My Statement to Huntington Park, CA City Council -- September 8th, 2015

Good Evening, Mayor Macias and Huntington Park CA, City Council.

My name is Arthur Christopher Schaper, a life-long citizen of the United States born and raised in Torrance.

I have spoken before this elected body before, although at this point I do not believe that I can call all of you dutifully elected officials.

Every one of you took an oath of office to uphold the United States Constitution, not your political careers, not your personal bank accounts, and certainly not your well-connected cronies looking for easy money at someone else’s expense.

I have spoken with residents in this city. They do not respect what you are doing, and they recognize the corruption and malfeasance at work in this city.

I asked the city clerk for information about the legal addresses for two of you – and they gave me nothing but the run-around.

Your legal residence is a matter of public record, as a matter of necessity!

I have written about your prior residences. I have already spoken with the press and investigative reports, and believe me, they have their eyes on you.

This whole city council is looking more and more like the city of Bell, yet magnified times ten.  Former city manager, now convicted felon Robert Rizzo confided to his colluding fellow criminals: “Pigs get fat. Hogs get slaughtered.” I should add: “Illegal aliens get deported. Lawless elected officials get thrown out of office.” Who knows what future lays for those of you on this council who insist on governing for a corrupt political machine. As for you Mr. Pineda, you are a national disgrace. You have insulted millions of legal residents, and their friends and neighbors, whether born or naturalized. To Julian Zatarian, 21, and Francisco Medina, 29, I have to ask: how is this serving your city, or this state?

Have those two been sworn in yet? If so, I can tell you that whoever is responsible has already broken the law. A background check requires documentation. If you are “undocumented”, then you are ineligible.

Huntington Park City Council Chambers (Legalinsurrection.com)

One member chided the audience last time: “Show some respect!” My answer: You need to respect the rule of law, rescind these appointments, and get off the city council. There is no excuse, none, for anyone of you to reject the rule of law and replace it with your own political dictates. You may not crucify legal residents on a cross of Big Amnesty, and call it a humanitarian effort.

We are a nation of laws, not men.

As of now, I support Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker for President. He repealed in-state tuition for illegal aliens.He joined with twenty-six governors against President Obama's unlawful, unconstitutional, executive amnesty. Unlike other candidates, he had the courage to say to an illegal alien family, most likely propped up by liberal media to make him and all those who support secure borders look bad -- and he declared to them: "We are a nation of laws". Democrat Barbara Jordan of Texas and others residents of all backgrounds will not stand by and allow a small set of Big interests take advantage of the little guy, and certainly not here in my backyard.

Cities are for citizens, city commissions are for citizens, and city councils must serve both. Eric Schmidt, the mayor of Hesperia, and his council just passed a measure which will ensure that anyone appointed to a city commission must be a voting resident. That means that have to live in the city, legally, as citizens. I will be asking my city council to ensure the same thing.

If you do not like the laws, you change them. If we do not like our leaders, we recall them!

As I have said before, I will say it again – “We the People” implies “We the Citizens” – not “We the Illegal Aliens” or “We the Special Interests”.  I reject your piece-meal, de facto amnesty, and I look forward to seeing a number of you off this city council and sitting in a jail cell.

[Note: once again, due to time constraints, I was not able to read every part of this statement, but more than enough came through]

"But I Don't Even Really Work Here!"

I have been let go and I have quit media sites all over the country.

No should shame you if you have been fired from a job, and there is nothing wrong with quitting.

Now that Truth Revolt is also off my list, I am letting it all hang out - and I am loving every minute of it!

Arthur has not committed suicide, and his career has not been murdered.

I also like reading that along with Dr. Ben Carson and Maine Governor Paul LePage, Jerry Seinfeld has declared war on Political Correctness.

And to Seinfeld I will go to share another funny story or rather sentiment after getting let go from another company. It must have been hard for them, because it was not like they were paying  me. When the site old me to take a hike, I felt like Kramer in the "Corporate Kramer" episode.

He uses the corporate bathroom, then steps out to help one associate with the broken copier machine.

All of sudden, other business associates are running out of their offices, cubicles (whatever).

Now he has a purpose in life, and Kramer has to wake up early and get to work before he loses track of his work, falls behind, and "It's over" from the boss.

The episode was particularly funny because Jerry and Kramer would bicker and fight about Cosmo's long hours at the office, then he comes home tired, etc.

"We never doing anything together anymore!" Jerry whines.

Kramer gets the bad news (Pinterest)

Lots of fun.

The only difference between Kramer and me on the fateful day?

The "boss" liked my work, and even wrote me a letter (with a check paying me for one article), and told me "You are a talented writer."

Still, I guess in one sense I could repeat Kramer's plea:

Writing is not work for me in the slightest.

Political Begging-Bugging

Politicians are often asking: "Give me money!"

Conservatives seem to be worse than the welfare queens they love to blast in campaign speeches.

Really, it's not so much that they ask, as much as they demand. They want more money to run their campaigns, and will say anything to make you feel bad if you do not give, or shame people because they do not want to donate.

If I ever run for office, I hope that I would never have a harsh and condescending attitude toward anyone.

It's time for people who run for office to realize that money does not grow on trees. Potential donors are not ready to throw a bunch of money at someone they do not know, and spend the rest of the campaign season wondering if the money is well-spent, or will have any lasting impact.

Gimme Gimme Gimme!

Businessmen invest capital to expand their business, to reach new clientele, or to innovate their products and services. They do all of this risk-taking and analysis in order to get something better: more profit.

I wonder how candidates would phrase their requests for money if they put themselves in the shoes of potential donors.

Do they have anything worthwhile to offer? Is their campaign accomplishing more than mounting time, resources, and personnel for an elected office?

Campaigns can and should be about winning elections and setting necessary policy goals with legislative and political outcomes.

Yes indeed.

Can political figures shape their campaigns with more outcomes and successes, even if they do not get elected? Perhaps if candidates demonstrate that they are helping other candidates get elected. If their campaigns combine service and profit with electioneering, more people could be persuaded to donate.

One thing that I hate, though, more than just about anything else -- candidates who beg and shame potential donors in the same sentence.


This bugging-begging is all wrong.

Now, why has all this talk about campaigning and political donations taken up so much time and space on this blog and in this writer's mind?

I have been listening to political consultants for the past three weeks complain about the lack of money for good, strong conservative candidates.

Add caption

Boo-hoo! Whaa! Gimme Gimme! * UGH *.

Can I go home now? One consultant spent thirty minutes telling me over and over that conservative candidates are not getting enough money, and that is why they do not win elections. Then he condemned all the candidates in a local race who were raising money and getting strong name ID, but they were considered "Establishment" because they had formed strong connections with government officials and local charities. How else do potential candidates develop credibility and trust with potential donors? They have to do something or demonstrate solid character in some way. Look at Donald Trump, the Politician who has harnessed the skills of an anti-politician, and so far doing very well politically.

Corrupt mayor, twice convicted of felonies Buddy Cianci (Providence, Rhode Island) charmed everybody. Surely good, solid conservatives can do what these monstrous egos and vain megalomaniacs have done. Surely they can. Sometimes the most quaint and un-presupposing among us can sweep us off our feet.

So, how do solid, simple conservative candidates do better for themselves?

The answer to a lack of money is to work at getting money. The "campaign conservative" welfare mentality about fundraising and campaigning has to stop. I am not Oprah, and forget about calling Dr. Phil. Elvis is way dead, and Nancy Reagan gave up the Psychic by Tina thing a long time ago, thus so should we.

Do we have friends and family who trust us enough that they would put a little money toward our venture? Are their colleagues and coworkers in our midst who know that we have gone to great lengths serving them, and thus they would move to serve us? If candidates have developed enough day-to-day credibility with the common man in their communities, and have shared a single connection with enough people, then a political candidate could do very well.

Candidates have to work at getting money, just as conservatives in general expect individual citizens to work, invest, and save in order to improve their lot in life and for the family and future. So until then, conservative candidates who don't have enough money,

Please stop with the begging-bugging!

I Stand With Kim Davis

I have written about the homo-fascist agenda for the past two years, although pastors like Charles McDowell and  Pat Robertson have alerted this county for much longer.  I listened then, but had no reason to worry or do anything about it, until now.

Last year, Washington Post conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer rightly called the radical gay agenda and destruction of reasoned opposition “fascist”, specifically after Mozilla-Firefox CEO had to step down for donating money to California Prop 8. Even here its rising tide in California is flooding out individual liberty and freedom of speech and conscience. In 2008, the majority of voters (even in the most Democratic of districts) voted to recognize the definition of natural marriage. How many years later, we witnessed a rogue Supreme Court overturn it. Today, because of the extra-legal juggernaut and the seeming turn of public opinion, some of my fellow California conservative have been telling me “Pick your fights. Waging war on the radical gay progressives is a non-starter.” A respected academic, whom liberal colleagues had forced out then restored to his research position at UCLA, once told me: “Homosexuality is one of the most toxic issues out there. Don’t try to fight it right now.”

Pop Psychologist Dr. Phil McGraw had taught me otherwise: “When someone starts swinging their fists at you, you are in a fight, whether you choose it or not.” That fight is happening right now, and the unjust arrest and incarceration of Kentucky County clerk Kim Davis is the face of the new persecution.

Time is the essence, and we should have gotten angry sooner.

A well-connected contact in Rhode Island (already receiving death threats for investigating corruption) shared with me about “The Gay Mafia”, homosexuals intent on raping the public purse for private benefit. The nation’s most notorious mayor, Buddy Cianci of Providence, Rhode Island, forced firefighters to march in Gay Pride parades. Once again, “Forced” if you missed already. To this day, a conservative Californian reminded me, my current governor has never marched in a Gay Pride parade, let alone forced anyone else to. Unfortunately, San Francisco’s youth may have to learn about “LGBT” issues, even though education in the Golden State has fallen so far below the state’s once golden standard. WaPo columnist George Will was right: We have sore winners, and they want to make their opposition sore if they fight back. The Gay Agenda is not gay, but tyrannical, an assault against life, liberty, and property, including the free pursuit of happiness (well-being based on individual choices and consequences, not an entitlement paid for forcibly by someone else).

This is wrong. This is immoral insanity, and like the bald-headed diet guru, it’s time to shout: “Stop the insanity!”

When the Supreme Court (which is not and never will be the Supreme Being) decided to overrule natural law (actually, it cannot and never will), I wrote: “ The SCOTUS setback over marriage does not mean the fight is over. The Supreme Court is not the final authority. We the People are.”

I received one nasty screed justifying the court’s unseemly overreach, but also a profound statement: “Thank you so much for this article! I have been downright depressed over this decision. Your column gives me hope.”

The following people and their conscientious objections are leading: Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein, tens of thousands of protests in Mexico, US Senator Ted Cruz, US Senator Rand Paul, Governor Mike Huckabee, , judges and clerks in North Carolina, and individual citizens throughout the country, give me hope, too.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker could not have said it better: “The bottom line in America is we are a nation of laws,” the Presidential contender told The Blaze. “But part of those laws — in fact, the most important of those laws — is the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear about protecting freedom of religion, and the freedom to be able to practice religious beliefs in this country. I think it’s incredibly important those rights be protected in today’s society.”

 The Bill of Rights are the essential contract for any branch of government. The Supreme Court has ruled contrary to spirit and letter of our founding charter before. Now is the time for civil disobedience. I stand with Kim, and I will be standing for her before my city council on Tuesday to demand greater recognition of her plight and demand respect for the rule of law, the highest of which is the Constitution.

Of course, this freedom fight has its detractors, many of whom tried to shame me into silence, claiming that I would have to permit a Muslim civil servant from granting driver’s licenses to female applicants. Yet like climate alarmists, the heated rage to treat homosexuality as an identity and thus a protected class is losing steam, and the rising populist push-back against judicial tyranny, regardless of individual preferences, has awakened many. Even libertarians , who have championed same-sex marriage, do not support its imposed state sponsorship.

I am taking this fight to my own city, too. A member of my city council, Tim Goodrich, has tried to hide his support for this agenda. Slowly but surely, conservatives in the city have exposed his true intentions – to win elections in a moderate, non-confrontational city then springboard into higher office to push a more aggressive, progressive agenda. My current Congressman, Ted Lieu, did precisely that, and now embraces one of the most leftist, pro-gay agendas of any sitting Congressman. Fortunately, we have stopped Goodrich’ Big Green push. Now I want to focus on wider concerns, like protecting the essential integrity of the family: natural marriage, which benefits all of us, whether married or unmarried.

Unlike some who have caved, I will not. Davis hasn’t. Mass Resistance didn’t. Let us heed Matt Barber’s exhortation and become one of millions like Kim , and declare to the world: “We’re as mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore.” I know and believe that more people will join me.

The Problem with Mark Cuban's GOP Problem

Mark Cuban wants to be a Republican.

He really does, but he has one real problem with them:

"I would prefer to be a Republican," Cuban wrote in the post, which was flagged by The Dallas Morning News. "I want smaller government. I want smarter government. Just like most Republicans. Put aside that I disagree with Republicans on most social issues. The Republicans have a much bigger problem that will crush them in every presidential election until this changes."

Cuban lamented that those who disagree with the "consensus" were called fake Republicans.

Granted, consensus is essential, but so is pragmatism. Choosing which fights to fight, and which to let go, is really important.

Another point he made, however, needs more scrutiny:

Leaders don't conform to the consensus. They create consensus to their vision and goals.

Leaders don't change their positions mid debate. They welcome scorn from the masses because it creates the opportunity for dialogue.

Leaders don't look backwards to condemn what has already been done, they look forward to create a better future.

Mark Cuban (KK +)

The reason why Republican primary voters are so heavily scrutinizing their 2016 Presidential election prospects is precisely because so many prior GOP candidates have been weak and wimpy, or have caved and betrayed their conservative roots.

I do agree that a need for calm and connected consensus is important, but integrity to one's principles and faithfulness to promises matter, too.

Mark Cuban and conservatives need to understand that we have to continue holding our elected officials accountable, even after they get elected. Our champions need encouragement, and our weaker allies need discipline.

One other point he made should also guide future candidates:

I want smarter government. Just like most Republicans. Put aside that I disagree with Republicans on most social issues.

Notice that he would give on the "social issues". The party should not change its stance on life, family, and marriage, but rather stand strong and get more people to see the importance and necessity of these values for a free and thriving society.

Truth Revolt Fail: Silencing the Truth

I have left three media companies, websites, whatever you want to call them.

The first major company that I quit, Go Local Prov, gave  me ample opportunity to publish my conservative views in the most liberal, Democratic state in the Union: Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.

The CEO of the company, Josh Fenton, was an approachable, affable man at first, open to granting individual writers a forum for their views. As the company expanded, however, Fenton became a darkened tyrant. dominating to what extent individuals could share their content on other sights. He even told me that I could not call into Rhode Island radio stations. When a conservative radio host, John DePetro, was under attack from public sector unions and other left-wing fronts, he told me not to look further into it, then shut me down when I investigated the illicit undercurrent behind the labor union protests.

I ended up quitting the company when I learned that he was not paying his editors on time, plus the fact that he insulted me and demeaned my own contributions. He refused to listen or engage his staff. He showed no respect for their work. For all his knowledge about breaking into new media markets, he had failed to follow his own advice and nurture the talent which wrote the superior content for his website.

The next media site in Rhode Island, 990WBOB, was more alternative, less picky. Of the writers and contributors on the site, I noticed that my work got the most hits, views, and comments, in part because I shared what I wrote on Twitter and Facebook. Furthermore, I was blessed with a strong following of conservative readers who would comment and share what I wrote.

Unlike the mainstream press in the Ocean State, I was investigating and reporting on the pay-for-play corruption of the Democratic political class, including Congressman David "Grand Theft Auto" Cicilline. The owner of that company got angry when I complained about a curse-laden fundraiser for homeless veterans. Conservatives and less hasty media contacts in Rhode Island told me that he was a a high-maintenance fool, anyway, and he took particular exception to my articles calling out homosexual conduct.

I began to worry. If even alternative media forums cannot stand up to Big Homo, and even they cave in the face of assaults on freedom of speech, then what is the point of the First Amendment? The democratization of the media was supposed to end corporate and special interest censorship.

Now I write about Truth Revolt, a project which David Horowitz had put together, working with Ben Shapiro, Andre Klavan, and Kurt Schlicter. I loved the idea of punching back at Big Media and their liberal fraud. Putting together petitions to pressure corporations to stop promoting on left-wing news organizations worked for me. Most importantly, the necessity to "punch back twice as hard" as media bias really thrilled me.

Yet within a year, the media site was falling apart. Viewers were not visiting the website as much as one would have hoped. Eventually, the major writers were no longer contributing. One of them informed me that the website stopped paying them.

How about that? Just like Josh Fenton stiffing his editors.

Truth Revolt caves to Big Homo

When another editor, Mark Tapson, took over, he invited me to offer commentary and reporting. He tried to meet with the owners of the site to start paying people - but they refused to do that. What is it with some of the conservative media owners? Do they really think that people can write and report for free?

Beyond that, Truth Revolt engaged in selective censorship, too.

When I wanted to report on a Boston, MA urologist terminated from his job because he objected to the hospital's promotion of Gay Pride events (and he reported on the damaging consequences of same-sex conduct), Tapson refused to print. "David Horowitz does not want to get into the gay marriage fight, because he believes that is not a fight we can win", was the gist of Tapson's response.

Ouch! The conservative cause caves before Big Homo again.

I had asked a number of times for clarity on which subjects were off limits for Truth Revolt. I never got a clear answer. I even submitted an article criticizing a WaPo Op-ed, in which an educator and father openly approves of his daughter's homosexual then transgender identity: "My poor black transgender child!"

Tapson quashed that one too.

Big Tranny scares Truth Revolt, too?

Tapson admitted that he did not know where David Horowitz stand on gay marriage.

I did the research, and found out on my own: Horowitz is pro-gay. That is ridiculous.

This fad of fiscal conservatism combined with social liberalism undermines the cause. There can be no liberty without a secure footing in the truth and cultural norms. Children do not become free and able adults without strong parenting which guides those children.

The attacks on life, family, and marriage are crucial battle fronts in the culture wars, and the fact that "conservative" news sites like Truth Revolt do not want to touch let alone confront those fights is very disappointing as well as alarming. It was especially frustrating because the site would print nothing about Boston doctor Paul Church, yet had no problem jumping on the media bandwagon to report on Kim Davis.

I subsequently quit writing for them too, after only five months.

I would further add that Horowitz' cowardice to take on these telling, essential issues may be one major reason why no one reads his website anymore. Any kind of revolt against the establishment must include a ready willingness to take on fights which are presumably unpopular and look destined at first to fail.

WaPo's George Will: Wrong About Kim Davis

I had so much respect for Washington Post conservative columnist George Will.

Like Charles Krauthammer, he piqued  my interest early to the conservative world view, and deepened my appreciation for Founding Father and Constitutional Framer James Madison, the limited government version, and the necessity for constitutional rule in the face of cultural malaise and  political meanderings.

George Will (Scott Ableman)

I have not always agreed with Will, but I fully received his criticism of Ronald Reagan (whom he had openly endorsed in 1980). "Reagan taught us that we could love government and hate it at the same time."

In the last four years, however, Will has taken on positions which strike me and a number of conservatives as offensive, inappropriate, or outdated. For a long time, he acknowledged that he was an agnostic, lacking the intellectual rectitude to call himself an atheist. Now, he avows that he does not believe in any god.

One verse of Scripture leaps to mind: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (Psalm 14: 1)

Will needs to reread Madison's biography: the little man with more mental might than most planned on a pastorate before a political career. Madison's respect for the Divine helped him to divine the longest lasting Constitution in the world.

Not just in spiritual matters, Will has failed on immigration. He has affirmed granting amnesty to the illegal immigrant youth who crowded our  nation's borders in 2014. He has championed the arguments for pathways to citizenship, routinely citing the figure that there is not enough time, money, or buses to deport every illegal alien in the country.

This argument is duly flawed.

Yet his latest attack against a freedom fighter was too much for me

Earlier this week, Will actually compared Kim Davis, the Kentucky County clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples, to the racist Democratic governors of the Old South during the Civil Rights movement.

Really? Yes,

Here are his words:


There’s no question that the president’s selective interpretation of the Constitutional provision that the executive shall see that the laws are faithfully execute his selective approach to that perhaps has encouraged a kind of lawlessness. People saying well, I can do whatever I wish. But surely it is a wholesome rule that executives should obey legitimate court orders. That’s true whether your name is Orval Faubus, the Democratic governor of Arkansas in the 1950s or George Wallace, the democratic governor of Alabama in the ’60s. Kim Davis, the Democratic county clerk in Kentucky, made a choice. unquestionably, her faith is important to her but evidently her paycheck is also because she did not resign her office. We’ve been here before, in 1892, a Massachusetts policeman claimed that his constitutional rights of speech and association had been violated by rules governing and restricting political activity by police. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held against him in an opinion written by a Massachusetts judge named Oliver Wendell Holmes who said the policeman has a Constitutional right to engage in politics, the policeman does not have a Constitutional right to be a policeman. She has that same problem. ”

Kim Davis under custody

Just to remind the readers, George Will once compared homosexual behavior to left-handedness. No joke. I would comment that his remarks are a back-handed insult to left-handed individuals. His argument "evidently, her paycheck is also" is patently offensive. Is there something wrong with a long-time upstanding civil servant refusing to lose her job? Rosa Parks paid to sit on a Birmingham, Alabama bus in 1955. No one would begrudge her today for refusing to give up her front seat (which she paid for) because of unjust discriminatory laws forcing black people to the back of the bus.

Will also once claimed that Christians are not under attack in this country. They are now, and in fact they have been for at least ten years, especially in Massachusetts and other liberal-progressive bastions, including San Francisco, CA.

What has happened to this once reliably conservative columnist? Will has either lived in the Beltway too long, or fears saying something anti-PC, that would put his pundit-class status out to pasture. Unlike Will's wavering, Governor Mike Huckabee, who has governed not just pontificated, took George Stephanopoulos down a notch on the Kim Davis issue:

You’ve got Democrats who ignored the law when it was the law to have traditional marriage. Gavin Newsom in San Francisco as mayor performed same-sex weddings even though it was illegal. Did he ever get put in jail? He most certainly did not. You have Barack Obama and Eric Holder, when he was attorney general. They ignored the rulings of [the Defense of Marriage Act].  Did they ever get put in jail for ignoring the law? They most certainly did not. So when is it that liberals get to choose what laws they support, but a county clerk in Kentucky who, acting on her Christian faith, is criminalized, jailed without bail, because she acted on her conscience and according to the only law that is in front of her?

Where were these arguments when Will was placing Kim Davis alongside segregationist governors in the Old South? The face of the New Tyranny comes from the Secular Left, hell-bent on redefining eternal institutions which the state has no power nor business to regulate let alone transform. The "conservative" WaPo columnist's unsound comparison of Kim Davis to racist governors is unfair and untrue.

WaPo Moral Insanity: My Poor, Black, Transgender Child!

The Washington Post has gone from left-wing hatred for conservatives to endorsing moral insanity. I did not know whether to laugh or cry, whether to pull back from the world or pull the covers over my eyes when I read the following headline:

Fearing for my black, transgender child’s life

Black, transgender, and an adult child. Why not add disabled and transracial? It worked for Shaun King (or did it?).

Louis Porter II, an educator from Minneapolis who wrote the above, sounds just as confused as the child he was supposed to raise:

Louis Porter II

Even when my child was an infant, I had a premonition that our precious baby girl was going to throw some curveballs our way. Something in this long-awaited baby’s spirit let me know that a wild ride was ahead for my wife and me.

So, several years ago when my then-middle school kid came out as queer, I was caught off guard, but it was news I could handle.

“My then middle-school kid came out as queer.” First of all, among homosexual activists, “queer” is a pejorative term. Ironically, though, the Q word is accurate, because there is nothing weirder than parents acquiescing to every thought and feeling of their children, and calling that statement love and respect. Middle schools kids are some of the most confused people out there, constantly trying to figure out right and wrong, and now they world tells them that neither exists.

I know, I was one (a middle schooler, not a boy trying to be a girl).

Porter adds another layer to this identity-crisis drama:

But I was beyond shocked when a few years later, this high-school child announced “they” were transgender and planned to live life as a male. Many transgender children display characteristics of the opposite sex very early, but this was not the case for our child, whom a family friend once described as “all girl.”

Porter’s child is not queer, not a boy trapped in a girl’s body, but a very confused if not schizophrenic person. “They” are transgender. Huh?

The deepest fear I have ever known welled up in my gut. There was no laughing at society frills; I worried what the larger society would do to my child.

What society will do? Society does not do anything, Louis. People do things, and more people are waking up to the tragic reality that psychology disturbances cannot be fixed with botox, implants, or gender reassignment.

Zeam identifies as masculine, I’ve been overwhelmed by the number of transgender women murdered this year — 20 that we know of — most of them black.

I have to ask: Can Porter really call the victims “transgender women”? How do we know what they are? Were they men who tried to become women, or vice versa? Help me out here!

Meanwhile, the media has exploded with reports of two trans celebrities: one black, Laverne Cox; the other white, Caitlyn Jenner.

Celebrities have “come out” as another gender before (Chastity become Chazz Bono, for example). What makes these confused individuals stand out national is the current Occupant in the White House, who has paraded the transgender cause from executive orders to State of the Union addresses. Male and female are natural orders of life, and the notion that verbal distortions or surgical perversions can change that is an affront and assault on reality.

Blacks who are transgender endure the toughest challenges.

Are you sure that your daughter, son, whatever is actually black, too, Louis?

How do we face our fear? Zeam is our inspiration.

How is a young adult who is confused about her (yes, her!) gender an inspiration to anyone? Someone please explain this to me.

Zeam is part of a generation that evokes the spirit of the 1960s, organizing and protesting with an energy that leaves me in awe. But especially for a black transgender youth, speaking out comes at a price. Words, attitudes and actions of other young people and adults can be cruel — yet Zeam continues to soar.

Ah yes, the 1960s, when young entitled children took to the streets and threw their politicized temper tantrums turned violent demonstrations. The political and sexual revolutions of then have created the moral and cultural devolutions now. Occupy crowds crowd jail cells, and we are witnessing the full bore consequences of  men and women trying to be women and/or men.

Not long after Zeam was born 17 years ago, I was beyond proud. I would go on and on about my only child. As the years have passed, family and friends would try to change the subject, but I would have none of that. Like many parents, I was convinced that my child was the greatest child in the world.

Oh brother. I think I (or we, or she, or they?) are going to be sick!

I really feel for this young adult, whether he or she. Louis Porter has failed as a parent, lamenting the societal pressures his child may face in the world. Yet clearly, the confusion and turmoil within his daughter should be cause for greater alarm, and yet he ignores these issues completely.

“My poor, black, transgendered child!” Indeed.

Brad Sherman Rejects Iran Deal -- But Not David Cicilline?

Brad Sherman (D-CA)

President Obama should fear the staying power of his foreign policy legacy when liberal Jewish Democrats in Washington have called out his Iran deal and oppose it.

Los Angeles, CA Congressman Brad Sherman, probably one of the most left-leaning House reps in the lower chamber, has done just that.

He declared his deep and unsettled reserve about the long-term consequences of the deal:

Another Democratic lawmaker defected from the Obama administration Friday over the nuclear deal with Iran.

Rep. Brad Sherman of California, the second-ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he came to his decision after meeting one-on-one with President Obama about the accord.

 “This agreement is the good, the bad and the ugly,” Mr. Sherman said. “It contains the good and the bad in the first year, and gets ugly in the years thereafter.”

Particularly outstanding about Sherman, he defeated a more hawish Democrat in a Top-Two general election fight in 2012, then faced off against a conservative Republican in 2014, crushing both candidates by a 30 point margin.

As of press time, Sherman appeared on NBC 4's News Conference with Conan Nolan, explaining his opposition to the deal, all while trying to maintain his strong support for President Obama. This uber-progressive has taken great pains to maintain an objective opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, all while preaching pacifism and remaining a staunch Obama proponent.

Forward.com also reports:

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., said he will oppose the Iran deal, the sixth Jewish Democrat in Congress to come out against the nuclear agreement.

Sherman, a senior member of the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, joins Reps. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the committee’s senior Democrat, Ted Deutch, D-Fla., the senior Democrat on its Middle East subcommittee, Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, Steve Israel, D-N.Y., who until last year chaired the House Democrats reelection campaign, and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y, in line for his party’s Senate leadership, in opposing the deal.

Missing from this list?

"Grand Theft Auto" David Cicilline.

He has refused to make any statement for or against a final deal with Iran.

In late 203, Cicilline non-announced:

"This tentative agreement with Iran, reached in Geneva, is a positive step towards halting Iran's nuclear program," said Cicilline, who is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa. "This interim agreement allows the international community to continue to work to ensure that no further progress is made toward Iran's nuclear capability and that Iran reverses  some past actions that have enhanced this capability. After years of tension between our two countries, this appears to be a step in the right direction and I am hopeful and even cautiously optimistic that Iran will fully comply with the requirements of this interim agreement. It is critical that we ensure that any final deal in this matter fully protects the national security interests of the United States and our allies around the world."

In July of this year, Cicilline remained non-committal:

“This morning’s announcement that negotiators have reached an agreement intended to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is a very significant development. It’s important that Congress take the next 60 days to carefully review all of the terms of this agreement before deciding whether it accomplishes its objective of preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. As a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I look forward to thoroughly reviewing the details of this proposed agreement.”

Despite the lack of urgency in Cicilline's press releases, The Hill reports that President Obama is working as hard as he can to get as many Democrats as possible on board, including Jewish Dems:

President Obama is counting on House Democrats to help save the Iran nuclear deal, but many are still on the fence about the controversial accord.

Republicans appear unified against the deal, which would lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for limits on its nuclear program. Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) said last weekthat 218 of 246 House Republicans have signed on to his bill condemning the agreement.

GOP leaders are planning a vote to disapprove the deal in September, near the end of a 60-day congressional review period. But Obama has vowed to veto any effort to block the deal and can afford to lose no more than 43 House Democrats to sustain a veto.

The White House has launched a full-court press to shore up House Democratic support, with Obama and top Cabinet officials personally lobbying lawmakers.

David Cicilline (D-RI)

A stand-out number of Democrats have made up their minds. What is taking Congressman Cicilline so long? Brad Sherman found a thin line to walk, courting Obama's ongoing support while opposing the deal. He made a decision after months  of deliberation, and even met with the President before issuing his opposition.

What is taking Cicilline so long? Why does he refuse to make a decision on this crucial foreign policy matter?

Popcorn: O’Malley Hammers DNC Chair at Convention

Martin O'Malley

Former Baltimore Mayor, Maryland Governor and now progressive Democratic Presidential candidate Martin O’Malley used his speech at the Democratic National Committee to criticize Democratic Party leaders  for skirting robust debate among prospective Presidential contenders, presumably to assure a Hillary Clinton coronation rather than a fully vetted nomination.

The Washington Times reports:

A feud within the Democratic Party spilled into the open Friday at the Democratic National Committee’s summer meeting in Minneapolis, as presidential candidate and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley used his speech to the convention to publicly chide DNC leaders for limiting the number of presidential debates.

Mr. O'Malley said that DNC officials had not only silenced debate among Democratic candidates but silenced the party’s ability to respond to Republican presidential candidates, whose recent TV debate reached more than 20 million Americans.

The party of openness and tolerance apparently has closed down discussion and is not tolerating any long-term back and forth.

Some of O’Malley’s comments included the following:

“They malign our president’s record of achievement, they denigrate women and immigrant families. They doubled down, on trickle down, and they tell their false stories,” he said. “And, we respond — with crickets, tumbleweeds, a cynical move to delay and limit our own party debates.”

He questioned what was becoming of the Democratic Party and the way it selects its presidential nominee.

Instead of hostility or rejecting, the audience welcomed his comments, vocally:

Mr. O'Malley’s criticism of his party officials was greeted with applause and cheers from the crowd of state party chairman in the ballroom of the Hilton Minneapolis.

While mainstream media outlets continue reporting uproars and divisions about Republican Presidential candidates, the Democratic Party is facing opposition within its own ranks, not just on ideological fronts, but even on procedural questions, including the liberty of individual Democrats and grassroots interests to decide who will be their party’s standard bearer in 2016 consideration.