MLK Day, 2015: We Have Come a Long Way

On this Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, instead of listening to irreverent race-baiters like “Reverends” Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, let us imagine what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his colleague Rosa Parks might say about race relations in America.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 First, Dr. King would remind us that in previous decades, white people were never indicted, let alone convicted and incarcerated for willfully killing black people. White lynch mobs would preen for cameras following their savage murders of black people, brazenly smiling because they knew that no white jury would convict them.

 

King would retell the trial of the “Scottsboro Boys”, in which a white judge set aside a corrupt guilty verdict, knowing full well that the nine young African-American men did not rape a white woman of dubious reputation and loose morals. A white lawyer from New York represented those black defendants, and shortly afterward blacks were serving on Alabama juries. King would then remind everyone about the unjust slaughter of fifteen-year old Emmett Till, murdered by white supremacists in Mississippi for whistling at a white woman. Fifty years later, prosecutors indicted Till’s killer. Trayvon Martin of Florida was killed by a man of mixed heritage. The state scheduled twelve days and fifty-six witnesses for his case. Maybe King would mention OJ Simpson, a wealthy African-American athlete and entertainer who was tried for murder, defended by a black lawyer and Harvard Law Professor. OJ was not convicted, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and general outrage from the public.

 

In his “Letter in a Birmingham Jail”, King lamented that blacks were still begging for a coffee at the local restaurant. Today, blacks are celebrated entrepreneurs and investors, including Earvin “Magic” Johnson, who helped gang-riddled, irrepressibly corrupt Compton, California. Herman Cain owned Godfather’s Pizza. Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm of New York State ran for Congress and for President, long before Obama. Unlike the race-hustlers of today, Chisholm reached out to all Americans, and even comforted a severely wounded (former) white supremacist George Wallace after he suffered an assassination attempt. There are black leaders in courts and statehouses, including Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice (National Security Advisor and Secretary of State) among many others.  

 Instead of crying about racism in America, King would say: “We have come a long way!”

 

Rosa Parks

Then I think of Rosa Parks, the civil rights leader who refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus. “She was tired”, as old Eddie shared in the movie “Barbershop”. She was tired all right: tired of being treated with disrespect; tired of unequal treatment under the law; tired of being told what she could and could not do, how much she could make; and being told where to sit.

Confirming Dr. King’s appraisal of improved race relations in the USA, Rosa Parks would acknowledge that there is room for improvement, but only because of President Obama and his Democratic Party.

Parks would be dismayed that Obama and Democrats in general take the black vote for granted. For example, while 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney attended the NAACP Conference, Obama skipped it. Talk about disrespect.  Dishonoring marriage and expanding abortion (both offensive to blacks), Obama does not respect their values. He has done nothing to amend the unfair sentencing guidelines in our nation’s drug laws, to  re-enfranchise felons, or even commute prison sentences for juvenile offenders. As a result, blacks inadvertently still suffer unequal treatment.

Parks would be disgusted by the welfare state and Democratic resistance to school choice. Obama refuses to allow black families to choose their children’s schools, yet enrolls his children in elite private schools with elite security.  Because of  President Obama’s ruinous “progressive” policies, African-Americans suffer unemployment twice the national average. Black youth struggle against 50% unemployment. Blacks are not doing or making much under this President. Besides, Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson offered then expanded government welfare for one reason: “We’ll have those n—ggers voting for us for the next two hundred years”. Johnson’s invidious comment and Obama’s callous indifference validate the argument of black conservatives Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams: Because Democrats enable dependence and resist school choice and vouchers, they basically tell blacks where to sit.

In fact, the Democratic Party, from Woodrow Wilson to today, have been sending blacks “to the back of the bus”, while Republicans offer them the front seat (Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, and the recently-deceased Edward Brooke), or let them own the bus if they want to (Herman Cain).  To paraphrase crappy rapper Kanye West: “President Obama does not care about black people.” Without a doubt, Rosa Parks would shout: “President Obama, stop putting my people in the back of the bus!”

Ironically, despite this country’s drastically improved race relations, if anyone is hindering progress on race, look no further than the black man in the White House, his black attorney general, and black liberal media elites who profit from unrest rather than peace.  Other than Obama and Co., We the People of the United Sates can confidently assert that Dr. Kings’ Dream of 1963 is our reality.

Torrance Unified School Board Election 2015

Torrance Unified School District

Torrance Unified School District is one of the most successful, welcoming districts in the state, and certainly in Los Angeles County. In spite of staggering funding cuts, the school board has done more with less. Test scores are rising, and more parents want their kids to go to Torrance Schools, even if they do not live in the city.

One district official informed me that the school district makes money with every permit student, since the district can choose whom to take. Often, they take students who do not have federal demands attached to their education (special education students). Moreover, these students work hard and behave, because they want to stay in the district.

Torrance Unified is a clear example of what school choice can accomplish when parents decided where their kids go, and school districts have more authority to determine who can stay (or rather, when a student has to leave).

Election Year 2013 had its hits and misses. Despite on challenger, John-Paul Tabakian running for one of three open seats, the three incumbents were also seeking election, and they all won. Lessons learned, expectations changed, and this year, local conservatives and anyone interested in the long-term welfare and success of Torrance Unified have the opportunity to cast votes for two of the seats.

Don Lee is running again. He has one more election in him, and wants to oversee the new bond money accorded the district through Measures T and U.

Terry Ragins informed me that she was running again, although rumors in the background suggest that she may not run again after all. She may decide to end her tenure on the Board and spend more time with family and other career pursuits.

Whoever chooses to run for the School Board, whether incumbent or new-comer, the following issues need to be addressed:

1. Proper management of the Measures T and U bond monies. I have been listening to local residents share deep concerns about how the money will be allocated. Two homeowners complained that TUSD School Board sold the bond measures with a loose promise of "Trust us" regarding how the money would be spent. One resident was really upset, complaining that these bonds are always sold on the pretense of  "It's for the kids!" but the money gets wasted.

Common Core

2. Common Core. More parents are worried about this curriculum, including the data mining attached to it. I talked to one South Los Angeles parent who had to push back against course programs which sought personal information from students and their parents. Local parent groups are also complaining to school boards about the introduction of controversial programs relating to Islam, as well as explicit material in sex ed course and English classes. I have spoken with individual parents, who have shared their worries about the federal program cobbled together with input from governors across the country.

3.SCROC. So far, the Governor's proposed 2015-2016 budget contains funding for vocational schools, but nothing specific has been appropriated yet. The two ROC centers will be lobbying really hard for continued funding for SCROC.  Board Member Terry Ragins has been working hard on this project, but Member Michael Wermers has broached the subject of either funding another funding stream or restricting the ROC programs entirely.

\

4. Site maintenance, repair, and upgrades. Torrance schools need ongoing upkeep and maintenance, which was the purported purpose behind the T and U bond measures. Which schools need particular attention? Should the district discuss expanding schools or opening up another school? Are there any abandoned or sequestered sites which could be converted in the event that enrollment rises, requiring another campus?

5. Human Resources. Torrance teachers are underpaid, and Torrance schools are understaffed, particularly in  administration. After talking with School Board member Michael Wermers, he explained the importance of having an adequate administrative staff, since requiring ten different departments to report to one person is impractical and unsustainable. I remember when Torrance high schools had three assistant principals and one principal. Now, they struggle with only two assistant principals. Can anything be done to provide better salaries for Torrance teachers and better administrative support?

These issues, along with general fiscal prudence and efficiency, should concern all candidates running for Torrance School Board in 2015.

Torrance City Council Meeting, January 13, 2015

City of Torrance Logo

The Torrance City Council Meeting on January 13, 2015 had its share of controversies as well as common agreements.

At the beginning of the meeting, the city council recognized retiring staff members. Police and public works deserve recognition.

Oral Communications were a different affair. Owners of a pre-school near the corner of Sepulveda and Eriel repeated their concerns with an auto repair shop which will be built on the corner of those two streets. Not just the owners of the school, but local residents and parents shared that the homeowners and residents in the region were not given any notice about the Conditional Use Permit hearing a year ago. This complaint came up in last week's Planning Commission Meeting (January 7, 2015).

One resident, Mark Stevenson, offers detailed analysis and questions regarding the city's spending choices.

He outlined concerns with spending on non-profit social services agencies and the implementation of in-school LivingWise educational programs in the middle schools. The latter programs were designed to teach kids to be responsible with water. According the city manager and his staff, the program has saved city resources and money.

I also noticed a large budget item regarding implementation of the Affordable Care Act. This law is hurting small businesses and cities. Torrance needed a comprehensive computer program to process which employees have insurance, and to gauge that individuals are properly covered, depending on their status. The City Manager informed the audience that the program, contracted with Healthcare Impact Associates, was necessary to avoid fines.

Toward the end of the meeting, I learned about the Torrance Tourism Business Improvement Distric (TTBID), a consortium of hoteliers who raised funds for promoting the city to attract more tourism. Currently, TTBID assesses a 1% levy on each bed, then diverts the funds to attract more business to the city. Stevenson argued that there were better ways to promote tourism than with a bed tax. One of the TTBID reps reminded the audience that city tax dollars are not paying for TTBID.

One of the representatives connected with the Rose Parade float (which won a major award this year) complained at the end of the meeting that the Rose Parade also promotes business and attracts visitors to Torrance. TTBID never reached out to them to cooperate on anything.

Such concerns, in my opinion, are valid. I notice that a lot of people come to the podium to showcase themselves rather than offer anything substantive. Some members of the audience want to promote their own causes and connections, rather than issues which directly affect the rest of the community. It's a free country, and oral communications exist so that individuals can share their opinions, and make themselves known.

Mike Griffiths

At the end of the meeting, during councilmembers' oral communications, Councilmember Mike Griffiths suggested granting a waiver for parking citations during  the city-wide sweeping days. Other members considered the subject, and asked what costs the city could face if they pursed waiving one parking ticket per year per resident.

I spoke with two of the city council members, both of whom agree with fiscal prudence, but one of them reminded me that even if the city cuts the grants to local charities or ends the LivingWise program, those funds are a drop in the bucket compared the millions of dollars needed to repair Torrance streets.

Closing Remarks

I was surprised to see who much money the city council allocates in its consent calendar. I was further surprised that Tim Goodrich, normally regarded as a very liberal member of the group, voted against a consent item because he requested more information on how selected social groups were vetted before receiving city funds.

Torrance City Councilmember Tim Goodrich

Frankly, I would like to see more members of the city council questioning and even rejecting consent items in the future. Granted, cutting twenty thousand dollars here and there won't repair all the city's roads, but it would be a good start toward fiscal prudence and sound money management for the long term. If anything else, our city leaders need to discuss these issues.

If not for Stevenson's questions and comments on the Consent Calendar, I would have no idea what the city was doing with the money.

Stevenson's questions deserve more attention, but he has to work on his presentation. There is too much information flowing over that podium at one time. I would like to see if more Torrance residents would be interested in forming a local interest group to inform residents and press our city leaders to rethink the spending, budget, and appropriations of city funds for the future.

I have a feeling that elected officials would respond if more residents showed up, complained about key issues in the city, and demanded that the representatives rethink their use of tax dollars. A few people showing up once a week has some impact, but more people voicing their criticism would help.

Torrance Concerned Citizens Coalition, anyone?

CA GOP Senate Opportunity in 2016?

California Republican Party

The California Republican Party brand has slumped for the past decade. Conservatives remain strong in the Central Valley and the Eastern parts of the state, but statewide numbers have collapsed to beneath 30%.

While the National Republican Party has vastly improved image and influence, the California branch has made incremental gains. Putting aside the expensive disappointments of 2010 (Governor Moonbeam Brown returned to Sacramento, and US Senator Moonbat Barbara Boxer beat down former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina), and the graver upsets of 2012, (as Dems attained a supermajority in Sacramento, and flipped four House seats), bad times are getting better. CA GOP Chairman Jim Brulte outlined three goals in 2014: maintain the House Majority, end the Democratic supermajority in Sacramento, and build a stronger party structure. Mission Accomplished.

 

Boxer is retiring

 

Now, with Boxer’s retirement, California Republicans can profit from 2014 successes, rebuild from the prior failures, and assemble a statewide victory for 2016. Puzzling over who would run, another party rep reminded me that Republicans do face a long-shot bid. Why would anyone spend $50 million to run for a seat likely to lose? Money alone hasn’t make the difference (Meg and Carly).

Is a Republican representing California in the US Senate really a lost cause?

If CA GOP leaders can find the right candidate, good. But is there a party infrastructure in place that a candidate could thrive in? When raising a harvest, farmers follow weather conditions, till the soil, plant the proper seeds, then nurture the crop to fruition. The same is true for campaigning. I know of one successful example, whose model I would like to see expanded to the fifty-two counties, which could unify the CA GOP’s disparate county seats while building momentum behind one or two candidates for the top office in 2016.

Assemblyman David Hadley (R-Torrance) assembled local leaders and activists to create the South Bay One Hundred, serving as an endorsement body as well as fundraising operation. Members contributed a set amount toward promoting a candidate for the 66^th Assembly District in the South Bay, the #1 legislative target in 2014. With the outstanding support of the South Bay 100, Hadley pushed away a divisive primary, then launched a comprehensive, grassroots efforts with diligent volunteers. Letting his own business die in order to revive his party as well as this state’s future, Hadley combined strong consulting with the right political climate, followed by vigorous financing from Independent Expenditures, to defeat an incumbent Democrat.

Would it be possible for California Republican party leaders to replicate a similar model, connect with Central Committee Chairs and members to form their own endorsement body? Call it the CA GOP Senate PAC, or the California 1000. This organization would coalesce the diverse groups throughout the state, channel the political knowledge and connections into vetting, promoting, and then endorsing a US Senate candidate.

With this coalition of California GOP activists, plus a large reserve of campaign funding, state party leaders could approach interested (or interesting) US Senate prospects. Beyond asking them to run, the CA GOP Senate PAC would provide an endorsement package, a connected base of operations, and a reliable funding stream. Bringing in different teams would prevent divisive primaries, and embittered partisans, too.

 

Prof. Condoleezza Rice declined to run

 

Along with right conditions, proper ground game, well-connected operations, the CA GOP needs a good candidate. Former Secretary of State and Stanford Poli Sci Professor Condoleezza Rice topped my list, among many. A close friend sent my request to the stateswoman, but she politely demurred.

“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....”

Congressman Darrell Issa? The richest man in Congress also commands national celebrity, following his contentious yet spectacular Oversight Committee hearings. He has already said no. San Diego mayor Kevin Faulconer? Great campaign operator, but focusing on his own 2016 reelection bid. Perhaps another Congressman (Nunes, Rohrabacher, Valadao?) will consider a bid.

Carly? Looking back, she carried the same baggage that burdened GOP Presidential contender Mitt Romney: former CEO with massive layoffs and a severance from dissatisfied stock holders. Besides, she’s running for President (and she’s a deadbeat, according to Debby Saunders).

 

Tom Del Beccaro

 

Former CA GOP Chairman Tom Del Beccaro has recently indicated interest. Prior CA GOP Chairman with strong connections, and syndicated columnist, he inspires confidence, but also reticence. Can he fundraise? Can he translate his backroom smarts into a front-porch campaign?

In comes Charles Munger, Jr. the wealthy physicist and Republican activist. He has invested time, money, talent, and credibility to a number of winning contests. His “Spirit of Democracy” PAC has helped revive GOP prospects in the state. He relates to politics front and back. But would he run for US Senate?

Before finding the ideal candidate, the state party needs to assemble a network connecting focused party leaders and activists with selected benefits (electing a Republican to the US Senate). With this strengthened unity combined with the battaille royale among ambitious Democrats, Republicans would have more than “California Dreamin’”, but becoming a reality of replacing Boxer in the US Senate.

Congressman Nunes Voted against Blackburn Amendment: Why?

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA)

Congressman Devin Nunes (R-Tulare, CA) was the only new member added to the California Congressional delegation after the 2002 redistricting process. For once, Republicans gained a little ground after a decennial census. Too bad they were not mobilized to take advantage of the Citizens Redistricting efforts in 2011-2012.

Nunes has been Tea Party before there was a Tea Party, a pragmatist out of concern for the greater good, rather than merely caving into popular or political pressures. During the 2013 shutdown, Nunes was critical, because there was no long-term strategy. The math, in his opinion, simply was not there. The 113th Congressional Republican majority simply could not govern from one half of one branch of government.

A staunch fighter for farmers and water rights, Nunes champions job growth and economic recovery. He has never ceased lobbying for better conditions regarding irrigation and water transport for Central Valley Farmers. Working with wiser Democrats (i.e. Democrats who hope to get reelected in the near future), Nunes has authored, cosponsored, and presented legislation to amend, limit, and scale back the Affordable Care Act.

He also supports guest worker permits for migrant workers, but rejected the Obamacare of Immigration bill passed in the US Senate in 2013. A growing cohort of conservatives in California are still wary of Nunes' because of his support for immigration reform.
.
In 2014, he also voted for John Boehner to retain his speakership, but the advice and opinion from five Congressmen, including some of the most conservative members of the caucus, convinced me that in the long-term it is all for the better. (Still, I support Gohmert, and won't relent for a future, better Speaker).

Now, with the appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security coming up, Nunes voted for HR 240, which would limit spending and direction to key parts of the agency, specifically the funding for executive amnesty.

Five amendments were added to the appropriations bill.

Nunes voted "Yes" on four of the amendments:

1. The Anderholt Amendment: which bars funding for illegal immigrant minors in connection with Obama's November 2014 executive orders,

2. The DeSantis Amendment: which would require immediate prosecution for any illegal immigrant guilty of child abuse, sexual abuse, or domestic violence.

3. The Salmon Amendment, which rebukes the President for pursuing policies which put American workers at a disadvantage. How about that?! Check out the clear and convincing text of the amendment:

An amendment numbered 4 printed in Part B of House Report 114-2 to express a sense of Congress that the Executive Branch should not pursue policies that disadvantage the hiring of U.S. citizens and those lawfully present in the United States by making it economically advantageous to hire workers who came to the country illegally.

And finally,

4. The Schock Amendment, which demands that the President stop promoting illegal immigrants ahead of those

Now, Nunes rejected the Blackburn Amendment, which blocks funding for President Obama's 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood arrivals program, which passed anyway.

An amendment numbered 2 printed in Part B of House Report 114-2 to provide that no funds may be used to consider new, renewal or previously denied DACA applications.
 Most readers learned about this amendment through Breitbart, which excoriated Renee Ellmers of North Carolina for voting against the amendment:

Renee Ellmers

A whopping 26 Republicans joined the Democrats in Congress to vote against an amendment to the DHS funding bill sponsored by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). That amendment aims to block funds for President Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), largely believed to be the root cause of the border crisis last summer.

Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) was the first Republican to break ranks. “Ellmers is [the] first GOP no vote,” Politico’s Seung Min Kim Tweeted as the vote began.

When asked on Wednesday to explain her vote against Blackburn’s amendment—she actually voted for a similar amendment from Blackburn this past summer. . . Ellmers makes the case for amnesty for illegal aliens because she claims there is a shortage of American workers who can do jobs in her district. But first she began by stating she’s opposed to the president’s action—even though she voted against fighting him.

Two California Republicans joined with Ellmers: David Valadao and Devin Nunes.

First of all, I am pleased that Congressmen Darrell Issa and Jeff Denham joined with the rest of their Republican peers to defund President Obama's DACA program. For a few years, I had read diverse reports about Issa pushing a DREAM Act bill, which later died. Denham has been an amnesty cheerleader for a long time, too, but at least he voted to stop Obama's unconstitutional power grab.

David Valadao

As for Valadao, he is a well-known amnesty supporter, and has pandered to the Hispanic vote on this issue for a long time. In the 2014 debate with his Democratic opponent, Valadao and counterpart debated entirely in Spanish. Still very disappointed, I am not surprised

I am deeply surprised as well as concerned about Congressman Nunes' vote against defunding executive amnesty. I read his Prosperity and Security agenda. I have looked over his record. He strikes me as an eminently reasonable and well-ground conservative who knows how to pick his fights. This was one fight he needed to pick, yet he chose not to.

How can anyone expect the United States to remain a free, prosperous, and secure nation if the federal government permits open borders and enables more illegal immigrant youth to flood this country's immigration detention centers? Even the liberal Republican Neel Kashkari acknowledged that the answer to the world's problems is not an open border. The illegal immigration youth who overwhelmed the Southern borders in 2014 needed to go home. Executive amnesty, which supports these unconscionable violations of federal law and our nation's borders, cannot be supported

I contacted Congressman Nunes' office this morning, expecting an answer to why he rejected the Blackburn Amendment. His constituents in the 22nd Congressional District, as well as every Californian should demand an answer from the newly-installed House Intelligence Committee Chairman. The last thing that this country needs is more funding for illegal immigration.

Contact Congressman Devin Nunes' office and demand an answer, and then press him to support defunding all aspects of Obama's illegal executive amnesty.

CLOVIS 264 Clovis Avenue Suite 206 Clovis, CA 93612 Main: (559) 323-5235 Fax: (559) 323-5528

VISALIA 113 North Church Street Suite 208 Visalia, CA 93291 Main: (559) 733-3861 Fax: (559) 733-3865

WASHINGTON Longworth House Office Building, Suite 1013 Washington, DC 20515 Main: (202) 225-2523 Fax: (202) 225-3404

Lessons from the DeVos Family

Richard DeVos Sr.

The right-to-work reforms in Michigan did not happen in one day.

Through the planning and investment of key supporters, the DeVos family in particular, Michigan enacted right-to-work in the heart of the Labor Movement.

While Mother Jones lamented the free market reform in its hit piece against the DeVos family, now labeled "The New Koch Brothers", there are a number of lessons which conservatives can implement for future victories.

The MJ column relates the frenzy of a union-friendly moderate Michigan Republican, who faced a large bevvy or well-monied activists, all of who were pushing for R-T-W. The moderate could only warn his union peer that "the worst was coming":

"Mike, you're f--ked," Richardville said. "They've got all the money they need, they're going up on the air, and they're going to push this freedom-to-work thing.

The fact that anyone would curse "freedom-to-work" is a sad testimony to union desperation in this country. The account continued:

The pressure came largely from one man present at that fundraiser: Richard "Dick" DeVos Jr. The 58-year-old scion of the Amway Corporation, DeVos had arm-twisted Richardville repeatedly to support right-to-work. After six years of biding their time, DeVos and his allies believed the 2012 lame duck was the time to strike. They had formulated a single, all-encompassing strategy: They had a fusillade of TV, radio, and internet ads in the works. They'd crafted 15 pages of talking points to circulate to Republican lawmakers. They had even reserved the lawn around the state capitol for a month to keep protesters at bay.

While Mother Jones jibes at conservatives of any stripe, and condemns money in politics, a general review of the effect of campaign spending will show that financing, advertising, and political pressure can only go so far. Still, money, coordination, and connections among wealthy financiers and lawmakers make the difference, and they were working hard in Michigan following the 2012 elections.

The eminence grise of Michigan's RTW was the son of Richard DeVos, founder of Amway. MJ's description of the billionaire patriarch.

Richard DeVos Jr., "Dick"

He is a lifelong Christian conservative and crusader for free markets and small government, values he passed down to his four children.

What's not to like? I had to remind myself as I read about the DeVos family, and Dick Jr, that they were the subject of conspiracy theory and progressive criticism, but I loved everything that I was reading!

The column looked deeper into the implications of this reform:

Passing right-to-work in Michigan was more than a policy victory. It was a major score for Republicans who have long sought to weaken the Democratic Party by attacking its sources of funding and organizing muscle. . .

Exactly. One should add "unfair funding muscle" since unions force people to join and pay dues, which support candidates and causes without the consent of the members.

 By attacking their opponents' revenue stream, they could help put Michigan into play for the GOP heading into the 2016 presidential race—as it was more than three decades earlier, when the state's Reagan Democrats were key to winning the White House.

Not just Michigan, but Wisconsin and Ohio could fall into GOP hands in 2016, since Republican governors have advanced cost-cutting, time-saving, money-saving policies. Strengthening their brand and their values, Republicans have a record of reform which Democrats cannot attack without hurting themselves.

Union protests in Lansing, MI

More broadly, the Michigan fight has given hope—and a road map—to conservatives across the country working to cripple organized labor and defund the left.

In one sentence, unions and the left are united. No wonder unions are falling into disfavor across the country.

Regarding the DeVos' family efforts to educate America about . . .America, liberty, and capitalism (all the things Mother Jones hates):

From the start, DeVos and Van Andel infused Amway—short for "American Way"—with their Christian beliefs and free-market principles. The Institute for Free Enterprise, a think tank run out of Amway's headquarters, organized workshops nationwide to help teachers incorporate free-market economics into their lesson plans.

We need this movement back in public schools. Young people need to be educated about the benefits of free markets, free enterprise, and limited government. Sadly, kids are imbibing unadulterated liberalism, with a dash of socialism and promoted elements of communistic thinking, heavy on equality, light on liberty.

Before anyone suggests that the DeVos family is manipulating people into supporting RTW or anything else,Early in 2008, they dined in Washington, DC, with former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, who in 2001 became the first governor in nearly a decade to sign a right-to-work bill into law. He knew just how fierce the fight could be. Keating advised DeVos and Weiser to hold off on right-to-work until they'd elected a Republican governor and, ideally, taken full control of the Legislature. consider this admission from the liberal rag:

The following year, he [Dick DeVos] and a close ally, Ron Weiser, whose prolific fundraising had earned him the US ambassadorship to Slovakia under George W. Bush, hired Republican pollster Bill McInturff to gauge Michiganders' views on a range of issues. According to Weiser, McInturff came back with a surprising result—his polls showed nearly 70 percent support for right-to-work. DeVos and Weiser shared their findings with donors and operatives statewide, quietly brainstorming about how to capitalize on those numbers.

How about that? Michiganders wanted RTW!

The measure would prove difficult to implement, even in a deeply red state:

Early in 2008, they dined in Washington, DC, with former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, who in 2001 became the first governor in nearly a decade to sign a right-to-work bill into law. He knew just how fierce the fight could be. Keating advised DeVos and Weiser to hold off on right-to-work until they'd elected a Republican governor and, ideally, taken full control of the Legislature.

There is a slow method to creating change for the better. Policy reforms cannot roll out right away. Even though twenty-four states have RTW on their books, four more states are waiting for their large Republican legislative majorities take advantage of their increased influence. Union power is strong, and takes time to undermine and replace with renewed commitments to liberty.

Sensing the political ground shifting underneath, Michigan unions launched initiative Proposition 2, which would enshrine labor collective bargaining rights in the state constitution. The measure failed, in part because of a consistent ad campaign from the DeVos family educating voters about the labor union power grab:

They began the anti-Prop. 2 effort in September. Polls showed that 60 percent of voters supported the measure, but DeVos and Weiser tapped their national donor networks. . . The DeVos-backed campaign ran hundreds of ads in the two months before the vote, claiming the measure would give unions far too much power, cost the state more than $1.6 billion, and imperil student safety by making it impossible to fire negligent teachers.

Proposition 2 failed, and the DeVos family moved to shore up support in the state legislature for RTW:

All the while, though, DeVos and his team were furiously whipping the vote. In the weeks before the start of the lame-duck session, DeVos personally called dozens of state lawmakers, pledging his support if the unions threatened recalls or primary challenges.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder

If conservative activists can assure lawmakers that they will be supported in the face of a union or liberal backlash, they will be on board for major reforms. Governor Rick Synder had repeated that RTW was not on his agenda, but he signed the legislation as soon as it was ready. Why hasn't the DeVos family moved into Wisconsin? No one is paying attention to these wealthy free market benefactors. More importantly, lawmakers in the Dairy State want RTW, especially now that their numbers are greater following the 2014 election. The only elected official still quietly resisting is Governor Scott Walker. The RTW movement has fertile ground in Wisconsin, and the investors behind the scenes should work there.

Right-To-Work is worth fighting for

In Michigan, DeVos and Co. worked hard to vet public support, too:

In early December, the Michigan Freedom Fund unleashed its freedom-to-work ad campaign. The group also enlisted GOP pollster and communications guru Frank Luntz to help craft a message "bible" that was distributed to every Republican state lawmaker for use during the right-to-work push; it included prepackaged answers to potential questions from constituents and reporters.

This political organization is crucial to any movement. Conservatives have a strong example based a winning ground game in a liberal Midwestern bastion:

 By pulling off the unthinkable, DeVos and his allies have emboldened conservatives around the country to go on the offensive. Following the passage of right-to-work, DeVos has opened his playbook to lawmakers, activists, and donors nationwide who are interested in following Michigan's lead. . . ."If we can do it in Michigan, you can do it anywhere."

Conservatives in California and other blue states can learn a number of lessons from the DeVos family. Education in public schools about conservatives is necessary. The Left has taken over in too many facets of education. Activists need to convince individual lawmakers and secure their worriers about reelection. Clear and consistent messaging on any given issue will sway larger numbers of voters, even if it means borrowing the language of the Left to accomplish it, i.e. "workplace fairness and equity" for "right-to-work". This messaging/education campaign took years, and gained momentum as Republicans took control of the legislature as well as the governor's seat. There is something to local elections turning the tide on statewide and even national policy.

Liberalism Ruins Parenting: Parenting Ruins Liberalism

Darlena Cunha

Darlena Cunha of Time Magazine learned the hard way that liberalism does not translate to real life.


In fact, the core values (if they can be called such) of liberalism actually impede a life well-lived, and even the basic harmony of families.

Writing on Election Day 2014, the same day when progressive liberalism endured another nationwide shellacking, Cunha realized that her hard-core political convictions were making her job as a parent harder. Even though she never admits it, liberalism cannot foster good parenting, and creates the spoiled, entitlement mentality which plagues dysfunctional families and their broken children.

I’m a diehard, bleeding-heart liberal. And it’s ruining my parenting.

No kidding. A conservative is either a liberal who gets mugged by reality, or a liberal who has children.

For Cunha, however, the transition is making her kick and scream like most adult children i.e. liberals.

My intentions are good. I want my two daughters, 6, to think critically, to fight for fairness and justice whenever they can. I want them to value equality above all else. But sometimes, I also need them to do what I say. This contradiction is hard to explain.

What the parent has not learned, and which her children have not learned, is that justice, fairness, and equality in themselves mean nothing.

Equality as a final guideline is actually tyrannical. More importantly, because these fuzzy terms defy definition for political ideologues driven by feelings and circumstances, no one should be surprised to read her children pushing her unlimited adherence to that political philosophy.

"I need them to do what I say". Authority is crucial in any organization, including governance, and especially parenting. Modern liberalism has invoked a radical autism in its place, teaching people that everyone is right, and therefore entitled to do and say whatever they please.

This heady idealism gives way to chaos or conformity. The latter case became inevitable for Cunha when they started fighting over lost gumballs:

Take a recent incident, involving some candy. I’d given each girl the same number of gumballs. But one of my daughters lost some. She then implored me for extra. “Now I have less and that’s not fair,” she moaned.

From the outset, the mother could have explained responsibility in conjunction with fairness. In this fallen, jumbled world, not only do we not get what we want, but the world remains inherently unfair, regardless of how unfair that reality may be.

Cry all you want: Life isn't Fair

"Life is not fair. Deal with it." That's the lesson we need to teach young people.

Responsibility is also important. How did her daughter lose those gumballs? What steps did she take to care for them, or will she take in the future? Unfortunately, Cunha coddled her kid rather than giving her a reality check.

How did Cunha try to handle this problem? The same way that liberal politicians try to make the world a better place:

“But they’re my candy! It’s not my fault we lost some of hers!” the other one replied.

My solution — to put all the gumballs together in one bowl and  split them equally — was unacceptable to both. All afternoon, they threw tantrums, slammed doors, or tried to slyly outwit me, crumbling when I didn’t fall for it.

“How about we keep our own gumballs and I get an extra other kind of candy that she doesn’t get?” said one.

What Cunha neglects to mention is that in all her talk and action about equality and equally dividing, the second group of gumballs is not equal in the first place. The other daughter did not lose her candy, yet she has to lose some of her own to make up for her sister's negligence? Really? The more responsible sister's answer is priceless:

“Why am I being punished for her missing candy?”

Exactly. This cry emanates from businesses, families, charities, churches, and all other creative enterprises in the world who are forced to pay for the losses, privations, or setbacks of other people.

Herein lies the fundamental flaw of liberalism. In defining equality and inequality a certain way, the ideology inadvertently creates the very inequities which it claims to remedy.  Once again, whose fault was it that one daughter lost her candy?

How did this tantrum of bad parenting end?

Three hours later, the result was the same as it would’ve been had I taken a sterner approach from the get-go: We did what I said. But what should have taken five minutes took three hours, and everyone was in a bad mood.

Everyone was equally miserable and unhappy, and despite the best of intentions, one person arbitrarily imposed her will on everyone else. Such is the end game of liberalism. In a vain attempt to make everyone feel bad, to conform to a utopian vision of equal treatment, opportunity, and outcomes, the state imposes its will on everyone else, and the only thing equally shared is misery, poverty, and frustration.

Proper parenting starts with a recognition of authority, right and wrong, and that final decisions are not always happy ones. These elements are core tenets of conservatism.  Good parents will respect their children's frustrations, and in some cases understand their feelings. These sentiments are crucial aspects of free speech. However, the same parents will not allow these children's temper tantrums alter the outcomes of their actions, nor change the minds of the parents. This recognition instills maturity and growth, further hallmarks of conservatism.

If anything, parenting ruins liberalism, both in the parents as well as the children. Never should we look to the state as some source of infinite indulgence, in which government force redefines winners and losers, or attempts to remove wins and losses from daily life. While liberalism ruins parenting, the truth is that parenting (good parenting) ruins liberalism. Hopefully, Darlena Cunha's liberalism will fall away so that she can be a good parent and raise her daughters to become strong, independent, and successful women.

US Senator Whitehouse: Rhode Island the Next Atlantis?

US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) Preaching About Climate Change

 

 

In two of Plato’s dialogues, the Timeus and The Critias, the main interlocutor Socrates describes the fate of a mythical nation, Atlantis, which sank into the sea. This legend captivated the minds of ancient intellects and authorities. Today, US Senator Whitehouse is busy retelling this tale, yet transposing the country from the possibly underwater Atlantis to his home state, Rhode Island. After eighty-three speeches on climate change, Senator Whitehouse is convinced that the Ocean State will become part of the ocean if the federal government does not take swift, comprehensive action to combat climate change:

Like he did 82 times before, Sheldon Whitehouse stood on the Senate floor and preached the dangers of climate change.

“Preached” is the word, since climate change alarmism has become an article of fact for US Senate liberals, divorced from truth or evidence. One has this sinking feeling that the junior senator is protesting about an issue of no merit.

Climate change proponents will cite Politifact Rhode Island, which rated the following statement true:

“If sea levels rise six feet due to climate change, Waterplace Park in Providence and Wickford village would be swamped”  — Grover Fugate on Friday, August 23rd, 2013 in a TV interview

The key word is “If”. Fugate responded to the politicized report from the United Nations, and concluded that if projections are accurate, Waterplace Park would have water all over the place. Block Island would disappear. Maybe Newport and Providence would turn into deep-sea resorts, too.

Once again, that word “if” stands out. These suppositions are based on possibilities, not assertions, theories, not evidence. Like many liberal climate change apologists, these spokesmen throw around the names of major universities, academics.

 

Rhode Island: The Next Atlantis?

Also throughout the Politifact review: would, could, might. If the ocean is rising, if the waters levels well up, then certain sections of the state will be underwater, and the coastline will grow into the state. Once again, is there any evidence that the ocean levels have actually risen? If they have, is there any evidence to affirm that human activity and consumption is causing this purported rise?

Remember: men of brilliance and renown in Renaissance times gave credence to the myths of a sunken civilization. They also believed that savage men with heads in their chests populated the Americas. Illiterate sailors gave true accounts, regardless of the authority of scribes and religious authorities.

Facts, not figures, determine the truth. There is nothing wrong with a healthy skepticism of “the experts”. During the Renaissance era, the tyranny of religious and academic authorities attempted to silence Galileo Galilei following his research affirming Copernicus’ helio-centric structure of the universe. Local leaders, readers, and scientists are debunking climate alarmism with more evidence, despite shame and threats from the university intelligentsia.

 

Galileo Silenced by the Inquisition

 

What about this interactive map of Rhode Island? Webpage visitors can adjust the possible water level, and then read about the number of people, homes, or roads which will be impacted by those potential floods. Once again, conjecture reigns supreme in this interactive website. Kids can play with the potential ocean levels. Look at Warwick sink, followed by Providence, and then Newport! You can see how deep one of the two Congressional districts will disappear, too. This site is more of a game than a presentation of results. Fun, but not factual, nor even faithful to any sentiment of good science based on hypotheses, observations, and conclusions.

The National Ocean Service did offer the following statements in a post: “Sea level is rising at an increasing rate”:

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900.

The ocean level did increase by 0.12 inches over the last century. Scared yet? Not me.  Furthermore, I am skeptical of scientific research from government agencies. Notice the “climate.gov” on the right side of the webpage. I clicked on the links highlighting the inching up of the ocean. Nothing. The dead links lead to nothing living or convincing.

 

Large Snowfall from Hawaii (via Satellite: Whatsupwiththat.com)

About those glaciers and polar ice caps, scientists and basic observation records that ice levels are rising on mountains all over the world, including India and the United States. Even tropical Hawaii had an unprecedented snow fall, as early as October of last year. If any island sinks, could it be Hawaii under layers of snow?

Other websites gather data, including historical evidence as well as current, reliable research. On this site, readers can learn that ancient ports now stand miles inland from national coastlines. What happened? The ocean levels receded. The ebb and flow of sea levels is more erratic, and less consequential, than climate change alarmists contend.

Like Atlantis, the saga of ozone depletion/global warming/climate change is just a myth. It would be entertaining if not for the fearful consequence of Big Government takeovers and noxious policies advanced by politicians like Senator Whitehouse.

Jon Stewart Mocks Democrats on Keystone "Pipe Friction"

Jon Stewart

Despite the heated criticism against "The Daily Show" comic-host Jon Stewart, the sometime entertaining jester mocks Democrats, too.

In the following clip, Stewart skewered the Democrats' talking points for and against the project. This montage aired weeks before the end of the 113th Congress, when Republicans had won eight US Senate seats that year. In a last ditch effort to save Mary Landrieu (D-LA) who faced a runoff, she pleaded with her colleagues to pass Keystone, and prove to her constituents that she still had pull and influence in the upper chamber.

US Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) pleads with colleagues to pass Keystone

Stewart mocked the diametrically opposed arguments of Senators Landrieu and Boxer. The desperate senators argued that the project would expand from thousands of temporary to millions of permanent jobs. Boxer of California countered with an analysis assured only 38 permanent jobs.

US Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) opposes Keystone

The right number must fall somewhere in the middle.

For Stewart, the height of mockery was that the Democratic Party ran from their principles, and the President, then caved to pass legislation which they have blocked for years just to save one Senate seat which would not alter the balance of power.

Even when blasting the Democratic Party's lack of principle, Stewart exposes that the party's principles are lacking on every level. The majority of Americans supports Keystone. The majority of newspapers and labor groups also support this project.

While Stewarts is sticking to his progressive views, he shames the Democrats for abandoning theirs on the Keystone project. Inadvertently, the Daily Show host exposes the growing rift among Democrats on a number of issues, including the environment as well as the balance in favor of job growth vs. environmental protections.

The stark divisions over the benefits or the costs of this project prove once again that politics has taken precedence over policy and procedure. The Democrats had blasted Republicans for putting ideology ahead of innovation, but in the final vote on Keystone, which failed as did Landrieu's desperate reelection bid one week later, the Democrats on both sides of the debate showed their own ideological determination. Ignoring the interests of the American people, but even throwing one of their own off the ship, the US Senate liberal caucus helped kill Keystone.

The most entertaining part about all of it, though, is that Democrats were vividly divided on the issue, and one of their chief media cheerleaders, Jon Stewart, was joining the jibes.

Good times. Good times.

Feinstein's Untenable Opposition to Keystone

This week, the Republican US Senate is working with the dwindling number of US Senate Democrats to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Why is the 54 seat Republican caucus reaching out to Democrats? Are they playing nice in order to appease Establishment interests? Are they unwilling cowards unable to command majority rule with long-term goals of policy advancement? In fact, precisely because Republicans are engaged in governing, rather than obstructing, with accomplishing policy rather than passing piecemeal legislation, Republicans are expanding bipartisan support for the Keystone pipeline, now waiting six years because of President Obama's ideological opposition to energy expansion, along with the local drama of a Nebraska federal court.

US Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

First of all, I am glad that Tea Party supporters (including myself) are not calling Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his caucus sellouts or failures because they are working with Democrats. Why should anyone shame them? They are moving ahead, as promised, on a popular project lauded by conservatives across the country. Every Republican in the House, and 28 Democrats, supported the measure. The US Senate whip count now leads at 63. With four more votes, the US Senate will have a veto-proof majority.

I had targeted three US Democratic Senators following the failed vote in December 2014, where Landrieu's desperate bid to save her seat floundered by one vote below the 3/5 supermajority.

Chris Coons of Delaware offered that the bill violates the separation of powers. The Congress, in Coons' opinion, does not have the authority to approve a project, when that power (supposedly) belongs to the President. Where has the Delaware junior senator been all these years? President Obama has rewritten his own laws and ignored the federal mandates of previous Congresses. Now he defends the President's sole authority to approve a construction project? On Fox News Sunday, Coons further elaborated that oil prices have gone down, and the pipeline will not create the cited number of jobs advocated by the pipeline's supports. Coons' arguments are partisan stonewalling at their lowest. His Senate Democratic colleague, Tom Carper, already voted for the project.

Bill Nelson of Florida has remained committed to saying 'No!" to the Keystone Pipeline, even though his state has a redder delegation than before. Arguing from climate change alarmism as well as environmental interests, Nelson has chosen to defy the growing approval from the American people for this project.

Finally, I contacted one of my US Senators, Dianne Feinstein of California. Senator Boxer chaired the Environmental Committee with an aggressive bent toward stopping all projects, and even played the race card against the Chairman of the Black Chamber of Commerce on year. I had hoped that Feinstein would be somewhat more reasonable.

The staffer informed me that the senior Senator voted against Keystone for the following reasons:

1. The oil produced and delivered from the Canada Tar Sands would flow into the global market, as opposed to American consumers, and thus would produce no national benefit.

2. The environmental concerns did not justify building the pipeline, including the potential damage to a Midwestern aquifer, on which a large body of Middle Americans rely on for water.

3. A large number of constituents called her office, and told her to reject the pipeline. ""90% of those called to tell the senator to vote against the pipeline", the staffer told me.

I was surprised by such a large number. I did not believe it at first.

The staffer directed me to a November 18, 2014 press  release on her website:

I’ve had 120,000 California constituents write and call, of which about 93 percent are strongly opposed. And, I’d say to the chairman of the committee, one of the things that interested me from reading these constituent letters was really how informed individuals were about this pipeline.

Over one hundred thousand people called into her office? In 2013, hundreds of thousands of people called from all over the country telling US Senators to oppose the Tooomey-Manchin background check bill. Apparently, it is possible for American voters to #MakeDCListen.

But they will not listen if voters do not call. I wonder how many conservatives, how may Republicans and freedom-minded independents in California have given up on the idea of calling their US Senators and demanding that they change their opposition to Keystone? If a politician's number one goal is to get reelected, then voters should start signaling some kind of support by pushing their representatives on issues that they care about.

I refused to believe that no one can find more than 120,000 people in the state of California who would support Keystone. No matter how green conscious selected Democratic strongholds may be, there are plenty of low and middle-income Californians who benefit from lower gas prices. Imagine also the lower electric bills and other diminished energy costs which would follow from passing Keystone.

Besides, Feinstein's proffered economic argument is fallacious. Increased oil output and supply for the global market will ensure more domestic crude for consumption at home. Lower fuel prices will follow, and benefit not just individual drivers, but businesses, corporations, and investment firms intent on creating wealth, expanding business, increasing profits, and hiring more people.

Increased energy availability is win domestically, financially, and eventually in terms of national security. Petro-garchy states like Nigeria, Russia, and the Middle Eastern countries (some of which sponsor terror and military aggression) draw much of their wealth from oil production and distribution. Removing the oil profits from the OPEC countries (and rogue states in South America) will reinvigorate American preeminence. One OPEC spokesman predicted that the world will never see $100 a barrel oil again.

Even normally Democratic allies like the labor unions and the mainstream media support Keystone. The facts, the politics, and the advocacy all urge construction of this project. Potential legal hurdles have been removed, as well, including the recent decision from the Nebraska federal district court throwing out the lawsuit blocking Keystone.

US Senator Dianne Feinstein's argument against Keystone are untenable. It's time for California residents to let her know that the diverse opinion from more than 100,000 callers supports this project. 

And so should she.

Washington, DC Office:

331 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954
TTY/TDD: (202) 224-2501

San Francisco Office:

One Post Street
Suite 2450
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 393-0707
Fax: (415) 393-0710

Los Angeles Office:

11111 Santa Monica Blvd.
Suite 915
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: (310) 914-7300
Fax: (310) 914-7318

San Diego Office:

880 Front Street
Suite 3296
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 231-9712
Fax: (619) 231-1108

Fresno Office:

2500 Tulare Street
Suite 4290
Fresno, CA 93721
Main: (559) 485-7430
Fax: (559) 485-9689