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.

Waterboarding Prevented 9/11-style Attack on L.A.

Let me just start by saying that I 100% support waterboarding when necessary. If it’ll help save American lives, I support it. Go ahead. Call me ignorant, a bigot, and uninformed. I know what waterboarding is and how it is used. But like I said, if it saves American lives, I’m all for it.

(CNSNews.com) – The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM)— including the use of waterboarding—caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack—which KSM called the “Second Wave”—planned ” ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.”

KSM was the mastermind of the first “hijacked-airliner” attacks on the United States, which struck the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Northern Virginia on Sept. 11, 2001.
Continue reading

Miss California Stands up for Traditional Marriage

The following is a letter from Ron Prentice, Chairman of the Yes on 8 Campaign in California.

Last night during the Miss USA contest, one of the contest judges, gay gossip blogger Perez Hilton, asked Miss California Carrie Prejean that since Vermont has now legalized gay marriage shouldn’t every state follow suit? Ms. Prejean had the courage to express her views and said, “Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

Ms. Prejean’s comments were cheered by the crowd, but a smattering of jeers could be heard in the background by a few who were incensed at her answer. According to FoxNEWS.com, arguments broke out in the lobby of the theater, with one gay man shouting, “I think it’s ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are.” Is there an unwritten rule that Miss USA contestants must hold values in agreement with homosexual activists?

For his own part, Hilton immediately cut a video blog where he ripped Ms. Prejean, calling her a “stupid b***h” and referring to her in language so vile that it can’t even be hinted at by its first letter. Ms. Prejean was named runner-up in the contest and today there was considerable discussion in the blogosphere about whether her answer might have cost her the title. Prejean told FoxNEWS.com that she had “no regrets” and was happy with the answer she gave.

We’re very proud of Ms. Prejean for speaking her mind in support of traditional marriage. She represented the silent majority in America and expressed a point of view that over 7 million California voters also expressed just last November. In fact, in the history of this issue every single state that has voted on it has voted to affirm traditional marriage. The outcry from some activists in the gay community over Ms. Prejean’s comments are indicative of how far they will go to force their same-sex marriage agenda on society.

Miss California is vilified by Perez Hilton in a video blog for respectfully answering his question, and gay men are shouting against her in the theater lobby. Yet we are supposed to take homosexual leaders at face value that if same-sex marriage were legalized they would never force this teaching onto children in the schools.

Thank you, Miss California, for knowing the truth about marriage and standing up for it, even when you knew that your honest answer may hinder your chances for the crown of Miss USA.

Presidential Legal Counsel Sees Pregnancy as Slavery

With [the President’s] appointment of Dawn Johnsen, a former NARAL [National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League] attorney, as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of the Legal Counsel, pro-life advocates already know they are getting an abortion advocate in the position. But Johnsen goes further and views pregnancy as slavery.

Johnsen is a professor at the Indiana University School of Law, but she is also a longtime abortion advocate and worked for one of the leading abortion advocacy groups. Johnsen was the legal director for NARAL from 1988-1993.

In an article at National Review, Andrew McCarthy says that Johnsen’s view of pregnancy as slavery wasn’t just an off-the-cuff remark. “It was her considered position in a 1989 brief filed in the Supreme Court,” he explains, and the legal papers she filed concerned a Missouri law banning taxpayer funding of abortions. In the papers, Johnsen said that any restriction that makes abortion less accessible is, in her view, tantamount to “involuntary servitude” because it “requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest [in the life of the unborn].”