Monday, March 30, 2015

"Right On Daily" was Right on the Social Issues

Aaron Park, the Vice President of the California Republican Assembly, slammed the CA GOP ground game soundly in a blog post following the too many to count near misses in California following the 2014 GOP Shellacknado.

Aaron F. Park (aka "The RINO")

Why did the 2014 Wave Miss California? Hint, it WAS those Damn Social Issues (Again)

Click on the link above to get the whole scoop. I will add a few points here.

I submit that there are no mere social issues, but all political matters are moral issues.

The breakdown of the family is a costly matter for the state, because of the increased demands placed on public assistance and government social work. No matter how loving and caring a bureaucrat may be, nothing can replace the loving attention of two parents, or one diligent parent in the home.

Gun control is an economic policy, and a failed on. Removing the right of self-preservation from homeowners, and watch property and moral crimes skyrocket. Nothing is more costly to a community than crime.

Life matters, and it is a biological fact, not just a religious sentiment. Abortion is

Congressman Cory Gardner of Colorado did not run away from his pro-life views, even though the Centennial State was a purple state going light blue. The Denver Post endorsed Gardner, in spite of his pro-life views. Exit polls showed that voters considered themselves pro-choice two-to-one, yet the voted for Pro-Life Cory.

All over the country, men and women were looking for leaders who stood their ground on moral issues. In California, a clear distinction between left and right would have made the difference, yet many candidates pandered to the center, or alienated voters on the right. The worst example of this, former San Diego Councilman and Congressional candidate Carl DeMaio. Not that I want to invest in the circular firing squad, but when a Republican candidate is so offensive, that conservatives actively endorse the incumbent Democrat, party leaders need to face the fact: Carl sucked.

Here are some other comments from Park's post worth perusing:

I spoke to a Republican Consultant with connections all over the Country who told me that the big money was staying out of California or was withdrawing from California. This conversation was in Mid-September. The money people made a conscious decision to withdraw from California.

Ouch! Tough love hurts, but there it is. I have spoken with top CA GOP brass, too, and they have told me the same thing. National Republicans gave up on California after 2000, with George W. Bush's first run for President. He did better in 2004, losing the Golden State by fewer points, but why invest millions into expensive advertising in a state where a Republican Presidential contender doesn't have a snowpack's chance in the Sierra Nevada?

In addition – many of these moderate candidates for various reasons were not able to unify their base. Doug Ose, Jeff Gorrell and Carl DiMaio received millions in support. They all lost – Ose by the slimmest of margins.

Yes, Yes, Yes! There were a few Republicans in California who made it a priority to unify the Center and the Right in their respective districts, and they won: Assemblymembers Catharine Baker and David Hadley.

Assemblyman David Hadley (R-Torrance)

Catharine of the East Bay area was socially more liberally, but she did not advertise it. Chinese-American voters loved Catharine because she cared about education. Local media and limited government reforms, and some Democrats (like Orinda Mayor Steve Glazer) applauded her opposition to public sector unions. Baker was a uniter, not a divider, and all on substantive policies.

As for David Hadley, every time he discussed his campaign, and later his victory, he first informed/reminded his audience: "I united the center-right". This issue of unity is crucial. Why other Republican candidates have failed to take this important principle to heart is disconcerting, to say the least. Neel Kashkari practically poked social "conservatives" in the eye when he marched in gay pride parades, then championed Governor Brown for not appealing the overturn of Prop 8. A majority of Californians in an Obama year voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman. How could Kashkari run from that?

However, four Conservatives running in races that were not regarded as top-tier did almost as well as the leading moderates did (all out performed DiMaio) with little or no funding! These would be Chris Mitchum, Dan Logue, Tony Amador and Paul Chabot. All four were unabashed social conservatives and all performed as well as other socially liberal candidates who were fully funded.

Johnny Tacherra

These are great points. Chris Mitchum should have defeated Lois Capps. She is a fossil of the House who has done very little. Her latest remarks about gun control make her sound incoherent or incompetent. Chris ran as a true conservative, and with a little more funding would have made it over the edge. This post forgot to mention Johnny Tacherra of Fresno, whom Breitbart had identified as a credible threat against Jim Costa. The Dairy Farmer may be able to unseat Costa in 2016 if the right candidate dominates the GOP ticket.

For more information, visit VP Park's blog post here.

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Swift to Shake Off Rhode Island?

Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo, desperate for money for the Ocean State drowning in red ink, budget deficits, and structural debt, is looking for more ways to beat a taxpayer, if anyone of them haven’t drowned or washed away already.
Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo
Instead of right-to-work legislation, tort reform, or even school choice (which would bring in competition and eliminate waste and fraud in public education), Raimondo wants to tax homeowners with two or more mansions.
One multiple mansion owner, Taylor Swift, is a break-out artist hitting the top of the pop charts. Singing on behalf of the forlorn and forgotten, Swift has even written about the young girl left out of the party, and champions the little guy who deserves a break. No wonder Swift is so popular. When crappy rapper Kanye West stole her glory moment at the Grammy’s one year, Beyoncé graciously permitted Swift take center stage, and she received double honor. She’s used to getting snubbed, but she’s no snob, and she has lived the adage: “Everything’s going to be alright”.
Now, it appears that Rapper Kayne is getting his revenge, telling Governor Gina to take away from Swift’s hard-earned career. The young lady for Pennsylvania had the music in her, and put it out there for everyone to enjoy, and she gets rich. Why would Gina and Co. on Smith Hill want to punish her for that? It’s in their nature. Taxes are to Democrats and their core constituencies what air is to every living animal. With public sector unions running amok, welfare recipients at an all-time high, illegal immigration on the rise, plus academics grabbing what they can from the state coffers and bureaucrats paving the way, no wonder more residents are chanting “Dems are gonna prey, and I don’t want to stay.”
Taylor Swift
For decades, Rhode Island was the beautiful getaway for the wealthy, with more coastlines than mainland, a warm retreat from the Big Apple or Boston’s dinginess. With Raimondo’s latest proposal, even the rich may decide to shake off Rhode Island’s usurious tax schemes and move elsewhere, along with the Middle and working class residents trying to get away.
Speaking of “shake off”, Swift’s latest hit single details her career’s meteoric rise, in spite of the opposition in her life. People disparaged her publicly or privately, but she keeps on dancing and singing, winning hearts and making her way.
Today, read my take on Tayllr Swift’s hit song “Shake it off”, with my jabs at greedy Gina and the Democratic stronghold on Smith Hill:
The Democrats all hate, got nothing in their brain
That's what everyone says -  mmm. That's what everyone says – mmm.
They’ve racked up too much debt, now they want me to pay.
That’s what the GOP said -- mmm. That's what they’ve always said -- mmm.
Why should I keep paying? Dems can’t stop, won’t stop spending!
It's like I got this music in my body, saying: “Leave RI tonight!”
'Cause the Dems are gonna prey, prey, prey, prey, prey
And those  haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate
Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake
I shake them off, I shake them off
Taxpayers gonna break, break, break, break, break
And the takers gonna take, take, take, take, take, take
Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake
I shake then off, I shake them off
I don’t like Dems’ beat! I'm moving with my feet!
And that's what Dems don't see  --mmm. That's what they don't see mmm
I'm dancing on my own (dancing on my own), I'll make Massachusetts or Maine my home (moving up as I go)
And that's what they don't know - mmm. That's what they don't know mmm.
So Dems just keep losing, can't stop, won't stop bruising
It's like I got this music in my body saying: “Leave RI tonight!”
Hey, Mattielo, just think what happened to Fox, and the other liars and dirty cheats. When you miss my sick beat, taking my income will be the last thing you do.
Allan Fung (R-Cranston)
The unions bought Gina, their new girlfriend
She's like "oh my God", but I'm gonna shake it off
And to the fella over there (Allan Fung) with the hella good hair
Won't he come on over, baby, and make Dems quake, quake, quake
'Cause the Dems are gonna prey, prey, prey, prey, prey
And those  haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate
Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake
I shake them off, I shake them off
Taxpayers gonna break, break, break, break, break
And the takers gonna take, take, take, take, take, take
Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake
I shake then off, I shake them off
Rhode Island voters had their chance in 2014 to make Dems quake, and send Allan Fung to Smith Hill. Instead, they chose greedy Gina, who wants to take the rich, as if all their money will make everyone else less poor. Taylor Swift may be moving out, and swiftly. Then who is left to tax in the Ocean State? What do you think, Rhode Islanders? When will you take the microphone away from the Democrats on Smith Hill and start “shaking them off”?

Prof. Lawrence Lessig: Run, Warren, Run! has recruited another academic talking head to talk-up US Senator Elizabeth Warren to run for President.

I'm Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard professor and the founder of MAYDAY Super PAC—the "SuperPAC to end all SuperPACs"—which many MoveOn members helped launch. I'm writing to you because I want Elizabeth Warren to run for President, and I'm asking you to join me.

The United States has endured an academic in the White House for the past six years. What have we learned? Academics are some of the most ignorant people, and their arrogance heightens their incompetence.

The biggest problems we face—a rigged economy, climate change, the engulfing corruption of our political system by big money—have something in common: If we don't tackle them soon, we won't get another chance. 

A rigged economy? Yes, because of special interests funded by Democratic machine politics, with President Barack "Hope and Change" Obama at the forefront.

Lessig portrait.jpg
Prof Lawrence Lessig (Joi Ito)

It keeps me up at night. 

So, an academic tosses and turns because of climate change? Serious scientists have documented varied changes in weather patterns and temperature for decades, for millennia, even. Lessig is worried about money in politics? What about the global terrorist threats flying out of ISIS? A nuclear Iran? The high cost of health care, only getting higher, in spite of Obamacare? A rogue chief executive who refuses to defend this nation's borders? What about the millions of Americans struggling from month to month without economic opportunity?

But what wakes me up in the morning is another thought: We really do have a chance to win in 2016. If we can elect leaders with the courage and independence to tackle the hard stuff—and build the mega-movement necessary to make sure they actually do it—we could see the kind of progressive sea change that brought the Gilded Age to an end more than a century ago.

Progressive politics brought about the purge of black people from the White House. Progressive war-mongered the United States into the European Great War. "Make the World Safe for Democracy?" Sadly, Wilson's preening made the world safe for dictators to prey on nationalist grievance, and break forth into the Second World War.

Progressives tried to micromanage Big Business, but the anti-trust laws actually strengthened the fascist cord of Big Business and Big Government. Big Labor found legal means to bully individual laborers, small businesses, and entire cities because of progressive policies, too.

After eight years of "progressive" Barack, Americans are searching for something, for someone better.

But honestly? The only way I see this working is if Senator Elizabeth Warren runs for president.

I agree with Lessig's hope. We need Elizabeth Warren to run. She represents the true core of the Democratic Party, and she will drag down the Democratic ticket in full.

That's why—as my next big project—I've joined the Run Warren Run campaign. I'll be giving a major speech in New York on April 20 to lay out the case. But right now, today, I'm asking for your help to supercharge this effort—before conventional wisdom congeals and everyone decides that the 2016 primaries are already over.

The Boston Globe printed four articles in their Sunday edition begging, demanding, insisting that the Senior US Senator run for President.

Look: From everything I know, running for president is really, really hard. Most sane people would hate doing it. So I completely understand why my friend and former colleague has, to date, not shown any interest in doing so. 

The self-imposed arrogance is confusing. Lessig never ran for President. Does he really think that he can understand what Warren would have to go through? Would it really be hard work of a liberal academic? Most of them do not teach more than two classes a year in their respective universities, and they get paid large sums to give empty speeches about progressive policies.

Warren loves to talk, and she loves to be the center of attention. Running for President would not be a hardship for her.

It's just that the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that she should reconsider. 

Yes, Professor, I agree.

We're now facing the prospect of no vigorous Democratic primary, potentially a primary season without even a single debate, generating a nominee who has not had to enlist the support of a genuine grassroots base. That's dangerous—not just for Democrats, but for our democracy. 
Elizabeth Warren would change all of that. Not just because she'd guarantee a primary where every candidate has to take a stand. But because she (and, I believe, she alone) would galvanize the kind of movement that we'll need if the next President of the United States is to have a prayer of tackling the hardest, most urgent crises of our time. 

Wow! Even the liberals don't want Hillary to run. They recognize her as a Establishment shill with no connections to Main Street America. Lessig views a Hillary candidacy as a problem for the Democratic Party and democracy in general.

By the way, Prof, the United States is not a democracy, but a Republic.

The Run Warren Run campaign is doing something extraordinary: By organizing on the ground in the early primary states, it's keeping open the possibility of a Warren candidacy, in a moment when the primary is supposedly sewn up—and in the process forcing issues like economic inequality and political corruption to the center of the debate. But it can only keep going with our support. 

Guess what? Walker supporters are doing the same for the Wisconsin governor, who has a stronger record of leadership, accomplishment, executive prowess, and achievement. Will Warren by ready for Walker in 2016?

Elizabeth Warren CFPB.jpg
Elizabeth Warren (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau(

From the Boston Globe to to Prof. Lawrence Lessig of Harvard University, the cry is clear:

Run, Warren, Run!

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Can Pro-Life Movement Help Pro-Marriage Movement?

The pro-life movement is strong than ever in the United States.

A majority of Americans support life, and want to see reasonable restrictions on abortion.

The War on Women rhetoric employed by Democratic Partisans no longer works. Republicans have taken away this issue by supporting contraception, as long as no life is terminated in the process.

The pro-life movement is gaining because of technology.

People are getting more accurate glimpses of what takes place inside the mother's womb. The intricacies of life in development are no linger in a dark unknown.

Men and women, regardless of their political or spiritual leanings, recognize the intense complexities in the human embryo at conception.

Life begins at conception, and the technological innovations prove this revelation.

Technology in medicine, but social media also has proliferated awareness about the deep complexities, and thus sanctity of life.

I have friends who were pro-choice, now are pro-life, including a confirmed atheist who also supports gay marriage.

Anyone who remains pro-choice either operates from a limited circumstance, or holds to an ideological talking point.

What has it taken to induce people to adopt a pro-life stance? More information.

Yet the arguments from individuals with the best of intentions follows: "I believe that a woman has a right to do whatever she wants with her body."

More information reveals that many women do not view the abortion issue as a matter of liberty with their bodies, but respect for life at all levels. The majority of women voters favor restrictions on abortion, for example.

Choice is not the fighting point for many people. Pro-life is moving forward, because men and women understand that life in all its fullness gets set at the outset, and technology has enabled us to understand and persuade others.

If technological innovations have facilitated our understanding blessed intimacy of life at conception, would it be possible to present similar hard evidence to promote marriage, between one man and one woman?

What evidence can we start presenting to concerned or confused citizens about the importance of respecting marriage as an institution recognizing one man and one woman in matrimony?

Can this argument be made?

Marriage is one man and one woman:
The evidence is there
People just need to know about it!

I believe that it can.

From poring over stacks at the university library, I learned that a diversity of research and statistics supports the argument that homosexuality is neither innate nor genetic. Furthermore, psychological reports confirmed that same-sex conduct hurts individuals, and historical accounts recognized the long-term damage to the break-down of family units.

Too many pro-marriage forces have appealed to religious sentiment to justify their support for life and marriage. Never should pro-life forces fear science, for our expanded understanding of the natural world merely affirms spiritual revelation.

The same holds true for marriage. It is not enough to thump the Bible. We have to read it. It is not enough to expect non-religious, or non-spiritual people to accept our views because of revelation. They need scientific evidence.

And the evidence for marriage exists, beyond the traditions of men, or the precepts of religious fervor.

It's time for pro-family forces to mobilize their interest and information on this front. We have to advance beyond "I believe that marriage is for one man and one woman", and explain why marriage in any other fashion cannot make any sense or have any value in terms of life liberty.

The pro-life movement has gotten stronger because of science, research, and statistical evidence made plain. The same measures will help the public remember why marriage is important, and why marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

Friday, March 27, 2015

March 26, 2015 - Assemblyman Lackey, James Spencer

Check out my latest broadcast (March 26, 2015), in which I interviewed Assemblyman Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale) and James Spencer of Inglewood.

Assemblyman Tom Lackey

Special guest caller "Wildside" David Clyde called in toward the latter part of the show, too!

James Spencer

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Media Flail: Walker for Amnesty? (Says WSJ, Says Breitbart)

When does the journalistic whip-lash stop in this world?

Breitbart recently reported that Walker advocated for a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens living in the shadows in this country.

File:Scott Walker by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Walker supporters amnesty? (Says WSJ, says Breitbart)
(Gage Skidmore)

The headline for the story wrote:

Scott Walker endorses pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants and private GOP dinner

Like many on the Facebook and blogosphere, this post caught my attention, yet at the same time I smelled something funny, ginned up, and untrue.

About thirty minutes later, the headline of the article reads on the Front Web Page:

WSJ: Walker Flips on ‘No Amnesty’ in Private with GOP

So, either he flipped in private, and thus is flipping off scores of supporters, or we are getting a flipped script from vocal proponents of other candidates.

The Wall Street Journal Article including the following statements:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker told a private dinner of New Hampshire Republicans this month that he backed the idea of allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the country and to eventually become eligible for citizenship, a position at odds with his previous public statements on the matter.
Mr. Walker’s remarks, which were confirmed by three people present and haven’t been reported previously, vary from the call he has made for “no amnesty”—a phrase widely employed by people who believe immigrants who broke the law by entering the country without permission shouldn’t be awarded legal status or citizenship.
File:Scott Walker by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg
What did Scott Say? (Gage Skidmore)
He was in New Hampshire two weeks ago. Only now is someone, or rather three someone's coming forward with these allegations? Why two weeks later?
Who are these three people? Where is the record of this statement?
The changing positions by Mr. Walker, a likely candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, show the difficulty that some in the Republican Party face as they try to appeal both to the conservative GOP primary electorate—which largely opposes liberalizing immigration laws—and business leaders and general election voters who have been more supportive of granting legal status to undocumented immigrants.
Wall Street Journal
The above paragraph follows from the inference that Walker had indeed made some remarks about endorsing a pathway to citizenship. Did he really, though?
Mr. Walker’s “no amnesty” position, first articulated earlier this year, was a change from his prior decadelong support for a pathway to citizenship. He has explained in public that his shift to a more restrictive view came after consulting with border-state governors and hearing from people opposed to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Walker signed off on support for a pathway to citizenship as a County Executive in 2006, then made some passing remarks about the issue in a public interview on a newspaper in 2013. That is not a "decade long" support for any policy. More editorializing.
Private sources have indicated that a "Bush 2016" temperament animates the Wall Street Journal.
As for Breitbart, here are some quotes from the post:
According to this new Wall Street Journal report, it’s quite possible a supporter of Jeb Bush, or another candidate went to the media regarding Walker’s recent comments at a private GOP dinner, it doesn’t matter. With three sources now (anonymously) on record, he appears to have Walkered himself right into this one. If his name becomes synonymous with waffling on a critical issue like immigration, his next nickname may be toast!
It's quite possible a Jeb Bush supporter went to the media? Yes, and that would indeed matter! This paragraph is brazenly editorialized, and that is fine, but with that context in mind, ("Walkered" and "his next nickname may be toast"), the context  of Walker's remarks, if he made any, require attention, too.
Did either news site, whether WSJ or Breitbart, bother to follow up on who made these remarks? "Three anonymous sources" does not necessarily indicate that they are distinct or separate sources either.
Plus the timing of these release with Ted Cruz' announcement for President in 2016, and all of this media circus shows that the clowning belongs to the "journalism" class that is eating away at our once-trusted media culture. Has news reporting turned into another hollow, yet expensive version of the telephone game?
"Three anonymous sources, who may or may not be biased, claim that Walker may have said that he was for a pathway to citizenship, and the Wall Street Journal reported all of this," says Breitbart.
The very detailing of this account gives pause, raises suspicion, and then the sudden change in the Breitbart post confirms that a media flail is at work, where "Gotcha!" journalism has to retract and retrace its steps.

Luis Gutierrez: Treason in our Midst

Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), a progressive fixture of gerrymandered Chicago politics, is a race-baiting rabble-rouser who opposes President Obama for not going far enough on immigration “reform”. The brown version of “Crazy Black Lady” Maxine Waters, the male version of statist, regressive partisans Barbara Lee and Sheila Lee Jackson (without the lollipops), Gutierrez has traveled across the country justifying and expounding upon President Obama’s illegal, unconstitutional, and unconscionable executive amnesty.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)

Perhaps the Congressman should reread Article One, Section Eight of the United States Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power. . . To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
His first stop on his 2015 Executive amnesty tour? Providence, Rhode Island.
Why the Ocean State? Submerged in unrepentant liberalism, Democrats dominate the corrupted state house ten-to-one (OK, nine and a half). The former state Speaker of the House was forced to resign, then jailed for bribery and corruption, yet replaced by another illiberal Democratic. Residents still love President Obama, and illegal aliens take advantage of generous government handouts, all paid for by Rhode Island’s dwindling tax base of middle class homeowners and business entrepreneurs.
Besides, Gutierrez has already been there, welcomed by fellow liberal Congressman, and amnestarian David “Grant Theft Auto” Cicilline (D-RI), with a gran abrazo in 2014. This year, Cicilline welcomed him again, in broken Spanish and deceptive English while blaming Republicans for the broken immigration system. From 2009-2011, Democrats controlled Congress and the Presidency, they still did nothing. So much for “Keeping Families United”.
Gutierrez received glowing, even divine praise: “He’s been the nation’s most effective and powerful voice of the necessity for fixing our broken immigration system. Luis has been described as the patron saint of immigration reform.”
Megyn Kelly sparred with Gutierrez
The Chicago politician has visited Charlotte, North Carolina, and was rallying illegal alien enthusiasts in Houston, Texas, where anti-amnesty protestors have already raised their voices against Gutierrez’ rampant lawlessness. Yet for all the purported support he claims to acquire, Gutierrez met his match at the University of Southern California, where in another attempt to promote executive amnesty, citizen protestors shouted down him and his bureaucratic cohorts throughout the meeting.
This clip has been making the rounds throughout the conservative and Tea Party blogs, including sites in deep blue Maryland (which has a Ruby Red Republican Governor for the first time on nearly two decades) but it’s time for more widespread audiences to know that even in deep blue California, where the Golden State’s luster has been tarnished by public sector union rapacity, unfettered illegal immigration, and welfare legacies, concerned Americans are witnessing for a rebirth of freedom, the rule of law, and limited government.
A brief introduction exposes that the Congressman’s public forum was anything but public, to be conducted in Spanish, with questions screened and written down. No one would be permitted to ask Gutierrez a question directly. Where is the representative democratic process in these administrative hindrances?
Entering the USC meeting hall, expecting a standing ovation, Gutierrez was greeted with boos and shouts of treason and shame. Protestors off all colors stood throughout the room, refusing to sit down and be quiet. Gutierrez is actively breaking the law, ignoring the orders of a federal judge, and undermining the United States Constitution, engaging in this treason across the country. These courageous Americans refused to let him get away with it.
Illegal alien enthusiasts attempted to drown out the negative crowd with shouts of “Si, se puede!”, complete with socialist power fist pumping. Anti-illegal immigration enthusiasts shouted back “USA! USA! USA!” and they drowned out the forum hosts.
“More people in here speak English than Spanish!” “In English!” the shouts continued.
The initial spokeswoman begged for quiet, but the protestors refused to respect the illegal amnesty presented by Gutierrez and his office cohorts. Finally, a police officer arrived, and explained the rules of the forum and the laws of the state of California. The irony was lost on the police officer, but the American members of the audience rallied all the more against Gutierrez’ promotion of illegal alien amnesty. The Constitution gives them the right to speak, to petition their government, and yet they must listen to an aggravated politician preach treason?
American Protestors rallying against Gutierrez at USC
(The Gateway Pundit)
The crowd settled down for Gutierrez to begin addressing the forum, but only in Spanish, despite the repeated affirmations earlier that the meeting would be conducted in English as well. Gutierrez opponents still understood some of what he said, including one concerned citizen who shouted “Don’t play the race card!”
Finally forced to stop after only thirty minutes, Gutierrez slipped out of the meeting, with shouts of “Where are you going, Luis?” following after him.
Despite the dire straits of porous borders and derelict representatives, courageous Americans are standing up and demanding that the federal government listen, respect the rule of law, and uphold the Constitution. Treasonous cowards like Gutierrez are fleeing. Should someone so intent on upending the rule of law in this country can remain in office any longer? Gutierrez may join the list of 2016 NRCC Donkeys destined for early retirement.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Election 2016: Walker v. Everyone Else

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is a rising 2016 GOP Presidential nominee. Pro-life, pro-limited government, pro-American Exceptionalism, Walker has three statewide successes in progressive Wisconsin. While Reagan gave speeches to the AFL-CIO, Walker reduced public sector union influence. GOP moderates as well as conservatives like Walker, a Ronald Reagan on steroids.
Some of the comments I have read against his chances include:

As for Susana Martinez, John Kasich, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal and George Pataki, their biggest problem is that aside from some news headlines most of America has no clue about their records as Governors, something they will need to get out to Republican voters and they will need to put their spin on their records.

How true is it that Walker's record is unknown? Mother Jones takes a Walker run seriously enough, that they predict he could be the GOP nominee and next President, not that they uber-leftist periodical is thrilled with the possibility. The Huffington Post is teasing out the Wisconsin Governor's intentions, as he allegedly wiped away Washington D.C. challengers as potential candidates. If there is a reason why so few know about Walker’s significant accomplishments, consider this damning indictment of the mainstream press, uninterested in reporting good news for conservatives. Walker’s announcement for President would change all that.

Still, how does a Walker bid measure up in hypothetical match-ups against other Republicans?
Looking over the panorama of polling among potential contenders, Real Clear Politics has Jeb Bush sitting pretty, with the highest numbers, a composite advantage, with even Congressman Paul Ryan scoring better than his governing compatriot. MSNBC records that midterm voters have a generally favorable view of a Republican winning the Presidency, but which one? 13 percent of voters polled that Walker would make a great President. Not very promising.

Putting aside Jeb Bush, what other potential contenders could take on the base, embrace the establishment, and get the grassroots growing in their favor? One consummate conservative with strong fiscal and social stats, leader of the more populist/libertarian wing of the GOP, is US Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky).

US Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)

At CPAC 2013, Paul the straw poll winner finished at the top. His CPAC speech did not gather the steam or acclaim of Walker’s entrance, but he had filibustered the Obama Administration into forcing an answer on domestic drone strikes. While Jane Fonda can breathe easy, Senator Rand talked up the federal invasion of individual privacy, an issue which would win over young as well as disillusioned liberal voters. Unlike Walker, his presentation and delivery are creative and engaging. From signing large refund checks to the U.S. Treasury to pro bono eye surgeries for poor Central Americans, Paul is the expert PR man, much like another President (Hope and Change). Then again, Mother Jones dismissed Walker’s lack of charisma, describing the Governor as a great white shark who lingers but strikes savagely without notice. Paul introduced a national Right-To-Work bill. Walker accomplished union reforms.

US Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)

US Senator Marco Rubio followed Paul in the CPAC straw poll. Similar to Walker, Rubio overcame long odds against an incumbent statewide candidate, who ran as an Independent and still lost. Unlike Walker, Rubio faces challenges from Establishment Jeb’s probable bid. They will compete not just for votes but donors in the Sunshine State (and nationally). Rubio also faces Tea Party heat for cosponsoring the 2913 Obamacare of Immigration bills. The bill died in the House, and may have killed Rubio’s Presidential bid.

US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Then there’s US Senator Ted Cruz, honored as the CPAC 2013 Keynote Speaker. Brilliant and bombastic, his political theatrics have not proved as effective as Tea Party fellow Paul, but he can debate to silent defeat the most ardent of liberals. However, he lacks Walker’s savvy to unity distinct interests within the Republican Party. Presidential candidates must transition from firing up the base to winning over quizzical independents and intrigue disaffected Democrats. Walker worked with colleagues, increased their numbers and influence in Madison. Cruz as political celebrity is magnetic, but does not draw otherwise differing political forces. He remains one of the most hated members of the US Senate.

Besides senators, how does Walker compare to other governors? Ohio’s John Kasich is testing the waters with a Balanced Budget Amendment initiative. To his hurt, Kasich took the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, which Walker derided as a fool’s bet, and will sour primary voters. Academic favorite Mike Pence of Indiana, with a consummate conservative record, does not Walker’s distinction of three statewide wins in a blue state.

Governor Susana Martinez (R-NM)

Susana Martinez of New Mexico did not speak at CPAC, but delivered a nuts-and-bolts, Here-I-am-and-why speech at the 2012 RNC convention. A former Democrat who defeated Democratic incumbents in the most Hispanic state in the union, her minority, female, and conservative credentials would ingratiate her with the untapped pool of potential voters warming up to the Republican brand. Decisive and articulate, Martinez (if she chooses to launch a campaign) could displace Walker’s opportunity, or be a welcome vice presidential candidate on Walker’s general election ticket.

Aside from an unjust lack of press, plus Bush’s lead lingering by the day, Walker’s potential is growing Presidential every day.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Christ, Not Man, Is King

Christ, not man, is king.

This inscription greets every visitor to the tomb of Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell.

He resisted taking on the Crown of England, and continued to do so until his death.

When the Stuart Monarchy returned to power, the British people had established a greater revelation of their authority, which included putting their monarch under the same rule of law as they.

How did they come to accept this revelation? For centuries, the argument of divine right had determined that one man would be king and have greater authority over men.

The Bible became available to common men, that God had intended for every man to reign in life, through His Son Jesus:

"For 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: 17)

Even in the Old Testament, there were hints, inferences, and prophesies of the glory which God meant for man:

"5For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour." (Psalm 8: 5)


5Who is like unto the LORD our God, who dwelleth on high,
6Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth!
7He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth the needy out of the dunghill;
8That he may set him with princes, even with the princes of his people.
9He maketh the barren woman to keep house, and to be a joyful mother of children. Praise ye the LORD." (Psalm 113: 5-9)
Christ is king, not man.

This sentiment animates the reason why common people in the 1600s would rise up and overthrow a tyrannical king (Charles I).

However, in our world, we find more people who are unable to stand for anything, because they do not know about the King who gave everything for them.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3: 16)


"31What 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)

In Christ Jesus, we have a King who serves us:

"For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Mark 10: 45)

The perversion pervasive in our times suggested that any king means tyranny and oppression.

Yet in Jesus, we have a King and Priest who serves us, from whom we in turn serve others:

"17Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 18That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: 19Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; 20Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." (Hebrews 6: 17-20)

Men cannot be good kings. They cannot supply the full life and identity which men need.

Only God can do that:

"14That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen." (1 Timothy 6: 14-16)

Christ, not man, is King, and we reign in life with Him (Romans 5:17)

Monday, March 23, 2015

The Timothy Hirsh Conflict at Mira Costa

With the past two weeks eaten up with national politics, including Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's rise, and US Senator Ted Cruz' stellar announcement for the Presidency, I did not have the time to comment on a disturbing development in local education:

Timothy Hirsh

The sudden dismissal of French Teacher Timothy Hirsh at Mira Costa High School.

The details of his termination include widespread outrage from students, parents, and fellow teachers:

Stunned students and parents are rallying around the beloved French teacher, outraged over his dismissal by the school board last week and demanding answers. Students are even considering a sit-in outside the administration building on campus if his job is not restored.

“The fact that he’s being dismissed is a travesty. It upsets me,” student Jacob Hands said. “Because I promise you, you’re not going to find many more teachers who care about their students as much as that man does.”

A little background is crucial to understand what is taking place. New teachers serve under probation for the first two years, and they can be terminated for the  most arbitrary of reasons. Because of the nature of most contracts, the school boards are well within their rights to terminate a teacher for any reason, and there is little that the teacher can do about it.

Mira Costa High School Logo
Most people are not aware of this arbitrary, and in fact unjust aspect of teacher tenure laws. Bad teachers who pass the second year and get tenure are nearly impossible to fire, while the best teachers with only a year or close to two years can be taken out without any recourse.

Yet, during his first year on the job, Hirsh did very well, according to the principal who has now recommended his dismissal:

Hirsh, 30, came to the high school midsemester in January 2013 when the French program was in tatters. What he did for the program was nothing short of outstanding, many said.

“Timothy came into a volatile classroom situation midyear and, through his hard work, talent and the power of his personality he de-escalated an otherwise wasted year for the students,” wrote Mira Costa Principal Ben Dale in a spring 2013 evaluation. “The students in those classes were able to recover what they had lost and all of them signed up for another year of French. Truly an amazing job.”

French programs are facing a lot of pressure and competition, particularly from Asian languages and Spanish. Most French teachers are the only show in town, so to speak, so they have to navigate provided a tough yet interesting program in which students want to come and learn.

Apparently, Hirsch accomplished all of the above, with strong approval from his peers, pupils, as well as the parents. Without betraying an unfair bias, let us keep in mind that the standards are quite high in schools like Mira Costa, where the higher socioeconomic status, the rising academic expectations, and stringent reporting from the local press can overwhelm teachers and educational stakeholders.

What ultimately aroused the ire of Mira Costa principal Ben Dale, enough to recommend his termination to the Manhattan Beach Unified School Board?

However, less than a year later, Dale called for Hirsh’s dismissal at the end of the school year.
In his final evaluation, he called the teacher “intemperate,” stating that he did not demonstrate proper respect when he gave a speech at a welcome event for eighth-grade students.

At one speech, Hirsh did not behave with A+ preparedness and respect? What does "intemperate" mean, anyway? If anyone has seen what high school coaches shout at their young charges, if anyone considers the necessary vehemence some teachers engage in with their unruly students, one would overlook any impertinence from a foreign language teacher at a welcoming event.

“Mr. Hirsh rambled in an unfocused and defensive manner about why students should learn French. ... (He) appeared to be unrehearsed and indifferent,” he wrote.

And? The comments from the principal better fit this description.

Dale also called Hirsh out for “lack of preparation in providing appropriate lesson plans” for a substitute teacher last November.

“As a result, the students lost valuable instructional time,” Dale wrote, adding that when Hirsh was counseled about the matter, he showed a lack of maturity.

The students lost one day of instruction because of no lesson plans, and yet the year prior Hirsh had revived, even resurrected the French program. Hmm.

These critiques are arbitrary and heedless, completely indifferent, and not worth the paper they are written on.

Despite emotional pleas and powerful testimony from students, teachers and parents, the Manhattan Beach school board Wednesday night stood behind its decision to fire a beloved French teacher, fueling claims of retaliation and petty politicking.

Mira Costa High School students and parents flooded the board room, one by one detailing the indelible impact Timothy Hirsh has left on their scholastic and personal lives. Many have said he is the best teacher in the history of the school, one of the highest performing in the state. But it was all to no avail.

School Boards need to stop following the lead of one principal instead of taking into account the numerous stories from parents and students.

To review, why did the principal not renew Hirsh's contract?

He gave a weird speech, he did not have lesson plans ready for one day, and the principal felt offended about Hirsh's response.

These are insulting and trivial issues.

Some of the comments from the articles cited above deserve attention:

Students are young and naïve. They haven't learned how government works. School boards and principals are in cahoots and they back each other up. 

Nobody in government cares what a bunch of high school kids think. They only care where there is money and favors to be had.

You scratch my back and scratch yours.

Is it possible for these dynamics to change? Are school boards really so short-sighted and insidious?

This is utterly absurd.We have been more than fair to the board but this crosses the line. Now the scumbag nature of this "School Board" is finally brought to public light. We are no where near done and we will not stop until Mr. Hirsh can keep his job or at the very least, the board members and Dr.Dale are at the publics mercy. Dr.Dale is supposed to be an educator but is currently acting like a petty, greedy politician.

Ben Dale, Principal at Mira Costa High School

Dr. Dale enjoys a diverse reputation, to put it mildly:

The firing of a beloved teacher at Mira Costa High School has stoked long-simmering hostility among some teachers and parents toward district administrators, who they claim continue to mistreat, dismiss and retaliate against them.


Meanwhile, Mira Costa teachers have soured even further about their principal, Chen said.
In an annual School Climate Survey distributed to faculty members by the union in 2013-14, Dale scored 46 on a scale of 20-100.

Normally, these scorings about union members in and of themselves are more like power plays than statements of fact. Unions resort to "no confidence" resolutions against leaders or administrators to extort more concessions during collective bargaining, or to gain support from the community.

In the Hirsh case, however, with such minor complaints leading to the French teacher's ouster, these collective complaints command more attention.

Other comments from within the article included the following

“Ben Dale has eroded teacher power, trust and communication on campus. I personally have no trust in him and consider him to be little more than a politician who speaks out of both sides of his mouth, uses manipulation to bolster his own agenda and cares more about image than about bettering our school,” one teacher wrote in the comment section.

And “Communication with the administration is the worst I have EVER seen. After years of low rankings and pleading for increased communication from the administration, it has somehow managed to get even worse this year,” another said.

With all the politicking among teachers, between teachers and administrators, and then the sudden dismissal of a well-respected teacher for "light and transient" causes, plus a school board unresponsive to the concerns and facts from the community, this Timothy Hirsch issue actually touches on a number of problems in school districts, and the unfair practices which many teachers face because of political plays left out of the hands of directly impacted community stakeholders.