Tuesday, December 30, 2014

The Most Dangerous Post Of 2014

When I first read this post, I thought that a conservative must have written it because it states what a lot of conservatives say about black criminals and the justice system.
It is why I would suggest to read the post twice. Once does not do it justice.
Why is what I am writing and what Michael Smith* wrote is that Mr. Smith is by his own admission a liberal.
So it is very important to read Mr. Smith's perspective thoroughly.
And I will start to analyze from the end because again, this is important to understand that this is not the ranting of some right-winger race superiorist.
Read the following two paragraphs and tell me that the truth has not smacked Mr. Smith in the face:

I am a liberal. I believe that those of us who are able to produce abundance have a moral duty to provide basic food, shelter, and medical care for those who cannot care for themselves. I believe we have this duty even to those who can care for themselves but don’t. This world view requires compassion and a willingness to act on it.
My experience has taught me that we live in a nation in which a jury is more likely to convict a black defendant who has committed a crime against a white. Even the dullest of blacks know this. There would be a lot more black-on-white crime if this were not the case.

The second paragraph is true, unfortunately. Yes, a white-dominated jury will convict a black who has committed a crime against a white. And yes, it is done in reverse. Can we all say O. J. Simpson?
It appears to me what drives Mr. Smith even with the truth smacking him in the face is that he maybe able to reach one of those he represents and hopefully turn that person's life around.
The reality is that a conservative could not get away with the brute honesty Mr. Smith writes about. Whether I like it or not, it takes someone that thinks they can change the outcome to explain that in reality, they can't.
Mr. Smith is a public defender in a major Southern metropolitan area. According to Mr. Smith, 10% of the population is black. Yet they overwhelmingly make up the majority of his cases, fully 90% of his caseload are blacks. Mr. Smith has also represented whites, Hispanics and Asians. Amazingly, he says out of all the thousands of cases, only three are where he represented Asians and one of those was partially black.
Mr. Smith goes on to describe the attitudes of those groups he has represented.
Whites are respectful of his role. They come to court, dress appropriately, keep their head down and follow instructions and it is over. Ditto the Hispanics. Nothing about the Asians, but knowing their culture I am sure that they follow the whites and Hispanics.
When it comes to blacks, it is beyond a whole different story.
According to Mr. Smith, court is like a carnival to many of those he defends. To Mr. Smith it appears that whole families congregate in and around the courthouse and that they all seem to know each other. They gossip, laugh, wave at each other and congregate around the halls adding to the carnival atmosphere.
It also appears that blacks have no respect for Mr. Smith or any of those that are trying to help them. He is not given the respect of being called Mr. Smith. It's usually his first name (where do I see that on a national scale? Hmm, maybe the Dear Leader, President Obama?!) or even worse. Mr. Smith wrote that some openly refer to him, to his face, as 'dog'. For those of you not up on pop culture slang, the word dog is used as in friend. "What's up, dog?" Uh, correct me if I am wrong but referring to your lawyer with such familiarity shows absolutely no respect. Respect that he or she deserves. It also shows a familiarity that is not there. Why should Mr. Smith or any other public defender try in any way to help anyone who shows such little concern for his or her own fate?
Not only are they disrespectful but they do not understand that a public defender or any defense attorney are not Svengali. They can not snap their fingers and all the information regarding their case magically appears.
Upon their first meeting, while Mr. Smith is doing introductions and trying to explain their particular case, the blacks are totally impatient and want quick answers. In that first meeting, the public defender does not have all the case particulars. He tries to explain to them that they have to wait and get all the evidence and information before he can tell them everything and what options there are. But blacks, they live in the immediate. The here and now.
And the worst thing is that blacks, unlike any other group, do not see their public defender as there to help but part of the "man" and thus by nature against them. Ready to cut deals to their detriment. Thus they are hostile to the person that is trying to help them from the beginning.
Which leads to an interesting observation about the criminal acts he has noticed from each of the race groups Mr. Smith has represented.
Whites commit all kinds of crime from sexual to violent and everything in between. Hispanics generally are in the system due to sexual assault on children and or driving under the influence. Blacks seem to do everything but sex crimes in general. And keep in mind this is what Mr. Smith sees in his particular area of the United States. It is not meant to be a nationwide analysis.
Where I find the aspect of Mr. Smith that is actually sad and troubling is that the blacks he deals with, whether it is the suspected criminal, that family and the usual black victim and their families are essentially barely functional illiterate.
Mr. Smith asserts that if a case gets to trial, he tries to not have the black defendant take the stand in their own defense. For that is because, again in Mr. Smith's words,

Most blacks are unable to speak English well. They cannot conjugate verbs. They have a poor grasp of verb tenses. They have a limited vocabulary. They cannot speak without swearing. They often become hostile on the stand. Many, when they testify, show a complete lack of empathy and are unable to conceal a morality based on the satisfaction of immediate, base needs. This is a disaster, especially in a jury trial. Most jurors are white, and are appalled by the demeanor of uneducated, criminal blacks.

WHOA! Could you imagine if any conservative were to write this? It is true, but Mr.Smith is blunt and to the point. Who can forget the testimony of one Rachel Jeantel in the George Zimmerman trial regarding the death of Trayvon Martin. While the article that I linked was from the Puffington Post and generally sympathetic to Miss Jeantel, no doubt that even they could not avoid the obvious.
That for whatever reason, and this is not where to address that, a lot of blacks can not effectively communicate and it will invariably hurt rather than help their cause.
And this, this maybe the most horrific, yes horrific, indictment about black defendants.
That they have absolutely no empathy for others.
Mr. Smith describes a case of three robbers and he was representing one that beat up a girl while his cohorts committed the robbery. According to Mr. Smith the defendant asks what are the chances for his case and Mr. Smith told the truth. That it was not good. And while the defendant was angry with Mr. Smith and delving into conspiracy theory, Mr. Smith pointed out that there was a video of the whole event. Mr. Smith asked the defendant what he thought a jury would think. The defendant said “They don’t care.”  But it gets better. When Mr. Smith asks said defendant if he felt any remorse for what he had done, well its so precious:

“What do I care? She ain’t me. She ain’t kin. Don’t even know her.”

WOW! What can anyone say when faced with such a response? Except again, there is no remorse and or empathy for what they may have done in the commission of a crime.
Here are several other tidbits that I found sad and disturbing all at the same time.
Mr. Smith acknowledges that one the threads common in his clientele is the fact the black males do not have an active father in their lives. Sometimes the defendants meet their fathers for the first time in court and it is a meeting that is unemotional in every way.
An observation I want to note is Mr. Smith mentioning a 47-year old grandmother. I did some math and figured that granny probably had a child roughly between 17-20 years old. That child had a child probably at a younger age. Hence, a granny at 47. For some reason, it just blows me away.
Mr. Smith also notes that the women are having multiple babies with multiple fathers and that all are essentially wards of the state. All involved in some way get some kind of assistance from the government. And the males actually working?! Are you kidding?! They are sponging off of someone and collecting either social security disability for some kind of mental issue and or some kind of physical ailment that he sure can't figure out. When Mr. Smith asks what a defendant does all day, he gets a response that goes “You know, just chill.” That chill is courtesy of the United States taxpayer.
Oh and explaining how a defendant should dress for court appearances is amazing.
Mr. Smith tells a couple of situations involving a female and male defendant. The female is on trial for drugs and shows up wearing a baseball cap. A cap that has a embroidered marijuana leaf on it. And for the male, the defendant shows up wearing a t-shirt with this charming line: "Rules are for suckers". And the public defenders office has dress shirts, suits, neckties, and dresses for female defendants. Yet, mostly the males, want to wear the cool gang colors. And it's a group effort among Mr.Smith's co-workers to try desperately to convince a black, gang-banger defendant to wear at the very least a dress shirt and necktie.
The sadness is that this is not just Mr. Smith's metropolitan area in the South where this takes place.
This is nationwide in many an urban area. And at all levels from cities, counties, states and federal courts. Mr. Smith shares a statistic that, to me, is disturbing. Twelve percent of the United States population is black. Yet they make up 40% of the prison population. The chart below is as of 2009 but probably worse today than better.

It is staggering and disturbing all at the same time. 
How does this one group seem to have self-destructed in this nation?
Mr. Smith alludes to the breakdown of the traditional family among blacks.
And Mr. Smith does not go much further but I will.
Education is not separate but equal but abysmal for blacks in the inner city. No one seems to want to get a handle on it because it will break some sacred cows that the so-called black "leadership" has vented over the last 40 years. Money, money and more money has been poured into the predominately black inner-city schools and scores at all levels have worsened, not improved. Essentially, many teachers just show up and put in their time and hope not to get killed.
Since there is usually not a mom and dad, the gang that many of the black male youths eventually gravitate to become family. Ditto for the girls.
Yes, I am a white male and according to the PC forces, I have not only no right to note the problems but I am privileged simply by the grace of God of being born white. Yet I have grown up where I am the minority. Most of my friends have been Hispanic throughout my life. Many of them are at a much better station in life than I am. There goes my "white privilege".
But what seems to have prompted Mr. Smith to write the piece he did is he wanted to tell the truth. And it is clearly painful for him to do so. The truth is there is a serious problem in the black community. There are real solutions but it will take a concerted effort of many people, groups and forces. And some of those people, groups and forces need to end some of their rhetorical flourishes and realize there are a lot of us that want to help. That want to improve education for blacks. That want to restore as much of a traditional family structure as possible. That want blacks to stop gangs and make them unattractive for their children to ever join.
The conversation has to start somewhere and it has to start with truth.
That is why this is the most dangerous post of 2014.

Thursday, December 25, 2014


Here from the Right View From The Left Coast headquarters, Mrs. RVFTLC, Barney and Cashew and I wish you a very Merry Christmas and blessings for a very happy, prosperous 2015. I don't think I can say what Christmas is all about any better than Linus Van Pelt.
So, Linus, take it away!

Saturday, December 20, 2014

And The Fruit Of Anti-Police Rage Is Two Executed NYC Policemen

In my frame of mind, chest cold reeking havoc, I am pained to write this post but it has to be done.
Today in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York, two NYC policemen, Wenjian Lu and Rafael Ramos, were blatantly executed in their police car by one Ismaaiyl Brinsley, a Black man.
It was not like Mr. Brinsley did not know what he was doing. The car that the two policemen were in was a clearly marked NYPD car.
In fact and indeed, it appears that Mr. Brinsley knew what he was doing and showed his intent on his now deleted Instagram site. Here is a bit of intent of Mr. Brinsley:

It is a bit fuzzy and his followers comments are intentionally fuzzed out. So here is what he wrote:

I'm Putting Wings On Pigs Today. They Take 1 Of Ours... ...Lets Take 2 Of Theirs. #ShootThePolice #RIPErivGardner #RIPMikeBrown This May Be My Last Post I'm Putting Pigs In A Blanket.

Charming fellow this Brimsley was.
Oh, the only good that has come out of this is that when police confronted Mr. Brimsley, he ended up killing himself.
That saves the good taxpayers of Brooklyn county the cost and spectacle of a potential trial.
The real story here is that this is the culmination of the anti-police rage in regards to two controversial police cases and one happened to be on Staten Island in New York City.
The first one is the case of Ferguson teen Michael Brown and his killing in August by former local police officer Darren Wilson. The second and more controversial case is that of Eric Garner in New York City in which a videotape appears that an NYPD officer is delivering a fatal chokehold that killed Mr. Gardner.
The purpose us not to re litigate either case but to show how the reaction, media and fanning flames led to today's events in Brooklyn.
Both cases brought out the usual suspects and they made protest all over the United States for weeks. Even in New York City at the beginning of the Christmas shopping season the flagship Macy's department store was the scene of "die-ins" in which people would simply drop to the ground as if they were dead. Here in my neck of the woods, the greater Los Angeles area, many of the protesters thought it would be totally awesome to try to block freeway traffic and in the process scare many people simply driving to their destinations. At least here that was not tolerated and police and California Highway Patrol officers got rid of those vermin quickly.
Led by the current race-huckster par excellence, Al Sharpton, reaction was very quick and definitely biased against anything the police did or did not do in those cases.
But here is the interesting one.
The current New York City mayor, Democrat Bill De Blasio, aka his given name, Warren Wilhelm, had a very negative comment about police and in regards to his teenage son, Dante.
Before that I must give a little bit about Mr. De Blasio and his family which is interesting to say the least.
Mr. De Blasio's wife, Chirlane, is Black and a "former" lesbian.
Say, I thought one was born that way?!
Sorry to digress.
Thus Mr. and Mrs. De Blasio's children are mixed race. They are the aforementioned son, Dante, and a daughter named Chiara. Here is a photo of the family.

It's important to show the family because it goes to the heart of Mr. De Blasio's comments.
And for good measure, Mr. De Blasio is probably the most left-wing mayor ever elected in New York City. That is saying a lot.
So, this is what Mr. De Blasio said when reacting to the Staten Island grand jury not returning an indictment against NYPD officer:

De Blasio said he and his wife Chirlane McCray, who is black, have had to instruct their son how to deal with cops amid a "painful contradiction."
"We've had to literally train him -- as families have all over this city for decades -- how to take special care in any encounter he has with the police officers who are there to protect him," he said.

Why does Mr. De Blasio feel that he has to "train" his son to take "special care" in potential police encounters?
Oh, I think I know why.
Again, look at that photo.
Dante De Blasio is Black and has, to me, a good ol' 70s fro going on. So of course the NYPD is automatically going to harass Dante De Blasio, right? Isn't that what Mr. De Blasio means about the training to take special care?
Of course it is!
Mr. De Blasio is the mayor of New York City. He is not some two-bit community organizer type. He is the one that sets the tone of the city in general and the police department in general. From the comment he knee-jerk made, he does not have faith and or trust in the 30,000 member NYPD.
Is he not the most responsible for a person to think, hey man, we've got to get some pay back? Even the mayor seems to be on our side on this.
The reaction tonight to a press conference held by Mr. De Blasio and NYPD commissioner, William Bratton, speaks volume. The police turned their backs on hizhonor as he entered the room to make his comments.

Thus we see the fruit of the anti-police rage.
Two officers murdered, no executed, in cold blood.
And a mayor that holds more contempt than gratefulness for his police department.
My heart and prayers go to officers Lu and Ramos and their families. And to the people of New York City that now have more unnecessary pain.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Obama Betrays Cuba; Iran, North Korea Next On The Trifecta

Somewhere on the internets, I predicted that if the 2014 midterm national elections were a disaster for the Democrats, the Dear Leader, President Obama, would be even more extreme and as one of the extreme acts would re institute diplomatic relations with Red Cuba, Red Korea and Iran.
Well, well, well, what do we have here?!
Seemingly right on schedule, the Dear Leader, President Obama, announced yesterday that he was going to change course on Red Cuba and restore full diplomatic relations claiming that the 50+ years of an economic embargo had in fact "failed" and that Cuban "isolation" has not worked.
Well, I will take on the economic embargo first.
Of course it does not work when Red Cuba has relations with most of the nations of the world including the other two North American nations of Canada and Mexico. Does anyone think that Red Cuba does not have trade with these two nations? In fact and indeed the United States does have very limited economic ties with the regime of the Castro Bros. (Fidel and Raul).
But the economic rationale does not help because everything, I mean everything, runs through the clutches of the Castro Bros.
As noted here in this blog post by Mauricio Claver-Carone on the Huffington Post, It is a very complex way to do business with Cuba. But one thing is clear. It is ALL done thought the Castro Bros. and or other state entities. Mr. Claver-Carone notes that all trade to be done through the state and or it's entities is enshrined in article 18 of the Cuban constitution of 1976. Here is the article:

The State directs and controls foreign commerce.
The law establishes the State institutions and authorities empowered to:
create foreign commerce enterprises;

standardize and regulate export and import operations; and

determine the natural or juridical persons with the legal capacity to engage in said

export and import operations, and to negotiate commercial agreements.
Even Red China, with a mix of crony capitalism is less doctrinaire than the Castro's Red Cuba.
What Mr. Claver-Carone does explain is about the so-called "private sector" or "self-employed" sector that is neither private nor self-employed.
Basically, those that can become "self-employed" do not have the same rights that one would have in an open market. Again, in Mr. Claver-Carone's words:

Cuba's military and intelligence services control and run the conglomerates of Cuba. The "self-employment" sector represents a very small part of the island's economy and it is important, in the debate over sanctions, to understand its nature and limits. During economic crises, the Castro regime typically authorizes a host of services that Cubans can be licensed to provide, keeping at least a portion of what they may be paid. The world's news media refers to these jobs as "private enterprise," which implies "private ownership." Yet Cuba's "self-employed" licensees have no ownership rights whatsoever - be it to their artistic or "intellectual" outputs, commodity they produce, or personal service they offer. Licensees have no legal entity (hence business) to transfer, sell or leverage. They don't even own the equipment essential to their self-employment. More to the point, licensees have no right to engage in foreign trade, seek or receive foreign investments. Effectually licensees continue to work for the state -- and when the state decides such jobs are no longer needed, licensees are shut down without recourse.

Essentially, the people that are supposed to be "self-employed" work for the state, again that being the Castro Bros. With such strict guidelines, there is no such thing as a truly self-employed worker in Red Cuba. There is no such thing as any private enterprise as we understand it in the West.
Which leads to the obvious of why now is not the right time to re institute relations with Cuba.
Because it is the ultimate economic lifeline to the Castro Bros. They will be the ones to determine if McDonalds or Starbucks will be available to the slew of American tourists that diplomatic relations are supposed to lead to. They will get the massive kickbacks. And they will still be in power.
As far as isolation, no, Red Cuba has not been all that isolated in the diplomatic world. Most of the nations in the world have some kind of diplomatic relations with Cuba. In all 105 nations and or pseudo nations have embassies in Havana. Only the United States has an interest section through the embassy of Switzerland. Out of the 105 nations that have relations with Red Cuba many are what can be characterized as market or free market nations. The European Union has relations. Individual nations include France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom. Australia and New Zealand have relations. Missing from the list is Israel. But "Palestine" has an "embassy" in Cuba.
So, how many of these nations have trade relations with the communist regime?
Or the better way to phrase the question is how can Cuba maintain it's communist government when it has become a discredited ideology?
Well, Red Cuba still has extensive trade with Russia, no longer a communist nation. Russia is still Cuba's largest trading partner.
But if you look at this, seven and a half nations (Sorry, Red China is not a free nation but at least has crony capitalism), are capitalist, market-driven economies. Oh, and for extra measure, do you know the major food exporter to Red Cuba is . . .wait for it . . .the United States!
Now I know that a lot of people will retort that we have diplomatic relations with very unsavory nations and why not with Cuba? Some will claim that the reason Republicans won't change on the issue is because it "exploits" the Cuban exile community. No, there is no exploitation. The fact is that the Cuban community is divided on whether full diplomatic relations are a good idea or not.
If Cuba was in fact showing signs that the Communist party was relinquishing power and a democracy was going to take it's place, the United States can and should help in that development. But there is not one bit of any indication that the Castro Bros. will end their totalitarian grip on Cuba.
And yet, the Dear Leader, President Obama, feels inclined that now is the time to reinstate diplomatic relations and prop up the communist system, and by extension, the Castro Bros.
It's mystifying to say the least.
But we know that relations with Cuba are going to change.
The real question is what nation is next for the Obama Trifecta. Will it be Iran or North Korea?

Monday, December 08, 2014

Elizabeth Lauten, The Obama Daughters And Obamawhore Media Bias

Say, before this past weekend, had you ever heard of Elizabeth Lauten?
No?! Neither had I.
But by today, most Americans have heard of her, know at least something about a Facebook post she recently wrote about the daughters of our Dear Leader, President Obama. And that is Malia and Sasha Obama. And because she is a Republican, she gained the righteous wrath of the Obamawhore media.
So who is this Elizabeth Lauten gal?
Until last Monday, she was the communications director of Republican congressman Steven Fincher (R-Tenn.). Before that she was a press aide to former Illinois GOP congressman Joe Walsh and a was a PR gal before that.
Yeah, probably not the best one judging by this kerfuffle.
So, what was it that she wrote on her Facebook page that has the Obama cult and by extension the Obamawhore media?
Here is a screen shot of the now deleted post on her Facebook page:

Now I have read it several times and after the several times reading it, I come to the conclusion that this is a stream of conciseness post. This was not well thought out or something that Miss Lauten really planed to write. It is something we have all done on Facebook at one time or the other.
Before I go on, here is a photo of how Sasha and Malia Obama were dressed:
Well, sorry Miss Lauten, but the girls are dressed rather demure for girls their age in this photo. Sasha, on the right, IS wearing a short skirt, sure. But she is wearing tights and while you can't see them, booties.
On the other hand, Malia IS a little more daring. But again, for a girl of 13 years of age, it is also demure. Malia's sweater is rather long but the skirt, not so much. And what you don't really notice from this photo is that Malia is also wearing tights and booties.
But yeah, they look bored as hell. And maybe they are just sick of hearing their dad drone on and on and on as he is prone to do. So on that front, they are with the majority of Americans today.
Seriously, to the girls, he's dad. And they are probably thinking "When will he shut up and when are we gonna have some of the bird?"
So their daddy, the Dear Leader, President Obama, aka dad, turns to elicit some response and, as teen gals are prone to do, they sighed and or rolled their eyes.
The bottom line is that Miss Lauten made a mountain out of a non-eventful mole hill. I seriously believe that she meant well in her mind. That she thought more people would look at what transpired and think like her. How gauche the junior high school and high school daughters acted at a turkey pardoning.
But why, oh why did the Obamawhore media make a huge deal of this?
Well, where was this made a story?
In an online black website called The Root, which is a subsidiary of Salon.com, a horrible lefty website if there ever was one.
Here is a clue for people like Miss Lauten.
ANYTHING, and I mean ANYTHING that you put on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, whatever, will be combed through with a beyond fine tooth comb.
While most of us may have never heard of The Root, they made themselves by finding this obscure gal and something silly she ranted on her Facebook page.
Thus, wisely I might add, they had the wherewithal to get a snapshot of the post and while they offered their editorial analysis, that it was a direct diss at the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his daughters.
The rest of the Obamawhore media went to town that this was clear racism, hate of the Obama's, questioning their parental skills, etc., etc.
Why The Washington Post, which seemed to not have enough staff to investigate such actual events as what really happened in Benghazi, the IRS scandal, and other assorted issues surrounding the Obama administration, they sent two reporters to dig as much dirt on Miss Lauten as possible. Why an erstwhile website such as The Smoking Gun, informed us that Miss Lauten was a really bad girl herself. That she was arrested for shoplifting when she was 16 years old. And Chris Cilliza of the Post said poor Miss Lauten had the worst week in Washington.
Needless to say, all of this unwanted publicity caused Miss Lauten to resign her post.
So did anyone ever fire Andrew Sullivan when he went into full conspiracy mode about who the real mother of Tripp Palin is? After all, he still to this day believes that Tripp Palin is not Sarah Palin's daughter but really oldest daughter Bristol Palin's first child. How about to this day all the coverage of the Palin children not on political matters but their behavior?
Did we hear scolding over People magazine and a cover of then President George W. Bushs' daughters, Barbara and Jenna and their partying ways? Look at what made the cover of People back when W was in the White House:
Their escapades made the cover of a gossip magazine.
I thought, according to the liberal left especially, that the children of presidents were off limits to the usual political clap trap and vitriol?
Well, only children when they are in the White House.
For those of us on the conservative side, we see that long running movie, Double Standard.
And it really is a double standard.
But in this particular case, it was a very well played Alinskyite move.
Target, and destroy.
And they did.
The Obamawhore media made Miss Lauten and the possibility of latent racism the story.
Maybe they could read that Facebook post as I did and that it was not well thought out. That it was as I noted a stream of consciousnesses post that may have been written by Miss Lauten with an eye on her own past.
Nope, when it suited their purposes, they willingly used the Obama girls to make a point and destroy a beyond low-level Republican aide.
Miss Lauten has learned a hard lesson and the Obamawhore media has become more and more predictable.
Dissent in Obama's America will not be tolerated. 

Sunday, November 30, 2014

Black Friday And A Touch Of Ferguson

Ahh, nothing like the annual bacchanalia of Thanksgiving on Thursday and when you finish your meal, head on off to the mall to join in Black Friday on Thursday.
Huh? Well, whatever.
But this year, while you might have been partaking of the shopping frenzy, you may have been entertained a bit courtesy of the Ferguson Players.
The following are a few of the agitprop that the Ferguson Players took part in throughout the United States.
Here's a nice "die-in" at the Chesterfield Mall in St. Louis, Missouri, somewhat the epicenter of the events of Ferguson involving the former police office, Darren Wilson, shooting the youth Michael Brown.
And here is one from the flagship Macy's department store in New York City.

And the photo on the far top are a group of protesters blocking the main BART train station between Oakland and San Francisco. The photo below shows the agitpropers getting a little out of control in San Francisco's shopping area of Union Square. Nothing says agitprop like a little violence and a few arrests.
But remember, my friends. These are all peaceful protests against the St. Louis county grand jury that failed to indict the former White police officer, Mr. Wilson, on any charges in the shooting death of the Black, unarmed Mr. Brown.
This is a confluence of events.
There is the fact that the biggest shopping day of the year for most retailers is Black Friday, which is now moving into Thanksgiving Thursday evening.
I do have some views of  Black Friday. And they do conflict.
The capitalist in me sees nothing wrong with offering convenient shopping times for people. After all, many are already together for Thanksgiving. Many come in from out of town to visit friends and or relatives. So they are already in town, why not use the occasion to offer some bargains.
But where I find that it has gone off the rails is that it went from stores opening at 6am on Friday. Then 5am. Then midnight. Now as early as 5pm on Thanksgiving Thursday.
Really, do people need to desperately go to any given store to maybe, maybe get a come-on item at an unbelievable price and only a few available? And while I am not fanatical about people having to work on Thanksgiving like so many are on the left in particular, I think that the stores really can let employees actually digest their turkey and all the trimmings dinner.
Which leads to the several-year old event known as the WalMart protests.
Yes, for several years now, for some reason, WalMart is seen as the retailer of all evil for not only paying their employees barely minimum wage, which is not true, and not offering more than part-time hours, also not true. The left has truly focused on WalMart as if they are doing something out of the world of retail. Why the United Food and Commercial Workers labor union had this website to organize protests against the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll of WalMart.
WalMart is not really alone for most retailers have part-time workers and pay not much more for entry-level employees than the federal or state minimum wage, depending on what is higher. And WalMart is no different for offering any benefits to full-time employees than any other retailer.
But for some reason, the focus every Black Friday is WalMart.
And this year, this year the Ferguson Players, a slew of many left-wing organizations, teamed up with the WalMart protesters to shed the light on the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll of  retail and the obvious racism of the St. Louis county grand jury for not indicting Mr. Wilson on at least a charge. Any charge for the obvious murder of Mr. Brown.
You know how I spent Black Friday?
From the comfort of the RVFTLC Manor and helping Mrs. RVFTLC with our day after Thanksgiving turkey dinner. I did not contribute to the mass hystreia that has become Black Friday. I did not get to participate in the agitprop of the Ferguson Players or Black Friday Protests for the poor souls taken advantage of by the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll that is WalMart. Nor did I get to see the protesters and tell them where they could take the protests.
For one day out of the year, there seemed to be a lot of pent up anger. Whether it be the hordes stomping over each other for that must have item or people protesting a retailer that provides jobs or protesters hating the racist legal system, I am glad I stayed in the Manor.

Friday, November 28, 2014

Ferguson One Big Dreckstorm*

Yes indeed, this was the week, Monday to be precise, that the St. Louis County, Missouri grand jury, was to render whether or not to indict Ferguson police officer, Darren Wilson, for the shooting death of Michael Brown this past October.
And sure enough this past Monday evening, the St. Louis county district attorney, Robert McCulloch, in excruciating detail explained all that he presented to the grand jury and told the world that they will not indict the White police officer in the shooting death of the Black youth on August 9 of this year.
And the reaction ended up being the dreckstorm of the 21st century.
It appears that from the start of what should have been a tragic but routine story, everything surrounding it was problematic from the start.
No question that Mr. Wilson did kill Mr. Brown. But that is the only thing that all agree about.
As Mr. McCulloch said in his statement, it was within minutes that social media caught wind of it and the information being provided was muddled at best. But the seemingly damning piece of "eyewitness" accounts came from the friend that was accompanying Mr. Brown on the fateful night, Dorian Johnson. It was Mr. Johnson who claimed that Mr. Brown was being harassed and that his friend did escape a scuffle with Mr. Wilson. According to Mr. Johnson, Mr. Brown turned around and raised his hands as if to surrender and then, Mr. Wilson played shooting gallery with Mr. Brown. An unarmed Mr. Brown.
Only, that is not quite what happened.
Let's look at Mr. McCulloch's statement regarding the so-called hands up of surrender:

The description of how Mr. Brown hands, raised his hands, or the position of his hands, is not consistent among the witnesses. Some describe his hands as being out to his sides, some said in front of him with palms up, others said his hands were raised by his head or by his shoulders. Still others describe his hands is being in a running position or in fists.

Only Mr. Johnson still insists that Mr. Brown had his hands up in the air as if he was surrendering as he went towards Mr. Wilson.
Thus, again according to the statement of Mr. McCullogh, Mr. Wilson feared for his life as he had already endured being roughed-up by Mr. Brown. That is when he started shooting for he did not know if Mr. Brown had a weapon or not.
That is the basic story.
But a lot of what happened after that was the dreckstorm on steroids.
Clearly, no one thought that it would have been a good idea to at the very least cover-up Mr. Brown's body as the immediate investigation was taking place. As people were believing that Mr. Brown was trying to surrender to Mr. Wilson, they also saw this as a sign of disrespect. And I agree.
But now this was becoming a cause celebre. The likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were beginning to sink their fangs into another case of a White cop killing a Black kid indiscriminately. The town of Ferguson itself was a town of change for only about 25 years ago it was a majority White town and now the majority was Black. Yet the police department was overwhelmingly White. Now I am never certain about whether it matters that law enforcement and or firefighters and the like have to absolutely reflect the make up of any community. But in this case, the fact is there were very few Black officers.
So, many of the people of Ferguson were beginning to think, hm, there must be something to it. Mr. Wilson was merely suspended pending an investigation per the law. There was a build up of hostility and there was days of a show of force fit for a third-world nation. The reason is that little was done and when it was done, it was too late. Eventually, the Missouri governor, Jay Nixon, appointed a member of the Missouri highway patrol, Capt. Ron Johnson, as a point man to coordinate a better response from the Ferguson police department, the St. Louis County police (there is no sheriff as in almost all other counties in the United States.) and the Missouri highway patrol. Now to many, myself included, Capt. Johnson seemed to be way to accommodating to people meaning to cause trouble. But, what he was trying to do in the best way possible is to stop the dreckstorm from an all out explosion. and he did a decent job under horrible circumstances.
In my estimation, the Ferguson police and St. Louis County police were in over their head. They had no clue that by then this was, to coin a phrase, a big f---ing deal. It was not their finest moments.
But many were complaining that the grand jury, which was convened on August 23, was taking a long time. And there was a reason for it.
No doubt that Mr. McCulloch could have avoided such a circus. He had the power himself to charge Mr. Wilson with one of four potential charges, the most serious being first degree murder all the way down to involuntary manslaughter.
So why didn't Mr. McCulloch do that?
I will state that this is pure speculation on my part, but Mr. McCulloch looked at very similar cases around the United States. Although the George Zimmerman shooting of Trayvon Martin was not a case involving a police officer, it was the most recent case of a White shooting of an unarmed Black youth. We all know what happened with that one. And what could he charge him with? It is clear that it would be all but impossible to charge with first degree murder as that means having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Wilson premeditated, or planned, to kill Mr. Brown. Involuntary manslaughter would be the minimal charge and even if convicted, also not an overwhelming possibility, Mr. Wilson probably would serve less than 10 years.
In other words, Mr. McCulloch handed it off to the county grand jury. But not in a usual way.
As Mr. McCulloch noted, there was mountains of evidence, 70 hours of testimony from 60 witnesses and the police officer facing charges, Mr. Wilson and over 4,700 pages of transcript for all to see. And the grand jury came back with the only decision that it could.
No true bill, or no indictment on any charges.
But to add insult to incompetence, Mr. McCulloch thought, gee, I'll make my statement at 8pm on Monday evening. Maybe all those wanting to stir up trouble will be tucked away in bed.
I know that everything is earlier in the Central Time Zone. All television shows in prime time is 7pm to 10pm unlike the coastal time zones, which are from 8pm to 11pm. You know for all the farmers and the like.
But the fact is that it was known that there was a decision in the early afternoon. Yet Mr. McCulloch made his announcement while the buildup of potential anger only had more time to grow.
And of course the dreckstorm blew its lid and it was on.
Businesses were looted throughout the city and cars and buildings were set ablaze. It was a full-fledged riot. Little if anything was done to stop it. In fact, Gov. Nixon had deployed the state national guard to the region. Where were they? Sure as hell not doing a damn thing to stop the conflagration.
Later that evening, St. Louis county police chief, Jon Belmar and Capt. Johnson of the highway patrol expressed, I can't believe that I am writing this, shock that the events escalated to full-scale rioting.
Are those two kidding?!
I am but a humble blogger in Pasadena, California and just doing a cursory look around the internet and they would know that trouble was going to be made by every race-huckster extremists along with far-left allies. Hell, even pro-Palestinians were gonna hijack it and link the events of Ferguson to their cause.
But Laurel and Hardy, well they just could not believe it.
And the dreckstorm went nationwide and has even disrupted the busiest shopping day of the year, Black Friday.
Now a little more background I chose to save to this point of the post.
Mr. Brown was not just harassed then killed by Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson heard a radio call of a robbery at a convinence store. As he was finishing up another call, he heard another call with a description of the suspect. And then, he saw Mr. Brown.
A video later surfaced from the convenience store showing Mr. Brown with Swisher Sweet cigars and shoving and pushing a clerk trying to stop him from stealing the cigars.
Mr. Brown after three separate autopsies and blood samples was shown to have marijuana in his system.
Going back to the robbery, Swisher Sweets are also known as blunts and used to smoke marijuana.
There is A+B=C.
Mr. Wilson never knew if Mr. Brown was armed or not until after the shooting.
A question was brought up where was there a taser gun? Mr. Wilson said that he did not have a taser gun.
Now while we are given the impression that all the elected officials involved were eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll, raaaaacist (remember, there are five a's in raaaaacist!) Republicans, that is not true. Every elected official involved, the governor, Mr. Nixon, the St. Louis county DA, Mr. McCulloch, all the county elected officials and the city council of Ferguson were all Democrats.
Darren Wilson has resigned from the Ferguson police department and I doubt he will ever be involved in law enforcement again.
Could things have been done differently? Possibly but that is requiring a great deal of hindsight. Is systemic racism involved in this case? Doubtful as I see it. A crime was committed and there is no doubt a chain of events took place that probably would have turned out the same way no matter the race of those involved.
The one thing is certain.
That Ferguson, a town few heard of before August 9, 2014, sure has caused one helluva dreckstorm.

*Dreckstorm-dreck is a Yiddish word. A kinder way of saying s*it. Thus, a kinder way of saying a S*itstorm.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Is Thanksgiving A No-No Holiday Now?

Take a good look at the photo above.
Note what it says. And what it doesn't say.


OK, so here is the background on this photo and why I am at the very least confused.
Yesterday on my way to an appointment, I noticed the sign in the above photo. This is at the Vatican of Whole Foods in Pasadena, California, my home town. So needless to say I whipped out the ol' cell phone camera because I am just curious.
What is the holiday the sign is speaking of?
The only holiday this month is, you guessed it.
And I thought, is Thanksgiving now a no-no holiday?
I know, some Indians rank Thanksgiving up there with Columbus Day as the two American holidays to hate. And Thanksgiving is special to the Indians because they would argue that it was the beginning of the end of their way of life. And there is some marginal truth to that, I suppose.
To the American left, well it is all about the European, more English, conquest of North America and the exploitation of the Indians and the beginning of the horror to the world that is the United States of America.
But these are the fringes, right?
I am afraid not.
Now I shared the above photo on my Facebook page and there was a seemingly logical thought a couple of people shared with me that they thought it was just going to stay up through to the Christmas season. Then one had the same reaction that I had. And another shared a tale of a pastor scolding her for celebrating Thanksgiving in the first place.
OK, I get it that certain precincts in the United States that like to promote the idea, as I noted, that the beginning of what we today call Thanksgiving was the beginning of the end of a romanticised way of life. That being of the Indians.
Let me be clear that I am not anti-Indian. But it's not fair to make it out that they were all but a peace loving people. Tribes were fighting each other for land just like everyone else all over the world. And they were no better or worse in how they treated the spoils of their conquests.
This is to be fair and explain that the first Thanksgiving was not as much the beginning of the end for the Indians because those people did not have any gripes with each other. That, regrettably, did not come until later.
So, the first Thanksgiving was both a celebration of a good harvest and of good people being together.
But I don't think that the history is as important of the holiday as what it is and should be today.
Giving thanks is not specifically religious. Non-religious people can give thanks as well as the person of faith. The fact of the matter is that it is not an absolute religious holiday. But it has become so important in the American celebration that, until recently, almost every retail establishment was closed on Thanksgiving. When I was growing up, most markets were closed. And invariably, we would have to find somewhere to find something that was an important ingredient that was forgotten. There was always Thrifty drug store! That is why as so many major retailers are pushing the envelope and starting the traditional Black Friday, day after Thanksgiving, Christmas shopping season on Thanksgiving evening. Some are open all day on Thanksgiving. And that is upsetting to a lot of people. I am one of them. And for me, there is the conflict with business and tradition. I'm all for the tradition.
I do not see why it has to be hidden and given the trite "holiday" label that we have done to Christmas for we don't want to offend anyone. Is Thanksgiving an offensive holiday? What about Independence Day? Memorial Day? Labor Day? Martin Luther King Day? Washington/Lincoln Birthday, aka President's Day? Don't all of these celebrations offend someone or some group?
Here is the thing.
I really, really believe that we all need to grow a thicker skin.
Really, does it offend a non-Christian to be given a Merry Christmas greeting? Can someone greet another person not of their tradition with their greeting? Such as Happy Hanukkah? Blessed Ramadan? I don't feel offense as much as that person happy with who they are and sharing their religious tradition. Or national tradition. If one is not a believer in any religion, you have to understand that the majority of people in the United States do have a religion. Instead of crying "I'm offended", why not use it as an opportunity to share why you do not believe? And I just noted that you who are non-believers can give thanks for the blessings in your life for you do have such things.
The more that we know about each other and what we are all about in human terms, we can avoid the fear of a retailer having to have a sign that reads

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Islamics Take Over The Parish Of St. Peter And St. Paul In Washington, D. C.


And it is known by the more familiar name of the Washington National Cathedral.
Last Friday, the dean of the cathedral, essentially the rector, the Very Rev. Gary Hall, hosted an unusual event. That event was the Friday prayers of practicing Muslims led by the ambassador to the United States from South Africa, Ebrahim Rasool
Now, the fact that it was held on the very day of the 100th anniversary of the last caliph of the Ottoman Empire declared a jihad and, surprise, 1,000,000 Armenian Christians were massacred is to be igorned, I'm sure. However, this piece over at Breitbart is a reminder to Mr. Rasool. And Mr. Rasool has an interesting response to it:

 “It’s deliciously appropriate.”

On it's own, it is very damning. But there is more:

“We stand in a Christian cathedral, make common cause with the Christian middle ground, and make a commitment, that never again must there be intolerance towards Christians or any other faith. We stand up against extremism from the house of Islam and wherever it else it may emanate.”

Why it all sounds great, doesn't it?
But, Mr. Rasool then goes on to give the Muslim Brotherhood victim status along with a lot of other questionable groups.
I will let you read that for yourself.
And this is what was seen in the Washington National Cathedral

St. Peter and St. Paul and the Washington National Cathedral are part of the diocese of Washington, D. C. and part of The Episcopal Church.
As most who even glance at this blog know, I am a Christian and worship in The Episcopal Church (to be referred to from here as TEC).
And as I wrote on my Facebook page it was an embarrassing moment as a Christian and an angry moment as an Episcopalian.
For some inexplicable reason, there are many, especially in leadership, that place the highest value on ecumenical relations. Such a value that it is above everything else including the basic Christian witness of baptising the nations in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost and seeking to serve Christ in all.
To say that this has created a firestorm is putting it very mildly.
Why do I think that it was not a good idea?
One very important reason is optics to radical Islamics.
Does anyone not think for a moment, to repeat a phrase, how delicious it is for the Islamic State and or their allies and fellow travellers to see the above photo and not see that Islam has taken over a Christian church? A church that is of national importance in the United States? The very church that then president George W. Bush held a true interfaith service on the Friday after the horrors of 9/11?
Maybe it pays to understand that the Very Rev. Hall is as modernist as they come in his view of the Christian church. Here is the Hall story courtesy of the Washington National Cathedral website. The Very Rev. Hall served for a time in ministry at All Saints Episcopal church here in Pasadena, California. If you go to the All Saint's link, or as I am prone to refer to it as All Socialists, you will find the plethora of leftist causes and activities. Not really a lot about Jesus Christ and his ministry on earth nor much about spreading the Gospel. The Very Rev. Hall when named as dean of the cathedral in our nation's capital went on a gun control rant and began to perform same-sex marriages. Same-sex marriage is legal in the District of Columbia. Oh yeah, and he does not really think as a Christian minister he should be bringing people to Christ.
So this is why I think it is easy for the Very Rev. Hall to put his ecumenical outreach above everything else.
OK, what else is wrong with what happened last week?
It was a closed service. It was not open to the public. In fact, a mosque can not be used for non-Islamic activities. But to be fair, a mosque in Sacramento in 2012 did allow it's space to be used by a Christian church that lost it's lease for Easter Sunday services. But even in the link, the article notes that it is not common practice for any mosque to do such a thing. So again, in an ecumenical spirit, the Muslims not only worshiped in a Christian church, but got to set the guidelines.
Which leads to an addendum to the point I made above about perception.
The worst aspect of the appearance is that the Washington National Cathedral and it's leadership looked like dhimmis.
Those are the non-Islamic people in jihad-conquered lands. And as part of being "protected", the dhimmis are expected to pay a special jizya, or tax. And as part of their second-class status, they can not do anything that would promote their non-Islamic faith. Which is aimed directly at Christians.
This is what really happened in the Washington National Cathedral last week.
I do not believe that is the intent, but to those who are radical Islamics, that is what they see and will use in their propaganda to recruit more men to the death cult known as the Islamic State.
Who were the participants of the closed Friday prayer service?
Well, as noted, the South African ambassador to the United States, Mr. Rasool. But one group that has been mainstreamed yet is really extreme is the Council of American-Islamic Relations. CAIR is very much an Islamic victimology group and is known to have ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, the extremist group that assassinated the late Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat. Another of the Islamic groups participating in the service is the Islamic Society of North America. Both organizations have been somewhat tied to terrorist groups. ISNA was particularly tied to the Holy Land Foundation which was convicted of funding terrorist groups. So was CAIR. Both groups are also accused of promoting the radical Wahhabi sect of Islam, which is what is practiced in Saudi Arabia. For balance, why was not M. Zhudi Jassar and his organization, American Islamic Forum For Democracy, a participant? If any does not know Dr. Jassar, he is one of the leading people involved in modernizing Islam and trying to defeat the vocal and dangerous radical element. I can maybe give the benefit of the doubt and maybe the Christian folks that helped set up this service do not know of this group. Maybe they are just tuned in to more well-known groups. Or maybe, just maybe, the Christians do know of Dr. Jassar and his group but because they are not of the victimless cult, they are not deemed legitimate by people like the Very Rev. Hall and his sycophants.
To me the bottom line is this.
I am all for knowing of and learning about other religions and or faiths. In doing so it can actually challenge why I believe the way I do. Or it can cement why I believe the way that I do. I would probably not find an interfaith service being held in the Christian Washington National Cathedral a big deal. But, when the Christian leadership asks a group of Muslims not only to pray but close the prayers and celebrate the Islamic religious practice, in a very heady time in Islamic history, I wonder if the people laying out the welcome mat get what people think of such things. I laid out the case as to the overall perception the world sees, like it or not. But the fact is that it is a done deal. What I would like to see is a more serious discussion on how Islam can rid itself of such a dangerous and deadly radical element. I would like to see modernist Christians not go back to the Crusades to suggest that somehow Christians have such a radical element today. I would like to see the so-called mainstream Islamic groups stop playing victim and mainstream themselves and their fellow Muslims into American society without giving up their religion and practices. I don't see how this service in the Washington National Cathedral did anything but stir up trouble.
And why did I insert the Islamic crescent with a slash through it above?
Because of what I wrote. We have to speak with one voice about defeating, not accommodating, radical Islam. We can not give such perceptions of Muslims taking a Christian house of worship as their own. That is what was wrong about the prayer service.

Saturday, November 15, 2014

The Big Red Wave Came A Crashin Successfully!

I just love all of the surfing analogies to the recently concluded totally awesome 2014 mid-term elections.
Some quick observations.
Our Dear Leader, President Obama, is a kinda sore loser, isn't he?
Republicans were supposed to lose governorships. Yes, they lost one (Pennsylvania), but gained in Arkansas, Illinois, Maryland and Taxachusetts, er Massachusetts. And the GOP even kept the Maine's governor's office after an all out assault by the Democrat party to take it away.
The GOP not only recaptured the senate but did so with ease. The final total should be a 54-46 GOP majority in the senate.
And it appears that the GOP will have no less than 245 seats in the house with some outstanding races not called yet.
And the GOP now controls this much of the United States, in particular in congress.
Yes, it is a damn red map, isn't it?
But let's start at this map.
As Michael Barone notes in this analysis of the 2014 election, yes it does look very red. But the splotches of blue are some of the highest-populated areas of the United States. So while the map does look favorable for the GOP, there is still work to be done to make any inroads into many of these urban Democrat strongholds. These strongholds can still in a great year give the Democrats the White House. But for the foreseeable future, congress is more than likely be in the hands of the Republicans.
My message is that the GOP can not and should not rest on it's laurels. The party needs to go anywhere and everywhere to win elections. No city, county, sheriffs office, state, or nation should be written off.
So how about that senate?
Your humble blogger seems to have gotten the winners right on election night. I was off on the numbers, but the results seemed to be correct. Out of the five big races I commented on, the only one that did not pan out was the race in New Hampshire between current Democrat incumbent, Jeanne Shaheen, and former Massachusetts senator, Scott Brown. Sen. Shaheen won exactly by the margin I thought Mr. Brown would win by. But I noted that a drawback would be the accusation of carpetbagging could hurt Mr. Brown. And I think that it did.
One thing that was learned is that the polls were kinda sorta off. Many of the races won by Republicans were by larger margins than the polls were indicating right up to election day. Interestingly, it appears that Democrats were polled on average more than Republicans. But here is the thing. Polls are but a snapshot in time. There is something called election day. THAT is the only poll that counts. Really, it is.
How is it that Republicans have gained governorships in a year that they were supposed to lose? And as I noted above, in some damn unexpected states.
Take Maryland.
No one, and I mean no one, saw Larry Hogan as a serious candidate against the sitting Lt. governor, Anthony G. Brown. But things started shifting dramatically towards the end of the campaign. But almost all believed that Mr. Brown would still win and handily because after all, Maryland is a solid Blue Democrat stronghold. Not only did Mr. Hogan win, but rather handily. The result was 51% to 47% in favor of Mr. Hogan. And in a state like Maryland, this is a landslide.
And how about Massachusetts?
Once again, the state attorney general, Democrat Martha Croakley, er Coakley, proved that she is so bad a candidate, she lost state office again to a Republican and this time for governor and Charlie Baker defeated the hapless Croakley, 49% to 47%. Mrs. Croakley also lost to former Sen. Scott Brown in the special election to replace the late Sen. Edward "Teddy" Kennedy in 2010. As for me, I want her to move to California and run for any statewide office as a Democrat. It's the way we can win something in 2018.
The two above elections are what happens in a year in which there is a big wave and some candidates that would never win pull off good upsets.
And there are the wins to complete a through take over of a state and that is what happened in Arkansas.
The governor's office is now that of former Republican congressman, Asa Hutchinson as he defeated former Democrat congressman, Mike Ross, by the handy margin of 55% to 42%. Republican Tim Griffin was elected Lt. Governor. Another Republican, Leslie Rutledge, is now the state attorney general. The GOP controls the state senate, 24-11 and the sea change was in the house of representatives where the minority GOP gained 13 seats and are now in the majority, 64-36. The congressional delegation and two senators are Republicans. And Arkansas is now the last state in the old Confederacy to be in the Republican column. There are no Democrat governors in the old Confederacy. Only Bill Nelson in Florida and until the December runoff, Mary Landrieu, are Democrat senators in the old Confederate South. The Democrats basically are down to representing racial minority districts in state houses and in congress.
To be fair the Democrats took away the governor's office in Pennsylvania in one of the few highlights of the election night. But the GOP increased their margins in the state legislature.
And the Big Red Wave did ripple here in California as the GOP gained two, maybe three, congressional seats and have denied the Democrats super majorities in both houses of the legislature meaning they will not be able to raise taxes without GOP votes. And a couple of state office races were close giving hope that the GOP could be competitive in the 2018 elections.
So, how did our Dear Leader, President Obama, the titular leader of the Democrat party, take the election results?
Well, lets just say not all that well.
The day after the thrashing that his party took, losing the senate, ground in the house of representatives and even governorships and state legislatures, the Dear Leader, President Obama, said the following:

“To everyone who voted, I want you to know that I hear you. To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too.”

No, sorry, you can't give the back hand and claim that people too bothered to vote count the same. In fact, those people may have not voted for the Democrats had they taken the time and effort. But give it to the Dear Leader, President Obama. His delusion went even further:

“The American people sent a message, one that they’ve sent for several elections now.“They expect the people they elect to work as hard as they do. They expect us to focus on their ambitions and not ours. They want us to get the job done. All of us in both parties have a responsibility to address that sentiment.”

With all due respect to the office sir, no that is not why voters turned to the Republicans. They turned to the Republicans to reign you in. They want to bring you and your party back to the center. They want you to stop with legalizing as many illegal aliens as you can questionably. They don't believe in the climate change propaganda and want policies that will lead to economic growth. Not in a pipe dream of a government-made green economy. They voted for people that said we will work where we can with the president, but to no longer be patsies. And they want at the very least major changes in Obamacare. Most would be willing to scrap the whole monstrosity and start again.
This election was about a stark contrast between the Republican party and the Democrat party. It showed that the GOP at least was listening to the public overall much better than the Democrats. The Democrats thought that they could win supposedly tight races by the spectre of the Republican "War on Women" and that they want to take birth control away and put 'em back in the kitchen and for sure barefoot and pregnant. And if that did not work, stir up Black voters with the spectre of Ferguson and a national effort by all police forces, at the hands of the Republicans of course, to use Black youth as target practice. And if that did not work, why they would suggest that because many GOP voters were not in favor of same-sex marriage to look out for a GOP win would probably force all sexual alphabet voters back in the closet or some kind of reorientation camp.
The reason for the lack of effort on accomplishment and fanning the fires of fear is because there are no accomplishments. O-Care is a continuous disaster. The economy may be recovering, but at such an anemic rate most Americans do not feel it at all. We look and are absolutely feckless in the face of the rise of the Islamic State and the unrest throughout the Middle East. Our relationship with Red China looks like we are giving up the store at any given opportunity. In other words, to coin a phrase, the American people feel in a malaise.
But the GOP has to deliver. It has to pursue the policies of seeking to streamline the tax code and seek changes that will be accessible to the middle class. It needs to fight the attempts of massive regulation that is keeping the economy from maybe having a stronger recovery. It needs to stop the government from legalizing millions of illegal aliens and must, must support border security first, then reform. It must have the confidence of the American people that it can govern.
But the fact is that the Big Red Wave was just that. And it crashed on the Democrats hopes and dreams. Hopefully it will restore hope in the GOP and the American experience.

Monday, November 03, 2014

Will The GOP See Any Success In California

While the Republican party will enjoy very good success tomorrow evening, there are some precincts in the Union that the GOP will not make a huge wave and one of those places is California.
There are many reasons for this.
The most obvious reason is that the current governor, Democrat Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, built a $21,000,000 war chest that most respectable Republicans looked at and figured that they had no chance to compete against such a boatload of cash on hand for Gov. Brown. And the Republican candidate, Neel Kashkari, literally swooped in at the last possible moment to challenge state assemblyman Tim Donnelly for the Republican nomination. Because California now has an open, non-partisan primary, the top two finishers go on to the general election. Mr. Kashkari finished second and is the patsy against Gov. Brown. A good night for Mr. Kashkari will be if he can match the numbers of the last GOP gubernatorial candidate, Meg Whitman as far as votes. Mrs. Whitman spent about $140,000,000 to lose to Gov. Brown and attain 41% of the vote. If Mr. Kashkari can equal that at the limited money he has, he will have spent his money wisely. If he gets higher numbers, its gravy and shows that the GOP can be competitive in the once Golden State.
So, California has seven "constitutional" offices which means that those offices the voters decide. After the governor, there is the Lt. Governor. Can the GOP win this one? Probably not as Democrat incumbent Gavin Newsome should have similar numbers as Gov. Brown. What about Attorney General? Nope, for Democrat Kamala Harris has actually been an adequate A. G. for a a Democrat. Again, she will ride the Brown coattails. Mr. RVFTLC, is there any damn office left? Why I'm glad you asked. There are a couple of offices in which the GOP has a fighting chance. The first one is for Controller. The GOP candidate is the Republican mayor of Fresno, Ashley Swearingen. She finished first in the open primary and is facing off against Democrat No. Cal., Betty Yee. This appears to be a close enough race where Mrs. Swearingen can pull it off. I think that it will be close. If Mrs. Swearingen wins, she will be de facto leader of the California GOP. Even if Pete Petersen should win the Secretary of State, more on that shortly, Mrs. Swearingen will be the one seen as the leader. Now Mr. Petersen finished an agonizing close second in the open primary. Most analysts think this is also a winnable race for the GOP. If the GOP wins one or both, it will be seen as a sign the state GOP is making a comeback.
Another sign the California GOP would be showing signs of a comeback is to gain seats in the state legislature and even in the delegation to congress.
Currently, there are 15 Republican members of the 53 member congressional delegation. The state assembly has 24 Republicans and the state senate has 12 GOPers.
The state legislature is where the GOP needs to make some gains. Because the Democrats had a 2/3rd majority in both houses, a super majority, they did not need any GOP input on any legislation. But three senators have been embroiled in legal battles and are either out of the state senate or "on leave". That reduces the total number of senators from 40 to 37, thus ending that super majority. This maybe a tough hill to climb, but the GOP can get three seats and that will end the super majority when the state senate is back to 40 full members. The Democrats will still be in control, but the number will be 25 to 15. Considering there are only 12 members now, three more will make a huge difference. The same holds true in the state assembly. The magic number for the GOP is to hold their seats and win three more to bring their number to 27. That kills the super majority in the assembly. But again, the Democrats will be in charge 53 to 27.
O.K., I am the first to admit that seems to be small ball. And it is. But considering the Democrat juggernaut of 2010, to at least have a minority that puts something on money bills and gets some Democrat concessions is a start.
So what about congress?
One race to watch for is the 52nd congressional district. That pits incumbent Democrat congressman Scott Peters against Republican Carl DeMaio, the man that should have been mayor of San Diego. This is high on the GOP radar and money has been spent hand over fist on this one. It appears that this is in the too close to call category. A Republican win here will be a series of firsts. One, Mr. De Maio will be the first homosexual elected to congress as a Republican. Second, he will be the first to be married to a man under California law. Some very conservative groups are either sitting this one out or supporting the Democrat. Of course this being California, it is a big mistake for not supporting DeMaio. He's wrong on some of these issues, but he will be a good, reliable Republican vote. Another race is in the 33rd district in which is a open seat as Democrat Henry Waxman is retiring (thank Almighty God!). The Democrat is state senator Ted Lieu and the Republican is Elan Carr, a prosecutor in the Los Angeles county district attorney's office. Mr. Carr won a strong second place to face Sen. Lieu and is in contention. The district was redrawn in 2010 and is, surprisingly become a competitive district. That is why the GOP is helping Mr. Carr try to win here. Imagine the 40-year reign of Henry Waxman ends with the GOP winning his seat. Eternal justice if there ever was any!
Unlike 2010, the Democrats are not exactly pumped up for this election. After all the top of the ticket is already a winner in Gov. Brown. It's just a question of how badly Mr. Kashkari will be beaten by.
While the GOP is not in the greatest shape, the voters will have more motivation to actually vote. Although only 28% of registered voters, this maybe an election that they make inroads with decline to state (independent) voters. If that happens, then the party is on the comeback.
The Republican wave tomorrow night will be a good sized ripple in California. But will it be a strong enough ripple to help a beleaguered state GOP? I think it will be a better night than 2010 for state Republicans.

Tomorrow Will Be A Huge Republican Night

Tomorrow evening, probably pretty early here on the left coast, we will know the margin of  Republican control of the senate, an increased majority in the house and how many state houses will look like for the next two years.
One important reality is that my state, California, will not see much of a change as Gov. Jerry Brown will cruise to reelection. But there are chances for the GOP will make gains and begin a long march to respectability in the once Golden State. But that is for another post.
Let me say now that the GOP will get the six seats needed to take the majority and I think with a lot more ease than we are seeing in the polls to today.
And I will stipulate the three seats that are currently in Democrat hands most if not all analysts believe go the the GOP. Those seats are in Arkansas, South Dakota and West Virginia. There is nothing to comment on those seats except that it boosts the Republicans to 48 seats in the senate.
So, where do the votes come from to get the three more seats needed?
Well, there are a lot of places and these would be the three seats I believe will get the GOP over the top in no particular order.

State senator Joni Ernst (R) is ahead of the Democrat candidate, congressman Bruce Braley in the Real Clear Politics average of polls by 1.4% and that is the margin of error. But almost all polls are showing Sen. Ernst ahead and the highly respected Des Moines Register poll shows her ahead by seven points. And that may end up being the margin of victory. Sen. Ernst has ran a pretty flawless campaign while Rep. Braley has done everything possible to alienate a lot of potential voters, especially farmers which is a large voting bloc in Iowa.

The RVFTLC prediction:        Joni Ernst(R)     53%     Bruce Braley(D)   47%    GOP gain

This has turned into the bizarre race of the cycle. Current Democrat incumbent, Sen. Mark Udall should have been winning this race but decided he would run his campaign on the so-called "War on women" meme. Current Republican congressman, Cory Gardner, like Sen. Ernst, has run a flawless campaign by essentially taking much of the sail off of that made-up issue. But by running on such a non-issue, it appears that Sen. Udall is running himself out of a job. And the voters seem prepared to reward Rep. Gardner with a six-year term. According to the RCP average, Rep. Gardner is up about two percent.  And that maybe enough to even pull in a GOP governor against the equally hapless incumbent, John Hickenlooper. An aptly named pol if there ever was one.

The RVFTLC prediction:      Cory Garnder(R)  55%     Mark Udall          45%     GOP gain

The current Democrat incumbent is Sen. Mark Begich. Sen. Begich is lucky to be in this position because in 2008, he was able to ride a wave of one Barack Obama and a conviction of then-Sen. Ted Stevens (later overturned) to victory. A narrow one at that. This time around, the GOP has a strong candidate in Attorney General Dan Sullivan and he has had Sen. Begich on the ropes throughout this cycle. And it has been so strange to see Sen. Begich declare that the president of the United States, fellow Democrat Obama, to be irrelevant. It is not helping Sen. Begich anymore than anyone else to run away from the Dear Leader, President Obama. And Mr. Sullivan is ahead in the RCP polling average also about two percent.

The RVFTLC prediction:      Dan Sullivan(R)    55%     Mark Begich(D)        45%     GOP gain

And those are what I think will be the sure GOP bets to get to the magic number of 51 seats to control the senate.
So is there anywhere else that the GOP can win? Can they add to the senate majority they are expected to win tomorrow night?
Why yes, there is.
How about North Carolina? Well, this race has been one of the toughest fought on both sides. The current incumbent is Democrat Sen. Kay Hagan. Her Republican challenger is the speaker of the North Carolina house, Thom Tillis. The fact is that Sen. Hagan has been ahead this whole race but her margins are within the margin of error, usually between three to five percent either way. Sen Hagan is now averaging a lead of 0.7% in the RCP average of polls. That means as long as Mr. Tillis is this close and closing in, the chances are at minimum 50-50 he can pull off a close win. Will I dare to predict this one? Sure will. Here it is:

The RVFTLC prediction:      Thom Tillis(R)     50%     Kay Hagan(D)         48%     GOP gain

OK, there is an equally tight race in New Hampshire between Democrat incumbent Jeanne Shaheen and former Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown. Now I'll totally be fair here and while I like Sen. Brown, he can not live down the label of carpetbagger. Finding a place where he thought he could win election. He could have ran again in Massachusetts this year, but would have lost to the incumbent Sen. Ed Markey. It is the one thing that I believe may save Sen. Shaheen. But like Sen. Hagan, Sen. Shaheen is falling and her RCP poll average is also bellow a margin of one percent (0.9%). Mr. Brown is in range to win this and has to make a super strong closing argument and I think that he could. So, the fearless prediction is:

The RVFTLC prediction:      Scott Brown(R)     50%     Jeanne Shaheen(D)  48%    GOP gain

Now there are a couple of races that I will say could potentially hurt the GOP and dent some of the predictions made here. Meaning that all of the above need to happen to offset at least one or maybe two losses.
Kansas is one that may be a loss for the GOP but it may have happened no matter what. The GOP incumbent is Sen. Pat Roberts. Really he is a solid conservative. But what I think really hurt him is his inability to identify with his home state. He does not own a home in Kansas and rarely visits the state. And he had a bruising primary with Tea Party favorite, Milton Wolf, a cousin of the Dear Leader, President Obama, and only this past Friday Mr. Wolf endorsed Sen. Roberts reelection bid. He is being challenged by "Independent" candidate Greg Orman who, because of his showing in the polls, caused the Democrat candidate to bail out and the state supreme court said that was just fine. Mr. Orman is being blatantly endorsed now by the Democrat party. But Mr. Orman is very coy as to what party he will caucus with in Washington. In the past, he has been a active Democrat. But if he should win and the GOP is in the majority, he may well just keep the seat for the GOP. But it is a bad chance to take. I think that this goes to Mr. Orman but by a small margin.
In Louisiana, there is a strange way general elections are held. There is no primary. Essentially the primary is on the day of the general election. If one candidate, no matter what party, gets 50% plus one, they win. Since that rarely happens, there is a runoff between the top two vote getters in early December. The Democrat incumbent is one Sen. Mary Landrieu. She is facing two strong Republicans, one being current congressman Bill Cassidy and Rob Maness. One of those two will go on to the election in December. Most polls show that Rep. Cassidy will be that candidate. There is the polling for tomorrow here in which Sen. Landrieu is ahead but in December she will lose to Rep. Cassidy. I see this as a GOP pick up. Louisiana is just turning more and more Republican and this is an icing on that cake.
Is there one race, one race that is off the radar that could be a surprise win for the GOP tomorrow night? Any race?
One to look for could well be in Virginia. Democrat Sen. Mark Warner is facing former GOP chair Ed Gillespie. Polling has shown Sen. Warner consistently ahead. But Mr. Gillespie is closing the gap. How close can he get? Probably not enough to win. But if this race is not called right away by the networks tomorrow night, it could be a huge upset in the making.
All of this at the end gets the GOP control of the senate. If my predictions hold out, the GOP gets seven seats and the number in congress will be 52 seats. If there are huge upsets other than Virginia, it well could be ten seats and a lot of breathing room. But I am sticking with 52 to 48. Unless Greg Orman in Kansas surprises everyone and caucuses with the GOP. Then its 53-47.
So, what about the house?
No one has been talking much about the house, but I see really big gains that no one else does. Currently, the GOP has 234 house seats. There is a goal of gaining 16 to get to 250 seats. Not only do I think that it is doable, but more than likely. And many of the gains will happen in Blue states.
There are at least two to three seats that can go the GOP way in California. Yes, California. In New York state, two seats will change to the GOP for sure. Illinois and Ohio are possible GOP pickups. I see that the GOP will probably gain 20 seats and give them 254 seats.
One other thing that could pad the GOP majorities is Democrat defections. It is very possible. If Mr. Orman wins and decides he will caucus with the GOP, a possible defection is West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin. He may look at the landscape and think being in the minority sucks. And that he is more aligned with the GOP on some key issues. It's a possibility, but not overly likely.
Maybe some house members will come to the same conclusion. I would not be surprised if it happens.
On the state level, the GOP may pick up the governor's office in Colorado, Illinois and Massachusetts. But they may lose in Alaska to an Independent backed by former Gov. Sarah Palin. They may lose Florida to the insufferable Charlie Crist. And also Kansas. That leaves a wash at the governor's level. But they could pad their control of state legislatures and or make gains in some they do not control. In California, the GOP has to gain only one seat in each house to end the Democrat super majority they gained in the 2012 presidential election year. That would be substantial.
Tomorrow will be a huge night for the Republican party. They will gain control of the senate and make gains in governorships in Blue states. They will increase the majority they have in the house.
The big question we can start asking on Wednesday is what will all this mean for governing in the United States?