California’s Proposition 8 Upheld – The Rule of the People Still Matters!

This article was taken from World Net Daily and was posted on Tuesday, May 26, 2009.

The California Supreme Court today affirmed a voter-approved state constitutional amendment that limits marriage to one man and one woman.

But in a decision today that essentially was a 6-1 vote, the court upheld the estimated 17,000 to 18,000 same-sex relationships that were formalized last year between its approval of “gay marriage” in May and the November ballot initiative that overruled the decision

“We conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision. As a quantitative matter, petitioners concede that Proposition 8 – which adds but a single, simple section to the Constitution – does not constitute a revision,” said the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald George.

“As a qualitative matter, the act of limiting access to the designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples does not have a substantial or, indeed, even a minimal effect on the governmental plan or framework of California that existed prior to the amendment. Contrary to petitioners’ claim in this regard, the measure does not transform or undermine the judicial function; this court will continue to exercise its traditional responsibility to faithfully enforce all of the provisions of the California Constitution, which now include the new section added through the voters’ approval of Proposition 8,” he said.

“Furthermore, the judiciary’s authority in applying the state Constitution always has been limited by the content of the provisions set forth in our Constitution, and that limitation remains unchanged,” said George. Continue reading

The American’s Creed

Below is the American’s Creed. On this Memorial Day weekend may we remember all those who have sacrificed for this nation and given their lives so we might be free. They are the true heroes of our land.

“I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people by the people, for the people, whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a Republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect Union, one and inseparable; established upon those principls of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my Country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag, and to defend it againest all enemies.”

American’s Creed taken from this site.

We Deafeated Props 1A-E—Now What?

From the Wall Street Journal, posted on May 22, 2009

California voters sent a blunt but welcome message Tuesday about runaway government. By rejecting by nearly two-to-one the political establishment’s $16 billion in higher taxes, spending gimmickry and more borrowing, the voters said it’s time government faced the same spending limits that the recession is imposing on everyone else.

Teachers unions, business leaders and the politicians outspent initiative opponents by six-to-one, and they still lost. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had warned that if these initiatives were voted down, government services would have to be slashed, criminals released early and public employees furloughed. But voters decided that as painful as these cuts may be, the alternative of letting the state’s tax-and-spend machine continue was worse. How right they are.

The response so far from Sacramento is typically short-sighted. Mr. Schwarzenegger, legislators and public-worker unions are now conspiring to roll out plan B: a federal bailout. The Governor was in Washington on Tuesday and, sounding like a Detroit auto executive, declared: “We need assistance.” As a starter he wants a federal guarantee on California’s next $6 billion bond offering.

But a federal bailout is an injustice to the residents of other states, especially those that run their governments responsibly. Why should taxpayers in Colorado, Virginia or Ohio pay for California’s incompetence? Worse, one price of a bailout could be an Obama Administration demand that California remove its requirement for a two-thirds legislative majority to pass a tax increase. Another possible political target is repeal of the Proposition 13 property tax limitation. Yet these are the only remaining restraints on the appetites of the political class. Continue reading

Who Are The Intolerant Ones?

The Day of Silence was a day that children were encouraged to remain silent the entire day at school in honor of their LGBT classmates. Rather than encouraging this, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute’s Karen England encouraged parents to keep their children home from school rather than allow a day to be wasted in non-teaching. As a result, Mrs. England was threatened and extra security had to be placed at Capitol Resource Institute. The following is a video of some of the emails, voicemails, and communication she received as a result of her suggestion.

And I ask you, who are the ones who are intolerant here?

Why I Oppose SB 572—Establishment of a Day of Recognition for Harvey Milk

California Senate Bill 572 as proposed by Senator Mark Leno would establish a day of recognition for Harvey Milk, a homosexual activist. As the bill states, “This bill would provide that the Governor proclaim May 22 of each year as Harvey Milk Day, and would designate that date as having special significance in public schools and educational institutions and would encourage those entities to conduct suitable commemorative exercises on that date.”

Harvey Milk’s life was characterized not by contributions to this state, but by contributions to the LGBT movement. Therefore, dedicating a day to him would be dedicating a day to the LGBT movement, not to honoring a man who helped California. And as of right now, there are 16 student-led days honoring the multi-sexual movement (everything from Day of Silence, Gay Pride Day, to the festivities surrounding Martin Luther King Jr Day). Do we really need to take another day away from school to teach about Harvey Milk?

If it’s just about the fact he was brutally murdered, why not have a Mayor Moscone Day? They were both killed for the same reason—they did not want Mr. White to have his position back as supervisor. Mr. Milk was not murdered because he was gay, so why are we even considering a state day of recognition for him that would promote the LGBT lifestyle?

There are more deserving people who should receive a day of recognition before Harvey Milk. What about Walt Disney who brought billions of dollars of revenue into our state and who continues to encourage children to hope, dream, and achieve great things. What about Ronald Reagan who was a California governor who went on to become President and essentially, end Russia’s control of Germany?

If we really want to designate a day of recognition to someone who did nothing for our state but was a civil rights leader, what about Jackie Robinson? He broke the color barrier in baseball here in Los Angeles. His courage has had more impact on our state and our nation than Harvey Milk has.

Side Note: I am not in favor of a Walt Disney Day, a Ronald Reagan Day, or a Jackie Robinson Day. I believe we should allow the teachers to teach their curriculum without taking time out for special interest days. As it is, our children rank as some of the poorest educated in the nation. Last year 69% of 8th graders were not proficient in reading skills. 23% couldn’t do basic math and writing exercises. We need to focus on educating our children who are suffering from a lack of education already.

What it comes down to is Harvey Milk is a local figure who, as Governor Schwarzenegger has said, should be and has been honored locally. There are several schools named after Harvey Milk, recreation centers and parks bear his name, local clubs and organizations honor him, a movie has been made about his life, and a bust of him was introduced in front of San Francisco City Hall not long ago. We don’t need a state mandate to honor Harvey Milk.

Mr. Black recently said that it would cost nothing to have this day of recognition but it would cost much to not have it. He alluded to the fact that many children face name-calling and bullying based on their sexuality. If that is happening, then schools are not obeying the law. Law already states that children are not allowed to be discriminated against based on race, sexuality, or any ethnic diversity. That’s something that Harvey Milk Day wouldn’t help, but schools enforcing state law would help.

In the end, I think we can all agree that our children’s primary focus at school should be learning. Learning the basics of reading, writing, arithmetic, and science so they have a better chance of succeeding in the world. Since we’re obviously failing in those areas, it’s time we got back to focusing on schooling rather than politicking in the classroom.

The Truth about the “Hate Crimes Bill”

H.R. 1913—the “Hate Crimes Bill”—passed the House of Representatives last week and is up soon in the Senate, even as soon as this week. This “Hate Crimes Bill” would make it illegal to not only commit a hate crime against someone but also “cause” a hate crime through your speech. It protects lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual (LGBT) people along with pedophiles and 30 other sexual orientations from being spoken against in public.

The reasoning for this bill is said to be a “hate epidemic” against LGBT people in America. But is there really a rash of people murdering LGBT people? Let’s examine the facts in the following article put out by this website.

There is no epidemic of hate against LGBT persons in America.

FBI hate crime statistics prove our point: FBI statistics on “hate crimes” against a person’s sexual orientation from 2007 (the latest available) reveal the following: In 2007 there were 1,521 victims of “sexual orientation” bias (Table 7). However, the breakdown of these crimes is listed as:

* 335 were crimes of intimidation (shouting or name-calling)

* 448 were crimes of simple assault (defined as pushing or shoving without physical injury)

* 242 were crimes of aggravated assault (defined as bodily harm)

* 9 bias murders were committed.

(Source: FBI statistics 2007)

In short, there were only 242 crimes against a person’s sexual orientation that could be considered “violent.” And, twenty-seven of these bias crimes were directed against heterosexuals! All together, there were 9,535 victims of bias crimes in 2007. This includes bias against race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, disability, or multiple-bias incidents.

The FBI statistics do not indicate how many of these “violent hate crimes” were committed by homosexuals against other homosexuals – or what provoked the violence.

Out of a total number of 855,856 cases of aggravated assault in 2007, only 242 were directed at LGBT individuals. This is only 0.02827578411446785% of all aggravated assaults! This is not an epidemic of hate against LGBT individuals.

So, in a nation of 300 million people, there were only 242 “violent” crimes against homosexuals, bisexuals or drag queens in 2007. This is no epidemic of hate and local law enforcement does not need intrusive federal intervention to deal with such a miniscule number of crimes.

TAKE ACTION: Contact your two U.S. Senators immediately and ask them to vote NO on S. 909 or any variation of H.R. 1913.