As we can see from the desperate economic and fiscal woes of California, New Jersey, New York and other states with dominant public unions, this has become a major problem for the U.S. economy and small-d democratic governance. It may be the single biggest problem. The agenda for American political reform needs to include the breaking of public unionism's power to capture an ever-larger share of private income.
Eventually these public service unions kill the host. See above-mentioned NY, NJ, & CA.
If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.
On Thursday a small group of Senate and Assembly members will hold the first of what's expected to be a slew of daily public sessions to wrangle over the details of the budget.
Schwarzenegger has called for cuts that would hit every corner of the state. He announced plans to lay off 5,000 of the state's 235,000 workers and has proposed slashing education by up to $5 billion, selling state properties, borrowing $2 billion from local governments and potentially reducing eligibility for healthcare programs.
There is only one way to control spending: Cut taxes.
Sure, California has been able to borrow and whatnot until now. But their attempt to securitize future lotto proceeds failed. Thus far their pleas for a bailout from the Feds have failed too. I'm sure they'll give that at least one more go.
Even in one of the more liberal states in the country, higher taxes couldn't get a majority. Let this be a lesson to Congress: Eventually all your borrowing & spending is going to lead to higher taxes. When you do, you will get tossed. And whoever replaces you will cut your beloved nanny-state programs & the taxes that fund them.
Fresh off the set of their latest film criticizing HUAC & commie blacklists, Hollywood celebs roundly criticized Miss California, and, in what is fast-becoming their go-to move, blacklisted her for daring to stray from SAG-approved politics.
Entertainment blogger Perez Hilton wasn't subtle after Miss California Carrie Prejean said she favored limiting marriage to a man and woman in response to a judge's question about gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant. He called her "a bi[0]tch" and "the [seaward]" on camera afterwards. [ed. note: this is a family blog, after all] She responded merely by saying she felt sorry for him.
In a calmer moment, Mr. Hilton insisted: "Miss USA should represent all Americans, and with her statement she instantly was divisive and alienated millions of gays and lesbians, their families, friends and supporters." Hmmm. It was only five months ago that a majority of California voters voted to limit marriage in just the way Ms. Prejean suggested -- to a man and woman. A national survey by ABC News finds that voters still opposed the concept of gay marriage by 58% to 36%. Sounds to me like Mr. Hilton wants Miss USA pageant winners to only represent his viewpoint. Indeed, Mr. Perez told ABC News that her answer on gay marriage sealed Ms. Prejean's loss of the title: "She lost it because of that question. She was definitely the front-runner before that." Ms. Prejean eventually finished second.
Hollywood has spent more than half a century railing against the anti-Communist blacklists of the 1950s that prevented some people from working in the movie industry. Woody Allen, George Clooney and other celebrities have produced liberal-minded films purporting to show how evil the blacklist was and upbraiding those who were silent while it was imposed.
Well, a new blacklist is being created right now, though few celebrities have dared to deplore it. Last December, Scott Eckern, artistic director of the California Musical Theater in Sacramento, the state's largest nonprofit performing arts company, donated $1,000 to the "Yes on 8" campaign against gay marriage. Protests from the producer of the Broadway musical "Hairspray" and many other show business people soon forced him to resign.
Similarly, Los Angeles Film Festival Director Richard Raddon was forced to step down after it was revealed he had donated $1,500 to "Yes on 8." The festival's organizer put out a statement blandly saying: "Our organization does not police the personal, religious or political choices of any employee, member or filmmaker." Behind the scenes, however, many of the festival's board members pressured Mr. Raddon to resign. "From now on, no one in entertainment is going to feel safe making a donation as measly as $100 to a conservative defense-of-marriage campaign," says Brent Bozell, head of the conservative Media Research Center.
Nor if Ms. Prejean's experience is any guide will many people be willing to exercise their free speech rights if they oppose gay marriage.
I believe this is what the kids call "hypocrisy."
If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.
And here's the states in which the writers of this blog take particular interest:
- Washington City: Kennewick, Richland, Pasco When: April 15, 4:00 pm - 7:00 pm Where: John Dam Plaza - Located between George Washington Way and Jadwin Avenue, north of Knight Street
- New York City: New York City When: April 15, 7:00pm - 9:00pm Where: City Hall Park
- Utah City: Provo When: April 15, 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm Where: US Post Office Provo (East Bay), 210 East 900 South CHANGE: Old Utah County Courthouse at the corner of University and Center
- California City: Simi Valley When: April 15, 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM Where: Reagan Library, 40 Presidential Drive
There isn't a whole lot we can do (until the next election) to let the morons in government know that we will not tolerate increased spending and higher taxes--this is one.
Celebrate a great American tradition and chuck some tea tax in the ocean.
For my California readers, I'm probably massively understating things to say that Gov. Terminator has been a disappointment to his conservative supporters. Would it be better if I called him a massive disappointment?
I don't know what else to say--other than to point out that he's married to a member of the Kennedy clan and, well, what did you expect?
You [reporters] did such lovely work for [Obama]. You put your lives on hold to put him in the White House. Now you get all dressed up, the champagne's on ice, and you find out he's just not that into you.
Hell hath no fury like the media scorned. Congressional Democrats better hope that Obama kisses and makes up with their fellow travelers in the MSM before the 2010 elections.
In a surprise move, state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to invalidate Proposition 8. He said the November ballot measure that banned gay marriage "deprives people of the right to marry, an aspect of liberty that the Supreme Court has concluded is guaranteed by the California Constitution."
It's only a surprise because he's ignoring his legal obligation to defend Prop 8--no matter his personal preference (see what I did there?). He has been antagonistic towards the traditional marriage crowd for, well, ever.
Most everyone who followed wondered what, exactly, he would do to defend Prop 8 as AG. Many of us worried that it would be 'damned by faint defense.' Now we don't have to worry about that. Brown has been outed.
In the run-up to last week's round-table discussion on PJTV, I thought a lot about what I wanted to say. After consulting with my brother and a Wise Man, I concluded that I would speak to the strength of social conservatism, as evidenced by Prop 8's passage in California.
(In the end, it didn't really matter, as they just wanted to talk about conservatism on college campuses.)
Specifically, as prompted by this point from the aforementioned Wise Man, I wanted to talk about Mormonism's inclusion in the broader coalition of socially conservative Christians:
given the demographic change that now favours the Democratic Party and certainly the voting in California on Prop 8 bore this out--young people voted overwhelmingly against it--and seeing the excellent cooperation between Catholics, Evangelicals and Mormons--isn't now the time to embrace Mormons who are bucking the demographic trend (largest families amongst Christian denominations in America) into the Conservative alliance
Indeed, this may be the silver lining to the cloud of persecution facing Mormons post-Prop 8. There is no question that members of the Church of Jesus Christ played a lead role in GOTV in favor of Prop 8 and that they also funded much of the Yes on 8 ad campaign.
Members of other Christian faiths witnessed Mormons' efforts first-hand and have seen the persecution these efforts brought in the wake of Prop 8's passage.
A recent press release from the LDS church notes the common cause coalition being built by the fight for traditional marriage. Michael Barber, Professor at John Paul the Great Catholic University:
As a Catholic school, we stand beside our friends in the Mormon Church and of people of faith who work tirelessly to preserve the freedom of religion in America. We also strongly oppose any attempt to ridicule another person’s faith, even faiths with which we have strong historical and theological disagreements."
This is the key point: theological differences ought to be put aside in favor of a partnership in defense of common goals and values.
Mormons can and should make common cause with other faiths on issues regarding life (abortion, stem-cell research, assisted suicide, etc.), family (marriage, divorce, adoption, etc.) and other issues without having to get into debates about theological questions.
Chuck Colson, The Christian Post:
Two days after the election, 2,000 homosexual protesters surrounded a Mormon temple in Los Angeles chanting 'Mormon scum.' Protesters picketed Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, holding signs reading 'Purpose-Driven Hate.' Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills was spray painted. Church members' cars have been vandalized, and at least two Christians were assaulted. Protesters even hurled racial epithets at African-Americans because African-Americans voted overwhelmingly in favor of traditional marriage. What hypocrisy from those who spend all of their time preaching tolerance to the rest of us!
Apart from highlighting the hipocrisy of the tolerance crowd, this comment groups together 3 churches which never would have found themselves on the same side of any question prior to Prop 8. Calvary Chapel and Saddleback Church have typically been critical of Mormonism, but on marriage, they agree.
Again, this is where the focus should be.
Rod Dreher, Beliefnet.com:
Now is the time for traditional Christians -- Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox -- to come to the aid of our Mormon friends. They put themselves on the front line of the traditional marriage battle like no other church group. And now individual Mormons are paying a terrible price for standing up for something we all believe in. I don't know how we can stand with them from afar, but at least we can thank them, and speak out when we see them being abused. We might also think again about how we view them. … I have deep disagreements with Mormon theology. But they are our friends and allies and fellow citizens, and they deserve our thanks and support.
This is the time. On the most important questions that face American families (especially from a socially conservative, religious perspective), Mormons and "traditional" Christians see eye-to-eye.
If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.
As I've written several times in the past: For the homosexual community, this fight was never and will never be just about being allowed to be married. It is about forcing the rest of the United States to accept as normal every aspect of their lifestyle. It's about forcing it into our churches, schools, and the institution of marriage.
The word marriage has always described, for thousands of years, the unique relationship between man and wife. Words matter. Understandings and definitions of words matter. They affect how we look and think about the objects and ideas behind them.
I won't lump all homosexuals together, because I know there are many who just want to live and let live. But there are many, some in the video below, for whom the main goal is to militantly break down and destroy the thousands of years old understanding of marriage. They've demonstrated this over the course of the campaign for Prop 8 and violently in the aftermath of their loss by 600,000 votes in the liberal state of California.
(thanks to Lance G. for the vid)
And, of course, the Prop 8 loss caused someone to send suspicious white powder (code for 'maybe anthrax') to the Mormon temples in LA and SLC.
UPDATE 16 November 5:11am BST: Laura W. writes: "Not sure if you heard, but the little old lady who was spit on and vilified in that vid is pressing charges, and they are using that vid to identify the suspects... Go, Little Old Lady!"
You know, in a democracy such as ours, these people have alternatives: They can try and persuade people to see the world the way they do and then vote accordingly, or they can harass sweet old ladies, threaten, vandalize, assault, send suspicious white powder (this is just a short list, readers have written me about more).
Given that they failed in California (California!), I wonder where they can succeed? This makes pro-marriage amendments 30 for 30 in terms of approval by statewide initiative (that is, amendments like this one have passed in the 30 states that have put it to a vote).
So, they'll follow the time honored tradition of liberal activists throughout the ages (like, the last 30 years or so): Get some liberal, activist judge to overturn the emphatically voted will of the people, you know, because she/he is more enlightened and knows better than the millions of Californians who voted to amend their constitution to protect marriage.
Mind you, this is a preemptive rant (the Bush Doctrine at work). I hope I don't really have to use it.
If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.
On Tuesday, by a margin of 52 to 48 percent, voters in California amended their state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, as did voters in Florida (62 to 38 percent) and Arizona (56 to 44 percent).
Those who argue social conservatism is behind the GOP’s current electoral malaise take note: In Arizona marriage outperformed John McCain by 2 percentage points, in Florida by 14 percentage points, and in California by 15 percentage points.
The Arizona win, reversing a defeat for a marriage amendment in that state in 2006, also restores to state marriage amendments an unblemished record of victory: They have won in 30 out of 30 states where they have been on the ballot.
What lesson can we take from Tuesday’s marriage victories? Here’s one obvious one: Americans still care a great deal about this issue. The California supreme court may have believed that the public would acquiesce when it foisted same-sex marriage on the state earlier this year. But the successful campaign to overturn its ruling was an astonishing effort, unprecedented for a social issue, that raised more than 100,000 volunteers and almost $40 million from over 60,000 donors.
How have the leaders of the movement for same-sex marriage responded to their California loss at the ballot box? The same way they usually do: by getting lawyers to make ever more outrageous arguments to impose their values on unwilling people. (The ACLU is preparing to argue that a one-sentence definition of marriage constitutes such a wholesale revision of California’s constitution that the California Supreme Court should invalidate Prop 8.)
Just before they lost on Tuesday in California, same-sex marriage advocates in California descended to a new low. A group affiliated with Moveon.org, United Healthcare Workers, and the California Nurses Association released a television ad, “Home Invasion,” which portrayed Mormon missionaries as ransacking a California home: “We’re from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We’ve come to take away your rights.” (The ad was referring to the financial contributions Mormon citizens had made to the initiative campaign.) Are there any other religious minority groups whose political giving liberals believe should be stigmatized? Can we expect the Anti-Defamation League to speak up?
So far, not a single same-sex marriage advocate in California or outside of it has been willing to repudiate this vicious tactic: not MoveOn.org, of course, and not the ACLU or the Human Rights Campaign either. But also not, for example, Sen. Diane Feinstein, who appeared in an anti-Prop 8 TV ad saying that “we must always say no to discrimination.” But not, it seems, to bigotry.
The current conflict over marriage is in part a proxy for a larger ongoing conflict about the role of religious people and religious values in public life. As courts come to endorse the principle that sexual orientation is just like race, American government is going to find itself in the position of treating traditional faith communities just like racists. Voters should beware — if they are consulted on the matter.
(emphasis added)
Religious bigotry is the last acceptable form of bigotry in this country.
One of the lessons to be drawn from this election is that social conservatism is alive and well. Coupled with fiscal conservatism and strong-on-defense foreign policy positions, conservatism as a whole, has a bright future.
Conservatives must do as Ronald Reagan always did when confronted with a new problem: Return to first principles. It's why we are conservatives--because we have sure principles which we can always apply to new problems, if we work and think hard enough.
If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.
As I've argued from the beginning, it's not enough that homosexuals be allowed to have civil unions, they have to be married and recognized as such.
It's about forcing their worldview on others.
In the schools. And in the courts.
Their latest salvo, this time attacking the LDS church & their missionaries is just another example of how they are willing to tear down good cultural institutions--marriage, family, religion. They and their fellow travelers are willing to sacrifice all these things.
Latter-day Saint Church leaders issued this statement today: "The Church has joined a broad-based coalition in defense of traditional marriage. While we feel this is important to all of society, we have always emphasized that respect be given to those who feel differently on this issue. It is unfortunate that some who oppose this proposition have not given the Church this same courtesy."
Please share your strong feelings with your local TV stations who are airing these commercials, and notify the FCC at 888-225-5233 that you feel that these ads are inflammatory. LDS Missionaries have had almost nothing to do with this campaign, and are now becoming targets for hate acts.
Call your local TV station and tell them how you feel. Sure, this is America, they can run the ad. But that doesn't mean we have to watch their station and boost their ad revenue. If enough of their viewers call and complain, hopefully they'll pull the ad rather than risk losing viewers. Plus, it wouldn't be the first time a TV station pulled an ad because the station director or whoever thought it was in bad taste, etc.
If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.
(image) According to 538, a surge in turnout among African-American (especially) voters and latinos would tend to help the cause of us Yes on 8ers. It may lead to a greater win for Obama in California, but the state was lost to a Republican candidate from the get-go anyway.
I'll take what I can get from the left coast--Yes on 8 is a good start.
UPDATE 11:15pm BDT: I almost forgot and definitely don't want to: Check out reader Laura W.'s pro-Prop 8 blog. She provides good on-the-ground information.
If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.
Issues relating to the family are important to this blog. Last Spring, the California State Supreme Court ruled against traditional marriage--repudiating a clear democratic majority of the state and misinterpreting key parts of the state constitution.
Californians responded by getting over a million signatures--more than enough to get a measure on the ballot this fall which would alter the California constitution in favor of defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.
It's likely the measure will pass.
Despite California's reputation as a state that votes Democrat, a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage enjoys a clear majority.
But the leftists in the state were never going to leave it up to the people. In this case, Jerry Brown is the one doing the meddling. Per John Fund of the Wall Street Journal:
California Attorney General Jerry Brown is stepping outside his law enforcement role and playing politics with a November ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriage in the state.
Backers of the measure collected some one million signatures this spring under a title approved by Mr. Brown's office that made it clear the measure would "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid." Since the signatures were collected, the state Supreme Court has ruled same-sex marriage constitutional but also allowed the ballot measure to go before voters.
Mr. Brown, a candidate for governor in 2010, has apparently decided to make a play for liberal Democratic primary voters by changing his own office's description of the measure. It now reads that the ballot initiative seeks "to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry," a much more negative way of describing the measure. His office says the meaning is the same.
But both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage "know that to some voters -- perhaps a decisive bloc in a close election -- the new ballot title language could make the measure sound punitive by eliminating a 'right,'" notes Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters.
Lawyers question the validity of Mr. Brown's move. If the meaning is the same, why is the change needed? If the meaning is different, the change contradicts the petition that placed the proposition on the ballot. Either way, the change is groundless.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
If only Obama and his handlers could be so good to Republicans. Running against an Obama-Edwards ticket would be a dream come true for John McCain.
Is John Edwards supposed to help Senator Obama with blue collar Democrats? Edwards is the guy who spends hundreds of dollars on hair cuts, lives in a multi-million dollar mansion, and made his money as a trial lawyer (admittedly, a strong Democratic constituency).
Obama's ignorance of West Virginia and Kentucky is of a piece with his "bitter" comments in San Francisco. We know how some of our Democratic friends feel about "small-town hicks." They, like their fav. candidate, can barely conceal their contempt for these people and their favorite issues.
As our friend Morgan would say, "we've got a newsflash for you, Walter Cronkite," Obama is going to need these voters to win the election in the fall. Otherwise, he'll be just another Michael Dukakis.
***
Speaking of Republican electoral dreams, liberals seem hell-bent on aligning the stars for Republicans in a year when they need everything to go right to win the White House or even hope to maintain seats (to say nothing of picking up new ones) in Congress. We're talking, of course, about the California Supreme Court decision to allow gay marriage. This, in defiance of 61% of California voters who, in 2000, voted in favor of an initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Word out of California is that gay marriage opponents will have sufficient signatures to put a California State Constitution amendment on the ballot this November defining, once again, marriage as between a man and a woman.
In an uninspiring year for conservative voters, this could be just the thing to get them out to vote. And if they're already there voting on this amendment, it's likely they'll also vote for John McCain (and other conservative Republicans).
(evil genius alert: this ruling is probably one of Karl Rove's sinister plans)
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
