Friday, May 29, 2015

Was Dennis Hastert A Perv?!

The former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, J. Dennis Hastert, has been charged with lying to the FBI as to why he was taking just under $10,000 cash withdrawals and the reason does not appear to be a good one.


According to multiple sources, the reason Mr. Hastert was taking the money and using it to payoff a former student of his from his days as a teacher and wrestling coach.
A payoff for the male, only identified as "Individual A" to keep quiet about Mr. Hastert alleged sexual misconduct.
And if the Los Angeles Times is accurate, at least one more male has a connection to this. However, this male is not and was not being paid off by Mr. Hastert.
Where, oh where to begin?
First, Mr. Hastert is no longer a public, elected official. He has not been since 2007 when he left congress after the Democrats retook the House in the previous election in 2006. So nothing could be done on that front if true.
But Mr. Hastert did have a position of trust as a school teacher and a wrestling coach. It is not a license to use that authority in any way unbecoming of being a teacher.
Of course I want to presume Mr. Hastert is innocent until proven guilty.
But nothing will be able to be done regarding alleged sexual misconduct as the statute of limitations more than likely expired.
And I also believe that this is not in the league of the infamous former senator from Idaho, Larry Craig.
In the Craig saga, he pled guilty to soliciting public sex in a male restroom at the Minneapolis International airport. It was discovered by media after the fact and led to an embarrassing situation for the GOP. And I called for Mr. Craig to resign and he did. Until he didn't. I wrote about the initial reports here in 2007.
Now it is possible that when all is said and done, Mr. Hastert will cut a deal so as to not have potentially embarrassing information to himself come out in a trial. But the reality is that the leftywhore media will make sure to remind us about the pervert Republicans. How often times they are hypocritical. We all know what happens next.
The bottom line is that what is known is not much but very damaging reports about why Mr. Hastert was taking large cash withdrawals out from his bank. One can make an argument that the banking law is a bad one, but that is not the point. If what ends up coming out is that Mr. Hastert was doing more than coaching wrestling with some of his male high school students, it will be devastating to all involved. And let's not forget that Mr. Hastert is married and has two adult children. And because we do not know anything about the potential victims of possible sexual misconduct, I can not and will not speculate on the effects on them and their families.
I once wrote about who are the people we elect to public office and that is what I would like to leave you with.
Who are these people we elect?
And was Dennis Hastert a pervert?
Stay tuned.


Thursday, May 28, 2015

Why I Support Marco Rubio For President

If any regular reader or casual reader of this blog knows, I have always supported Sen. Marco Rubio since he became a candidate for the United States senate in 2010.
While I have a little bit of concern I will address later in this post, I believe that Sen. Rubio is the best of the Republican candidates for president and totally support the Rubio candidacy. I so strongly support Sen. Rubio I have created this Facebook page, Californians For Rubio.
Why do I like Sen. Rubio so much?
For one, he is not ashamed to be a conservative and Republican. In fact, almost all the Republicans in the race, if put under Sodium Pentathol, know Sen. Rubio has proven time and time again that he is the best and most articulate spokesman for conservative ideas.
In many ways, Sen. Rubio reminds me a lot of a young version of Ronald Reagan. But unlike Mr. Reagan, Sen. Rubio is the son of immigrants. Cuban immigrants just before one Fidel Castro seized power and imposed communism and shared poverty. Except for the communist elite, of course. As the son of immigrants he has a real appreciation of the American dream.
So I know that there is a negative side that I can get out of the way now.
The fact is that as a federal elected official, Sen. Rubio has a little more experience than the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama. That is sort of true. But unlike the Dear Leader, President Obama, who served in the Illinois state senate and voted present a lot, Sen. Rubio was the speaker of the Florida House of Representatives and shepereded legislation thus was a leader. So yes, he does not have the long-term record that others in the race do, I think he has a stronger record of accomplishment than the Dear Leader, President Obama.
So, where does he stand on issues?
Sen. Rubio has a plan to fix our broken tax system. It is not an easy read, but here is the Rubio plan. There are critics on both the right and left. But for the average American taxpayer, it is as close to a flat income tax that we have ever had. A 15% bracket and a 35% bracket. For single tax payers, the 15% bracket is good up to $75,000. Married and filing jointly the 15% bracket is up to $150,000. Most Americans are in the lower bracket and will still have the ability to deduct their home mortgages. Again, it is a read, but worth it to understand why I like this plan.
Of course there would be deregulation across the board.
On the so-called social issues, Sen. Rubio is pro-life and in favor of traditional marriage. Again these are the social issues that the left wants to spend time talking about. And of course some people think Sen. Rubio was weak in saying that he would attend a friend's same-sex wedding. It does not mean he is endorsing it as much as being a good friend.
On the issue of illegal immigration, this is one issue where Sen. Rubio has waffled too much for my taste. But it is not fatal. And as president, Sen. Rubio would be able to craft multiple bills rather than a comprehensive bill that is what divides conservatives, Republicans and the majority of the American public.
On foreign policy, I know where Sen. Rubio stands and that he will call radical Islam and radical Islamics what they are. There will be no couching of words. There will be no undercutting our only reliable ally in the Middle East, Israel. There will be no cutting a bad deal or deals with Iran. And Sen. Rubio will take the fight to the enemy there, not waiting for something to happen here and then react.
Most important to me is that he is a real deal. He is not full of himself. It's not all about him. It's about what he will do as president and who he will surround himself with to carry out policies.
That is why I heartily endorse and support Marco Rubio for President.

Monday, May 18, 2015

Congressman Loretta Sanchez, American Indians, WOO! WOO! WOO! WOO! WOO! WOO! WOO! WOO!; What Can Go Wrong?!

In less than one week, the nascent United States senate campaign of California Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Cal.) has imploded due to her once again overusing her one brain cell.

In the above video, Rep. Sanchez is yammering about something and then uses a term that, well I would not use in company I was not sure about their sensitivity.
WOO! WOO! WOO! WOO! WOO! WOO! WOO! WOO!
The old American Indian war cry that was once a staple of the Saturday westerns and millions of boys and girls playing Cowboys and Indians.
And she did not just say it. Rep. Sanchez mimicked it with her right hand lightly tapping her mouth for full effect.
But it's what the dim bulb said that makes one totally shake one's head:

“I am going to his office, thinking that I am going to meet with a,” she said, while patting her hand over her mouth and making a noise. “Right? ... Because he said Indian American."

Because he said Indian American?!
SMH* until it bleeds!
Does this idiot, Sanchez, know the difference between INDIAN-American and AMERICAN-Indian?!
An INDIAN-American is one from the nation of India.
An AMERICAN-Indian is one who greeted the Pilgrims and may have been sorry they ever did,
But, to an intellect that is Loretta Sanchez, I suppose there is no real difference.
I am just going to write it but Rep. Sanchez is not exactly the best in the cause of taking women seriously in politics. Unless women want one to prove they can have one in congress be as dumb as some of the dudes.
Here's a couple of things about Rep. Sanchez that are interesting.
One, when Rep. Sanchez first ran for office, she ran for the Long Beach city council in 1994. One may not remember that because in that campaign, she ran as Loretta Bixley, which was her married name.
Next is when she ran for office again in 1996 and this time it was for congress. There she suddenly became Loretta Sanchez, her maiden name. and in a very bitter campaign against long-time Republican stalwart Rep. Robert "B-1 Bob" Dornan, Mrs. Sanchez-Bixley "won" the election. There was considerable voter fraud that was not fully investigated that may have changed the outcome.
Most important is that she has not lost an election since 1996 and her 47th district has become more Democrat.
In the strangeness that is the race to replace retiring nag Sen. Barbara "Ma'am" Boxer, Rep. Sanchez would seem a more logical choice than the barely in her second term attorney general, Kamala Harris.
But Rep. Sanchez is a loose cannon. She is the Sen. Boxer of the house of representatives.
But this stupid mimicking of the American Indian war cry and showing sheer ignorance may do her in before she even gets her campaign for senate off the ground.
Maybe it's all for the best.
The Cali GOP seems to be unable to, once again, attract any serious candidate to run for the office so it should be Miss Harris' or Rep Sanchez for the taking.
But it might be a little more fun if Rep. Sanchez could be elected, wouldn't it be?!

*SMH-Smack My Head

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Why I Have Lost ALL Respect For President Obama

I believe that if you look in an updated dictionary and find the word douchebrain, you will find as a definition two or three words.
Barack (Hussein) Obama.
In a panel discussion this past Wednesday at CINO* Georgetown University, the Dear Leader, President Obama, finally let his inner socialism spew out of his mouth.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, blamed the rich and or wealthy for the increase of poverty in the United States. Poverty that has quite bluntly increased under his stellar leadership.
In this account, The Dear Leader, President Obama, had this to say about hedge-fund managers:

"I'm not saying this because I dislike hedge fund managers or think they are evil. You pretty much have more than you'll ever use and your family will ever use."

In between the words of the Dear Leader, President Obama, is an anecdote about the top 25 hedge-fund managers making more than all the kindergarten teacher in the United States combined. What our Dear Leader, President Obama, failed to mention is how hedge-fund managers love giving their money to the Democrats. Tom Steyer is but one example. But if you do not believe me, here is some more proof from Open Secrets. I will concede that the tide is turning and they are donating more to Republicans. But maybe, just maybe they are tired of being like part of a Stockholm Syndrome cult and don't like giving money to the very people that want to take as much of it as possible.
And why does the Dear Leader, President Obama, refer to those who have any means as "society's lottery winners."?
Most importantly, who in the hell is the Dear Leader, President Obama, to say what is or is not enough money anyone should make and or have? The problem is that he let his inner socialism out with that comment. Too bad the Dear Leader, President Obama, did not take a look in the mirror at his own, very privileged life.
But it sure did not end there. The economic envy became education and by extension social envy.
In the eyes of our president, it is an awful thing for people wanting to send their children to private schools.
Again, in the words of the Dear Leader, President Obama:

“Those who are doing better and better, more skilled, more educated, – luckier – having greater advantages are withdrawing from the commons. Kids start going to private schools, kids start working out at private clubs instead of the public parks, an anti-government ideology then disinvests from those common goods and those things that draw us together.”

UGH! SMH** until it bleeds!
Does this dude believe the horse crap that comes out of his mouth?!
A primer on the Dear Leader, President Obama and his trajectory to the White House is needed.
Yes, Barack Obama was born in Hawai'i in 1961. He spent his early formative years in Indonesia and, surprise! Attended private school. When he did come back to the United States in his teenage years, Mr. Obama went to the prestigious Punahou School, courtesy of his banker grandma, you know, the one scared of black people on the street. And when Mr. Obama went to college, it sure as hell was not East Los Angeles Junior College. No, no, no!!! He went to Occidental College and for some reason did not finish undergraduate studies there. He transferred to Columbia University and finished there. And of course went on to Harvard law school.
Yeah, some interaction with the downtrodden of society.
In reality he did all the community organizing thing after years of left-wing indoctrination at elite private schools. And remember in his own words he talked about the kind of people he hung out with at Occidental:

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

Oh yes, these are your average folks. Yes indeed.
Where does this crap come from? Seriously? Most people do not know folks like this unless they are themselves politically active and on the left.
The total rank hypocrisy of this president is just so out there. I mean the dude has totally benefited from being an elitist himself. He did not grow up in poverty like say Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. He did not have a moderate middle-class upbringing like Harry S Truman. He did not have a quintessential middle-class lifestyle as Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon.
Yet he dumps and promotes lies to foment class warfare.
I did not want to go to the fact the president and Mrs. Dear Leader, Michelle Obama, send their two daughters to the moat elite private school in the Washington, D. C. area, Sidwell Friends School. But hey, why not point out his hypocrisy?
Most Americans, rightfully, aspire to get to a higher station in life than they may have been born into. Very few are in the truly elite families of the United States. Most would like to be able to attain a home, work a job that they at least like and maybe get a promotion or two. Have enough money to live a comfortable retirement and to leave a little something to their children if they have any. And that includes those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Maybe instead of dissing private schools, let the states have education back and break the power of teacher unions that dominate, especially in the large cities.
Instead of dumping on those of means, show that anyone can attain the same position. One of the reasons I love the show Shark Tank is that those who are the sharks are looking for something to take off with. They are investing in an idea and yes, eventually jobs. No, nSot everyone can get on Shark Tank, but there are people who are like them all across the United States.
Why can't our president unite the nation instead of dividing it every chance that he gets? Why can't he extol the virtues of hard work? Of the entrepreneur spirit that made the United States? Why can't he suggest that there are good ideas in private schooling and what needs to be done is bring them to public education? Why can't he stop playing the victim card and play the truth, the audacity of hope?
By letting the inner socialist out in the open, I have lost the little respect that I had for the Dear Leader, President Obama. I doubt he reads this blog (maybe the NSA does!) but what he needs to do is reach out and show a little humility. It will go a long way.

*CINO-Catholic In Name Only.
**SMH-Smack My Head.

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Joel Kotkin Strikes Again On What Ails California

Chapman University professor and Orange County Register columnist Joel Kotkin has written another brilliant piece on the monumental problems facing California that is certain to raise the hackles of the left.
As The Sacramento Bee is reporting that there is a $3,000,000,000 budget surplus and what the dominant Democrat majority in Sacramento want to do with it, Mr. Kotkin writes about the long-term prospects for California under the current Democrat regime.
Oh, FTR, the Democrats want to spend it all on education. A payoff for the teacher unions if there ever was one.
Mr. Kotkin and even I will give a bit of credit to Gov. Brown. It is as if he is the one adult left in the state capital.
But Mr. Kotkin does pretty much dissect the fact that in terms of economic growth, California is non-existent in that category.
For instance, a sure sign on economic growth is job creation.
Mr. Kotkin pointed out that last year, California added about 450,000 jobs and for the first time, in raw numbers, outranked Texas in the last 10 years. But a look beyond the numbers and it turns out that it is roughly the same rate of job growth. For the period of 2007-2014, California had an anemic 0.7% job growth while Texas had a 11% of job growth. And the number of jobs in California during that time? A rip-roaring 120,000 new jobs. Not good. Not good at all.
Another aspect of the so-called recovery is how narrow it is.
According to Mr. Kotkin, much of the recovery is centered in the San Francisco Bay Area and Silicon Valley. Outside of that area, the rest of the urban areas of California are not doing so well. my area, the Los Angeles area, is either at or below national average on all economic indicators. And while the rich are really getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and being joined by one-time middle-class workers. California has the fifth highest level of state unemployment in the United States.
Before anyone suggests that the high unemployment is centered in the inland areas, particularly and especially in the Central Valley, Three urban areas, Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco are in the top 10 in income inequality.
What this is leading to is a continuation of the exodus of the middle class that can get out. Many are just too tied to this state and or where they are and it is not viable to leave.
The most depressing aspect of all of this is the current progressive zeitgeist is the attempt to basically make California like, like . . .New York. That's state and city.
Look at the anti-farmer policies of Brown and company. It's not so much anti-farmer but more clueless than anything else.
We all know that industry is so disliked by the left. But they are under the delusion that the government, in this case the state of California, can jump start a nascent "green" economy. It is one of the main reasons why Gov. Brown is so pushing for the bullet train to nowhere. A rail line that will not be up and going in full until 2028 according to this article in this past Sunday's Los Angeles Times.
But here is something that is truth and not conspiracy.
The Democrats and the left now would like to pack cities with people instead of people wanting to live where they want.
One of the leftist fetishes is the concept of the mixed-use building.
What is a mixed-use building?
It is overwhelming apartments but, usually, on the ground floor are businesses of all kinds so that you don't have to drive to so many places. Even markets are located in some mixed-use buildings. And the other idea is to have one's workplace within walking and or bike-riding distance. What the left would like is to revert to Peking of the 1970s that we saw few if any cars (usually Communist party mucks) and lots of bikes on extremely wide thoroughfares.
Mr. Kotkin points all of this up in the article.
In fact, he ends the article with this point:

Being like New York – crowded and hectic but with better weather – is not exactly the future most people seek in California. I know few adults who look forward to giving up tree-lined sun-drenched residential streets for dark apartment warrens. It was better when the Eastern press laughed at us, since we always knew that we owned the better part of the deal. Now they are both praising us and becoming us and, in the process, challenging the very things that have made this such a special place.

Of course, as a native-born and raised Californian, the thought of being anything like New York is, well plain revolting.
What is needed to get California more on track?
First, getting rid of the cap and trade regulation that does not one thing that it claims it will do.
Second a complete audit of all state regulations and get rid of those that stunt economic growth and those that are redundant.
Lastly California needs a complete tax overhaul. Remember, by and large the ways of tax revenue are the state income tax, sales tax and property taxes.
It's a long-term project that just does not do well in 30 second sound bites. Or even 60 second sound bites. It will take a leader of courage to tell us the truth once and for all.
Maybe Joel Kotkin can run for governor?!

Saturday, May 09, 2015

Hot New Gay Question: Would You Baptize Our Baby?

With same-sex marriage a reality, something like this was bound to come up.
And it did in of all places, the Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida and two partnered men have a baby and want the baby to have the rite of Holy Baptism.
Here you maybe surprised but on the surface I do not see the problem.
But of course there is a problem with it, right?!
It all started when Rich McCaffrey posted on Facebook that he and his partner were interested in raising their adopted son, Jack, in the church as a Christian. According to the article, they did some research and looked at their local Episcopal church, the Cathedral church of St. Luke, the seat of the Central Florida diocese. The couple met with the dean of the cathedral, dean being essentially the rector of the church, and the Rt. Rev. Dean Anthony Clark agreed to perform the rite. Dean Clark suggested a service held on Sunday evening as that is a more "open-minded" group of parishioners.
That should have been a clue to the couple that there might be some resistance to this move.
But everything was moving along and the parents and baby were attending services and taking the required classes.
And then, well then is when bad news came to the parents.
Dean Clark contacted Mr. McCaffrey and his partner, Eric, and told them that they could not have the baptism at all. Not at the evening service, Sunday morning, not ever at that church. According to the article, Dean Clark said that there was an "internal debate" at the church and that some parishioners voiced opposition to having the service.
After all, Jack has two daddies and if they allowed the baptism to take place, wouldn't they in fact and indeed indirectly endorse the fact that the daddies are married.
I do not look at this at the level of being a full participant at a same-sex wedding. That should be a matter of conscience and it is quite different than baptizing a child in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
Some of the opposition is based of the part of the Episcopal baptism service where the parents and Godparents are asked some questions. Here they are, with the answers all are to provide:

Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces
of wickedness that rebel against God?

Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you renounce the evil powers of this world
which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you
from the love of God?
Answer I renounce them.

See, if one does not recognize the religious validity of the couple putting the child up for baptism, then wouldn't they be accepting the three questions in general and the third question especially? If you think the sexual act the is homosexuality is a sinful desire, well that is a valid point.
But how many parents and or Godparents are not living virtuous lives in answering any of the questions? How many could be having affairs? Unmarried? Addicts?
You get my point.
So, I have another, more theological quandary.
I became a Christian as an adult. When I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior, I made a conscious choice to join an Episcopal church. I was eventually baptised and confirmed in the Episcopal Church.
But I did so as an adult after making a decision for Christ.
I vacillate constantly about infant vs. adult baptism. In this case I think a dedication is appropriate. Or the parents could have had a private baptism. Or they could wait until Jack is of age to make his decision. Still take him to church and Sunday school and the like.
But as I think of all of this, including the valid arguments on both sides, I think that grace more than anything is needed for Jack's sake. There is a great book on the subject of grace in the Christian context, What's So Amazing About Grace by Phillip Yancey. It has helped me in those situations where grace is the only answer.
Sometimes when all else fails, grace is the only answer.
I commend the parents wanting to raise Jack in the Christian faith. Even if I don't get the fact that they are a married same-sex couple. They went to a church that they believed and were led to believe at the very least they would be able to have their son baptized. Some people in and out of leadership did not want it to happen for valid reasons. There was an impasse.
But the diocesan bishop, the Rt. Rev. Bishop Gregory Brewer, stepped in and personally reached out to Mr. McCaffrey and Eric and met with them personally. In the statement from the diocesan website, the Rt. Rev. Bishop Brewer said that the three had an open and frank discussion and eventually, Jack will be baptized later this year and the Rt. Rev. Bishop Brewer will perform the baptism himself.
This was and is a moment of grace.
The Rt. Rev. Bishop Brewer is a supporter of traditional marriage and thus had to exhibit a great deal of grace by showing himself to be open enough to performing the baptism of a child of two men that he does not believe is biblical correct.
It is for me to deal with this issue is to use grace and while maybe not being down with same-sex parents, that the child that will be baptised will be raised in the Christian faith and in the Episcopal tradition. And grace does not mean one is selling out serious belief. It means one is looking at a bigger picture.
So to answer the question from the headline, yes I think it is important not to deny the most important sacrament of the church to a child who cannot help his own upbringing and the baptism should be done.

Friday, May 08, 2015

The British Elections . . .We Were All Wrong



And happily so as the ruling Conservative party defied all odds and polls and cruised to a solid majority government gaining 24 seats and their junior partners in coalition, the Liberal Democrats, were solidly dispatched losing 49 seats.


 
The Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, and Mrs. Cameron

What this means is that the Conservatives are
seven seats above the necessary number to form a government without any other party in coalition. However, in the most technical terms, they only have a four-seat majority.
An aside as to why there are conflicting numbers, it is because the four Catholic MP's* from Northern Ireland run but never take part in parliament.
I wonder if they get paid?!
As I noted in yesterday's post, all the pre-election polling showed that the Conservatives would fall short of a majority and would either have a minority government or scramble to find partners to make a tenuous majority at best.
But as the results showed, it will not be necessary.
Now I am not a huge David Cameron fan. For a Conservative, he sure ain't no Margaret Thatcher. Not even a John Major. But he is superior to the alternative which would have been the Labour party led by Ed Milibrand.
Check that.
No longer led by Mr. Milibrand as he resigned as the Labour party leader. As well as he should since Labour took a double hit in losing 26 seats and and competitiveness in Scotland as the Scottish National Party are one of the two surprises of election night.
While I noted the huge losses of the Liberal Democrats, and I think 49  seats and single digits in the new parliament, the SNP gained 50 seats in Scotland, all at the expense of the Labour party. Now the SNP has all but three seats in Scotland and no doubt they will be pushing hard for another referendum on Scottish independence. And the SNP makes the Labour party look like, well the Conservatives as they are pretty hard-left socialists. And even with all that gain in seats, as a total of the vote, the SNP only had 4.7% of the total national vote. That is a substantive gain of 3.1%.
But the new uneven number three party is the UKIP as they now have one seat in the new parliament and a total of 12.6% of the national vote. A huge increase of 9.5%. But because it is 650 separate elections (the number of seats in parliament), the anti-European Union party only kept one of two seats it won in separate by-elections** before this national election. And while it did not win seats, they finished either second or third in most of the constituencies they competed in.
When added to the Conservative total of 36.8%, the U. K. took a good swing to the right as the combined percent of the vote between the Conservatives and the UKIP of 49%. And the combined left of Labour, Liberal Democrats and the SNP combined for a barely total of 43.1% of the national vote.
What this means in the practical is that the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom will not change. It will be frosty at best but not Israel-like frosty.
Domestically, the Conservatives will make serious cuts in the overall size of government and will have the aforementioned second referendum on Scottish independence and another one on exiting the European Union.
We have five years thereabouts to see how this all turns out.
But one thing is certain.
The polling leading up to the election was all wrong. Could this be good for the United States elections in 2016?

*-The four Catholic MPs represent the Sinn Fein and Social Democrat Labour parties from Northern Ireland.

**-By-election is a special election similar to that held in the United States.