4003

2. Call these Republicans -- without identifying yourself and no matter where you live -- this Tuesday and Wednesday.



In addition to the same script above, urge these Republicans to "Please SPEAK and FIGHT against SB 1146 on the Senate floor":

Anthony Cannella of Ceres, Merced, Salinas
(916) 651-4012

Andy Vidak of Fresno, Hanford, Bakersfield
(916) 651-4014

Jeff Stone of Murrieta, Indio
(916) 651-4028

Janet Nguyen of Garden Grove
(916) 651-4034

Jean Fuller of Bakersfield, Yucca Valley
(916) 651-4016

Tom Berryhill of Fresno, Oakdale, Jackson
(916) 651-4008

Patricia Bates of Laguna Hills, Encinitas
(916) 651-4036

Ted Gaines of El Dorado Hills,
(916) 651-4001

Bob Huff of Brea
(916) 651-4029

Jim Nielsen of Roseville, Yuba City, Chico
(916) 651-4004

John Moorlach of Costa Mesa
(916) 651-4037

Mike Morrell of Rancho Cucamonga
(916) 651-4023

Joel Anderson of El Cajon, San Marcos
(916) 651-4038

Every effort you take makes a difference, so keep up the pressure, and keep up the great work!

Sincerely

Arthur Schaper,
Director, California MassResistance


SB 1146: Massive Violation of Separation of Church and State

Save California has delivered a stunning analysis of SB 1146, legislation concocted by State Senator Ricardo Lara, which would confine, limit, then ultimately limit the the Title IX exemptions which Christian colleges claim.

They do not conform their views and values with the secular world, nor should they.

These schools have every right to engage in whatever practices they choose and should not face oppression or bullying from the federal government.

Here is Save California's analysis of a very bad bill:

SB 1146, as amended Aug. 19, still harms religious freedom.

The August 19 amendments to SB 1146 still
contain most of the problematic sections of the
bill, which continue to harm religious freedom by
giving the State unprecedented, unconstitutional,
and subjective control over religious matters.
As such, SB 1146 violates “separation of church
and state” and the religious freedom guarantees of
both the U.S. and California constitutions.

A new 8/19/16 amendment made the bill worse.
Even though current state law says a religious
organization is in control of its postsecondary
educational institution, SB 1146 now puts the
State in control -- by requiring a religious college
that is exempt under Education Code § 66271
to justify “its basis for having the exemption.”

Inserted is Section 2(a)(2), reading: “Beginning
with the 2017–18 school year, each postsecondary
educational institution in this state not described
in subdivision (a) that has an exemption pursuant
to Section 66271 shall submit to the Student Aid
Commission its basis for having the exemption.”

Yet Education Code § 66271 reads: “This chapter
shall not apply to an educational institution that is
controlled by a religious organization if the
application would not be consistent with the
religious tenets of that organization.”

Why must a church now justify its own
religious doctrines to the State? Is the
religious organization in control of its
educational institution, as Section 66271
recognizes – or is the State in control of it?
Why is the State even examining the
“religious tenets” of religious colleges?
The previous problems in SB 1146 remain and
were not removed by the latest amendments.
The amended SB 1146 continues to state:
Section 1(a): Exempt religious colleges “shall
disclose … the scope of the allowable activities
provided by the exemption.”

Indeed, these developments are deeply disturbing

What if all “allowable activities” aren’t
listed and disclosed?
Or, what if all non-“allowable activities”
aren’t listed and disclosed?
How would the State objectively judge
whether “the scope of allowable activities”
listed by religious colleges means some –
or means all – of these religious colleges’
“allowable” or non-“allowable” activities?
What if a religious college disciplined a
student for violating a religious standard
that was not mentioned in the scope-ofactivities-list
provided to the State?

SB 1146’s mandate upon religious colleges –
“shall disclose ... the scope of allowable
activities provided by the exemption” –
creates a dangerous new government power to
subjectively inspect, judge, and enforce
compliance of religious colleges as to what is
“allowable” or not “allowable” on campus.
The amended SB 1146 continues to state:
Section 1(b)(1-4): “The disclosure required ...
shall be made in all of the following ways ... a
prominent location of the campus or school site ...
in written materials sent to prospective students ...
as part of orientation programs ... provided to
each faculty member … administrative staff …
support staff … each new employee…”
What if the disclosure isn’t satisfactorily
posted, presented, or delivered in the eyes
of the State?

So, what is going on?

Indeed, this is a good point to bring up ...

What if the disclosure isn’t viewed by the
State as being complete or accurate?
What mechanism is there to verify receipt,
so as to avoid future non-receipt claims?
The amended bill’s requirement that exempt
religious colleges “shall” post and distribute
their religious standards will be enforced by
the State’s subjective interpretations, due to
the bill’s vagueness. This sets up religious
colleges for inspections, complaints, and even
lawsuits claiming the information was never
provided (the bill has no receipt mechanism).
The amended SB 1146 continues to state:
Section 1(b)(5): “The disclosure shall be included
in any publication of the institution that sets forth
the comprehensive rules, regulations, procedures,
and standards of conduct for the institution.”



What if the “the scope of allowable
activities” in the disclosure is
unsatisfactory in substance, format, or
completeness in the eyes of the State?

Will there be inspections, search warrants,
or lawsuits to compel “proper” publishing?
The bill’s mandate that these religious colleges
publish their moral codes in “any publication” on
the topic invites State inspections, search
warrants, or lawsuits. Will the State compel
“proper” publishing if the Student Aid
Commission or California Attorney General isn’t
satisfied with a religious college’s “compliance”?
The amended SB 1146 continues to state:
Section 2(a): Exempt religious colleges “shall
submit to the Student Aid Commission copies of
all materials submitted to, and received from, a
state or federal agency concerning the granting of
the exemption.”

Why is the State requiring more than the
U.S. government’s letter granting a
religious exemption to Title IX? For
example, the State routinely recognizes
IRS letters granting tax-exemption to nonprofit
organizations. Why the requirement
to also submit “all” of the application
materials submitted by a religious college
that already has a Title IX exemption?

What if the State suspects not “all”
materials have been provided to it by
religious colleges claiming a federal or
state exemption? What kind of inspections,
search warrants, or lawsuits could occur?
The bill’s mandate that exempt religious
colleges provide to the State “all” their
application papers for an already-established
exemption makes the State a judge of the
quality and validity of religious exemptions. It
puts the State into the role of an investigator
and enforcer on religious matters.

The amended SB 1146 continues to state:
Section 2(b): “The Student Aid Commission shall
collect the information received pursuant to
subdivision (a) and post and maintain a list on the
commission’s Internet Web site of the institutions
that have claimed the exemption with their
respective bases for claiming or having the
exemption.”

Why should the State be elevated to a
position of judging the moral policies of
religious colleges, which, under SB 1146,
must try to justify “their respective bases
for claiming or having the exemption”?
On the state website, will exempt colleges
be labeled negatively or disparaged?

By requiring religious institutions to justify their
exemption, the State makes itself a judge of the
religious doctrines/ beliefs/practices of religious
colleges, which, under SB 1146, must attempt to
justify to the State “their respective bases for
claiming the exemption.” This subjective mandate
creates an official State prejudice against exempt
colleges, and in regard to Title IX exemptions,
has the State acting as if state law were supreme
to federal law. As written, SB 1146 clearly

violates “separation of church and state.”

Final Reflection and Update

After the August 19th hearing, a key provision had to be removed from the bill.

The state of California cannot force any institution to release the records of expelled students.

That is violation of federal privacy laws.

The bill is not dead yet, and the fight is not over.

Call your state senator, and demand that they vote NO! on SB 1146!