Friday, December 31, 2010


Tomorrow at this time, the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Parade will be in full swing down the 5.5 mile route mostly on Colorado Boulevard.
And today, a rarity.
I do not have to work today.
Thus I avoid the throngs of the crazy people as I call those that, as I type, are beginning the world's largest camp out along the aforementioned Colorado Blvd.
No, they are not really crazy people. For the most part. As up to 1,000,000 congregate along a main drag in a city of about 150,000, the amazing fact is that this parade, and later the Rose Bowl game, goes off with little trouble.
But what is happening now is several-fold.
As mentioned, although law enforcement says people can not do this until 12 noon today, hundreds are already staking out territory along the boulevard. There is where later on, family and or friends will meet them. Then the party begins. People have some rather elaborate setups. And blankets and sleeping bags line the sidewalks. Along with all kinds of cooking stuff. Little barbecues, big ones, smokers. You name it, it is out there.
Folks, this is what you do not see as you watch this parade in such places as Fargo, North Dakota, wishing that you were here where you can go out of your abode in shorts on January 1.
Except this year.
As I type this at a little past 10am, the temperature is 47 degrees.
While that is going on, thousands of volunteers are hurrying to finish the many floats that will be along the parade route. It is a painstaking job as the floats, while not completely covered in roses, are covered in all kinds of natural materials such as bark and the like. I have never participated in helping get the floats ready, but Mrs. RVFTLC has and said it was fun but a lot of work.
And for the Tournament of Roses committee, this is a year-round effort.
It takes a lot of coordination between governments, police, fire, sheriffs and the California Highway patrol. It is the only time of year the Chippies do some real police work rather than harassing motorists. Just kidding. Sort of.
And tomorrow, by evening the tons o' trash will be cleaned up and my Monday morning, no one will be able to tell that the world's biggest party took place just a couple of days before.
Tomorrow I will trek down the block from the abode and do what I do every year. Watch an amazing parade, take some photos, meet some people and have a really great way to ring in the new year.
And with that, I want to wish all a safe, happy, prosperous and great 2011.
In other words,

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Ace Gets It Right About The Left And Their Enablers (The Leftywhore Media)

This is one of the best posts that Ace has done in a long time.
It covers the subject of media coverage of Democrats and Republicans.
Here is a section that grabbed my attention:

The liberal media sells liberal candidates as brilliant and even-tempered and "sophisticated" and "nuanced" of thought; all of these are non-ideological attributes which appeal to most, whatever one's politics.

Sound familiar?
It should for this is how the Dear Leader, President Obama, was sold to the American people in 2008.
Too bad the 2010 version does not match the 2008 version.
Oh, my bad.
It never did.
I mean, then Sen. Messiah Barack almost blew the whole scam when he spoke truth to Joe The Plumber. You know, about that redistribution of wealth. To even the playing field, doncha know.
So, we all know that the Dear Leader, President Obama's 2008 Death March of a campaign was a scam. That is not really the point I want to illustrate and expand on.
As Ace continues, he explains how the leftywhore media elucidates on conservatives and or Republicans:

1. Stupid
2. Evil
3. Crazy
4. Out-of-touch

Pretty much it in a nutshell, wouldn't you agree?!
Yeah, Ronald Reagan was stupid. After all, where did he go to college? Oh, did he even go to college? Yeah, some dinky college. I think it was Eureka College. Eureka College?! Where the hell is that? Is it even on either of the coasts? Illinois? Really? I never heard of it! Is it in Chicago? What? It is between Peoria and Bloomington? Where is that?
Well, Eureka College may not be an Ivy League institution, but it is a real college. A C H R I S T I A N one at that. It is under the auspices of the Disciples of Christ, the denomination that Mr. Reagan was raised. Oh, and it is ranked as one of the best regional colleges in U. S. News and World Report. So, I am going out on a limb and suggest that it is a pretty darned good school. And it did prepare Mr. Reagan for the world outside of Illinois.
Oh, and let's not get started on that dim bulb, the former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin!
She went to the University of Idaho. University of Idaho? She did not even have the decency to attend Boise State! I mean, that is at least a well known football school!
You get the picture.
Republicans are not nuanced. Not competent. Driven by ideology.
No, not the Democrats. No, they just want to get things done.
But Ace in his colorful manner writes, correctly, that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is not anywhere near Mr. Fix It, but Mr. F--- It Up Even Worse.
Take this from the epic post:

It's amusing to me how simple America's problems were when Democrats were out of power, looking to take over. We would just fix the economy. Snap! Fixed. Just cancel Bush's tax cuts for the rich and it would all be right as rain. We could just bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and convince the Iranians and North Koreans it was in their interest to give up the bomb; all we needed was a smart guy to speak the right words to these countries that Bush was too stupid to know.

Now all these problems suddenly are complex, really hard to get any kind of handle on. We have even been told by some in the Obamawhore media that the job of being the president maybe too much for one person to handle.
Really? Tell that to the Founders of this, the greatest nation known to man. Tell that to Abraham Lincoln as he fought a Civil War to keep this Great Land as one. Tell that to Franklin Roosevelt, no matter how you believe his policies overall continued the Great Depression, in fighting the Nazis, Fascists and Imperial Japan in World War II.
No, real leaders rise to the occasion. They do not whine about "inheriting" problems, real and imagined, from the previous leader. They do not talk down to the people that they claim to want to serve. They do not make excuses when their policies go bad.
Real leaders roll up their sleeves and govern as the competent leader they ran as.
And that is not what our Dear Leader, President Obama is doing.
Yet you would not know it.
The Obamawhore media, and some conservatives that are drinking some Kool-Aid, are touting the just completed lame-duck session of congress as amazing. How the Dear Leader moved to the middle on the two-year extension of the tax rate reduction of the previous administration. Yet he and his congressional minions rammed through a very flawed nuclear arms reduction treaty. Rammed through the end of the so-called DADT rule regarding homosexuals serving "openly" in the armed forces. Hardly the stuff of a competent centrist.
Oh, and let me bring it to California.
Governor-elect Jerry Brown is a hard-core lefty. Yeah, he does do the right thing on occasion. And a broken clock is right twice a day. Yet he ran his election campaign on, competency. Not ideology. That he had been there before. And because of that, he could be a leader and not driven by any ideology.
Yeah, right.
Let us wait until he makes an appointment to the California state supreme court. Or any court for that matter.
The bottom line is this.
Do not be fooled by the theme that liberals are just interested in just getting things done. Do not be fooled that all they are about competence.
A liberal is interested in two things.
Growing the government and making sure to let the world know that the United States is not worthy of being a superpower.
And as Ace notes, they are helped along by a compliant, whorish media.

Monday, December 27, 2010

The Continuing Wussification Of The American Male, NFL Style

It has to be said that last night's cancellation of the National Football League's game between the Minnesota Vikings and the Philadelphia Eagles is but another in the continuing wussification on the American male.
Now, I realize that there was a blizzard yesterday in the Northeastern United States. I should know because last Wednesday we were getting the rain version of the blizzard here in So Cal.
But football is meant to be played in such conditions.
Note that when there are deaths in football that are weather related at any level, it is more often than not due to heat.
Almost all programs whether it is high school up to the pros start in summer. In August. When in many parts of the United States, it can be up to and over 100 degrees.
Remember, the reason that the game was cancelled was due to the weather.
Yet some of the greatest NFL games have been played in worse conditions than yesterday in the City of Brotherly Love.
Does anyone remember the Ice Bowl?
That was the NFL Championship game between the Dallas Cowboys and Green Bay Packers at at Lambeau Field. Or as Sen. John Kerry referred to it as Lambert Field.
The temperature at game time was a nice -13 degrees Fahrenheit. The wind chill factor was an even balmier -36 degrees Fahrenheit.
The Packers were playing before a packed house at Lambeau Field and won the game, 21-17 and went on the defeat the AFL champs, the Oakland Raiders in Super Bowl II.
But that was not the coldest game played on record.
The 1982 Freezer Bowl between the Cincinnati Bengals and the San Diego Chargers goes down as the coldest game played.
It was for the AFC championship and it was played at the old Riverfront Stadium.
Game time temp was nice, warm -9 degrees Fahrenheit. And the wind chill was an even warmer -38 degrees Fahrenheit.
Regrettably, the Bengals won the game and played in the Super Bowl against the San Francisco 49ers. And the 49ers promptly dispatched the Bengals in the first of the championship run during the 1980s.
So, my point is, NFL players can play in worse conditions that a driving snow storm
But, how can they play in a driving snowstorm?
Easy, the way they have played in every other season before this one.
For instance, a classic game was played between the then Baltimore Colts and Pittsburgh Steelers at old Three Rivers Stadium in 1978. In a blizzard.
At the same site, I found the San Diego Chargers played the Denver Broncos on December 27, 1987. In, guess what? A blizzard! So shocking. I mean, snow in Denver. Who woulda thunk it?!
The point is that this column by Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News is spot on.
We are a nation of wimps.
And the American male is allowing this wussification without batting an eye.
Football, especially pro football, can and should be played in these kinds of conditions. It makes for an exciting game for the players and the fans. Yes, there is risk involved. In playing a game in bad weather. For fans trying to get to the game. Oh, but as Mr. Bunch pointed out, the is an underground subway in Philadelphia. You know, to avoid the s n o w.
Most important is this sets a precedent.
What about if there is a rainstorm such as that which hit So Cal last Wednesday? Should a football game be cancelled because of that? Then one would not be able to talk about the 1977 Mud Bowl between the Los Angeles Rams and Minnesota Vikings.
It had rained three straight days and nights in So Cal and the field was awful. And the Vikings won the game.
What if it is too hot to play a game? Can a football game not be played because it is too hot? Well, I suppose that is a possibility now.
The image conscience NFL has had a hard time since they went ahead and played ball the weekend after then President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas in 1963.
So many criticized the move, yet it may have been a welcome diversion to the national grief. After all, there was nothing but essential 24/7 coverage of the events of President Kennedy's assassination. And this was way before the 500-channel universe.
It was a tough decision, but the commissioner, Pete Roselle, made it. And I think it was the right decision then.
And the wussie "leaders" that called off last night's game made a huge mistake.
And while the game will be played tomorrow, it is caving in to some notion that we live in a no-risk age.
Everything has a risk.
Just playing football at any level is a risk. And one that should be had no matter the weather. Especially in the cold and snow.
The NFL is another in the long list of enablers to the wussification of the American male.

Friday, December 24, 2010

There Is Really A War Against Christmas

This may not be the best day to write this, being Christmas Eve and all, but it is a reality that we as Christians need to face.
There is a real war against Christmas.
For many in parts of the world, it is deadly to even think about celebrating the birth of Christ.
Take Iraq.
Only two years ago, the Christian minority felt safe after years of bloodshed to openly celebrate Christmas in the Islamic-majority nation.
But not this year.
Because of threats by radicals, the Iraqi Christian community is urging Christians to not celebrate Christmas.
No Christmas carols. No decorations. No Santa Claus. No Christmas services. No acknowledgement of Christmas for those still holding fast for the Christian faith in an increasingly Islamic radical part of the world.
It is not only in a place like Iraq.
Coptic Christians in Egypt are increasingly under threat by Islamic radicals. And the government is very secular, but seemingly afraid to defend the Copts against the radical Islamics. Because the secular government of President Hosni Mubarak is hanging by a thread.
Now, that is the extreme, in your face hate of Christianity and an important event in the Christian calendar, Christmas.
But here in the United States, it is becoming more and more obvious every Christmas season that there are those that so want nothing to do with the Christmas season, they will go to great lengths to suppress the celebration.
For public schools, it is no longer Christmas break but Winter break. Or it is no longer the Christmas Ball but the Winter Formal. Distinct Christmas carols that actually mention that dastardly fellow, Jesus Christ, and his birth are out. Winter songs are in. No, can't say Merry Christmas. Must say Happy Holidays. A whole group of America's youts are being coerced that somehow, a Christian celebration makes people feel bad. Or worse, offends some.
And it is not just public schools.
So called government buildings can not call their Christmas trees that but must call it a Holiday tree. No manger scenes in front of a city hall. No, no, no. It may offend someone. Or make them feel bad.
The private sector also feels this wrath of a vocal and annoying minority.
Many seek to say the Happy Holidays. Many seek to discuss the other holidays around this time such as Hanukkah or Islamic holidays or that Kwanzaa one. I have no problem with being able to learn about these holidays. But nothing is discussed about Christmas.
In my line of work, I deal with people on the phone. Yesterday many were wishing a Happy Holidays. When one actually said Merry Christmas, I was so happy. It was genuine. It was not some politically correct forced malarkey.
See, I come from a mixed background.
My mother was a lapsed Christian and my father was a lapsed Jew.
Thus, we actually did blend Hanukkah and Christmas. Mostly secular, but we did light a candle on the first night of Hanukkah to remember those no longer with us. And at Christmas we did sing Christmas carols of all kinds, secular and religious. We had a Christmas tree. Put up lights. The whole nine yards. I just felt really good around this time of year. Never gave a thought that people thought all of this was such a bad thing.
When I was well of age of an adult, I appreciated both the Hanukkah aspect and Christmas. And when I became a committed Christian, I found a deeper meaning to what Christmas is all about. And continued respect for those not Christian that celebrate something else or nothing at this time of year.
But what bothers me is this relentless assault against the religious celebration of Christmas.
So much of what we see is kind of new.
The Christmas trees, the elevation of St. Nicholas, aka Santa Claus. the lights all of that. These were not always part of the Christmas celebration. They are very new in the 2,000 year history of the Church.
But people should not be offended or bad. It is the majority of people celebrating a day of great meaning. Christmas, to me, is a very inclusive holiday. It is a mix of secular and deep spiritual meaning. Anyone really can celebrate the day from both or one or the other.
So, please Christmas haters, stop already. You are the Scrooges that have other problems. Let us celebrate Christmas in a real way. Not a politically correct way. Let us wish others a Merry Christmas. Let us sing all carols, not just winter ones. I promise, we will not take non-Christians to the nearest church and convert them. Nor will we find the nearest body of water to baptize them. We just want to share a wonderful holiday with others. And let them find their own meaning of Christmas.
Please, stop the war against Christmas.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

California Now On The Downward Spiral

The 2010 United States census is out.
The population of the United States of America stands at 308,745,538 which is up from the 2000 census which showed the population of the USA at 281,400,000. The gain is 9.7%.
And there is this nugget for the once Golden State of California.
We do not gain any seats in congress for the first time in state history.
The good thing, if there is one, is that California does not lose any seats. Compared to New York state, which loses two.
We now have 53 congressional seats and two senate seats for a total of 55. And that is the number in the electoral college.
But the trend is not good for growth in California.
In fact, it appears that barring a lot of new babies or illegal aliens in the upcoming decade, we will start to see a decline in state population.
After years and years of amazing growth, California I believe is on the downward spiral.
Not unlike the Rust Belt states and other bastions of liberalism as Massachusetts and the aforementioned New York state.
By no irony, the population is growing in the Sun Belt and the West.
With the economy in shambles, a budget deficit as high as the Tower of Babel, and low if any population growth, California will finally face some grim realities.
Such as that there is no free lunch. More and more of those making money are getting out of Dodge, so to speak. They are heading to other Western states or the South. And those coming in are not particularly the entrepreneurial types that are needed. In other words, at some point the Silicon Valley people will come to realize that staying in a declining state is not good for business.
Where will the tax and spenders in Suckramento, er Sacramento, get the cash to close that deficit? Or to create more intrusive government?
I fear that at least for the foreseeable future, California will stare in an abyss, mostly of its own making. We just can not afford what we are doing to our fellow citizens. And our children and grandchildren.
We may need some shock therapy up in the state capital. No, we do need shock therapy.
But note this.
The numbers are not lying. California is on the beginning of the end of the dream.

Monday, December 20, 2010

Can Politicians Leave Our Christmas Season Alone?

I am serious. Can the politicians, and their enablers, please go away for the next two weeks?
For the last three years, these clowns in both parties seem to want to ruin a season that used to be void of politics.
It seemed to start grating on my nerves in 2007.
That is at the beginning of the Death March presidential campaign of 2008. Which seemed to start in 2006. Anyhow, remember the infamous floating cross and Merry Christmas ad
from Republican presidential candidate, the Rev. Mike Huckabee? Well, once he did it, almost all the presidential contenders either did a similar ad or commented on it.
Why did the Rev. Mike have to do it? I mean, I really do not need to have a Merry Christmas from any politician. It is the one time of year I do not want to be bothered with such real world stuff. But, since he did, it was follow the leader.
OK, fast forward to 2008.
Just after then Sen. Messiah Barack won the presidency, the only thing we were not notified about was his bowel movements. It was breathless and brainless. All the coverage. Where was the Obama family going to spend Christmas? Hey, the guy was not even president yet. Who cared?
And last year, the Democrat congress was pushing the so-called health reform scam and worked throughout the Christmas season. Having a vote on Christmas Eve. Really. Was it that damned necessary? Once again, politics reared its ugly head in a time of year that it really should take a break.
And this year, there is a session of congress called the lame-duck. It is because it is the ending of the 111th congress. In the past, unless there was something really pressing, there was not one. But what is pressing this time? Pretty much everything the Democrats did not want to deal with during the midterm election season. And that was everything.
Thus we are forced to have to talk about tax cuts, Don't Ask-Don't Tell, DREAM Acts, blah, blah, blah, blah blah ! ! ! ! ! !
You politicians of both parties, Democrats and Republicans, conservatives, liberals and so-called moderates, GO HOME!
The American people want a real break from such things as politics.
I mean it. We want to go to our parties. We want to get together with family and friends. We do not need these gatherings to be influenced by the politicians that do not want to take a break.
I beg you politicians, stop ruining our Christmas season! Get out of Washington and any state capital. These issues will still be around after New Years. We can and will survive without having to deal with these matters for two, two short weeks.
Of course, you know that there will be a political post after this. Thanks to those that won't go home!

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Conservatives Bat .500 In Senate Votes Today

In two separate senate votes, homosexuals appear to be on the verge of serving "openly" in the armed forces and the children of illegal aliens will not get their "pathway to citizenship".
At the end of the day, conservatives won one and lost one. And in the loss, I am not sure it will be all that much of a loss in the end.
Let's start with the ending of the compromise policy of "Don't ask, don't tell" regarding homosexuals serving in the United States armed forces.
The whole reportage on this is wrong, wrong, wrong.
The policy was never ratified by a sitting congress. It was a compromise when then President Clinton could not get a similar Democrat congressional makeup to make it a law that gays and lesbians could serve without being discharged for being homosexuals.
The Clinton administration and the Joint Chiefs of Staff came up with a way that gays and lesbians could serve, not be discharged over being such as long as they did not openly admit to being such.
It was a convoluted compromise that, as I noted, never faced an up or down vote in congress. Nor a presidential signature. The ultimate compromise and no elected official got their hands dirty.
So, this vote does not repeal the policy. But makes it law that homosexuals can serve in the armed forces and they do not have to lie about it. They can be openly gay and or lesbian.
In and of itself, I am ambivalent about whether it is a good, bad or non-consequential change.
I admire any one that wants to serve in the armed forces. They are protecting us from harm and defending our republican form of government.
But, will it lead to sexual tension in a foxhole as opponents fear? Possibly. But that road has already happened with the increasing role of women in the armed forces.
And, in reality I would rather have a gay man serve in combat over a woman.
Go ahead, call me a sexist or whatever ad hominen attack you wish. But that is how I feel.
At the end of the day, I do not think that this will weaken the armed forces. What will weaken the armed forces is political correctness in fighting wars. And that is the fault of elected officials and weak military leadership.
So, I think we can and should have an open mind about this law taking effect.
But, one last thing.
This is but a sop to the left-wing gay and lesbian activist groups. They latched on to this issue and I believe that the numbers of active homosexuals serving will not be large numbers. In the linked article, about 13,500 personnel have been dismissed from the armed forces since the 1993 compromise. That is less than 10% of armed forces personnel in any given year. And if the stats are to be believed, about 10% of the population is homosexual. So, I guess I am willing to see if this really is something we should be worked up about as conservatives.
But the second vote I believe is consequential for more Americans as the nightmare of the so-called DREAM act.
The so-called DREAM act was a backdoor attempt to grant amnesty to potentially millions of young people that are in the United States illegally.
The so-called DREAM act, full title Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, would create a mechanism for the children of illegal aliens a way to become citizens if they meet a certain slew of requirements.
In a nutshell, this is what the act would have done, per the Wikipedia entry:

This bill would provide certain illegal and deportable alien students who graduate from US high schools, who are of good moral character, arrived in the U.S. illegally as minors, and have been in the country continuously and illegally for at least five years prior to the bill's enactment, the opportunity to earn conditional permanent residency if they complete two years in the military or two years at a four year institution of higher learning. The students would obtain temporary residency for a six year period. Within the six year period, a qualified student must have "acquired a degree from an institution of higher education in the United States or [have] completed at least 2 years, in good standing, in a program for a bachelor's degree or higher degree in the United States," or have "served in the uniformed services for at least 2 years and, if discharged, [have] received an honorable discharge."[2] Military enlistment contracts require an eight year commitment, with active duty commitments typically between four and six years, but as low as two years.[3][4] "Any alien whose permanent resident status is terminated [according to the terms of the Act] shall return to the immigration status the alien had immediately prior to receiving conditional permanent resident status under this Act." [5]

If you look at this, while it sounds good, it is eerily similar to the so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" that was touted in the last congress while former President George W. Bush was in office.
The reality is that this is a test to see how the American public would react to having the children of illegal aliens getting a "pathway to citizenship" and expand it to all illegal aliens.
Well, if California is an example, it would lead to disaster.
For instance, these students can get in state tuition at California colleges and universities. Yet they are not even citizens. They get a higher education at a discount in comparison to American students from other states. Those students have to pay higher tuition because they are not citizens of the state of California. Yet, unlike the illegal alien students, they were born in the United States. They have to pay more to subsidize those that are here illegally and essentially taking advantage of the left-wing dominated California legislature, always looking for votes wherever they can.
Is it harsh to point out the reality of these students that, through no fault of their own, were brought to the United States illegally by their parents? Is it harsh to ask that these non-citizens leave the Untied States and go through becoming a citizen under the current laws?
Well, the senate correctly did not vote for this backdoor amnesty. It was an attempt to play on the sense of fairness and compassion of the American people. And it failed.
Real comprehensive immigration reform must take into account the time that illegal aliens are in the United States. If one has been here five years or less, they must leave and never have the chance to enter the United States. Period. If one has been here five to 10 years, they should at the very least be able to be guest workers. And then while being guest workers they should be able to try to become citizens. If one has been here 10 years plus, I do believe that they should be given an opportunity to become citizens of the United States. It would be a safe assumption that they are much more American any way than where ever they came from. And, to make that a reality, English must become the official language of the United States. Good immigration policy starts with the immigrants being able to speak one language. And that is English.
Backdoor amnesties and letting all illegal aliens stay in the United States will not work and does not take in to account those that came to this nation through proper channels.
So, overall in two consequential senate votes, conservatives defeated a really bad one, the so-called DREAM act, and lost, maybe, on homosexuals serving openly in the armed forces. Not bad for a Democrat-dominated lame-duck congress that thought they were going to ram through a lot of lousy legislation.
Now on to January.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

This Is How To Begin A Conservative Base In Blue Territory

Make a note Republicans.
This is how to begin the process of grooming people for political office.
The Pasadena Tea Party Patriots are backing several candidates for office in next spring's municipal elections throughout the region.
Pasadena Tea Party leader Michael Alexander announced that the conservative group will back the following candidates for office:

Pasadena City Council: Carolyn Naber
Pasadena School Board: Sean Baggett
San Gabriel City Council: John Harrington
La Canada City Council: Michael Davitt, Laura Olhasso and Donald Voss

Mr. Alexander has a little problem.
The two Pasadena candidates are keeping their distance from the Tea Party group. It is possible because of the fact that roughly 65% of Pasadena voters backed Democrats in the just concluded midterm elections. And the Tea Party has not quite caught on here as other parts of the state or the nation. But Mrs. Naber is totally distancing herself while Mr. Baggett is a bit more receptive.
Mr. Alexander responds on Mrs. Naber's not seeking the Tea Party endorsement,

"She doesn't need us to win," he said. "But we like her and we like what she's talking about."

And that may help her keep her distance and pull off a win. Same for Mr. Baggett.
But this is what Mr. Alexander said that caught my eyes:

"The secret to success in the state and federal contest is having a bench or a farm team," he said. "This is what the left does well and we have to be just as good at it."

Right on, Mr. Alexander!
I have written this until my fingers are blue.
The left and or the Democrats live, eat, sleep the game. We on the conservative and Republican side, well many like to play. Except in August and December.
We need to be constantly engaged with these people. They are always on offense. Even when they are on defense, they still seem to be able to appear on offense.
The only way to win is to begin to win at the local level.
And the Pasadena Tea Party gets it. Will the California Republican party get it?

Obamanation Of Omnibus Bill Down In Flames

Tea partiers, conservatives and just regular Americans ticked off at the government pork party in Washington, D. C. can rejoice tonight in this season of miracles.
That is because we thwarted the senate from ramming through a $1,200,000,000,000 spending plan to fund the federal government for the next year.
Known in the Beltway as an omnibus bill, senate majority leader Dingy Harry Reid pulled the bill when he realized that he did not have the 60 votes to pass it. And of course Sen. Dingy Harry went on the blame the Republicans for failure to pass the earmark-laden bill.
Sen. Dingy Harry claimed that he had as many as nine Republicans on board with the scam, er bill. Of course he did not mention that he began to lose support of members of his own party. And he did not name any of the nine GOP senators he claimed to have on board.
According to this on National Review Online, it appears that the real reason Sen. Dingy Harry caved is because of the threat that the entire 1.924 page monstrosity would be read aloud in the senate chamber.
And with that, over $8,000,000,000 in earmarks that would embarrass a helluva a lot of senators, Democrats and Republicans.
Before everyone gets apoplectic, senate minority leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Dingy Harry will work on a one-page, two month continuing resolution that will keep the government running until at least February of next year. No shutdown of the federal government. Damn!
The most amazing aspect of this victory is the hard work of, yes, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain in exposing the earmarks of his colleagues and railing against the whole process. For once, this is where I am with you, Sen. "F--- You" McCain. You told your colleagues a big f--- you. And also getting credit is Sen. Tom Coburn, Sen. Jim DeMint. They also exposed this whole process.
Tonight we who have been railing against this reckless spending and bill cram-downs from this pathetic congress can celebrate and wait until next year to get a real spending bill, sans earmarks and the dirty stuff, and the federal government functioning.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Two Good Pieces In The Corner

Today, actually tonight, glancing at The Corner at National Review Online, I came across two great posts.
The first is from Mike Poterma dealing with the former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, and her electability.
I would like to take this from the post:

And check this out, a random example from the past, from Time magazine of March 22, 1976, well into that election year:

If the election was held today, Gerald Ford would handily defeat any of the major Democratic contenders.
In the
contest for his party’s nomination, Ford is preferred over Ronald Reagan by a 2-to-1 margin among Republican and independent voters. . . .
Ford would beat [Hubert] Humphrey decisively, 52% to 37%, with 11% undecided. This is a marked improvement for Ford over a TIME poll taken last January, when he led Humphrey, 46% to 40%, with 14% undecided.
Surprisingly, last week’s TIME survey finds that Ford would have a tougher time against Carter than against Humphrey. The President would beat the Georgian, 46% to 38%, with 16% undecided.

Um, remember who won that election in 1976? It was NOT the incumbent President Ford.
And what Mr. Poterma is stating is not whether Mrs. Palin can win, but should she win. And here and here is where Mr. Poterma makes some actual good, policy and persona points.
I recommend reading all the links.
Then there is this from Victor Davis Hanson on the plight of California's Central Valley. Hey, don't mock the title of the piece. It is not quite like the line John Edwards used in his failed presidential campaign of 2008. It is a serious look at what has happened to the bread basket of the United States.
One may think that the Davis Hanson piece is very negative, but read it all. It notes a slew of paradoxes and realities that should make every Californian mad and ready to really do something about the problems of what has happened in the Central Valley.
These are two thoughtful and I believe necessary reads in this time of American history.

No Labels And One Big Farce

Another loser, inside the Washington beltway group has formed called No Labels.
And it is what you would expect from politicians and their hangers-on trying to sound "reasonable" and "wanting to get things done" rather than engage in an actual debate on the issues of the day.
The reality is that this is a group that stands for nothing. It looks at an issue and seeks the least resistant position.
Several things about this group.
Look at the line up of those involved.
There seem to be a lot of Democrats. If you go to their website, you will find a panoply of usual suspect Democrats trying to pass them selves off as "moderates". Funny how these "citizen leaders" seem to be very tied to the Democrat party. Sure, there is James Pinkerton as one of the leaders. But he has always been a bit squishy for me and many conservatives. And do not forget Joe "I HATE Sarah Palin" Scarbourogh. And Charlie Christ, the disgraced governor of Florida. Congressman Bob Inglis, a Republican from South Carolina. Oh, Mr. Christ lost his senate race when he bolted the Republican party to run as an independent. And Mr. Inglis lost his primary challenge. Yeah, losers.
Oh, look at a pressing issue for these people.
Election reform.
Yeah, real pressing for those 9.8% of Americans that are unemployed. And when you look at their solutions, why it seems like a way to dilute parties and debate.
The reality is that elections in the United States are bottom up. Meaning that elections are administered at the city, county, state and federal level. Most elections are done by county clerks. And it is the county boards that determine how votes are to be done and or carried out.
Funny that if you read this group's pressing issue, it is more about nationalizing the process. Making it even easier for anyone to vote. In fact, what prompts this whole discourse is the presidential election in 2000.
That election was only the fourth time that a candidate did not win the popular vote and the electoral college. Yet somehow, again, it is the fourth time in the United States history that a candidate got more electoral votes. Yet somehow, the system is broken.
It is not broken in so much as that it is up to the states to determine certain aspects of how elections are conducted. And how the legislative map is drawn up every 10 years based on the census.
What this group really is all about is the expansion of government. Whether it be at the local level, state and or federal level.
Of the five issues that this group cares about, there is nothing about federal tax policy let alone tax reform. Nothing about lessening the grip of Washington on the states, counties and cities of this nation.
And this fixation about polarizing politics.
Please, politics has always been polarizing. There are at least two points of view on any given issue. There is not a magic wand to have everyone agree on everything. Then we are edging towards a dictatorship.
This kind of group is but another way for people in both political parties to frame the debate on issues that they are wise and should be heard. Good. Go form an actual political party and compete in the marketplace of elections. Then we shall see if they are a real force or a real farce.

Thursday, December 09, 2010

A Major League Birther?

Ooh boy! Me thinks that this guy, Baltimore Oriole outfielder Luke Scott, maybe looking for other employment as he offered his thoughts on the Dear Leader, President Obama.
It appears that Mr. Scott is a Birther. Judging by this interview, lets just say Mr. Scott is wanting to see that Hawai'i birth certificate from the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Of course the Obamawhore media is harping on this comment in a wide-ranging interview Mr. Scott had with David Brown of Yahoo! Sports:

David Brown: You don't think that Obama wasn't born in the United States, do you?
Luke Scott: He was not born here.
DB: [Sighs].
LS: That's my belief. I was born here. If someone accuses me of not being born here, I can go — within 10 minutes — to my filing cabinet and I can pick up my real birth certificate and I can go, "See? Look! Here it is.
Here it is." The man has dodged everything. He dodges questions, he doesn't answer anything. And why? Because he's hiding something.

OK, I am not with Mr. Scott on this one. Once again, the Dear Leader, President Obama was born in the United States of America. Period.
But. Mr. Scott makes the valid point of the feeling that Team Obama, led by the Dear One himself, are always hiding something.
My issue is the college record of the Dear Leader, President Obama. Why should we just take his and his media whore's word that he was wonderful and brilliant while at Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School? Where is the record? Transcripts? Why did he change colleges in his junior year? Now I think that is a real issue. Believe me, if Barack Hussein Obama was a Republican named Barry O'Bama and trying to get away from not releasing his college records, the same media whores would be all over that guy.
Sorry for the diversionary rant.
But I actually read the whole interview. And Mr. Scott does bring up some excellent points.
Mr. Scott's comments about the Dear Leader, President Obama, was more about his own mindset, and the mindset of the left in general. Here is something that Mr. Scott touched on before offering his Birther views:

Obama, he doesn't represent that. He represents, "Hey, everyone. Give me votes and I'll give you stuff."

Uh, yeah, Mr. Scott is spot on about that. And the mindset of the current left in the United States. And a lot of their supporters.
And Mr. Scott is a hunter. And he likes Ted Nugent. And I am certain former Alaska governor Sarah Palin as well.
Look, Mr. Scott is not running for any office. These are his own thoughts. He was asked and he answered. Yet in the first linked article, his employers, the Orioles, distance themselves from his comments. Yet Mr. Scott was not speaking for the Orioles. He was speaking for himself.
But look for the usual suspects to come out of the woodwork and make unreasonable demands of Mr. Scott and the Orioles organization.
Expect calls for "sensitivity training" and that Mr. Scott should apologize for suggesting the Dear Leader, President Obama, was not born in the United States. Yada, yada, yada.
I hope that Mr. Scott stands his ground. He is as entitled as any American to his opinions. The Orioles organization should stand by his right to speak out.
But I wished that Mr. Scott did not trail into Birther territory. It is the one thing I will continue to disagree with him and many fellow conservatives about.

Tuesday, December 07, 2010

Being Santa Claus And Other Christmas Season Thoughts

This is the season-the Christmas season-and while there is certainly a lot to pontificate on the current events scene, I think I want to tread into some reflections on this Christmas season.
Firstly, this past Saturday, I did something that I did not think that I would ever seriously do.
I was Santa Claus!
The pre school at my church has an annual Santa Breakfast fundraiser. It is a time when the children that attend the school come with their parents for breakfast and to see The One. No, no, not the Dear Leader, President Obama! The One. The Big Cheese. The big fat guy in the red suit. You know, the only man in the world that has reindeer doing his driving. That would be Santa Claus.
Anyhow, I arrived at church early to transform into Santa. One thing is, unfortunately, I did not have to add any padding in that area. Regrettably, I have enough down in the gut to really be Santa! But, even if I had less girth down there, the suit would have just made me look big enough.
Around 11 a. m., I was escorted to the Parish Hall and gave the kiddies the traditional greeting.
It was amazing to see a line of kiddies to see me and give their wishes and have their photo taken with ol' St. Nick.
It made me realize that the true meaning of the Christmas season is to give of one's self. Sure, I could have been doing something else. Like blogging. But, for a few hours, I was able to bring happiness to a lot of children and their parents. I really enjoyed the experience. Yes, even the one child that had to ask where the reindeer was!
A second thought is that I just finished watching A Charlie Brown Christmas.
In today's world, it is one of the most dangerous shows of the Christmas season.
Why would I say that?
Because of the fact that the characters are not reduced to mumbling Happy Holidays. But they say with gusto Merry Christmas. It is a Christmas tree, not a holiday tree. However, it does show it's age by Lucy and the gang insisting that Charlie Brown get a big aluminum tree. BLEECH! But the most poignant part is Linus Van Pelt speaking directly from the Holy Bible the story of Christmas. Both Mrs. RVFTLC and I said to each other that it could never be done in today's toxic climate. Yet there it is every Christmas season. And it is one of the most popular shows during the Christmas season. What it does for me is remind me what Christmas is all about. It is remembering the birth of the Savior. Sure, it is doubtful that it was actually December 25. Who cares? That is not what is important. It is important to recognize the importance of the event of the birth of Jesus Christ. That it was indeed, a miracle. And that is the reason, I believe, that A Charlie Brown Christmas is the most dangerous show of the Christmas season.
This final observation, for now, is that the Christmas season is one to remember how it must suck to be in retail.
I know because I have worked retail in the Christmas season. And that now seems like many a moon ago.
What struck Mrs. RVFTLC and I was this past Sunday, on the way to church.
We stopped off for coffee at the Starbucks on the way to church. To our horror, we saw a large banner proclaiming that Starbucks would be open of Christmas Eve. AND Christmas Day. Not only open, but open regular hours.
I just said that this is another sign of the end. I could not believe it. Neither did the missus.
My thought is can those that like the large (sorry, I never use Starbuck lingo when ordering what size drink. It is America and it should be small, medium of large! Or extra large!) non-fat, mocha latte with non-fat soy milk and no whipped cream not wait until December 26 to get that drink? Or this one. Try making coffee at home just one morning. You know, the same Starbucks sells some Christmas Blend coffee. Ground and whole bean. It might be good to rediscover what homemade coffee tastes like. For one day.
I know that there are some retail establishments that are open on Christmas Day. And a wee few even open longer on Christmas Ev.hen I was growing up, that would be the old Thrifty Drug Store. Always open. Usually one of the only retail establishments open. Markets were closed. All department stores were closed. Many restaurants were closed. Even some gas stations were closed. Yes, there is always the movie house. And yes, I went to a movie one Christmas evening.
But really, Starbucks?!
Not to get anyone in trouble, but if I worked at one of these Starbucks, I would organize and call out sick on Christmas morn. Let those people have their coffee at home one day. And any other drink can wait a day.
Remember, there is a reason for this season. Take time to remember those that are not as fortunate as many of us. Give some of your time. Or money. Or both. Remember the old adage that it is better to give than receive. Some how, for me, giving is a great way to receive.

Monday, December 06, 2010

Tax Cut Compromise Not Good For The Nation Or Economy

The proposed tax compromise between the Dear Leader, President Obama, and senate negotiators extends the current tax rates for another two years.
That is the very minimal good news. There will not be a tax hike for two years, at least.
But the bad news is that the extension is not permanent. Barring that possibility, a victory for the Democrats, the most that senate Republicans could get out of the Dear Leader, President Obama, was a two-year extension.
And to gain any Democrat support, it meant giving another extension of unemployment benefits another 13 months.
The point of the original reduction of tax rates during the early days of the George W. Bush administration was to have more money in the private sector to spur economic growth. And with that growth jobs would be made and unemployment would come down. And that did happen.
But, what this compromise means is that President Obama will have the tax issue again in 2012 when he is certain to run for reelection. And he and the Democrats will get a unemployment benefit of 113 weeks. Do the math. That is over two years.
What the Republicans should do, and they still can, is have a five-year extension of the current tax rate. Maybe by that time, there can be a Republican president and congress that can seriously tackle the issue of real tax reform, once and for all.
It does appear that Congressman Michelle Bachmann is going to lead Republican opposition to this in the House.
And this is my point.
If the economy is to truly and totally recover, the job market must be plentiful. And people need to be in the market. Some people have already given up as the market is not plentiful and there is no incentive to look for any kind of work. When one can get up to 99 weeks of unemployment, it may not be like a paycheck one received. But it is something. And a job seeker has no real incentive to get out and get some kind of employment.
Thus it is important to realize that it will be the private sector that will lead the recovery, not the government. And that means stopping the madness of extending unemployment until the cows come home.
This tax compromise must be renegotiated because it is not good for this nation and not good for the long term economy.

Thursday, December 02, 2010

The Tom Del Beccaro Era As California Republican Party Chair

I really wished that this guy, Tom Del Beccaro, had been the chair of the California Republican party during this past election season.
Mr. Del Beccaro (yes, I know, I misspelled his name is the previous post-sorry :-( !) in this last of a three-part series hits it on how the CRP needs to maximize it status as a minority party and that the effort is a long one.
Mr. Del Beccaro states the obvious. That it will not happen overnight. It may not happen in one or three election cycles. But, we do have opportunities to highlight issues that we as conservatives and Republicans can win on.
It is clear that while California voters punished the CRP in the past election, the ideas that are the heart of the party were endorsed on the innititive side.
As I noted in this post, all tax and or fee hikes were rejected by California voters. Even the attempt to legalize marijuana lost. And a proposition that did one bad thing was sold as anti-politician and did win. In other words, in a strange way, the CRP won on the issues, but lost all over the place.
The primary reason I firmly believe that the CRP sucked at all levels is two-fold.
One, voters gave Gov. Benedict Arnold an unceremonious goodbye. No, they could not vote him out. But he so damaged the Republican label that voters took it out on the candidates. And speaking of candidates, the one at the top, Meg Whitman, took the whole ticket down with her.
Peter Foy, a Ventura county supervisor explains it here. Yeah, Mrs. Whitman won the Republican nomination. But she never really got the activists over on her side. And because she did a lot of maneuvering and dancing. And of course, there is the little Nicky Diaz matter. All together, it led to the worst showing for the CRP in decades.
So, let us put that behind us for now.
The issues on are the CRP side.
Later in the column, Mr Del Beccaro writes what I have said for eons. Per Mr. Del Beccaro:

By now we should know that, for the Democrats and their allies on the Left, politics is a full time endeavor. Indeed, the Left and their politicians have made more than a living by exaggerating the problems of the private sector and the free market and then pushing supposedly corresponding government responses – every day of every year.

Right on, Tom!
Until we realize that we have to play like the left, we will always be at a disadvantage. There can not be summer vacations in August. Winter breaks around the Christmas season. It has to be hand-to-hand combat every day. Just like the left.
Mr. Del Beccaro notes that the CRP is not doing a good job in defining issues. In other words, and this is what happened to Mrs. Whitman, the media and the Democrats defined the issues. The CRP and allies need to play ahead of that curve. Again, the intuitive process is one way to go being the minority party and shut out, essentially, in the state legislature. And, as I noted, we conservative and Republicans need to go anywhere and everywhere. Dammit, I will not believe that we have to keep ceding whole areas of the state because we have not won elections there. We have to try. And try hard.
And yes, Mr. Del Beccaro deals with the fact that the way the CRP is, or is not, dealing with illegal immigration is hurting the party. Like it or not, there are other issues that conservative Republicans and many Hispanics agree on. But if we just focus on illegal immigration, it does make some wonder if the CRP really wants to build a relationship with like-minded Hispanics. And, despite what many in the leftywhore media and the Democrat party want you to believe, many Hispanics support securing our borders before anything is done on any reform of immigration.
I like the way Mr. Del Beccaro frames the issue. And, it is not just in relation to Hispanics but Blacks, Asians, and others:

There simply are a host of issues upon which Republicans should be building bridges, using a more diverse set of messengers and candidates. We must understand, however, that that effort will take time and cannot be confined to an election cycle. Quite simply, voters often don’t care what you know until they know that you care – and that takes showing up in their communities instead of leaving the microphone to the Democrats. By demonstrating their concern about those issues and by providing practical solutions, over time, Republicans can build trust and bring California together even while working on tough problems. Without bringing us together, however, trust among those communities we have failed to reach for so long will remain a bridge too far.

Remember, building bridges does not mean abandoning principles. Something the moderate wing of the CRP does not get.
One thing that I believe will help is getting CRP people out there on all media possible.
Another is that some people who are comfortable in an office should think about making a run for another.
For instance, Sen. Dianne Feinstein's senate term will be up in 2012. I can think of three good potential candidates in congress that would be great against Sen. Feinstein.
One is David Dreier. He has been in the House a long time. And has been mentioned as a senate candidate for eons. He is a solid conservative. He is constantly on all kinds of programs, talk radio, any media he can. People know of him all across the state. I hope that he considers making the effort. Another is Mary Bono Mack. She has a more moderate record than Mr. Dreier. But she has a solid record on the center-right and has been winning tough election campaigns for the past three cycles. And there is my personal fav, Tom McClintock. He was Rand Paul before it was cool to be Rand Paul. He has been railing against big government in the state legislature and now in the halls of congress. I hope that he considers that as well.
The work ahead for the CRP will be long and arduous, but Tom Del Beccaro will be a great CRP chair and is committed to building up the party at all levels. And that will be the only way to win elections in California.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Joe Scarbourough's Petty Slam Against Sarah Palin

OK Joe Scarbourough. I will "man up" for you and tell you something about your latest tome against former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.
What you accuse her of doing, "tearing down" people is exactly what your column in Politico did.
You did not address one issue that you disagree with Mrs. Palin on.
I assume Joe, yeah I will call ya Joe, that you actually have policy disagreements with Mrs. Palin.
Funny, I just did not find one in your dismissal of Mrs. Palin.
I note that you start your column in a way that you would never think about if Mrs. Palin were, oh I do not know, maybe Sam Palin. Here is your condescending paragraph:

Everybody knows that Palin is a busy woman. The former half-term governor of Alaska stays so busy these days that one wonders how this mother of five manages to juggle her new reality show, follow her eldest daughter’s dancing career and launch her latest frenetic book tour while still finding the time to insult a slew of revered presidents and first ladies.

Would you have written that if Mrs. Palin was a man? Huh? I know that you would not.
Are you saying that a woman should not be as active as Mrs. Palin? Having any kind of career with a family? Have you thought this about the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton? How about some Republican women. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas? Or the Maine sisters, Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe? Yeah, I don't think so.
But I will give you a little bit about the fact that Mrs. Palin did resign and did not finish her term as governor. I have commented that I would have liked to see her finish her term. But, unlike many in politics she did not have a slew of money lying around to pay mounting legal bills to fend off mindless political charges filed against her while she was governor. Sorry about that Joe.
You then go on to cite that her political resume is thin, the same as the Dear Leader, President Obama. Yet I do not know when you cited that as a commentator on MSNBC. I really would like to see your comments during the 2008 campaign that dissed then Sen. Messiah Barack. If there are, then I do stand corrected. But I doubt any would come up.
Joe, you go on to accuse Mrs. Palin of taking swipes at "Revered presidents and first ladies." and "Republican giants."
What has your panties in a bunch, Joe, is that Mrs. Palin answered a question about the fact that she is doing her show, Sarah Palin's Alaska on TLC. Mrs. Palin pointed out that another person, Ronald Reagan, was an actual actor. Joe, you do not actually use the whole thing in your teardown of Mrs. Palin. Here, judge for yourself if Mrs. Palin is dismissing Mr. Reagan:

Rove, in an interview last week with London's Telegraph, said he thought it voters were unlikely to elect as president someone starring in a reality show.
"With all due candor, appearing on your own reality show on the Discovery Channel, I am not certain how that fits in the American calculus of 'that helps me see you in the Oval Office,'" Rove said.

"Now look-it; I'm not in a reality show," she said on Fox News Sunday, according to the Huffington Post. "I have eight episodes documenting Alaska's resources, what it is that we can contribute to the rest of U.S. to economically and physically secure our union, and my family comes along for the ride because I am family, family is us, and my family comes along on the ride to document these eight episodes for The Learning Channel. ... So Karl is wrong right there in calling it a reality show."

Palin also took a tongue-in-cheek approach in pointing out that voters once elected an actor as president.
"You know, I agree with [Rove] that those standards have to be high for someone who would ever want to run for president, like, um, wasn't Ronald Reagan an actor?" Palin said. "Wasn't he in Bedtimes for Bonzo, Bozo or something? Ronald Reagan was an actor."

This was from The Hollywood Reporter. Not exactly conservative Republican central.
Yet, the way you put it, Joe, is that Mrs. Palin just dismissed Mr. Reagan as "an actor". She was not dismissive but rather simply making a valid point.
Another thing that got your panties tighter is Mrs. Palin reacting to former President George H. W. Bush and Barbara Bush offering their opinions of the current crop of 2012 Republican presidential hopefuls.
Mr. H. W. Bush offered that he thought Mitt Romney would his candidate in '12. And he and Mrs. Bush did mention others. But not Mrs. Palin. And, Mrs Bush made a remark that could be seen as dismissive of Mrs. Palin suggesting that she should just stay in Alaska.
And Mrs. Palin responded that the Bushes are Blue Bloods. And that they want to dictate the winners.
And, Joe, she is right. And she was respectful of Mr. H. W. Bush as a former president.
But Joe, you went on to mention Mr. H. W. Bush and his heroic service to our nation during World War II. That does not take away from the fact that indeed Mr. H. W. Bush does come from a wealthy, establishment background. And we can not forget that indeed, it was the one thing that Mr. H. W. Bush promised he would not do that wrecked the economy even further.
Mr. H. W. Bush raised taxes. Can I point out that fact, Joe?
And on that note, it was people like the Bush family that Ronald Reagan ran against. Do you remember that? Remember that Mr. Reagan ran against then President Gerald Ford for the Republican presidential nomination in 1976? Mr. Ford, a decent man and patriot, reeked of being part of the Republican establishment.
Again, Joe, you wade into sexist commentary by trying to compare Mrs. Palin in her 20s to Mr. H. W. Bush and his service to our nation in war. You dismiss her because she-DA HORROR-ran as a contestant for Miss Alaska and finished third. Of course you fail to mention, Joe, that Mrs. Palin was married, raising a family and an active community volunteer. Also, she was working with husband Todd Palin on their commercial fishing business. Hey, Joe, maybe she should have donned some camoflouge and done a Rambo. Would that have changed your thinking on Mrs. Palin?
See, Joe, I would have liked to have seen something written by you that actually dealt with I S S U E S you and Mrs. Palin disagree on. You did not. You wasted a lot of words to pass on your buddies at MSNBC's talking points. That Mrs. Palin is dumb. That she is a quitter. That she should not be making money.
When people that claim to be on the conservative side spend more time dissing people on our side to prop up their own notions, then we do not win the battle of ideas.
And Joe, you did that with this column. And what you have done is solidified those of us that think there is a battle between the Republican establishment and the regular people. The conservatives. You, sir, represent the establishment.
Next time, Joe, please write a column about your policy disagreements with Sarah Palin. Not just some envy.

Sunday, November 28, 2010

R. I. P. Leslie Nielsen

Today, comedic actor Leslie Nielsen died at the age of 84. And he leaves behind a comedic legacy of work that will not be matched anytime soon.
I remember Mr. Nielsen as a bad guy in 1970s shows like Barnaby Jones, The Rockford Files and the like.
But it was his performance in the 1980 movie Airplane that led to a career transformation and revived a flagging career.
During the rest of the 80s, Mr. Nielsen starred in the trilogy of Naked Gun movies as the hapless detective, Frank Drebin.
It is how I will remember Mr. Nielsen.
It also showed that sometimes, many times, there are second chances in this life. And Mr. Nielsen got his with the infamous role of the bumbling doctor in Airplane.
Hopefully, Mr. Nielsen is giving the Almighty a good laugh right now.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

For Cali GOP, No Quick Fix

As we head into the Thanksgiving weekend, it is as good a time as any to revisit the subject of the California Republican party, the problems and the solutions.
First, the apparent sweep of constitutional offices by the Democrats, the majority in the congressional delegation and in the state legislature did not happen overnight.
The fact that the Republican registration is going the wrong way did not happen overnight.
The lack of development of future Republicans for higher offices did not happen overnight.
The battle between the conservatives and moderates, well that will go on no matter what.
And that battle will be who wants to revive the party at all levels or give up, cut deals and hope for the best.
So, lets go back a few years.
2000 to be exact.
The California Republican party had just went through the same thing that it is going through now. A repudiation of the party as a whole.
In 1998, the Democrats swept through almost all the constitutional offices. Only Bill Jones survived and continued as Secretary of State. The Democrats gained seats in the state assembly (lower house) and senate. And in the congressional delegation. In other words, it was a nasty loss for the Republican party statewide.
By 2000, the state GOP was broke and desperate.
So, the leadership, elected and party apparatus, brokered a deal with the Democrats.
Unlike previous years when the Democrats tried obscene gerrymandering, all sides agreed to protect each other. No contentious court fights. All sides would be happy.
And fast forward to the present and, well that did not work out so well for the Republicans.
At the start of the decade, here is the breakdown at the state and congressional level.

State Assembly 2000 2010
D 50 52

R 30 28

State Senate

D 26 26

R 14 14

Congressional Delegation

D 32 34

R 20 19

Here is the lesson that should have been learned.
Don't cut deals with Democrats. Period. It will and is never to the advantage of the Republicans.
Even gaining a congressional district did not help the Republicans. And in the state assembly, they lost two seats.
Bottom line is that all that happened is the Democrats used the 10 year period to solidify their advantage and then start picking off Republicans. In all ways.
In 2000, registered Republicans accounted for 35% of all voters.
In 2010, that figure declined to 31%.
For the Democrats, in 2000, it was at 46%.
The Democrats lost two percent but account for 44% of registered voters.
But, unlike the Republicans, the Democrats have been able to leverage the decline-to-state voters to their advantage.
And the mild ebb and flow led to the Democrats keeping and or increasing their share in many areas of California.
So what about this redistricting.
Well, one of the few good things Gov. Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger did was get Prop 11 passed. It took the reapportionment out of the hands of the legislature and it is now in the hands of a citizens board. And with the passage of Prop 20 and the defeat of Prop 27, all reapportionment, state house and congress, will be in the hands of the board. The board will be drawing the districts to no distinct party advantage. It should increase seats competitiveness meaning this will be a chance for Republicans to make gains at all levels.
But, they will have to make a serious effort to reach beyond their base of Southern California outside of Los Angeles county, the Central Valley and inland Northern California.
It means that the first target needs to be Los Angeles county. There are some pockets of Republican strength. The northern part of the county and some areas in the east and south bay.
This is where the party needs to recruit and get people elected for city councils and or school boards. And while these are technically non-partisan offices, let it be known that the people running are conservatives and Republicans. The Democrats do all the time.
Why is it that few if any know that the mayor of San Diego, Jerry Sanders, is a Republican? The mayor of Fresno, Ashley Swearengin, also a Republican? And the former Republican speaker of the assembly, Curt Pringle, is the mayor of Anaheim? These are three of the largest cities in the state. Everyone knows that Antoinio Villar is a Dem. Same with soon-to-be Lt. Governor, Gavin Newsom. Same with Kevin Johnson, mayor of Sacramento.
The Republican party must run as the Republican party. It must present candidates that are not wishy-washy. Again, when faced with a moderate Republican or a Democrat, the voter usually pulls the lever for the Democrat. At least they know that is the real deal.
Which leads to a huge problem for the California Republican party.
Thankfully, he is leaving office.
That problem would be the current governor, Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Gov. Benedict Arnold did not one thing to promote the party. He did not candidate recruitment. He never campaigned with lower-office Republicans when he had the chance. He talked of being "post-partisan". More like surrendered to the Democrat party.
Most of us that swallowed hard and voted for him not once, but twice, knew he was a moderate. Did not like to talk about "social issues" which means to the leftywhore media, abortion and same-sex marriage. Was very vague about many other issues.
In the end, as I have written many times, Gov. Benedict Arnold turned out to be former Gov. The Gray Era Davis. Only with a personality.
And, Gov. Benedict Arnold ended up supporting the very tax hike that ended the governorship of The Gray Era. That would be the hike in the car registration fee.
There is no point in electing one who claims to be a Republican and when one wins office, does nothing to help build the party.
That is the the legacy of one Gov. Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger.
We need to set out to explain to the voters that there really is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. We must be clear and articulate. We must not let the leftywhore media dictate the terms of debate. We must not get off on tangents.
The California Republican party and it candidates need to say that we stand for smaller, efficient government. Less regulation. Less control of people's lives. Lower taxes. Hell, to reform the whole tax structure of California. That we believe in law and order. That we believe in creating opportunities for every citizen of California to move up the ladder. That we respect the dignity of every person as an individual. That "group think" is not the way to go. Except it be as a Californian and or an American. That legal immigrants are beyond more than welcome. That we need massive overhaul of education in this state. Promote merit pay for teachers. Increase charter schools. Provide vouchers for low-income families to help them send their children to successful private schools.
In other words, as a former governor once said,

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

That was then-former governor Ronald Reagan speaking to the 1975 gathering of the Conservative Political Action Committee.
He was right then and is right now.
If the California Republican party wants to be serious, it is going to have to make clear why people should register and vote for them. It can not be because we are not the Democrats. Or we are not as bad as the Democrats. Or that we only want to raise some taxes. Or slow down the size of state government.
It needs to stop looking for the quick fix. Whether it be Bill Simon, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Meg Whitman. It needs to start fresh and new.
There are real opportunities if the party is smart. It looks like there is hope in Tom del Baccaro becoming the chair of the state party.
Mr. del Baccaro hails from Contra Costa county. And he has led getting Republican voters out over many larger county parties. He is the proprietor of The Political Vanguard. He also is a solid conservative.
We have to start somewhere and that will be in leadership.
And we all have to know that there is not a quick fix. It could take the decade or less, depending on what we do as a party to be a real alternative to the Democrat behemoth now in control in Sacramento.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Young Entrepreneurs Learn Harsh Reality Of Anti-Business Police State

Many had not heard the names of Andrew DeMarchis, Kevin Graff, Zachary Bass and Daniel Katz before some busy-body town councilman went after them.
The four boys are middle-school kids in New Castle, New York.
The youngsters had an idea to make some cash.
Not one thing wrong with that.
What the youngsters came up with was selling cupcakes. Cupcakes that they made themselves. The cupcakes were sold along side brownies, cookies and Rice Krispies treats.
Two of the youngsters, Masters. DeMarchis and Graff, were selling the treats at the local park. Gedney Park to be exact.
The boys were having a pretty good day of sales. The first day the budding entrepreneurs made a cool $120 bucks. It was enough that they were able to buy a cart for $60 at the local Target. They even were able to add Gatorade and water along with the treats.
The next day, they had about a $30 haul when the local constabulary came upon them and told them they had to shut down their enterprise.
Why, you may ask?
Because you have to have a permit to sell in a park in this town. And a local town councilman thought what these boys were doing was such a horrific crime, he called down the constabulary.
Incredibly, town councilman Michael Wolfensohn went to the kids, asked them about their budding business and then whether they were raising funds for charity. The boys were honest and said no.
OMG! ! !
Mr. Wolfsensohn then made a beeline and called the cops.
And the police officer was pleasant but had to shut the budding entrepreneurs operation because he was following up on a complaint.
Needless to say it was a rather traumatic experience for these youngsters who are all classmates at Seven Bridges Middle School in nearby Chappaqua.
But, the story does not end there.
Friends of the DeMarcis family asked the local newspaper, The Journal-News, asked the newspaper to file a New York state Freedom of Information request and found that the complainant was Mr. Wolfensohn.
When asked, Mrs. Wolfensohn said that he could have handled the situation better. Mr Wolfensohn said the following:

"In hindsight, maybe I should have done that, but I wasn't sure if I was allowed to do that. The police are trained to deal with these sorts of issues."

Really? Wolfie, you could not have simply found out who the parents were and told them the situation? Did ya think the boys might have been packing heat?
And it gets worse for poor ol' Wolfie.
Wolfie tries to pin the blame for his actions on the town supervisor, Barbara Gerrard.
Really? Are you that much of a chicken s--- that you had to blame someone else for your over zealousness?
In the end, Wolfie had to admit that he was the one who called the cops and it was his action alone.
Now, there is no question that there are rules to selling in the park. The boys nor the parents did not know that. All that had to be done was a call placed to the parents and this would have never gotten out of hand.
Oh, did I mention that Wolfie is a Democrat?
Now you may wonder, what does that have to do with the price of tea in Red China?
Because I firmly believe that it goes into the mindset of this kind of Democrat.
What are these boys doing? WHAT! Not raising money for charity? For themselves?! I'll show them! I'll sick the coppers on them. That will teach em!
This is not the first time this has happened to a youngster trying to earn a buck.
Julie Murphy is a seven-year old in Oregon City, Oregon.
She was trying to earn extra money selling lemonade at a monthly art fair in Portland. People were buying before she even finished her first batch.
Until the lady with the clipboard came by.
The lady with the clipboard was asking about their licence. Where was their damn licence! Of course, they did not have one and did not know that they had to have one.
Ah, but to live in libertard utopia.
It appears that Oregon law says anyone selling lemonade must have a license under state law.
It does not matter if you sell it at the art fair or on your own front lawn.
What is happening is busy-body adults are once again ruining things for children and things that many of us did as kids. And we are alive to tell about it!
These young people should not be punished but commended.
They are trying to actually earn money on their own. They are not asking their parents to give them allowance. They have bigger ideas and aspirations. These are the future potential business leaders.
But their dreams are shot down by elected and unelected bureaucrats.
Policemen and women have become nothing more than glorified tax collectors for the government leviathan. One that has grown so large that common sense flies out the window.
But for both stories there is a good ending.
In the case of the New Castle Four, Lev Ekster who has his own gourmet cupcake shop in New York City, is going to help the boys out by selling their cupcakes out of his food truck in the big city. And they will be able to use his bakery to boot.
In the case of Julie, she got an apology from the chair of the Multnomah county board of supervisors, Jeff Cogen. Mr. Cogen himself said that he was a lemonade entrepreneur in youth. And a radio station wants to sponsor Julie and her lemonade stand.
In a clear anti-business climate that stems from the top down in the United States in 2010, these youths became victims of an over-active government.
What better way to turn young people into future conservative Republicans!