Category Archives: 2012 Election

Why Are Californian Republicans Such Sniveling Cowards?

image

There were two excellent candidates for governor in California’s June primary: Tim Donnely, a pro-family, pro-life, pro-Constitution, liberty-loving Tea Party Republican, and Robert Newman, a pro-family, pro-life, pro-Constitution independent.

So who did Californian Republicans vote for? Neel Kashkari, a Republican-in-name-only who supports Obamacare and admits he voted for aka-Obama, who once worked as a junior banker for Goldman Sachs, and who, in 2008, was given control of $700 billion of tax-payer money which he handed out to the banking industry, including his former employer, Goldman Sachs.

Ask Republicans why they voted for a such a candidate and their immediate response is, “We have to win in November.” And yet they keep losing.

Ever been to a Californian Republican meeting? I have, several times. Half the time is spent arguing over procedural matters, and the other half consists of members, who just happen to work for companies like Nation Builder, pitching their services, which just happen to be extremely expensive.

If someone has the temerity to suggest that the party embrace their conservative roots by coming out in strong support of the Constitution, the pro-life movement, traditional marriage, etc., they are applauded by most in attendance, but then told by the “leaders” that they are being “unrealistic.” “We have to win in November,” they say, and yet they keep losing.

Ever volunteered to work for the Republican Party? I have, several times. No one returned any of my phone calls or emails.

California Republicans loathe the Tea Party. They see the Tea Party as a threat to their established ways. They claim the Tea Party does not represent their members. And yet they keep losing.

In California there are numerous races in which the Republican Party does not even bother to run a candidate. “No chance to win,” they say. “We have to be realistic.” And yet they keep losing.

image

Orly Taitz ran for Attorney General as an independent in the June primary. Possessed with infinite courage and wisdom, Taitz would have done everything she could to clean house and expose political corruption. Did Republicans vote for her? No, they didn’t have the guts.

If you voted for Neel Kashkari in California’s primary, I’m calling you out. Why did you betray your state, your country, your family, and yourself by voting for such a man? Why are you such a damn, sniveling coward?

http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2011/07/02/the-gop-went-over-to-the-dark-side/

http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2012/11/15/why-the-gop-will-not-do-anything-about-vote-fraud/

57 Cops Murdered by “Unarmed” Criminals: From Stephen Frank

From Stephen Frank:

We are told a lot about Ferguson—how an unarmed man was shot by a police officer. The media called him “unarmed”. Since 2000 57 cops nationwide were shot to death by “unarmed” criminals. This happens when the criminal takes a gun from the cop and uses it to kill. Yet, the Times of any variety, the Post, etc. talk about a cop in Ferguson killing an “unarmed” man—without ANY facts.

The aftermath of police encounters with “unarmed” individuals — 57 murders

“While statistics for officers killed with their own weapons are hard to find, we know from the FBI and http://www.odmp.org that between 2000-10, at least51 officers were killed by suspects who used the officer’s own gun. Four officers were killed in 2011, one officer in 2013. While the data for 2014 is not final, we know that Johnson City (New York) Police Officer David Smith was murdered this past March with his own weapon.

Thus asking, “What justification do the police have for killing an unarmed suspect?” and answering “none” as former Police Chief Joseph McNamara did in this blog is pointless.”

0811-riot

57 Cops Killed by “UNARMED” Criminals

By LA Police Protective League, Board of Directors 08/26/2014

Repeated descriptions of a suspect as “unarmed” when shot by a police officer does not, contrary to the belief of the New York Times and others who use the term without further describing the facts of the encounter, determine if the force used by an officer was lawful or reasonable. Labeling the suspect as “unarmed” does not begin to answer the question of the danger they posed in each instance where deadly force was used.

According to the FBI’s online database of officers feloniously killed, as well as the Officer Down Memorial Page, since 2000, there have been at least 57 occurrences where the suspects have taken officers’ weapons and murdered the police officer with it. Fifty-seven times, loved ones of those officers heard the awful knock on their front door, notifying them that their husband, wife, father, mother, son or daughter would never be coming home again. Fifty-seven times, the threat that some loudly continue to claim does not exist, ended with fatal results.

While statistics for officers killed with their own weapons are hard to find, we know from the FBI andwww.odmp.org that between 2000-10, at least 51 officers were killed by suspects who used the officer’s own gun. Four officers were killed in 2011, one officer in 2013. While the data for 2014 is not final, we know that Johnson City (New York) Police Officer David Smith was murdered this past March with his own weapon.

Thus asking, “What justification do the police have for killing an unarmed suspect?” and answering “none” as former Police Chief Joseph McNamara did in this blog is pointless. Twenty-five years ago, in the case ofGraham v. Connor, the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal standard for evaluating a use of force. The U.S. Supreme Court wrote an officer’s action is judged in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. Crucially, the “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the “perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.” The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the “calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”

The reality is that police officers need and wear guns. Those firearms can be taken by “unarmed” suspects and turned against the officer. Many armchair experts across the country sit around their air-conditioned conference rooms, pondering their views on how police officers could kill an “unarmed suspect” and the non-existent threat they pose to officers. We must ask, what did they use to as the factual basis for their conclusions? Is it from fictional police dramas on TV? Gut instinct?

We won’t be so crass as to suggest that we give a gun to the columnists and editorial writers who equate “unarmed” with “not dangerous,” and then tell them that although we are unarmed, we are going to try to take that gun from them. If successful, we will use the gun to shoot them. While we are confident this scenario might slightly affect their mindset on “unarmed” suspects, the tragic reality is that scenario has happened at least 57 times in 14 years.

Until all of the facts surrounding the use of force by any officer are known, the urge to decide whether the use of deadly force was reasonable and lawful is simply a “rush to judgment”—no matter how many times the suspect is referred to as “unarmed.”

The Worst RACISTS in America! (They HATE Black People!)

Do you know who was the biggest supporter and promoter of slavery in America?

Do you know who was so outraged by the abolition of slavery in this country that they formed the Ku Klux Klan and participated in countless murders, beatings, and lynchings?

Do you know who is responsible for undermining the black father and removing him from the home, thus creating an endless cycle of crime and poverty within the black community?

Do you know who is most responsible for promoting abortion among black mothers?

Do you know who has the most to gain by maintaining an underclass of black Americans and preventing them from attaining financial independence?

Do you know who is most adamant about judging people by their skin color rather than their character?

Do you know who is the biggest promoter of division among the races today?

The answer to all of these questions is… the Democratic Party.

Are You Young and Dumb?

Here’s a quick quiz. Please answer A, B, or C, and please
be honest with yourself. (And note that young does not necessarily correspond to chronological age.) Are you:

A) Young and intelligent.

B) Young and misinformed.

C) Young and dumb.

Young and intelligent is weighing all sides of an issue and
then forming a viewpoint based on facts and logic. Most young
and intelligent people began life young and misinformed.

Somewhere along the line, they decided that maybe there were two sides to the stories they were being told, and then went out to investigate for themselves. Approximately 5-10% of the American population is young and intelligent.

Young and misinformed is believing everything you’ve been
told by your college professors and the mainstream media.

There’s no shame in being young and misinformed. 90% of all
Americans were young and misinformed at one time or another, and a good 60% of adult Americans remain in this group.

Someone who is young and misinformed has a distorted view
of reality, but is still intelligent enough to consider
alternative viewpoints. They just have never been exposed to
those alternative viewpoints.

Young and dumb is somebody who is not only young and
misinformed, they are also incapable of considering and judging
any viewpoints other than what they currently believe.

Even worse, the young and dumb don’t want to hear
alternative viewpoints. Their emotional state is so fragile
that to even consider alternative viewpoints is positively
frightening. Therefore, they refuse to look at any evidence
that contradicts their own myopic and misinformed view of the
world. They value opinion and emotions over facts and logic.

30% of all Americans are young and dumb, and they include
some of the most esteemed and educated individuals in our
country.

If you’re wondering where you fit in these three examples, ask yourself this:

Are you aware that aka Barack Obama is a pathological liar and who has broken the law on numerous occasions, including ordering the IRS to attack his opponents?

Are you aware that Michael Brown was videotaped performing a violent strong-arm robbery minutes before he was shot, and most likely assaulted the police officer who did shoot him?

Are you aware the Hillary Clinton left four Americans to die and then later infamously proclaimed, “What difference at this point does it make?”

Are you aware that the mainstream media routinely twists facts and fabricates lies in order to advance a leftist agenda?

Are you aware that most American universities are centers of leftist indoctrination?

If you answered YES to these five questions, then you belong in the first group. You are young and intelligent.

If you were caught off-guard by these questions, and have no idea how to answer them, you belong to the second group, the young and misinformed.

If you denied the reality of these five questions, then, alas, you are a member of the third group, the young and dumb. Please seek help now and at least attempt to educate yourself. The fact that you are on this site and reading this is a good sign and a good start. You’ve taken the first step to becoming young and intelligent.

Mike

A Primer on Race by Thomas Sowell

Back in the heyday of the British Empire, a man from one of the colonies addressed a London audience.

“Please do not do any more good in my country,” he said. “We have suffered too much already from all the good that you have done.”

That is essentially the message of an outstanding new book by Jason Riley about blacks in America. Its title is “Please Stop Helping Us.” Its theme is that many policies designed to help blacks are in fact harmful, sometimes devastatingly so. These counterproductive policies range from minimum wage laws to “affirmative action” quotas.

This book untangles the controversies, the confusions, and the irresponsible rhetoric in which issues involving minimum wage laws are usually discussed. As someone who has followed minimum wage controversies for decades, I must say that I have never seen the subject explained more clearly or more convincingly.

Black teenage unemployment rates ranging from 20 to 50 percent have been so common over the past 60 years that many people are unaware that this was not true before there were minimum wage laws, or even during years when inflation rendered minimum wage laws ineffective, as in the late 1940s.

Pricing young people out of work deprives them not only of income but also of work experience, which can be even more valuable. Pricing young people out of legal work, when illegal work is always available, is just asking for trouble. So is having large numbers of idle young males hanging out together on the streets.

When it comes to affirmative action, Jason Riley asks the key question: “Do racial preferences work? What is the track record?” Like many other well-meaning and nice-sounding policies, affirmative action cannot survive factual scrutiny.

Some individuals may get jobs they would not get otherwise but many black students who are quite capable of getting a good college education are admitted, under racial quotas, to institutions whose pace alone is enough to make it unlikely that they will graduate.

Studies that show how many artificial failures are created by affirmative action admissions policies are summarized in “Please Stop Helping Us,” in language much easier to understand than in the original studies.

There are many ponderous academic studies of blacks, if you have a few months in which to read them, but there is nothing to match Jason Riley’s book as a primer that will quickly bring you up to speed on the complicated subject of race in a week, or perhaps over a weekend.

As an experienced journalist, rather than an academic, Riley knows how to use plain English to get to the point. He also has the integrity to give it to you straight, instead of in the jargon and euphemisms too often found in discussions of race. The result is a book that provides more knowledge and insight in a couple of hundred pages than are usually found in books twice that length.

Unlike academics who just tell facts, Riley knows which facts are telling.

For example, in response to claims that blacks don’t do well academically because the schools use an approach geared to white students, he points out that blacks from foreign, non-English-speaking countries do better in American schools than black, English-speaking American students.

Asian students do better than whites in schools supposedly geared to whites. In New York City’s three academically elite public high schools — Stuyvesant, Bronx Science and Brooklyn Tech — there are more than twice as many Asian students as white students in all three institutions.

So much for the theory that non-whites can’t do well in schools supposedly geared to whites.

On issue after issue, “Please Stop Helping Us” cites facts to destroy propaganda and puncture inflated rhetoric. It is impossible to do justice to the wide range of racial issues — from crime to family disintegration — explored in this book. Pick up a copy and open pages at random to see how the author annihilates nonsense.

His brief comments pack a lot of punch. For example, “having a black man in the Oval Office is less important than having one in the home.”

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University

Godless California

Has California lost its mind?

Over the last six years, California lawmakers, almost all of them Democrats, have seized the mantle of Hope and Change to enact some of the wackiest and most dangerous legislation in decades.

The Correctional Law Amendment Bill, SBx3 18, sponsored by Democrat Denise Moreno Ducheny, authorized the early release of more than 27,000 California prison inmates. With the state’s 70% recidivism rate, those 27,000 early releases translate into 18,000 new crimes.

In a written statement condemning SBx3 18, the Republican Caucus wrote: “Among the inmates who could be eligible for early release under the Democrat plan include felons convicted of human trafficking, stalking, identity theft, violent child abuse, and threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction.”

SBx3 18 passed the California Senate by a 21-19 vote, with all 15 Senate Republicans voting against it, and all but 4 Democrats voting in favor. It was signed into law in October of 2009 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Already, at least four murders, including the stabbing death of a young mother on Hollywood Boulevard, have been attributed to the early release of prisoners through SBx3 18.

Democrat Mark R. Leno sponsored SB 48, the Requires Teaching Gay History Bill. SB 48 requires public schools and textbooks to portray homosexuality in a positive light, and issues a warning to “alternative and charter schools” to “take notice of the provisions in this bill.”

In other words, say goodbye to the heroic deeds of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Frederick Douglas, and say hello to the sexual exploits and lifestyles of Oscar Wilde, Ellen Degeneres, and Chaz Bono.

Nowhere does this bill mention the enormous cost to taxpayers to rewrite and reprint all of the state’s textbooks and school materials, and who will receive that money. Nor does it mention the huge consulting fees, also at taxpayer expense, paid to “experts” within the homosexual, transgender, and cross-dressing communities in order to rewrite all those textbooks and school materials.

SB 48, a thinly disguised attempt to force homosexuality, cross-dressing, and transgenderism past parents and into the minds of children, passed the California Senate by a vote of 23-14, with all 14 “no” votes coming from Republicans, and all 23 “yes” votes coming from Democrats; passed the California House by a vote of 50-26, with all 26 “no” votes coming from Republicans, and 49 Democrats and 1 Independent voting “yes”; and was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. It is now mandatory teaching for grades K-12.

In 2010, Democrat Sandra R. Swanson sponsored AB 1756, the Food Stamps for Felons Bill. AB 1756 states that it will “provide that a person convicted of any drug felony shall be eligible for aid under the Food Stamp program…”

AB 1756 passed the California House by a vote of 44-31, with 27 Republicans voting “no”, and 43 Democrats and 1 Independent voting “yes”.

Democrat Christine Kehoe sponsored SB 1338, a bill that would allow nurses and other non-physicians to perform dangerous suction abortions, a procedure in which the fetus’s body is torn apart. Thankfully, SB 1338 failed on a 4-4 vote in the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee, but was resurrected as AB 154 by Democrat Toni Atkins.

Despite meticulous documentation proving that gun control laws increase violent crime, California Democrats have introduced at least nine new bills over the last two years aimed at confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens.

As bad as all of the preceding California Senate and Assembly bills are, perhaps the worst one of all is AB 1266, Pupil Rights, sponsored by Democrat Tom Ammiano. AB 1266 states: “This bill would require that a pupil be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs; and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”

In other words, boys and girls, grades K-12, sharing bathrooms and showers at the same time.
AB 1266 passed the California Assembly by a vote of 46-25, with all Republicans voting “no”.

If you’re reading this and wondering how California Democrats can be so dumb, the answer is they’re not. Every move they make is calculated to advance a specific leftist agenda. Hollywood, the media, and big money are all on their side.

It’s fashionable today to claim there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats, but as these bills demonstrate, the difference is huge.

California: take away the fruits and flakes, and all that’s left are the nuts.

IRS Strikes Deal with Atheists to Monitor Churches and Sermons

IRS Strikes Deal With Atheists To Monitor Churches

Investors Business Daily, 7/31/14

First Amendment: Government’s assault on religious liberty has hit a new low as the IRS settles with atheists by promising to monitor sermons for mentions of the right to life and traditional marriage.

A lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) asserted that the Internal Revenue Service ignored complaints about churches’ violating their tax-exempt status by routinely promoting political issues, legislation and candidates from the pulpit.

The FFRF has temporarily withdrawn its suit in return for the IRS’s agreement to monitor sermons and homilies for proscribed speech that the foundation believes includes things like condemnation of gay marriage and criticism of ObamaCare for its contraceptive mandate.

The irony of this agreement is that it’s being enforced by the same Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division of the IRS that was once headed by Lois “Fifth Amendment” Lerner and that openly targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups.
Among the questions that the IRS asked of those targeted groups was the content of their prayers.

Those who objected to the monitoring of what is said and done in mosques for signs of terrorist activity have no problem with this one, though monitoring what’s said in houses of worship is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Can you say “chilling effect”?

Congress can make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. So it’s not clear where the IRS gets off doing just that by spying on religious leaders lest they comment on issues and activities by government that are contrary to or impose on their religious consciences. Our country was founded by people fleeing this kind of government-monitored and mandated theology last practiced in the Soviet Union.

The FFRF cites as its authority the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which states that tax-exempt groups cannot endorse candidates. A 2009 court ruling determined that the IRS must staff someone to monitor church politicking.

The FFRF claims that the IRS has not adhered to the ruling and that the settlement amounts to enforcing both the Johnson Amendment and the court ruling.

But is the Catholic Church “politicking” when it proclaims its “Fortnight for Freedom” dedicated to opposing ObamaCare’s contraceptive mandate and the government’s forcing schools and charities it considers an extension of its faith to include it in insurance coverage or face crippling fines?

Are Protestant and evangelical churches “politicking” when they participate in “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” this year on Oct. 5 to encourage congregations to “vote their faith,” which they consider to be an exercise of free speech and freedom of religion?

The FFRF says that such events at “rogue churches” have “become an annual occasion for churches to violate the law with impunity.” But doesn’t the Constitution say that Congress can make no such laws?

Rather than “rogue churches,” it’s the rogue IRS that needs to be stopped.