Breitbart CA, Successes and Failures

The New Media brings to light the stories liberals try to hide (liberal failings, conservative successes). More importantly, a new, more (little D) democratic press gives power to individuals, no longer forced to take in the narratives carved out by elitist intellects.

The bias in the media is palpable and undeniable, now that we see how the press protects rather than exposes President Obama. When the revelation of secret waitlists at national Veterans Administrations emerged, Obama pretty much rode out the discontent on the matter, and the issue subsided.

How many more of our men and women have to die stateside because the Chief Executive and Staff have done very little to ensure quality care for our veterans?

The Mainstream has turned into the Vain-Scream, and more researchers, along with conservative-alternative reporters, are discovering a host of disconcerting problems.

I listened to one report, in which Bill Whittle from Truth Revolt revealed that Walter Cronkite was  a liberal who disdained the conservative worldview. No one can seriously believe that this man suppressed his political bias.

No one should. In fact, Bernard Goldberg wrote an extensive article discussing this very palpable problem:

Bias

In California, Breitbart expanded its reporting operations to focus on California.

Yet from its inception and introduction to the public, there was the brief shock and awe, with controversy swirling some of the provocative street advertisements.

Then a fizzle. Very few people seem interested in reading the pages, and very few of the Breitbart California posts get more than 100 comments.

Another report had suggested that Jon Fleischman's "Flash Report" gets little attention:

Yet such flashy impact is rare. Though he boasts of his addicted readers, FlashReport gets so little traffic that analytics tracker comScore does not even track its numbers. And in the big picture, there’s a gulf between Fleischman and the rest of his party, nationally. The most GOP presidential candidates usually do for their California compatriots is sink just enough money into the state to force Dems like Al Gore into having to spend in a blue state.

What is going on? Why is the conservative New Media failing in California?

Specifically, though, I want to comment on what I believe that Brietbart CA is doing right, then write about what is going wrong:

Breitbart CA Logo

Good points -- investigative and revelatory journalism:

1. US Senator Barbara Boxer was going to retire. I did not know about this until Breitbart had reported on it. no one else reported on this so soon

2.  In Election 2014, Congressman Jim Costa was vulnerable in CD-16 in the Fresno area -- Breitbart CA was the only one to make the case for that.

3. Fleischman has commented at length on the potential devastating effects of Supreme Court striking Down Arizona (and by extension CA's) citizen draw legislative districts. Only now have the other newspapers in the state of California considered the fallout of this decision. One source even suggested that the massive forced redrawing of Congressional districts could help Republicans in California.

4. Because I live in Torrance, I do not have instant access to other local newspapers in California, aside from The Daily Breeze. Breitbart CA reported on The Santa Barbara News-Press vandalized and picketed because they wrote the truth: "Illegal aliens".

5. The site promoted the student and parent uprising against Common Core in Palos Verdes. No one in the local press, whether The Daily Breeze or The Los Angeles Times is talking about this, but they should be.

That kind of journalism gets people reading. I could not believe that local Santa Barbara liberal activists, including one of the city councilmembers, would try to shame or force the paper to not report the news, to state the facts as they are.

I also read a great fantasy/future scenario about the CA GOP resurgence for the governor's seat in 2018:

"How the West Was Won: Looking Back on California's Republican Victory"

This kind of strategic optimism is also engaging.

Bad points

1. My first criticism connects with Pinkerton's article cited above. The column is too long. Way too long. The interface of the page makes it very difficult to engage with the piece. It should have been cut down to size or presented in three installments of one thousand words each. There is no way anyone could sit through that entire article and digest all its contents.

No way. Also, the set-up and editing of the piece looks bungled toward the end. The paragraphs are note even separated..

2. Breitbart CA is turning into a right-wing aggregator - nothing new. I commented on this problem with a close friend of mine. Much of the information is generic, taking posts from other parts of the Breitbart site. There is not enough of the revelatory journalism, hyperlinked above.

David Hadley

3. The website needs to report on positive developments. I did not read anything in Breitbart CA talking about David Hadley or Catharine Baker's win in their respective assembly districts. What gives? No one  is talking about the growing number of Republicans taking over city council and school board seats, either.

Catharine Baker

4. Some of the articles are boutique to the point of irrelevant -- I read something about endangered peacocks in Palos Verdes. Really?

They need to report on the chance of a pick up in CD-46, Loretta Sanchez seat. I already pitched the idea to Jon Fleishman.

I found out about this wacky Democrat running for US Senate here in California: Marcus Hardie

Marcus Hardie

Barbwire.com reported on this weirdo, yet no one else wrote anything. Why? Democrats have their own, distressing array of corrupt and crazy politicians. The media culture throughout the state loves to point out the creepy or divisive elements within the GOP. Why not do the same to the Democrats, and more of it?

They NEED to report on the nuttiness coming out of Dems mouths on Conan Nolan's NBC Four News Conference. I was all over the show a few weeks ago, and some of the Republicans legislators also appear on the program making the case for important fiscal and moral policies.

Apart from NBC Four on Sunday morning, very few Californians, even the conservatives, have any idea what is going on in the state. For the record, I still read the Sacramento Bee to get news about

There is a lot of stuff going in California, and there are a lot of grassroots players who can reach our and get the attention of other readers.

Above all, the site has to provide more up-to-the-minute investigative news, and make it prominent.

Concluding Remarks

Breitbart California, along with Breitbart Texas and Breitbart London, advanced the new media journalism exposing corruption and highlight traditional values and their movement throughout the world. The California standard, however, needs to provide more up-to-date, exclusive information, not just commentary, not just ranting, and above all needs to endorse the fact that Republican, conservative values can and are winning -- even in deep-blue California.

Cher on Twitter?: Don't Believe!

Cherilyn Sarkisian, otherwise known as Cher, of mixed Armenian-Native American heritage, from Malibu by way of El Centro California, broke the mold in modern rock, as well as movies (Moonstruck, in which she won the Oscar for Best Actress). A celebrated part of the Television-Radio-Music hit pair Sonny and Cher, she charted her own career pathway, belting out number one hits in every decade, from the 1970s to the present day.

Cher (

Now Cher thinks that people will pay dearly to hear her thoughts on politics and foreign policy. Predictably, Cher not only comes up short, but arrogant and foolish, even laughable.

If only she had learned from Sonny (aside from his three failed marriages).

Her former better half, Sonny Bono moved on, divorcing her, then started his own business in Palm Springs. There, he got frustrated with the red tape in his new hometown. Instead of sitting around and waiting for things to get better, he ran for mayor, and won. His political career later hit the top of the charts, first when he ran for US Senate in 1992, then for Congress in 1994, elected in the GOP wave which swept the country and brought conservative balance to Bill Clinton's "New Democrat" agenda. Sadly, Bono would die in a skiing accident four years later, but his wife Mary Bono (later adding Mack after getting married again) would carry on his conservative legacy in the Palm Springs/Inland Empire region until 2012.

Sonny's rising success in right-wing circles may explain why Cher hates conservatives so much. They remind her of the successful ex-husband who dumped her, then rose to higher heights without her.

Sonny and Cher

"I got you, Babe!" Uh, not really.

Now, with so much inane liberalism coming out of her mouth, no one has to wonder why she and Sonny never stayed together. And yet her bad beat goes on, spouting off one dud after another.

Here is a sample of some her worst political hits:

In 2013, Cher called former Alaskan Governor and Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin a "dumb c--t", then smeared the Tea Party movement as "jihadists".

Then Cher tweeted the same race-baiting insensitivity-shaming about Thanksgiving:

Stealing Land,from a ppl,Who believed,Owning LAND Was LIke Owning SKY! We gave them Blankets laced w/Smallpox

So Much for being a "Half-Breed".

In 2014, she lamented her loss of faith in government. Yet she can't seem to connect the rampant failures in connection with President Obama's aggressive, progressive agenda.

"If I could turn back time. . "

In March of this year, Cher tweeted:

Fracking Kills Life & The Environment Drilling 4 Oil Kills Life & The Environment SOLAR PANELS KILL NOTHING & THE SUN IS FREE HAPPY

Ever noticed that the less informed people are, the bigger the letters in their Twitter feed?

Yes, and everyone in California loves paying nearly twice as  much for the same gasoline pumped in Rhode Island, Missouri, or just about everywhere else.

To her credit, she erupted at President Obama for losing the fight against ISIS, but has often reverted back to the same knee-jerk liberalism: Blame Bush for Everything.

Her latest tweets? New shoes and her cat. Really?! Almost makes me want to know what Prime Minister David Cameron cooked for breakfast today.

At any rate, with all the left-wing wingnut nullities coming out of Cher's mouth, I couldn't help but rewrite one of her more recent hits with a parodic twist.

Please enjoy: "Don't Believe".

First Verse

No matter how hard she tries,

Cher keeps spouting medias lies,

Which she won't think though.

She never says anything true.

It takes time to decompress from

The things that she says are so dumb

Well, I take time to think things through

And Cher -- this country is too good for you!

Chorus

Do you believe that Cher has a brain?

 I can feel something inside me sayin':

"I really don't think she's smart enough! No!"

I can't believe the things that she says!

"Palin's a slut!", But she is not?

Twitter, please suspend her account! Now!

Second Verse

What were we supposed to do?

Let Saddam use the WMD, too?

Well, we wouldn't allow that.

Don't blaming the GOP for Iraq.

Bush was right: it's time to move on!

Woodward said so: Barack is wrong.

We've all had time to think it through

Cher, this country is too good for you!

Chorus
I don't believe a thing that Cher tweets.

We can feel whatever, but the truth still stands

The world's a lot better without her screeds.

Don't believe a thing that Cher tweets

We all know and believe that she is wrong

Without USA, there would be no great feats.

Refrain

While I know we'll overcome ISIS

Even if Cher says we're not strong

I won't read her anymore

I won't heed her anymore

We don't need Cher anymore!

Final

Does Cher believe in life, liberty and love?

I can feel something inside me shout:

"Cher, shut up! We've heard more than enough!"

Can you believe what Cher just said?

We can all agree that she should stop.

Take a lesson from Sonny, Walker, Palin, and Cruz.

This country doesn't need you, and will never lose!

And the beat goes on! And the beat goes on. . .

Does anyone really care what Cher thinks? About anything?!
(Emettmcginty)

Instead of listing to "Unbelievable" Cher, we need to listen to some other hits, like "Don't stop believing"? or "I was born in the USA!". Even if Bruce Springsteen is another apoplectic liberal, his song about this country is worth listening to!



As for Cher, we ain't got you, babe!

MoveOn Defaces Money To Get Money Out of Politics.

Yet another eblast from MoveOn.org, this time from Ben Cohen, of Ben and Jerry's fame.

Hasn't anyone paid attention to these otherwise socialist entrepreneurs?

They wanted to create a socialist paradise with their ice cream, and they have some of the most diverse flavors.

Ben Cohen wanted to bend capitalism to social justice causes.

Inc.com reports:

Irv Deutsch landed a production job at the Ben & Jerry's ice-cream factory in Waterbury, Vt., in September 1988 at $7.40 an hour. One of Deutsch's early memories was of a companywide meeting during which cofounder Ben Cohen exhorted his workers to embrace the company's social mission. Deutsch recalls that Cohen was running into "a lot of negative sentiment" on the subject from both his board and his employees. In their minds, making money and fomenting social change didn't always mix.

How did this social mission turn out?

Deutsch scribbled a note in response to Cohen's speech and placed it in the company's suggestion box. He reminded Cohen of the work of legendary psychologist Abraham Maslow, best remembered for his theory of a "hierarchy of needs," which holds that people must first secure the basics of food, clothing, and shelter before they can grapple with the larger questions of life. It was nice to talk about solving the world's problems, but what about the everyday concerns facing many of Ben & Jerry's workers? After all, Cohen was a multimillionaire businessman and Vermont transplant with a lengthy social agenda. His workers dwelt in the other Vermont of low wages and long winters, hidden behind the state's pastoral facade of green hills and white clapboard. With that in mind, Deutsch added this postscript: "Charity begins at home, so leave it in my mailbox."

Now MoveOn.org is defacing money

In other words: before trying to save the world, why not save some of the profits from this ice cream business and help me out? Would you?

Later on, about twelve years later, Ben and Jerry's sold "out" to a larger corporation:

In Act Two, set in 2000, the mood sours. Ben & Jerry’s is sold (out) to Unilever, the world’s third-largest consumer goods company, described by one commentator as “a giant multinational clearly focused on the financial bottom line.”¹ News of the sale sends “shudders and shivers through the socially responsible business community.”² An all-too-brief and unexpectedly wonderful trip becomes a bummer. If Ben & Jerry’s was a kind of corporate Woodstock, this sale was its Altamont. (As a fitting coda, Unilever discontinued Wavy Gravy in 2003 because it wasn’t profitable enough.)

So, they were all about making money, and yet Ben wants to get the  money out of politics. What?!




Ben and Jerry's Cold Cash (Uziel302)

Does any want these ice cream men's take on politics, especially money in politics?

Now, with Ben Cohen's syrupy endorsement, MoveOn.org wants to deface money in the name of getting money out of politics:

This is Ben Cohen, the "Ben" of Ben & Jerry's ice cream. I've decided to put my money where my mouth is by building a national, grassroots campaign to get Big Money out of politics.

The truth is that I can't outspend the big political donors whose influence is corrupting our political system. I can't chase them out, scare them out, or shout them out. But together, we can all stamp them out.

The Stamp Stampede is a movement of tens of thousands of Americans legally stamping dollar bills with a simple message: "Stamp Money Out Of Politics—Amend the Constitution."

So, the Big Left-Wing Movement machine wants to stamp out the money. Yet they want you and me to donate  to this big machine in order to make it happen. Really?

You can stamp your foot ... and you'll end up with a footache. Or you can stamp your dollar bills (yes, it's perfectly legal) and let your money do the talking. As your bills circulate, so will your message about reclaiming our democracy. It's like a petition on steroids—each bill will be seen an average of 875 times!

And while you're taking action individually, you're also funding MoveOn's collective action—which is key if we're going to overpower the Big Money that wants to keep buying and selling our political system.

Someone stamp this what it really is -- a terrible idea.

Perhaps even an illegal one.

American Conservative Culture Wars: Wins, Losses, and Why

Over the last four years, the culture wars in the United States have been revealing some unique outcomes, and should encourage conservatives to engage a wider perspective of what is going on in the world. Whiles some trends may seem alarming and induce a sense of defeat, conservatives should embrace key victories on other pressing issues.

On one side, gay marriage is getting wider acceptance. Who would have seen this eruption of forced change from the outside-in against an institution, one which has stood the tests of time? Minimum wage hikes are striking states and cities, sometimes through popular initiative, in more recent cases by council vote (Seattle, then Los Angeles). Why would voters and their representatives make it easier for workers to stay out of work and harder for businesses to say in business?

On the other hand, more libertarian proposals like right-to-work and concealed-carry are also gaining staying power. Second Amendment advocates are winning at the state and federal level. Right-to-life is also getting stronger, as an outright majority of Americans now consider themselves pro-life. Documentaries are exposing the criminal behavior of some abortion doctors (Gosnell), while technology has opened the eyes of the most ardent pro-abortion advocates to acknowledge that indeed, life begins at conception.

Another issue, the slow decriminalization of controlled substances like marijuana, can be pegged as slow descent to hedonistic, solipsistic anarchy, or a step towards individual liberty free from government-imposed morality, which never succeeds.

Now the bigger question: why have some liberal issues won the day, while other conservative causes gain traction in the United States over the past four years?

Individualism, whether trending toward license or liberty, has become the order of the day. The preeminence of individual preference, for better or for worse, has precipitated the diverse outcomes in today's culture wars.

Let's look at the license issue. Men and women want to abide by their own standards, free from the collective dictates of tradition or even truth. "Faith" has become a buzzword to mean "mental assent to my own preferences". Because individuals are more in tune to their own choices, without heeding the consequences, institutions like marriage are losing their prestige. Why does marriage matter? What difference does it make if I marry someone of the same sex?

What about the minimum wage hikes taking effect all over the country. The lingering impact of a sluggish economy has wrought the immediate, real pain of low, stagnant wages, thus hurting entry-level workers. Combined with their lack of economic understanding and ongoing unemployment, and a perfect storm of street protests and ardent demands for easy pay increases has erupted. Of course, the push for higher entry level wages, coupled with fearful unions fighting to remain alive as well as relevant have pushed this unsound fiscal policy, too.

Now, on the trend of broadening individual liberty.

From the cohort of individual workers struggling to make ends meet, they realize that labor unions, both their causes and their dues, are not helping them. Today, California labor unions who were lobbying for $15 an hour now want exemptions from LA City's latest minimum wage hikes. Their latest win has become another step toward their final defeat. Unions have not only become antiquated, but anti-worker, benefiting only the dwindling number of old-timers and administrative heads at the expense of those still seeking employment.

For decades, labor unions could get away with anti-market agendas. As long as the United States was the only industrial power-house in the world, unions could demand and win labor negotiations. Now that emerging nations are harnessing their own economic prowess (Japan, Germany, China), corporations can take their business elsewhere, if labor unions insist on their terms without budging.

Today, Americans workers earn small paychecks, in part because of coerced dues siphoned away to prop up collective bargaining units, which in turn support causes hurting working Americans: environmental regulations, health care mandates, higher taxes on wealth creators. And of course, forced minimum wage hikes, which drive up costs, drive out potential hires, and drive away businesses.

Legal challenges on behalf of individual workers have hurt unions, too. State and federal courts are also striking down forced membership and agency fees. The individual temperament which induces people to define marriage as they please also asserts "Why are you taking my money without giving me a choice?" Public sector unions are bankrupting cities and states, as well, and forcing new public employee hires to settle for lower pay and higher benefits costs. These new terms are inherently unfair, and new employees forced into these negotiations under the same collective bargaining units are chafing under the unequal terms of employment.

As for the Second Amendment, the sacrosanct right of self-protection is not up for grabs. The legacy of gun rights defines the core of this country, and the century-plus history of the National Rifle Association should assure conservatives and dissuade liberals that the government is not going to infringe, let alone take away entirely, this crucial right.

What about the marijuana debate? Both sides, whether license or liberty, can claim a win here. For those promoting temporal feelings and instant gratification, the decline of prohibition on controlled substances (and the end of the War on Drugs) merely signals an further inroad to doing whatever one wants to. Conservatives, values advocates, and pro-family elements shake their heads as the prospect of more people getting high increases.

For those who adhere to promoting individual liberty and accountability, coupled with freedom of enterprise and limited government, the dissipating War on Drugs signals a compelling narrative of government giving up its untenable role of moral authority over individual choice. From the statistics in decriminalized countries, to the cost-saving outcomes, to the diminution of federal bureaucratic power, the decriminalization of marijuana.

As in all political ventures, there are wins and losses, but conservatives should feel emboldened that on a number of issues -- life, the Second Amendment, labor reforms -- free markets, free enterprise, and limited government outcomes are winning decisively.

Condi Isn't Running (Get Over It!)

Condoleezza Rice

One of my ongoing political passions is the California US Senate race.

For the greater part of my life, I have lived in a state languishing under two of the more liberal and/or worst US Senators in modern history. Dianne Feinstein, the senior senator by a few months, won her latest reelection by thirty points.  She had deftly refused to debate her last opponent, arrogantly confiding to one reporter: “I’m running my own campaign.”

Feinstein is barely tolerable compared to her ultra-liberal, retiring counterpart. Junior US Senator Barbara Boxer, a progressive figurehead, claimed that a “baby is a baby when it’s born”, relentlessly played the “War on Women” card. She engaged in subtle race-baiting against the CEO of the Black Chamber of Commerce. She also glibly taunted US Senator Lindsey Graham.  No one can forget her shameless shaming of US Senator James Inhofe after the 2006 election. Elections have consequences? They sure did in 2014, when Boxer playfully ate her own words (with far less media present). Histrionic but ultimately inconsequential, Boxer will not be missed.

Now that Boxer is trading “Senator” for “Ma’am” once again (including a weird rhyme to her grandson), there is conservative hope in the Golden State. Or is there? While the state motto may be “Eureka!” (I’ve found it), California conservatives have not yet found the candidate to restore the Republican glister in the deep blue state.  In 2014, Republicans unseated Democratic incumbents in the state assembly. Can the California Republican Party translate local victories to its first statewide victory since 2006?

Who was the last statewide Republican to run and win? Insurance commissioner Steve Poizner, but he has not signaled any interest, either, even though he is the latest winning statewide Republican who then ran for higher office (he lost the 2010 gubernatorial primary).

Another name has been on many Republicans’ mind, lips, and heart: Condoleezza Rice.

Why not Condi? A successful African-American woman (check all three boxes for good identity politics), she governed Stanford University as a prudent provost. A strong profile in personal integrity, Rice did more than merely travel as National Security Adviser then Secretary of State during the Bush Administration.  Also to her credit: she rebuffed rude Boxer who impugned her character during her confirmation hearing as secretary of state. She is moderate on key issues, which would ingratiate her to a more centrist voting bloc.

Rice would be the perfect candidate for US Senate. I even contacted her through a friend of mine to consider running. Her response was respectful yet succinct:

I know we'll have a good candidate .... and please thank Mr. Schaper for me and tell him that I'm honored by his appeal.  Political office isn't for me....

Fine. She is not interested in the seat. Politics is not for everyone.

 

And yet I am still getting eblasts soliciting donations to “Draft Condi for US Senate”.

Didn’t they get the memo? Who is connected with these eblasts? The Conservative Action Fund (CAF). The group’s chairman, Shaun McCutcheon (of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission fame) answered some questions about these email donation requests pushing a Condi candidacy:

Where does the money go? How are you spending it?

[A]bout 40% of CAF money goes direct to conservative candidates in campaigns. The rest goes primarily to media firms to send conservative messages like this message which is not reported as a campaign expense. Candidate recruitment, polls and other political messages are part of the 60%.

What is your role within the organization, because I get the blasts with your name attached to them?

I’m the chairman. I don't control the fund. I'm the largest contributor to the funds.

He also answered why the CAF was promoting Condi, even though some of her views don’t qualify as conservative (pro-choice, pro-amnesty):

She is conservative enough for California. Potential candidates need all the positive support they can get. Certainly positive messages may persuade her to run. Running is hard and there are always plenty of reasons not to run.

A bigger question lingered: will this petition work? Frankly, any online draft petition defeats the whole purpose. Rice is appealing precisely because of her strong leadership record: not taking polls or weighing public relations reactions. She said “No!” and she meant it. Give up it, national conservatives. She is not running.

Yet why do these political groups keeping promoting “Draft Condi”? Raising money. It seems unethical to keep trying to draft someone who has declared both publicly and privately: “No thanks.”

What is the fundamental lesson for conservative partisans? Running for office is not fantasy football. Real people invest time and energy into a campaign, as McCutcheon has explained. It’s an office, a calling, not just another person bringing up numbers in a legislative body.

It seems that California conservatives, like their national counterparts, want “the perfect candidate”, the same way that prospective buyers look for the perfect car: right age, low mileage, cheap insurance costs, etc. You can find a good car, and Californian Republicans will find a good candidate.



Abraham Lincoln

Besides, why should Republicans fall into this “Fearless Leader” complex, as if the “just right” candidate will set aright the flailing course of California’s comeback, capitulating to the right amount of pleas? No one considered a one-term Congressman from Illinois, with a record of routine failure, viable let alone electable for President. Yet Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican Chief Executive, with an honorable legacy of freeing the slaves, keeping the United States united.

 

 

Lincoln’s momentum did not start with him, anyway, but from grassroots coalitions of pro-liberty abolitionists and disaffected Whigs and Democrats fearful for the Union’s fate. Before Lincoln, Republican John C. Fremont charted a pathway to the Presidency, running as a military leader who helped take California from Mexican to American hands.

John C. Fremont

So, Condi isn’t running. Conservatives shouldn’t lament, for one candidate cannot restore what California, and this country, need once again. Good conservative representation matters, but its success rests on concerted efforts of concerned citizens making the difference.

Conservatives Still Want Condi

Condoleezza Rice

One of the biggest liabilities I find among conservatives, especially in blue states, is that they want to play the larger board and win big to take back their state.

Just like the old men of Europe would sit at coffee tables and plot the best strategies for defeating the Allies or the Central powers during World War One, or the Sunday Football views play armchair quarterback on Monday following their team's stunning loss the day before, so too conservatives dream up the best political contests, whatever will bring in the biggest headlines, and pin their hopes on the potential match-up.

In California, that discussion flows toward Kamala Harris v. Condoleezza Rice for US Senate.

I contacted Shaun McCutcheon, one of the leaders connected with "Conservative Action Fund" for answers about how the money is spent through this eblast donation process. A resident of Alabama, one of the strongest, reddest bastions of opposition against Big Government and Presidenti Obama particularly,

What conservatives need to understand, what Republicans in California and throughout the country are learning, is that the fight to take back and win takes time, and cannot be pinned on one candidate fighting the fight for us.

Democrats worked the background and set the ground game long before they took the heights in a number of communities.

Political machines like Tammany Hall in New York City and throughout the Los Angeles were reaching out and bribing residents to get votes, all through "good graft" long before Democrats were buying up and slowly demolishing the United States' largest cities.

Restoration of values and promotion of our principles will take time and effort. The American Revolution was not won at the Battle of Yorktown, even though the battle was a spectacular defeat for the British, so much so that they played the hymn "The World Turned Upside Down".

Yet the shockwaves of a world turned on its head would take the world a while to wake up. It took a second American Revolution of sorts, which are National Anthem celebrates, during the War of 1812.

So, the fight for defining and establishing liberty takes time.

Now that the culture wars currently are ebbing toward collectivization and slavery, big government against the little guy, an unlimited government bolstered by unconstitutional rule, conservatives are looking for an easy way to win the fight.

Hence, the outpouring of support from conservative websites and activist funds for Condoleezza Rice to run.

She is a strong woman of compelling integrity. She stood by her administration first as National Security Advisor then Secretary of State. She had a remarkable record of fiscal prudence and academic integrity at Stanford University.

None of these accomplishments should be ignored or downplayed.

But one element which rabid activists keep forgetting: Condoleezza Rice, like an inspiring statesman, is her own woman. She makes clear-cut decisions and follows through on them because of principle, not populist pandering.

The very traits which make Condi an appealing Senate candidate thus obviate all this "Run Condi" commotion.

Leadership is not born of online petitions, or sunshine patriots glowing for the greater good, as long the greater good is evident. Leadership is born of wisdom and experience, tried and tested through hard times.

Rice did not rise to her political and military prestige through winning popularity contests. She worked hard, rolling with the punches, and punching back.

She wasn't swayed by what other people said then. What makes people think that she will be swayed now?

Gay Marriage Winning? Freedom is Fighting Back

Gay Marriage Winning?

Yes, freedom-fighting conservatives have some recent developments to lament.

Homosexual marriage is becoming the mainstay across the country, or at least its culmination in statehouse and finally the Supreme Court seems likely.

In spite of the strongest push from pro-marriage advocates, Finland approved gay marriage.

Ireland, formerly known as “Winterland” to the Romans, and “The Celtic Tiger” to economists during the roaring gains of the late 1990s and 2000s, has said “I do” to homosexual marriage, as well. How the status of marriage could be so radically redefined, and by popular vote in one of the most Catholic countries in the world, has left many culture warriors shaking their hands, wringing their hands, asking the question: “Where did we go wrong? How did we miss this outcome?” With the best efforts, even from the most ardent of pro-family advocates, the polling seemed to indicate that true marriage would win out.

Is there any hope at the end of the six-colored rainbow?

Yes.

First of all, the rising number of celebrities getting married is getting very little attention. Barry Manilow got married (to a man, not Mandy). Yawn. The novelty of this exercise in social justice is gone. There is a small yet diligent cohort of men and women who espouse conservative/libertarian values, yet also identify as homosexual. One of many left-leaning movements defined by its totalitarian intolerance, the Gay Left movement is leaving many otherwise conservative, right-leaning homosexuals behind. Their sexual behavior and feelings are a side issue. Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos whines: “I am sooooo bored of being gay”. Sarcastic or serious, gays are starting to rethink the gay agenda.

 

Milo: "I am sooooooo bored of being gay"

Many people who lived homosexual lives are leaving the lifestyle. More Americans want live-and-let-live. Children of gay parents now report the negatives of their upbringing.

Another pressing reality has surged: the world has taken marriage for granted, and must learn once again what marriage is, and why marriage matters. Young conservative activist Stephen Crowder explores how marriage strengthens societies. The Heritage Foundation established that strong families keep children out of poverty, too. While the forces of cultural traditions and shame from our elders have failed, broken homes and breaking communities may bring to light the truth of why marriage, one man and one woman, matter.

Indeed, hate is not the answer, and no one who supports true marriage advocates hatred. The truth sets us free, and the militancy of the homosexual agenda has forced Western Civilization not just to question its basic principles, but finally to answer why they must endure.

From a political and legal standpoint, however, what is the endgame on “gay marriage”? What will happen to the churches, charities, and small businesses under attack from homofacsists?

 Ironically, two deep Southern states have started pursuing legal reforms to rectify this sticky problem. The Oklahoma state legislature discussed a bill which would remove state marriage licenses, so that couples, where gay or straight, would have to seek a clergyman or a notary public for a testimony of matrimony.

In fact, the Washington Times could not have reported it more succinctly:

The aim of the bill is to get the government out of marriage-licensing activities and “leave marriage in the hands of the clergy,” state Sen. Todd Russ, the bill’s lead sponsor, said according to KFOR NewsChannel 4 in Oklahoma City.

I have met individuals who for all intents and purposes are conservative, aside from whom they choose the sleep with. If live and let live will be the expanded norm in our society, then getting the government out of the institution should work with all concerned parties.

The Tenth Amendment Center of Los Angeles added:

The Oklahoma bill would “accomplish two things,”

“First, it would render void the edicts of federal judges” who have overturned state marriage laws, the center said.

Second, it would get the state government “out of defining marriage” and end “the squabble between factions that seek to harness the power of the state.”

Not just Oklahoma, but Alabama has also take the same step of getting the state out of the status of blessed matrimony. A pro-homosexual website article writes:

The bill doesn’t prevent anyone from getting married — it merely means that no one has to apply for a marriage license first. A marriage must still take place with an accepted officiant, and two witnesses. The bill must still pass the State House, as well.

Since this legislation wouldn’t prevent same-sex couples from getting married, if marriage equality becomes American law, it’s clear that the goal isn’t to completely prevent same-sex marriage. Instead, perhaps Roy Moore and other Alabama justices are satisfied simply to feel absolved of ever giving permission for one.

Honestly, that is what freedom of conscience is all about: “to feel absolved” from having to participate in certain activities which violate your beliefs: officiate a homosexual marriage, bake a gay wedding cake, etc.

Case in point: a few months ago I engaged in a heated conversation with another conservative. He agreed that individuals may not necessarily be born gay (or straight), and that of necessity individual Americans must strive to protect and expand religious liberty. The most important point he made to me, however, and subsequently a number of conservative activists, here in Los Angeles as well as across the country, is the need to pick our fights.

Just as Oklahoma and Alabama recognized the bigger issue, government tyranny imposing on individual rights, so too conservatives across the country should not skirmish with individuals or manifest groups attempting to redefine marriage.

As Deacon Keith Fournier shared following Ireland’s “Yes” vote last week, marriage has not changed. Ireland has, reverting to a “pre-Christian” stance. Ireland can relearn the blessed principles of Western Civilization, the values of individual life and liberty, within the scope of a limited, God-fearing government. Let’s focus on relearning our liberty, getting undue government influence out of our lives.

Gay marriage may be winning small battles, but the war to define and restore liberty has only begun, and victory remains in sight.

 

The fight for freedom still wages

The Future of Minimum Wage Hikes

What a mess Los Angeles finds herself in, and fourteen of the fifteen city council members voted to make economic matters worse, so much worse.

One can only hope that the rising unemployment, cost of living, and the general economic malaise may quicken the better angels of Los Angeles to rethink or retract the forced minimum wage hike.

Then again, with the powerful public sector unions, and the private union lobbies still as strong as ever with a surging immigration workforce, it may take utter collapse, a la Detroit (with Illinois close behind) for large municipalities to learn that even they, for all their size and celebrity, cannot outwit or outdo market forces or natural law.

Is there any hope for big cities and bloated states to give up on the minimum wage?

Illinois Republican Governor Bruce Rauner once flirted with the idea of bringing down the minimum wage to the federal level. When the media backlash pounced on the idea, like a "GOP War on the Poor" War whoop, he backed off, and supported raising the minimum wage, as long as other regulations were removed to make it easier for businesses to open and thrive.

Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner

In February, 2014 the Chicago Tribune reported:

Almost a month ago, Bruce Rauner pledged at a Downstate candidates’ forum that if elected governor he would slash the state’s minimum wage by $1 to make it equal to the federal rate in an effort to make Illinois more economically competitive.

Why would any governor not want to make his state competitive? Granted, the economics makes perfect sense. Lower the cost of doing business in a state, and the investments will come.

But the optics, the politics of toying with the minimum wage are fraught with risks, and Rauner learned his lesson:

“I made a mistake. I was flippant and I was quick,” Rauner told the Tribune as he continued a bus tour through southern Illinois.

“I should have said, ‘Tie the Illinois minimum wage to the national wage and, in that context, with other changes in being pro-business, I support raising the national minimum wage.’ I’m OK with that,” said the Republican from Winnetka.

Followed by:

Rauner acknowledged the minimum wage topic “a sensitive issue” but accused Democrats of ginning up a “class warfare issue” by creating a state that was “hostile to business,” leading to continued high unemployment.

In spite of his flub, which he corrected, Rauner may have opened a away for conservatives and free-market candidates to have an open, candid discussion about business operations and costs. Businesses pay wages, and thus should raise wages. Why would we want unaccountable, unknowledgeable politicians to spend money which could help entry-level workers learn skills and get better jobs later in life?

Still, to come out and say: "We need to lower the minimum wage" is asking for nothing but trouble, and forcing the wage is just too popular, with all the interest group rage and foment behind it.

Will the round of minimum wage hikes in big cities finally lead working people to recognize that forcing the wage will not a wealthier community create?

Could it be possible that strong leaders will risk their political careers and drive down costs and allow businesses to set the wage at the federal level? If businesses keep fleeing big cities, perhaps the discussion about the wage will be moot.