Jacob Grabbed When God Was Always Giving

Going from Isaac to Jacob, one finds that laughter gave way to grabbing.

Jacob cheated his elder brother Esau out of his birthright, then deceived his father to get the blessings.

Hold on a second.

Who said that Jacob was a supplanted in this fashion?

Esau, the embittered older brother who was taken advantage of twice over:

"And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?" (Genesis 27: 36)

Now, are these allegations true, and to what extent?

When reading the Bible, I have learned the importance of context, which focuses on who said what, when, and why.

Esau Despised His Birthright
Jacob Never Stole it

Regarding the birthright, Jacob did not take it away at all. Esau gave it up:

"29And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint: 30And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom. 31And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. 32And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? 33And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. 34Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright." (Genesis 25: 29-34)

Jacob was making food, and Esau was hungry.

Granted, Jacob traded the birthright when Esau was a weakened moment.

However, the Bible clearly declares: "Esau despised the birthright." "His" is in italics, so we can recognize that this birthright involved more than just himself.

Rebekah and Her Twin Sons: Jacob and Esau

Jacob did not trick Esau out of anything, as much as Esau thought of little more than his immediate, fleshly needs.

Now, regarding the first-born blessing, Rebekah the mother of the two sons received a declaration from the LORD:

"22And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD.

23And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger." (Genesis 25: 22-23)

 

The elder will serve the younger. God had foreordained that Jacob would be blessed, not Esau.

 

Paul the apostle explains why:

 

Jacob Deceives His Father Isaac --
But in Truth He Never Had To!

"(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;" (Romans 9: 11)

 

Many people have misconstrued this passage to mean that only certain people have been determined who will be saved, when in reality the passage is clear --- we are not saved by what we do, but by what Jesus has done for us, what the Father has given us.

 

So, Jacob was supposed to receive the first born-blessing in the first place!

 

The real problem for Jacob, and I submit for all of us who are children of God in Christ, is that we have to grab and take when God so freely gives us all things through His Son:

 

"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? 33Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. 34Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." (Romans 8: 31-34)

 

Even though Jacob deceived his father to get the first-born blessing, Jacob did deserve it:

 

"And Isaac trembled very exceedingly, and said, Who? where is he that hath taken venison, and brought it me, and I have eaten of all before thou camest, and have blessed him? yea, and he shall be blessed. " (Genesis 27: 33)

 

Why did Isaac quake so violently? He knew that the blessing was supposed to go to Jacob, and even though he had attempted to give it to Esau, everything worked out for Jacob to get the blessing anyway.

 

Some may argue that Isaac's fear had nothing to do with the prophecy which Rebekah had received. If that were the case, then Isaac could have written off the blessing which he had given inadvertently to Jacob. But he didn't, because He couldn't.

 

Not only did Isaac bless Jacob with the first-born blessing, he blessed him again:

 

"1And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan. 2Arise, go to Padanaram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother's father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother's brother. 3And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people; 4And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham. 5And Isaac sent away Jacob: and he went to Padanaram unto Laban, son of Bethuel the Syrian, the brother of Rebekah, Jacob's and Esau's mother." (Genesis 28: 1-5)

 

Imagine this -- Isaac blesses Jacob a second time. If Jacob's getting the first-born blessing was such an evil act, why would Isaac bless him a second time?

 

Jacob is a picture also of all believers as we grow from trusting in our flesh to living by His Word and the guidance of His Spirit.

 

Even when we are in the flesh, just as Jacob dressed up as Esau, God still blesses us, and He keeps on blessing us until we learn to stop fighting and receiving from Him freely all things.

 

All things in Christ!

Laugh in the Midst of Hardships

Many of my friends have told me that they are full of fear about the times we are facing in this country.

They assume that because the people whom they wanted to elect did not get elected, that they are doomed to suffer with the bad policies of the people in office.

What does the Bible say about believers like us?

Let's took a look at Isaac, the son of Promise whom God blessed on Abraham and Sarah, the Father and Mother of many, whose bodies were dead and did not believe they would ever have a child.

"And the LORD visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did unto Sarah as he had spoken. 2For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. 3And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac. " (Genesis 21:1-3)

The LORD comes through, as He promises to, regardless of whether we fret or fuss. The only thing that delayed Isaac coming, in a sense, was Abram and Sarai's efforts (notice before their names were changed) to have a kid through the servant girl Hagar.

Isaac's name means "laughter":

"6And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me. 7And she said, Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given children suck? for I have born him a son in his old age." (Genesis 21: 6-7)

Isaac is a child of promise, the stronger son who carried the wood up Mount Moriah (Genesis 22), who was not afraid to lie down on the altar, even though he was strong enough that he could have subdued his own father and prevented him from laying him on the wood.

Isaac not only came back down the mount, but served as a figure for Christ Jesus, the Beloved Son of God who was given for us.

"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure." (Hebrews 11: 17-19)

Now, let us take another look at Isaac, and how God so richly blessed him:

"21And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD." (Genesis 25: 21-22)

Unlike Abraham, who went into a servant girl to try and force God's will, Isaac . . asked God. Just like that, and Rebekah not only conceived, but she had twins.

Laugh!

When a terrible famine broke out in the land, Isaac almost went down to Egypt.

The LORD intervened:

"And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar. 2And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of: 3Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; 4And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." (Genesis 26: 1-5)

God promised to bless Isaac not because of Isaac, but because of his father Abraham.

There's a famine, but so what? You and I are descendants of Abraham, too, and we can rest in the covenant which God cut with Abraham, for we are all blessed through His seed, Jesus!:

"6Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." (Galatians 3: 6-9)

and

"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3: 29)

You are blessed because of God, not because of the weather. You are blessed because of Jesus, not because of yourself:

Isaac in Gerar

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. " (Ephesians 1: 3-6)

Laugh!

Isaac did not make the first mistake which his father Abraham had made, in that he stayed where God told him to.

But. . .

"6And Isaac dwelt in Gerar: 7And the men of the place asked him of his wife; and he said, She is my sister: for he feared to say, She is my wife; lest, said he, the men of the place should kill me for Rebekah; because she was fair to look upon." (Genesis 26: 6-7)

We have heard this story before. Abram lied about his wife Sarai, twice! Yet God blessd him.

As for Isaac, his deception was uncovered even worse:

"8And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out at a window, and saw, and, behold, Isaac was sporting with Rebekah his wife." (Genesis 26: 8)

The King of the Philistines literally witnessed Isaac "laughing" with his wife, the original word rendered by "sporting".

Isaac was being himself, and he was intimate with his wife: a much more unseemly exposure of the deception, as opposed to the dream which God had given to Abimelech (Genesis 20: 3)

"9And Abimelech called Isaac, and said, Behold, of a surety she is thy wife: and how saidst thou, She is my sister? And Isaac said unto him, Because I said, Lest I die for her. 10And Abimelech said, What is this thou hast done unto us? one of the people might lightly have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us. 11And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death." (Genesis 26: 6-11)

Isaac opened wells

Even though Isaac's deception was found out, and he had feared that he was going to be killed, nothing happened to him, neither from God or man.

The favor of God will never leave us, even when we sin. Laugh!

So, there was famine in the land. Does that mean that Isaac had to settle for a meager harvest? Not at all:

"12Then Isaac sowed in that land, and received in the same year an hundredfold: and the LORD blessed him. 13And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became very great: 14For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants: and the Philistines envied him." (Genesis 26: 12-14)

So, no matter who may surround you, no matter what the circumstances you may face, because you are a child of God, because you are in Christ as His own Son (1 John 3: 1-3; 4 17), you can trust in God your father's favor, and know that nothing will hold you back.

Laugh in the midst of hardships, child of God! He is with you and prospering you in your journey!

William Hutt: The Theory of Collective Bargaining

William Harold Hutt

William Hutt, an Englishman who taught in South Africa and Dallas Texas, was one of the most profound thinkers in free market economics. Sadly, even in his lifetime, particular on the origins and impacts of labor unions. Despite his long, lettered academic tenure, Hutt acknowledged the neglect of his research, a bitter irony defined by witnessing the irrelevancy of his research, while most academics fell into neglect after their deaths.

Not because of the errors of his research, but political forces in universities are strongly allied with liberal, statist, and coercive elements, particularly the labor movement, which have automatically (albeit unfairly) discredited his findings.

In his seminal work, The Theory of Collective Bargaining, Hutt advanced the argument that in a free market, everyone who wants work will find it, and every employer who seeks workers will get them. Labor shortages do not have to occur, provided that government and other special interest forces (like labor unions) do not intervene.

In his inquiry, Hutt wanted to know: does labor face a disadvantage in wage negotiations, and do unions mitigate this disadvantage? Throughout his essay, Hutt concludes "No."

Frederic Bastiat

First, Hutt points out the historical trends of 19th economists, many of whom abandoned the notion that labor union efforts are futile, since the immediate results of labor actions did produce concrete results for particular unions. Many economists defend unions at that point, convinced of their efficacy on behalf of employees who would benefit, not at the expense of other employees, but at the expense of the employer.

Yet classical liberal economist Frederic Bastiat's concerns about unseen effects cannot be ignored, and Hutt's analysis behind collective bargaining identifies long-term consequences as a burden to the laborer. Refusing to reject the wage-fund theory, which argues that labor combinations and force cannot change the available capital to the number of employees.

Then Hutt posits another controversy: the interest of unionists is antithetical to workers. He also debunks throughout the subsistence theory of wages: employers will take every step to bring down wages to the lowest level possible.

Hutt documented this "revelation" methodically instead of emotionally. Those who support unions advocated for their creation, so bias alone challenges the reliability of these groups. "Scientific Socialist" William Thompson, a protégé of Robert Owen, condemned labor unions as elite and exclusionary, resorting to force instead of legal constraints, hurting other industrious workers in the process. Quite a rebuke against labor unions, and one coming from a socialist.

In Economics of the Colour Bar,
Hutt uncovered the racist leanings of labor unions in South Africa,
which formed to prevent African laborers.

Contrary to union apologists, Hutt exposes the intense elitism which shuns or disdains non-union labor, and for Hutt, an academic at the University of Cape Town, South African, he witnessed first hand how trade unions deliberately (and essentially) discriminated against Africans to exclude them from the work force. Other works on the subject of trade unions identified the racist undercurrents which fomented these associations.

Hutt continues to hammer the point that labor combinations do benefit one class of workers, at the expense of others. No matter how loudly unions plead "An injury to one is an injury to all", the actions of one union to bolster their wages and benefits negatively impact other workers, particularly non-members. With this argument the author brings up another salient point, that classical liberal economists in the past reluctantly acknowledged (or ignored) the negative consequences of collective bargaining. Strong free-market adherents were intimidated by union power, and the timidity of discussion created a paucity of understanding on collective bargaining.

He  then refers to the economic fallacy long entertained by economists, that laborers have a disadvantage in the market place, a theory first advanced (though not yet questioned) by Wealth of Nations author Adam Smith. Crediting the Scottish Enlightenment economist's considerable influence in economics, Hutt then criticizes this foundational yet flawed reasoning, that employers can force wages to the lowest level, working in collusion with other businessmen, and because of the greater wealth of the employer, they could outlast labor disputes, whereas employees with relatively lesser capital could not do without a job and would accede to the demands of the employer.

Adam Smith

Despite the theories advanced in Smith's work, Hutt found little evidence that capitalists and employers routinely colluded to bring down wages. Free markets create competition not just for consumers, but employees as well, and one sees a pattern of employers as competitors by necessity. Whether tacit or overt, employers did conspire out of protection from the labor unions. Regarding the financial advantage of employers vs. employees, Hutt documents the immediate privations which managers faced for workers. Without proper employment, employers lose time and profit would. Relating anecdotal and academic information, Hutt articulates the frustrations of employers having to engage employees at the wages which the workers themselves wanted.

Already, Hutt makes the more compelling argument that employees, not employers, had the advantage. Noteworthy also in a number of his arguments are the vague terms which union supporters have employed, making articulate criticism difficult. The sophistry of modern academia has contributed to this confusion, certainly.

Prior economists failed to note that just as laborers lose potential wages when they don't work, so too do employers, entrepreneurs, and capitalists lose profit when they do not produce. Wages, incomes, and profit affect everyone, not just the employee who may or may not lose a job.

Following references to arcane or long-neglected academics, Hutt introduces a telling argument redefining the behavior of unions: coercive devices. He even compares them to monopolies, in that they attempt to control or limit the availability of a commodity: labor.

Social coercion occurs based on market forces, and private coercion enters when specific groups, such as labor unions, impede trade.


From a train strike in Denmark (c. 1992)
Strikes may benefit one groups of employees, but they exploit other workers
and harm all consumers in the end

Granted, labor actions benefit one group at the expense of another, but no matter what the outcome in labor actions, the consumer is the ultimate loser. Businesses and managers will pass on the costs of rising wage rates to production or find other minds for maintaining the profitably of their enterprises. Labor unions do not hope themselves without hurting other works, business, and the consumers.

Still, two errors have persisted in political economy, according to Hutt:

1. Forcing wage increases through labor actions helps all workers

2.  Labor and Capital are opposing elements (as opposed to co-operational factors)

Popular economic treatments tend to ignore that wage increases can occur through employment-shifting (promotions), and explorations on political economy ignore that large business interests tend to work with labor unions on a tacit basis, promoting policies which permitting a monopoly on labor and capital, all of which distorts the market place and frustrates commerce.

The forced rising of wages not only hurts consumers, but particularly harms the working class, who bear the undue cost of living increases, many of which relating to the products which they create and purchase. Contrary to labor union pretenses to protect workers' interests, their activities benefit a connected political class within unions and corporations, at the expense of the workers, even the members themselves.

Unions can provided camaraderie
and support (without the violence)

Concluding his essay on collective bargaining, Hutt charges that labor unions are the wrong mechanism for increasing labor wages for employees, but rather than discrediting employee associations altogether, the author offers that unions should fight for better working conditions - hours, workplace safety-- issues which a market system cannot reform or balance out.  In other commentaries, Hutt argues that unions offer worker training, camaraderie, and solidarity in other matters. Regarding their role in securing better wages, however, Hutt provides at length that labor unions are inimical to those interests, destructive to market forces, which provide the best equilibrium for optimal employment and payment.

Obama Poll's Pull: Worst Prez of Modern Era (Surprised?)

A new Quinnipiac University National Poll announced that President Obama is the worst President of the Modern Era (Post World War II)

President Obama -- Low on the Polls

The best President? Ronald Reagan, of course.


Ronald Reagan

I have only one question. . .

Did a University

 

 

have to spend

 

 

time and energy

 

 

taking a poll

 

 

to figure out

 

 

that President Obama

 

 

is the worst President

 

 

Of the Modern Era?

 

 

(Perhaps Quinnipiac took the poll so that Jimmy Carter wouldn't feel so bad.)

Carter: "Thanks Obama!"
No Longer the Worst President
In Modern History

 

 

CD-07: GOP Pick-Up More Likely Than Before

How is it possible that the Seventh Congressional District would end up in Democratic hands?

In 2012, the Obama GOTV outperformed expectations, and the Republicans' base of operations, from technology to GOTV, failed to meet let alone surpass this juggernaut. The Organizing for Action movement actively put Ami Bera in place to defeat former CA Attorney General Dan Lundgren.

This surprising upset please many liberals, of course, enough that an anti-Lundgren attacker crowed about his defeat on the Huffington Post.


CD-07 (Sacramento region)

While Democrats plotted the proper steps to take swing districts, Republicans were not laying any groundwork for holding onto key seats.

In 2014, US Senate candidate Elizabeth Emken signed up to take back Lundgren's seat, along with Igor Berman and Doug Ose.

Rep. Doug Ose (ret.)

Ose prevailed, and will face endangered Democratic incumbent Ami Bera in the general election this November.


Dr. Ami Bera

Bera, like a number of California Congressional Democrats, is playing safe and centrist in Congress, paying attention to the possibilities of another upset this year. Dr. Bera just declined his Congressional pension, a gesture which more lawmakers, Dem and GOP, might want to consider as Washington discusses the fiscal insolvency of our nation's annual budgets and national debt.

How good are Ose's chances for an upset?

With the anti-incumbent mood stronger than ever, plus a more forward-thinking and attentive National GOP conference (RNC Chairman Reince Preibus declared that they have not written off California just yet), Ose will have more funding and campaign efforts behind him.

While Ose was not the Tea Party backed candidate with endorsements from US Senator Rand Paul (that was Berman), Ose's prior legislative and campaign experience may assist him for a win against Bera.

Rep. Ose during his previous tenure in office (C-SPAN)

Still, Bera in a Dem-leaning district won by ten thousand votes against Lundgren. Do the general voting demographics offer any hope for Ose to win?

As of 2011, Democratic registration topped Republican votes by barely one percent. President Obama did win this district by six points in 2008, but Prop 8 passed by more than ten points. Still, other statewide races favored Democratic candidates by double digits in 2010, so Republicans face more of an uphill battle regarding demographics and prior voting patterns.

Ose is pro-growth, pro-limited government, does not support amnesty for illegal immigration, and recognizes the concerns with water rights in Northern California. He has also blasted Obamacare as a job-killer which has done nothing to make health care affordable or accessible. With the Affordable Care Act in full effect (aside from Obama's unconstitutional executive orders), voters may feel more inclined to vote out Dems who support this law (or at least identify with it).

If the CA GOP 2014 GOTV works hard, and Ose makes a strong case without alienating Tea Party affiliates and moderates, Ose can take back CD-7 for the GOP. The fact that a retired House Rep would run again speaks to the urgency of keeping the House in GOP hands and stalling a liberal-progressive agenda which has done more harm than good for this country, and particularly California.

Christie Vetoes A2006

NJ Gov. Chris Christie

Whether out of personal commitment, political gain, or principled opposition, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie did the right thing when he vetoed the Democratic designed and promoted gun-control bill A2006. Just as guns do not kill people, nor do the bullets, and limiting the size of ammunition magazines would have at best a cosmetic effect on preventing gun violence.

Despite the unspeakable tragedies which parents and communities (Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut; Aurora, Colorado) have faced following gun-related mass murders, reason and purpose must triumph over emotion and intuition regarding the proper methods for curbing mass violence.

In California, following the devastating massacre from a mentally deranged college student at the University of California, Santa Barbara, the calls for legislating away firearms fired off again. However, wiser minds prevailed in the discussion, who indicated that the mental status of the young assailant, who ended up killing six people (three by stabbing and three more by shooting) had a history of violent mental illness. College leadership with more discretion, as well as more engaged psychiatric facilitation may have prevented the senseless deaths in Santa Barbara, California.

By rejecting the New Jersey Democratic legislature’s “easy way out”, Gov. Christie correctly argued that our state governments require more authority to institutionalize individuals who pose a danger to themselves and to others. Hopefully, his example will inspire leaders and  lawmakers throughout the country  to focus less on controlling the guns and more on dealing with the mentally ill who perpetrate violent crimes.

The "Other" Marriage Crisis

Here is the crisis of marriage writ large, and advertised.

Is there no shame?

Not just from exploiting the image of a public figure, but promoting a form of conduct which does not promote the best of anyone.

What gives?

While activists can rage against gay marriage, or call homosexuality a sin (they might want to go further in their Bibles, and discover that sin is a much deeper issue than what you do. . .), no one should ignore the other crises in marriage.

Divorce is high.

Pre-marital sex is common, not just excused, but even celebrated.

Ashley Madison adultery-made-easy promo with Hillary Clinton (Source: Truth Revolt)

And as the picture above depicts, adultery is solicited.

Harder choices? Taken from the former Secretary of State's failed memoir Hard Choices, the billboard prompts a number of questions.

First, is this ad mocking the former First Lady? Or does the CEO of the adultery website really believe that she made noteworthy decisions?

More probing question: Did her husband former President Bill Clinton harm the institution of marriage with his affairs in the White House, followed by his impassion plea that he did nothing improper with "that woman."?

No. Clinton's conduct normalized a little bit more what was becoming commonplace.

Adultery is treated as though there are no consequences to a man or woman stepping out on one's spouse. Now websites advertise quick quickies, too?

The divorce is reaching all-time highs in this country. Mary Matalin called out the high single-mother rate in this country.

Forget worrying about gay marriage, Matalin concluded with a panel of media intellectuals on ABC's This Week. The crisis of broken homes, broken marriages, casual attitudes about sex, dishonor towards the marital covenant between one man and one woman, these issues deserve real attention.

People should protest the undoing and redefining of marriage away from one man and one woman, but for the sanctity of the ceremony to (re)gain its proper status, we have to look at why the casual attitudes toward commitment and honor among wedded couples has fallen away, too. 


Ray Uchima: The Next Torrance City Council Appointee (?!)

Ray Uchima is one name I have heard a lot lately from Torrance City Council insiders.

I had the opportunity to meet him once at another political function, the campaign kick-off for one of the Torrance School Board candidates in 2013.

 A Torrance businessman who invested heavily in the 2014 City Council race, significantly assisting the winning candidates (including mayor-elect Pat Furey), Uchima had planned on running for city council himself, but personal conflicts intervened and he had to abandon his run for office this year.

However, his desire to serve on the city council has remained unabated, according to reports, and if Torrance City Council string-pulling and back-scratching win the day, Uchima may get his wish.

With Councilmember Furey's election to Torrance Mayor, the next council will have to appoint (or allow a special election) to fill the vacated council seat next.

Who will be the next city council member?

Inside sources, including those connected with prior candidates for office as well as current members, suggest that the hands have been shaken, the deals have been cut, and Uchima will be the next Torrance City Council member appointed to the seat.

Is this fair? Is this ethical? Is this even legal?

Looking at his resume, Chairman of Torrance Planning Commission, successful small businessman, there is nothing in his professional or personal background which should disqualify him. Judging from the support of family and friends who had urged him to run, he has a decent following in the "Balanced City" to sit on the city council. Furthermore, private tragedies emerge in our lives and can frustrate political ambitions for a short time,

However, should our leaders abandon the proper channels for seeking power and authority in city government and allow the next appointee's entrance into city hall rest on these flimsy and unprincipled methods? "I donated a lot of money to your campaigns, so give me a seat on the city council!"

Sources have further indicated to me that the next council, lead by Pat Furey, are feeling the pressure from the Asian (and  particularly the Asian businesses) community in Torrance to appoint an Asian American in order to have a more representative council. Putting aside the blatant influence-peddling, a city leadership which understood the cultural mores of the Asian community, particularly the businesses, would take better steps to ensure that companies like Toyota Headquarters stayed in Torrance instead of heading for Texas. Still, identity politics, especially without the input of the voters (how few who bother to vote) should not dictate who sits on any city council.

The next cohort of city leadership will have the decisions to make regarding how to fill the Furey vacancy. Three options are available:

1. Throw a special election to fill the seat, which will cost the city another $200,000 dollars.

2. Open the seat to an application/appointment process, which is more likely to happen.

3. Take the next ranking vote-getter behind the four candidates who won election to the city council. This unusual route would award the seat to Leilani Kimmel-Dagostino, who finished fifth in the 2014 election. The council could consider other candidates who put in their time and money to run for office and appoint that person too (like Asian-American businessman Alex See or Mike Griffiths, who received retiring mayor Frank Scotto's endorsement)

Whatever decision the next city council takes, the prior behavior of the voting members suggests a crop of representatives who do what they are told, who rarely investigate or challenge the reports or suggestions of department leaders and bureaucratic heads regarding spending, budgetary priorities, or the proper reforms needed to ensure smooth roads, safe neighborhoods, and solvent finances.

If the next council pursues option #2, then a slate of candidates will submit an application, listing their contributions, skills, and accomplishments for the city of Torrance. Following interviews with all the city councilmembers, they will then vote for

Because of all the backroom wheeling and dealing which has occurred, Uchima will get the seat, regardless of the dumb-show of protocol and propriety which will emerge for the public to see. One local business member assured me that this will be the likely process taking place, and the whole affair really disgusts him. At this point, he shared that it does not seem as if anything can be done to stop it.

Whatever takes place in Torrance over the next few weeks, residents should keep an eye on whom the next council appoints to replace Furey. Despite the time and investment of the other candidates who ran for office, and with the information I have received from local leaders and politicos connected with candidates running for office (and current serving on the Torrance City Council), if Uchima gets the seat, residents should expect more of the same pay-for-play politicking which has made Torrance City Hall unresponsive and unaccountable to the city's priorities and financial liabilities.

Judge Takes on Teacher Tenure

Where legislators have failed, where governors have accommodated, judges are stepping up and reforming sclerotic, bureaucratic roadblocks which have empowered unions while impoverishing students, parents, and families.

Beatriz and Elizabeth Vergara: Plaintiffs in Teacher Tenure Case
(Source: LA School Reports)

For decades, school choice and voucher activists in the state of California have fought for education reforms which would return the power of one's education to the family, to the parents, and away from the unions, from the bureaucrats, and from state legislatures.



The first major court decision, Vergara v. California, declared teacher tenure unconstitutional, along with other arbitrary, union-defended practices which rewarded mediocre (or incompetent) teachers at the expense of students.

LA Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu ( LA School Report)

The opinion delivered by Judge Rolf M. Treu focused first on the US Supreme Court ruling Brown v. Board of Education, which had reversed the Court's prior judicial doctrine of "separate but equal." The judge then outlined the state's compelling interest in ensuring that all students receive a proper education.

Citing more recent California State Supreme Court rulings, Judge Treu outlined that decisions from school districts which adversely affected one group of students at the expense of other students, such as the premature closing of a school, or a lack of funding, were also unconstitutional acts. Equality had to extend to educational opportunity, without any delay or dispute.

Moving from the equality of access to the quality of education, the judge summarized the plaintiffs of the case, nine students from Los Angeles Unified. Their argument for removing teacher tenure and "Last hired, first fired" statutes rested on the premise that those conditions denied the students equal access to a quality education.

In a summation which affirmed the argument of the plaintiffs then outlined the specific reasons for supporting their contentions, the judge agreed that the current teacher tenures laws were unconstitutional, violating the Equal Protections clause of the California State Constitution.

LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy (LA School Report)

The nine students filed lawsuits against California Governor Jerry Brown and the State Superintendent Tom Torkalson, as well as the State Board of Education and the LAUSD superintendent John Deasy, who  following the lawsuit reported that he supported the students' legal challenge. How often does that happen, where a defendant agrees and accommodates the charges of the plaintiff?

The opinion also points out that the California Teachers Association intervened in the case, trying to prevent the lawsuit from going forward. Well.

Recognizing the crucial importance of a quality education, and a responsibility of the state to provide that service, the court moved to inspect the challenged statutes with scrutiny.

The first: Permanent Employment Statute

The judge pointed out that most teachers undergo a two year probationary status, when in reality the period does not last for two years, but less, because teachers must receive notice of tenure by March 15, as opposed to the end of the school year. Local superintendents have pointed out this contradiction, then concede that new teachers get tenure before the probationary period officially ends.

That's a problem in itself, regardless of the quality or the competence of the teacher. For that reason alone, the judge ruled the two year tenure law unconstitutional.

Then: Dismissal Statutes

The judge summarized the intense amount of time and money which school districts must spend to get rid of ineffective or incompetent teachers. The stories about abusive or unacceptable teachers are too numerous to relate in one post. The comparing the dismissal process and due process hearings of classified school employees, the court ruled that there are procedures in place which can protect due process without requiring the extended, "uber due process" which has discouraged school districts form getting rid of ineffective teachers.

Finally: LIFO (Last In, First Out)

The judge identified the cold reality of these statutes, which would force the best, the most gifted teachers out of their jobs first just because of seniority. Identifying the "lose-lose situation" inherent in this statute, the court found that the best interests of the student depend on keeping the best teachers, regardless of seniority, in their jobs while removing bad teachers, regardless of their time or tenure on the job. Currently, LIFO automatically separates good teachers from students, an undue and unconstitutional burden for both parties. Furthermore, the opinion provided information that seniority is not the overriding condition of retention for employment in twenty other states. In other words, the judges decision to strike down LIFO would not occur in a vacuum of judicial activism, but within a current of reforms emerging across the country.

Effects on low-income, minority students

Establishing through legal, judicial, and empirical evidence the failure of teacher tenure statutes, the Judge Treu's opinion rounds out his ruling by reminding the reader that these laws have disproportionately harmed students in low-income areas, and particularly minority students. The implicit violations of the different Civil Rights Act legislation passed by federal and states government would have invited more problems than solutions, and the judge wisely argued in dicta about the adverse consequences of teacher tenure.

Teacher tenure, impossible dismissal procedures, and LIFO hurt all students, regardless of race or financial status.

Finally, a judge in California had the time and courage to take on these outdated, adult-driven statutes, which cared more about the bureaucrats and the unions, instead of the parents, the students, and the teachers, many of whom do want the most qualified people in the classroom teaching students.

SCOTUS says "No!" to POTUS

SCOTUS says "No!" to POTUS

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.  -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, 1788

The genius of the United States Constitution lies in the checks and balances of power, not the award of power to the people or any dedicated interest (or elitist) group.

Under the Obama Administration, the checks on President Obama's abusive expansion of executive arrogance has met little resistance from Congress, aside from vocal critics in the House of Representatives and the decaying filibuster in the US Senate.

Yet the third branch of government, the judiciary, is taking up the slack, checking the abuse of power in the Obama Administration. In recent decisions handed down from their 2013-2014 term, The United States Supreme Court said no to the aggravated executive arrogance of President Obama:

1. In a unanimous decision (National Labor Review Board v. Noel Canning et al.), SCOTUS slammed Obama's 2012 recess appointments to the National Labor Relations board, citing the three day "recess" of the US Senate as an insufficient period of time to warrant those rapid appointments without prior advise and consent of Congress. Obama does not like waiting, and has bandied about his phone and pen as an authoritative response to Congressional inaction. Yet even the "Wise Latina" Sonia Sotomayor and the novice Justice Elena Kagan, both liberal Obama appointees themselves, rebuked the President. In response to this poetic and political justice, The Washington Post reports that hundreds of NLRB decisions now require review.

 

"Wise Latina" Sonia Sotomayor
Joined Unanimous Rebuke of Obama Overreach

2. Extending Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure to cellphones, another unanimous SCOTUS verdict sided with the citizen against the state in Riley v. California. Cellphones are not just hardware facilitating communication, but reservoirs of sensitive data, to which police power should not have arbitrary access. The implications of this ruling have promoted civil liberty activists demanding greater scrutiny of the Obama Administration’s NSA metadata collection, which has grossly overstepped its bounds, invading the privacy of. Perhaps US Senator Rand Paul (r-ENTIYCK) will start carrying his cellphone once again. To sum up, Chief Justice Roberts and colleagues scolded the state (and Obama): “Get off my cellphone!”

3. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, SCOTUS delivered another blow to ObamaCare’s careless and unconstitutional invasion of individual liberty. The conservative majority upheld the religious convictions of the Hobby Lobby corporate owners. Arguing that the contraceptive mandate in Obama runs contrary to their religious convictions, Hobby Lobby owners have succeed

Even left-leaning Politico had to acknowledge:

The ruling. . .amounts to a huge black eye for Obamacare, the administration and its backers. The justices have given Obamacare opponents their most significant political victory against the health care law, reinforcing their argument that the law and President Barack Obama are encroaching on Americans’ freedoms.

While outraged liberals argue that this decision will lead to a sweeping denial of birth control in employee insurance plans, the rulings in fact will prevent the Affordable Care Act from forcing private corporations to offer contraceptives in violation of their religious precepts.

The slippery slope of ObamaCare’s overreach has hit major bumps along the way. With the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court declared: “No, President Obama, legal fiat does not trump religious liberty in the United States of America.”

Other rulings which deserve attention include Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., in which both liberal and conservative justices concurred that the regulatory powers of the EPA did not include rewriting unclear statutes or imposing undue burdens which cannot be realistically realized in practice. Obama’s War on Coal through administrative fiat may hit another snag with this ruling.

While Founding Father Alexander Hamilton had argued initially that "[The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment" (Federalist 71), he did not witness the desegregation of public schools following Brown v. Board of Education, either. Even if conservative columnist  Ben Shapiro pushed aside any reveling over SCOTUS’ series of rebukes to Presidential imperiousness, but the consensus on the Court, and in concert with public opinion, demonstrates that Obama’s unchecked, imbalanced power grabs are facing increased scrutiny, heated criticism, and a growing reaction toward limiting state power at the expense of individual liberty and constitutional rule.