Monday, April 20, 2015

Election 2016: Say No to Rubio

Marco Antonio Rubio.jpg
Marco Rubio in 2008 (DavidAll06)
Florida’s junior US Senator Marco Rubio, like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, commanded a great deal of respect with conservative activists. In 2010, Tea Party elements who helped propel his outsider candidacy for the US Senate against more Establishmentarian Republican governor Charlie Crist and the fledging Democratic candidate who had no chance of winning in the Republican leaning Sunshine state. After Christie and McDonnell’s gubernatorial victories especially in a watershed year for conservative insurgents across the country fed up with Big Government getting bigger under President Obama.



The former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Rubio boasted a son-of-immigrants story which rivaled Senator Ted Cruz, Rubio fended off infrequent, off-hand attacks, like misusing his credit card and avoiding payments.

He campaign on entitlement reform, in the state which Washington Post columnist George Will once called “God’s ante-chamber” for the number of senior citizens living there. He defeated the current Republican Governor, who had taken the Obama Kool-Aid stimulus, and hugged him in the process (Christie should have learned from Crist’s example. The “established” GOP candidate lost the primary, then switched Independent, back-pedaling from previous assertions to run and stay.

Rubio’s conservative stats and credentials broke the mold, and he captured the US Senate in a landmark victory. Rubio’s meteoric rise seemed destined to crest and dazzle the political landscape. Hoping to increase Hispanic GOP voter registration, party leaders propped up Rubio following President Obama’s State of the Union speech, only to receive another barrage of empty criticisms after he reached for a  bottle of water during his SOTU Response.

Rubio during SOTU Response (C-SPAN HD)
 

Following the disappointing 2012 Elections, Rubio still stood his fiscally conservative ground, rejecting the Fiscal Cliff deal, even while his Republican counterparts in the House (including Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan) voted for the deal.

Then came the betrayal. Working with another Gang of Eight in the upper chamber, Rubio cosponsored Immigration “Reform”, bringing along sixty-seven colleagues. Bipartisanship is one thing, but compromise must be based on principle, not politics. US Senator Rand Paul worked on juvenile delinquency reforms with other Democrats, yet still voted against bloated budgets and pushed Right-To-Work legislation in the process. Christie caved to Democratic talking points, and so did Rubio.

The notion that any Congress could trust President Obama, who had engaged in arbitrary lawless changes to his own legislation while rejecting the precedent of prior Congresses, should have dissuaded any federal representative from pursuing immigration policy. Republicans in the House were willing to work with the president to streamline the process, even set up a pathway to citizenship. Yet border security and integrity remained the sine qua non (indispensable condition), and since Obama had already flouted the rule of law with Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals, a nightmarish policy which bypassed Congress and unilaterally permitted young(ish) illegal aliens to reside in the country and receive temporary work permits. Charles Krauthammer sounded out this policy for what it really was: “Utter Lawlessness”.

Yet in spite of the infidelity of the President, Rubio felt the pressure from the Chamber of Commerce and the Hispanic identity activists, and went along.

Tea Party supporters from 2010 felt betrayed in 2013, and rightfully so. On other notes, where was the legislation on entitlement reform? What about the fiscal discipline? While Rubio has cast reliable votes on life (even sponsoring a bill to end abortion after twenty weeks, much like the Texas law which pink-shoed Wendy Davis failed to filibuster), Rubio’s breach of constitutional integrity and consistency cost him dearly with conservatives.

Granted, he regretted his support and vote for the 2013 Obamacare of Immigration Policy, but Rubio has failed on this front again. Returning to immigration, recent reports confirm, in spite of his communication director’s pleas to the contrary, Rubio supported and argued that Obama’s executive actions have benefitted illegal aliens, and he would not remove them. And he did so in Spanish on a Spanish-speaking television program. Whatever happened to E pluribus unum?

So, one first-term Senator praises another, and upholds his illegal, executive overreach to boot? Ouch! Now more than ever, this country needs leadership. Poor executive judgment, and outright unconstitutional rule from the current commander-in-chief (who plays golf rather than enforcing the law) have pushed this country’s republican core and democratic aspirations to a crisis point.

The last thing this country needs is another executive whose previous experience was relegated to running an office on Capitol Hill. Senator Rubio, now throwing his hat in the ring for the highest executive office in the land, has nothing to offer but a legacy of following the opinions of Washington DC elites.

Rubio embraces "gay" as identity, but not gay marriage? (Slate)
 

Where does his star power reside, then? Young voters like his youthful exuberance, or do they embrace his seeming softeneness on key stances, like gay marriage?  So, he announces that he would attend a gay wedding. Then he declares on “Face the Nation” that homosexual behavior is not a choice, yet he calls the conduct “sexual preference”. Preference indicates choice, and more research affirms that sexual conduct/attraction is not necessarily genetic. Let no one presume that he could have punted on those media gotcha questions, since Rubio had done so when queried about the age of the earth.

Rubio may steal away his former mentor Jeb Bush’s chances for the 2016 GOP nomination, but for a growing consortium of constitutional conservatives, Rubio’s magic is rubbing off fast. In the words of CNN’s Jake Tapper, Rubio is indeed “the candidate of yesterday”, a politician with conservative credentials misspent, and ultimately lost.

True Antinomianism

Last week, I posted a devotional blog about the grace of God at work in the life of Tamar, who was ancestor to Jesus Christ:

The account of Judah and Tamar, filled with deception and incest, demonstrates the grace of God, in that Jesus our Savior came from the line of Judah through Tamar. Under law, those two would have been killed, yet the dispensation of grace was at work then, and is at work now in our lives because Jesus!

http://asheisministries.blogspot.com/2015/04/gods-grace-greater-than-law-judah-and.html?spref=fb

The following comments were posted afterwards:

Justin Esthay Antinomian dispensationalist garbage.

  • Justin Esthay Oh, I dunno, maybe because of the Biblical context, two millennia of history, and simple reason that refute your sentiment.

  •  
    Paul writes about the Cross, and the grace of God shed upon us through Jesus' death and resurrection:
     
    "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." (1 Corinthians 1: 18)
     
    The preaching of the Cross is foolishness the a world where death reigns, where the god of this world has still blinded them to the glorious goodness of God and His Gospel:
     
    "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (2 Corinthians 4: 4)
     
    But back to First Corinthians, where we learn that the wisdom of men, the reason of this world, is come to naught in the Cross:
     
    "20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." (1 Corinthians 1: 20-24)
     
    Mr. Esthay suggests that "simple reason" refutes the grace of God.
     
    Reason is nothing in the face of Almighty God, and in Jesus we find true and consummate Wisdom, for to us that is the first thing that Jesus becomes!
     
    Grace is not reasonable, not rational, in that we are bound in a finite world. Yet God our Daddy is not finite, but infinite, and He demonstrated His love for us in giving His Son to die for us, to rise from the dead on our behalf, and to minister for us (and as us!) at the right hand of God the Father.
     
    "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God [lit. Christ]" (Romans 10: 17)

    Faith comes by hearing the Word about Christ and Him Crucified.

    We cannot create faith from within ourselves. It is not a product of reason, but revelation.

    So, what about this antinomian jab? Is it really the case that the Gospel of Grace is antinomian?

    What does the Bible teach?

    "
    27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
    31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."
     
    The grace of God establishes the law.
     
    Let us never forget, either, what the law was for:
     
    "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:19-20)
     
    The law was the standard of God's righteousness, which no one could keep. The law would point out to us that we are all guilty, in need of a Savior.
     
    Check out also these passages:
     
    "
    19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. 21Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
    23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Galatians 3: 19-25)
     
    The law was added, brought in later (Romans 5: 20), not to make us holy, but rather to reveal how deeply sinful man is, and his need for a Savior as absolute.
     
    Faith was the trainer, the schoolmaster which showed us our need for a Living Savior, and once we have this Savior, we are no longer under law,  but rather  under grace (Romans 6: 14).
     
    Another passage will affirm the true purpose of the law:
     
    "8But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 11According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust." (1 Timothy 1: 8-11)
     
    The law was not written for righteous people, for people who have been saved and sanctified, but for sinners.
     
    No one can keep the law, and anyone who teaches otherwise, that the law is a set standard which men and women are called to keep, are actually subverting, watering down the law, reducing God's Holy Standard.
     
    Ironically enough, true antinomianism is not appealing to grace ahead of the law, but rather teaching people, contrary to Scriptural truth and revelation, that the law is a standard which we are called to keep!

    Saturday, April 18, 2015

    Torrance Removes Plourde: Reflection

    The Arthur Plourde controversy gave otherwise bored city council attendees something to watch and learn from.

    I had strong reservations about what to expect from the city council.
     
    The final agenda item for the April 14 meeting convinced me that something big was going to happen
    :
     
    12C. City Manager - Consider removal of Arthur Plourde from the Library Commission.
    Recommendation of the City Manager that City Council consider the removal of Arthur Plourde from the Library Commission for advocating a personal agenda while representing himself as a City Commissioner and thereby exceeding the scope of his duties as a Library Commissioner.
    Wow! What could Arthur have done to deserve to be removed from the Library Commission?
     
    Arthur J. Plourde
                                          
    Torrance Library Commissioner Arthur Plourde has become the first official dismissed from a volunteer position on a city advisory panel in at least 40 years.

    I spoke with former Mayor Frank Scotto and he informed me that former mayor Dan Walker was removed from the Civil Service Commission in the mid-1980s. The reporter needed to do a little more digging.


    Plourde, who attended all of three commission meetings after his January appointment before running afoul of his colleagues, was removed Tuesday on a 6-0 vote of the panel, which criticized Plourde for “advocating a personal agenda .... exceeding the scope of his duties.”

    Plourde, 69, is a retired aerospace engineer and Tea Party member who objected to the expenditure of taxpayer funds for foreign-language library materials he believed violated the state and U.S. constitutions.

    There is nothing wrong with the city of Torrance spending money to purchase books in another language. Nothing at all. I found this issue tedious and even a little embarrassing. I commented that behavior such as these outbursts give the Tea Party Movement a bad name. Contrary to the media and local political establishment perspectives, the Tea Party is all about getting government back to its constitutional basics. A modest proposal of limited government protecting individual liberty, based on enumerated powers should engage all Americans.

    “There is no reason for the taxpayers to pay for this kind of stuff,” he said Wednesday in an interview with the Daily Breeze.

    City officials disagreed, saying that Plourde “misconstrues” the applicable section of the state constitution, while noting that English is considered the official language of the state.

    Having attended and viewed the council meeting, I found myself agreeing with even the most disagreeable member of the council, Tim Goodrich, whose myopic pursuit of Community Choice Aggregation smacks of personal agenda as much as Plourde's pursuit of foreign-language materials in the library.

    Plourde also was accused of requesting a sidewalk repair and, on a separate occasion, requesting a bus driver lift his clothing so he could be assured the driver was wearing a seat belt. On both occasions he allegedly identified himself as a city commissioner.

    Such behavior cannot go unpunished in the city. Individual commissioners are not even supposed to wear their badges to local events, Mayor Furey told me.

    He also was described as being “loud and accusatory,” while pounding his fist on the table, at the March Library Commission meeting.

    I have great respect for Plourde. His volunteerism in the local community, from blood donations to his patriotism, inspire many people. Yet he has also developed a tough reputation for stating his mind on issues, never mind what anyone else may think.

    That prompted complaints to city officials from two of his fellow commissioners and resulted in a closed-door discussion with Mayor Pat Furey and Councilwoman Heidi Ashcraft, who had nominated him for the panel, Plourde said.

    Plourde, whose surname is of French origin, defended himself and his position in a rambling presentation to the City Council peppered with references to a 1907 speech by President Theodore Roosevelt.

    Nick Green's negative take on Plourde's presentation did not bear witness with the facts. He was coherent in explaining his concern about the primacy of the English language, as stipulated in the California State Constitution. No one should begrudge Plourde sharing a strong opinion on a matter. His pursuit of this issue, against the chief intents of the Library Commission and the consternation of his colleagues, demonstrated that his agenda conflicted with the needs of the group and the city.

    The rest of the Daily Breeze column explained that one councilmember, Heidi Ashcraft, recused herself from the administrative matter. She had nominated him to the commission, and she had sent out an email to the entire city council and staff that she agreed with the agenda item to discuss his removal, a violation of the Brown Act.

    Ashcraft did the right thing, and this violation is ultimately a small matter.

    Final Reflection

    I do not sense a big conspiracy after all.

    After speaking with former as well as current councilmembers, including former Mayor Frank Scotto and current  members Geoff Rizzo, Heidi Ashcraft, Mayor Pat Furey, and Mike Griffiths, I had a better appreciation and perspective of the whole affair. Furey gave  me a half an hour of his time explaining his reasons for removing Plourde, as well as  the prior steps taken by staff to work with Plourde, in spite of his confrontational and abrasive manner.

    The city of Torrance does not have a long record of politicization in connection with commission appointments, although incumbent members have lost reappointment opportunities in the past. Nick Green did mention one attempted removal from former Mayor Dan Walker against Tom Brewer, yet the public outcry pushed back and Walker relented. A 2006 grassroots effort threw Walker and some of his colleagues out of office that year, following rising complaints of overdevelopment and cronyism.

    As for Plourde, Furey and Ashcraft asked him to step down or consider another commission. Weideman affirmed that his decision was not political or partisan, but a recognition of the fact that Plourde was acting outside the scope of his commissioner duties.

    Once again, the reality of local civic decisions requires more scrutiny than the local press or attending residents have immediate access to.

     

    The State of the Union: April 16, 2015

    On the latest edition (April 16, 2015) of "The State of the Union", I talked about the following topics:

    Arthur Plourde

    1. The dismissal of Arthur J. Plourde as library commissioner.

    I was hoping for Arthur Plourde to give his side of the story. After speaking with current and prior elected officials, as well as talking with current staffers and community members.

    My conclusion: Art Plourde has overstepped his role as commissioner, was not a good fit, and the city council had little choice but to remove him.

    Former Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi


    2. Al Muratsuchi is plotting a return to the Assembly.

    The former assembly, unseated in 2014 by David Hadley, with the South Bay One Hundred and a wider team of volunteers and independent donors.

    Muratsuchi ran a slash and burn, hate and berate campaign against Craig Huey in 2012 and Hadley last year. He was finally pushed out, and apparently he is running the same type of backdoor campaign to get reelected in 2016. Making the rounds, collecting key endorsements from key Democratic leaders and partisans. Does Muratsuchi think that he can build his own version of the South Bay One Hundred? Public sector unions do not count, and Democrats are already fraying at the core over the proper scope of labor unions in California.

    Lincoln Chafee

    3. Lincoln Chafee for President? Really?? Who is this guy? Why, the former  governor of Rhode Island, who left after only one term, with the worst approval ratings of any governor in the country. He had switched parties from Republican to Independent, and then in a desperate attempt became a Democrat.

    Nothing availed, and Chafee dropped out, but trumpeted his "progressive" reforms in Rhode Island. He is staunchly left-leaning, already attacking Hillary Clinton for her Iraq War vote in 2002. Already facing heated questions from the left (on MSNBC) as well as the right (any Rhode Islanders paying attention long enough to laugh out loud), Chafee is a contender whom Hillary will have to deal with.

    Two Rhode Island colleagues called in, not only spouting about Chafee the joke, but I asked them to share their thoughts about What about Jerry Brown? They scoffed at the idea, slamming Governor Moonbeam, whether West Coast or East Coast.

    4. Religious liberty -- is it theocratic bigotry to oppose same-sex marriage? A Rhode Island friend and colleague went so far as to suggest that opposition to same-sex marriage was tantamount to imposing a religious theocracy. In addition to my strong points on the matter, my Rhode Island guests concluded that Republicans should focus on fiscal issues and reforms. As for social issues, one guest feared that the issue could tear the Republican Party apart, and it would be better just to get the government out of marriage altogether.

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/twilighttalkradio/2015/04/16/state-of-the-union-with-arthur-c-schaper

    Thursday, April 16, 2015

    Election 2016: The Democratic Mystery Machine

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced her bid for President.

    Didn’t notice? I didn’t care.

    The most interesting thing I have read about her is . . .how uninteresting she is. From Dennis Prager  to Charles Krauthammer, and liberal pundit Maureen Dowd, the syndicated talking heads nod off over Clinton’s lack of accomplishments, and a resume littered with titles which  added neither a jot or tittle to a better America.

    Nevertheless, Hillary is hitting the road, heading to Iowa in her van “Scooby”.



    E! Online reports:

    The Democratic party [sic] leader hit the road in her self-dubbed "Scooby van" Monday and headed to Monticello, Iowa from her home in Chappaqua, New York (that's a 17-hour drive!). Clinton's van was accompanied by hordes of security.

    Nothing says “woman of the people” like a minivan surrounded by security.

    Breitbart explained the “Scooby” reference:

    Other details of Clinton’s road trip include Hillary’s nicknamed for her van: “Scooby” (Because it reminded her of the “Mystery Machine” driven by Scooby and his friends from the 1970s era TV cartoon.)

    One small correction: Scooby was the silly, scared Great Dane, and he never drove the van.

    However, with the way that the Democratic bench is shaped for 2016, they might as well elect a cartoon dog, since he boasts better chances of winning. Even while watching reruns of Scooby Doo, millenials are turning off Hillary. The wife of a dirty old man who can’t stay buttoned up does not a Presidential package make.

    Scooby Doo, where are you




       Come to think of it, there’s too much in common with Hillary Clinton and Scooby Doo. Both are cartoonish reruns, filled with repeated frames, busy playing up a race to catch some bad guy. Democrats have played the “Divide and Distract” game for so long, but what happens when they become divided and distracted themselves? The Democratic Party has turned into its own slap-stick Mystery Machine, and gets funnier every minute it bumps along.


    So, who’s Shaggy in Hillary’s road trip laughing stock? The former Governor of Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee, who wanted to legalize pot to raise revenue for potholes in his bankrupted, dysfunctional, Democratic dominated state. We all know that Shaggy loved girls named “Mary Jane”. We also know why he and his canine comrade loved to eat.

    What about Fred, the neatly-coiffed star athlete blond with the white sweater? A picture of the Big Media and the Establishment, they stand around looking good, but have been disappearing lately.

    Then there’s the brainy, unassuming, cute-in-a-weird way Velma, complete with big glasses, orange sweaters, and red miniskirt. The Gay Lobby once adopted her as their mascot. Jinkies! Will Big Gay come out for Hillary in 2016? Who really cares, since Barry Manilow just married his boyfriend, and no one paid attention. Young people are looking for good jobs and a better future, and everyone else is fed up with the gay wedding cakes getting forced down their throats.

     Daphne, perfect in purple and pink, often fell off the screen with Fred, because they played the straight characters to the comic relief: everyone else. Is she Hillary, then? Keep looking for clues, conservatives.

    Who else will come out of the Democratic Mystery Machine? Will anyone of them have a chance?



    Another old man, Vermont’s Socialist US Senator Bernie Sanders (you remember, the silent star in that movie “Weekend at Bernie’s” who said and did nothing because he was dead?), is waiting in the wings. Massachusetts’ own US Senator Elizabeth Warren keeps saying “Not running!”, but Faux-cahontas/Lie-a-watha doctored up her ancestry, and her interest in the upper chamber. Have you ever heard the wolf cry to the blue corn moon? Warren might, since her “No” does not mean “No!” Former Governor Martin O’Malley, with a Marylander lilt in his left-wing tilt, still thinks he has a chance, even though Old Line voters rejected his hand-picked successor, and elected a Republican (Go Larry!). Why not resurrect Gerry Studs of Massachusetts, who was sleeping with teenagers while in Congress?



    Then there’s former US Senator Jim Webb, an undersecretary of the Navy during the Reagan Administration. Another one-term Senator who ran from office, he is caught in the web of working for Republicans and fleeing from Democratic talking points (and failed legacies).

    With 2016 fast approaching, and a broad, deep bench of Republican, conservative talent brimming over, fresh faces, bold initiatives, a new show is coming to Washington. But where’s Hillary in this Mystery Machine mess? If Democrats don’t wake up soon, they will discover that she is the very villain they claim to be searching out, mask and all: a One-Percent faux-populist with as much charm as Todd Akin (with illegitimate rape Bubba biting his lip on the side, asking “Women Everywhere?”)

    As for Hillary, even if she wins the Democratic nomination, her chances are a sliver, and will make Democrats shake and shiver.

    When she loses her second bid for the White House, she will have only herself to blame, and she will grumble:

    “I would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn’t for those pesky kids!”

    Monday, April 13, 2015

    Update on "Run, Chafee, Run!"

    
    "Are You Kidding Me?"

     
    Common Sense RI released a three minute mock fest of former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee following his announcement of intent for the 2016 Presidential nomination.

    You can view the video clip here.

    Some of the more disturbing as well as silly elements in the video included Chafee's idea of Pot of Potholes, along with his frequent fumbling before the camera, and in front of the microphone, included weird shouts like "Cocky Wacko!".

    Chafee: the left-wing version of George W. Bush? "Is your children learnin'?"

    The savvy political operatives in the background indicate that Chafee's interest in the Presidency hides a true, more realistic interest in an ambassadorship or a cabinet position in the next Presidential administration.

    Yes, I'm running! Stop Laughing!

    To which country would Chafee represent the United States? Navarre? Liechtenstein? How about San Marino, one of the smallest nation states in the world, where no one will notice him, or his follies.

    MSNBC interviewed him within twenty-four hours of his announcement, and they threw nothing but cannonballs. While the former Warwick mayor wanted to talk about international issues, since they interest him so much, the host pressed him on his very first vote in the US Senate: repealing Glass-Steagal, a law which had prevented commercial banks from entering into other financial markets. Critics of this maneuver contend that the repealed ended up creating To Big To Fail banking firms, and led to the Housing Collapse of 2008, followed by the Great Recession.

    Chafee was not ready for that question, and flippantly admitted that because of his recent arrival in the US Senate, he was not well-read on those issues.

    He could not be bothered to educate himself on key domestic policies, and announces this limitation on national television, but wants to be the next President of the United States? Really?

    This morning, I found out that @Chafee2016 had retweeted 990WBOB's tweet of my latest column. I am not sure if the Chafee camp actually read my piece. In that instance, I am certain that they would not view that retweet as endorsement, nor should that. . .that he should be in the White House!

    In other words, Chafee and Co. felt that hehad to retweet me tweet in order to see what was in it!

    On another note, do we really want another former US Senator with friendly ties to communists, anyway? Maybe Chafee wants to be ambassador to Cuba. . .

    Walker v. Christie for 2016

    (Christie: "The Answer is No!" From nymag.com)

    New Jersey Governor Chris Christie commanded a lot of respect with conservative activists during the first years of his first term in office. He was Presidential material, and certainly presented better leadership than my governor, Jerry Brown. I even wrote about his compelling leadership skills early on: “He talks tough, walks gruff, and gets stuff done. I wish he were my governor”.

     

    Anyone who unseated the Corzine regime in New Jersey deserves a second look, and Christie did just that in 2009, even while former financier, Senator, finally illiberal Democratic Governor Corzine mocked Christie's weight within weeks of the election.

    Christie did replace some of the executive errors, but the legislature remained Democratic. That was the beginning of the problems for the new Republican governor, whom local press claimed was too moderate. To his credit, a conservative, no matter how principled, can only accomplish so much on his own. However, New Jersey executives do command a greater deal of power and influence than other governors, particularly the rest of the Northeast/New England delegation.

    Nevertheless, at the outset, Christie was not about to be bullied, and he had no problem throwing his weight around(figuratively speaking). He stood up to unions, he blocked wasteful projects. He had the courage to shame those teachers unions when the leadership called for his death. He did not run away from confrontation, even posting front page headlines of himself, a figurative Christie, standing firm with his feet on the ground: "The Answer is No!"
     
    Yet with his presidential potential on the rise, his pride in his own abilities took greater stride. He hugged President Obama, attacked fellow Republicans. He pushed gun-control, despite common sense, legal precedent, and moral necessity. Sean Hannity warned him, but Christie didn’t listen.

     
    In contrast to Christie, Walker stood up, stood firm, and stood his ground on his principles, despite the Democratic legacies of the Dairy State.

     

    He disciplined public sector unions, and refused to budge. He won his second statewide election the only Governor to survive such a recall, running on his reforms. Even his two-time Democratic challenger Tom Barrett could not assail Walker for his Act 10 reforms.
    On gun rights, Walker signed off on the Castle doctrine, allowing homeowners to protect their homes, and their property, with firearms - and deadly force - if necessary.

    What about Christie?

    The New Jersey Governor banned gay conversion therapy for minors, which alarmed family activists, concerned that youth could be abused and yet not seek help from caring professionals.
    Christie campaigned against in-state tuition for illegal aliens in 2009.  In 2013, he pandered and signed off on the legislation, arguing that since "we are paying for their education already", so American taxpayers  might as well continue doing so. His decision was purely political, with no moral or even legal meaning. Scott Walker repealed in-state tuition for illegal aliens, and he stood his ground on this issue.

    Unlike Christie, Walker has been a team player, fighting for working families and his party, as well as the country. When a special election opened up following the death of US Senator Frank Lautenberg, Christie solidified his reelection bid, at greater cost to his state and his party, scheduling the election one month after the 2013 general election: selfish all the way.

    For further evidence of Christie's "I syndrome", look no further than his speech at the 2015 Iowa Freedom Summit. He discussed his accomplishments, in generalities, but still spoke about “Me, Myself, and I.”

    To his credit, Governor Christie is pro-life, and stayed pro-life. He vetoed funding for the Orwellian Planned Parenthood five times, in spite of a Democratic legislature which pushed a liberal agenda in spite of the best interests of New Jersey residents.

    He is pro-school choice, and has gone further than many elected leaders, who have pushed for expanding options outside of student zipcodes. Christie supports vouchers for private school enrollment, and campaigned on this issue in predominantly black and Hispanic neighborhoods.

    Walker also defunded Planned Parenthood, in spite of the liberal tinge of his state. Walker worked with his Republican party to bring up their numbers in Madison, as well, while Christie's personal popularity never transformed Trenton's political legacy. Walker expanded school choice

    As already mentioned, Walker opposed collective bargaining for public sector unions, while Christie openly supported allowing those unions to bargain, even though he had recognized that their collective power is bankrupting the Garden State. Walker signed off on right-to-work. He rejected the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, while Christie at first rejected then accepted “the fool’s bet”. Walker has stayed away from partisan GOP infighting, while Christie has not only battled with House Republicans, but even presidential contenders like US Senator Rand Paul.

    Then there’s the scandals. Christie played nice with the media and lost (i.e. Bridge-gate). Walker has been the subject of false smears, yet has won time and again.

    Christie has lost weight, but also a lot of credibility. Aside from some fiscal and labor reforms, there is very little about Christie to interest the nation’s growing conservative voting constituency, while Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s appeal grows stronger every day.

     

    Sunday, April 12, 2015

    The CTA Agenda -- Where's the Education?


    The California Teachers Association is one of the most powerful lobbying forces in the Golden State.

    This is common knowledge not just because repeated attempts to implement teacher tenure reforms, as well as paycheck protection, merit pay for teachers, and school choice meet untimely defeat, but because state senator Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica/South Bay) affirmed their support as crucial for certain types of legislation.

    On the CTA website, any cursory review will find a list of legislative proposals and initiatives opposed or promoted by the union. Their politicized opposition to certain bills, plus their partisan pandering to other pieces of legislation, beg the question:

    Where's the Education?

    Two bad bills would repeal the cap on school district reserves
    Help Defeat AB 1048 (Baker) and SB 774 (Fuller)

    Take Action!

    Why would the state teachers union want to make it hard for school districts to be responsible with taxpayer funds? Every time a district runs desperately low on revenues, massive layoffs and cuts ensue. Why make it harder for teachers to stay employed? Why make it harder for students to get a quality education?

    Cosponsor and Support the Social Security Fairness Act of 2015
    Take Action!

    Excuse me? What does Social Security have to do with educating young people? Social Security Fairness - isn't that the purview of AARP? Are there not other interest groups which can (and should?) focus on retirement of the elderly?

    Oppose private school vouchers
    Take Action!
     
    What do public school unions have against private schools and vouchers? Private schools do a demonstrably better job of education young people, at a fraction of the cost. No wonder teachers unions are hell-bent to stop their promotion, prosperity, and proliferation. Taxpayers deserve to their money well-spent and properly invested, even if it means expanding voucher programs and allowing inner city kids to seek a quality education in a parochial school.


    Oppose GOP Budget that cuts education
    Take Action!
     
    What cuts to education? Why are public schools relying on federal aid to begin with?


    Urge Congress to Extend the Educator Tax Deduction
    Take Action!
     
    Great idea. I support this conclusion. Why not eliminate the income tax altogether, and demand that the federal government live within its means, and get out of the education business entirely?


    Tell Congress to raise the federal minimum wage
    Take Action!
     
    Why force up the minimum wage and frustrate young opportunities to seek better jobs? Have the educators paid any attention to what forced wage hikes have done in Seattle, and how they actually increase unemployment?
    Tell your Representative to support immigration reform (H.R. 15)
    Take Action!
     
    What does immigration "reform" have to do with education? If reform means securing our borders and protecting our kids from illegal aliens, then everyone in the country, not just member of the CTA, should be calling and writing their legislators.


    Tell Congress to support the Voting Rights Amendment Act (S. 1945)
    Take Action!
     
    Voting Rights Act has accomplished what it set out to do. This country needs Voter ID to protect the franchise so dear to all Americans.
    Extend unemployment benefits
    Take Action!
     
    What?! How about extending education and employment opportunities?


    Tell your Senators that charter schools should be more transparent and accountable
    Take Action!
     
    Of course! Let's expect the same transparency and accountability from public schools, too. The disaster and corruption which has become Centinela Valley should alarm all stakeholders, parents, and taxpayers. What that school board and former superintendent got away with should lead to demands not just of more transparency, but also school choice.


    Students need good nutrition to succeed
    Take Action!

    Certainly, but who will pay for it? Where are the parents, where are the private charities, the churches, and the local community leaders to step in and parent those kids who have no parents at home to care for them? Does the CTA really believe that public schools should turn into overburdened community centers which take over parental control of the parents?

    The political agenda of unions like the California Teachers Association, on display in their agenda workpage, showcase that their liberal interests are not in the best interests of students, education, or the country. Where is the respect for the United States Constitution? What about choice for students, parents, families, and local communities? Where is the discussion about economic growth and awareness?