Wednesday, August 31, 2005

"Baby Got Book!" White Boy DJ Wants a Woman With the Word!



Post one funny video and everybody starts sending you stuff!

This parody of Sir MixAlot's "Baby Got Back!" features the type of women all men should be looking for. One that is not ashamed to show off her faith as opposed to her body!

Is this video:
1. Sacrilegious? Maybe
2. Cheesy? Yes
2. Over the Top? Definitely
3. Funny? YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT!!!!!

Click Here to see the video.

(Hat tip to whiteboydj.com)

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

33 years of Title IX - Thanks for Destroying Small College Sports!


This morning I watched on as the California Assembly passed a resolution honoring the 33rd anniversary of Title IX. As a big supporter of women in sports and a believer in the goals of this landmark measure, I have to admit my disgust at how Title IX has been used to eliminate men’s sports programs at small colleges across the country. And even more upsetting is how; here in California, my favorite sport of football has often been the target of choice.

In 1998 Reason Online published an article by Walt Olson stating:

The settlement's compliance deadline was set for fall 1998, and by mid-1997 one of its results had become clear: massive cuts in men's sports throughout the Cal State system. In June, Cal State-Northridge dropped its baseball team, which had ranked among the nation's top 20, along with soccer, swimming, and volleyball. Cal State-Bakersfield drastically curtailed its outstand-ing wrestling program. San Francisco State, Fullerton, Hayward, Chico, Long Beach, and Sonoma all got out of football. (Also Northridge)

Federal regulations dictate for schools to meet the terms of Title IX's promise of equal treatment for female athletes in a number of ways. They can demonstrate that opportunities for women are "substantially proportionate" to their enrollment, that opportunities are commensurate with the level of students' interest, or that new teams are being added. Then in 1996 the courts further clarified the rules stating, that rather than simply counting the number of spots allotted to teams they would be counting the actual number of athletes.

As small schools struggled to comply with this new definition of the Title IX, they realized that they could not do so by simply adding more sports for women. A more realistic approach would be to cut programs for men. Thus small schools began eliminating men’s sports programs; targeting first those programs that were not revenue generating.(ie. Wrestling, golf and gymnastics.)

The Cal State-men's-sports massacre made news from coast to coast, and for good reason: As the Times headline predicted, it is going to serve as a model for the rest of the country. Last April, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a court decision against Brown University, leaving in place an interpretation of the federal Title IX law that has already begun to devastate such men's sports as track, wrestling, swimming, and diving nationwide. A survey by the National Collegiate Athletic Association found colleges have axed 200 men's teams in recent years, with 17,000 slots lost. Gymnastics teams, which numbered 133 as recently as 1975, are down to 32 overall. Even golf, a sport whose popularity in the outside world has soared, is hard hit.

Another article by Mark Clayton of the Christian Science Monitor reports that other schools such as St. Johns University, felt it was easier to eliminate the program with the largest amount of male participants. That program is almost always men’s football. In one fail swoop they eliminated 62 spots for male athletes which usually meant other men’s sports would be spared.

While the university also trimmed some other male and female athletic teams, school officials say they needed to drop the 62-member football team to meet a specific test of equality under Title IX: fielding numbers of men and women athletes in proportion to the student body - which has a growing female majority.

There has got to be a better way to create gender equity in college sports! It is a travesty, the way Title IX has been implemented. But even worse is the response of these ultra-left feminist groups when anyone dare speak out about this problem.

In 2000 the San Francisco Chronicle ran a piece outlining all the successes of Title IX in California:

``Significant progress has been made. All of the schools had a very large gap to make up,'' Joplin said. ``We are taking them at their word that they will continue compliance with the goals.''

Systemwide, the proportion of female athletes grew from 34.7 percent in 1992-93 to 53.6 percent in 1998-99, an increase of 81 percent.

CSU added 38 new sports for women, spent more than $40 million on new or renovated facilities, increased funding for women's athletics $29.8 million and gave $4.5 million in grants.

Isn’t it time we took another look at how Title IX is being implemented? After all, I find it difficult to believe that this policy of "addition by subtraction" is truly consistant with the spirit and intetion of Tittle IX.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

“Conde” or “Leezza” Which Condeleezza Rice would you vote for in 2008?



Cedric the entertainer helps us understand the two sides of Condelizza Rice. This hilarious video is taken at the Annual Whitehouse Correspondents Dinner.

(Hat tip to thepoliticalteen.net)

CLICK HERE to see video.

As for me.... Leeza would get my vote!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Monday, August 29, 2005

Democrats Approve Legislation to Help Inmates Avoid Child-Support Payments


California Assembly passed AB 862 (Bass, D- Los Angeles) which allows those serving time in prison to avoid paying back child support once they are released. You might remember Bass from her efforts to throw out the High School Exit Exam.

The following press release was issued by the California Assembly Republican Caucus:
______________________

Democrats Approve Legislation To Help Inmates Avoid Child-Support Payments
Majority Party Sides With Convicts Over Children Who Need Support

SACRAMENTO – Assembly Republicans today criticized Democrats for approving a proposal to spend state funds to help prison inmates reduce their child-support payments.

“The state should never aid and abet a convicted criminal in avoiding child support,” Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, R-Orange, said. “We should not allow prisoners to escape their financial responsibility to their own children.”

On a vote of 41-34, the Assembly Democrats approved AB 862, sending the bill to the governor’s desk. The measure by Assemblywoman Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, would require the state to provide inmates with a pamphlet titled, “Child Support Information for the Parent in Jail or Prison,” at a cost of approximately $80,000 a year to taxpayers.

State law allows inmates to petition for a modification in child-support payments when they are incarcerated. There is no pressing need, however, for the state to spend time and resources to encourage these filings, especially during a fiscal crisis.

“Given a choice between supporting children or convicts, the Democrats sided with the convicts,” Spitzer said. “It’s unfortunate that the majority party is so far out of touch with the needs of California’s families.”
______________________


Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Pro-Family candidates may receive Scarlet Letters. Ask Governor to Veto AB 866 & AB 215



In my April 14th post "The Thought Police are Here!” I discussed AB 866 which would prohibit candidates for public office from speaking out against the homosexual lifestyle. Well this bill and it’s sister bill AB 215, have made it to the governor’s desk.

Below is the text of a letter by Assemblyman Tim Leslie (R Tahoe) asking Governor Schwarzenegger to veto both measures. Assemblyman Leslie is one of few legislators who have taken a vocal position against this effort to silence pro-family candidates. (Press Release Here)

August 29, 2005

The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Governor
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
I respectfully request that you veto AB 866 (Yee) and AB 215 (Orpezza).

AB 866 (Yee) adds language to the voluntary Code of Fair Campaign Practices that would prohibit “appeals to negative prejudice” based on sexual orientation or gender identity. When combined with AB 215 (Oropeza), which would require that whether or not a candidate agreed to abide by the Code be printed in the official ballot pamphlet, this bill would effectivly coerce candidates into limiting their freedom of speech.

The signing of these bills would amount to nothing more that a government funded “Sacrlett Letter” to pin on pro-family candidates.

In 1986 the State Attorney General issued an opinion on a simular issue that clearly outlines how this bill violates the rights of political candidates. Specifically the Attorney General opinion stated “…there would be a coercive effect to require the candidate to ‘voluntarily’ sign the code. Yet in signing the code, the candidate would agree to conduct his campaign within the limits of the code and this restrict his freedom of speech well beyond the area of unprotected speech-that is, the deliberate falsehood.”

This is an attempt to silence expression of deeply held moral values and is a clear violation of our First Amendment right to free speech. It is for this reason I ask that you Veto AB AB 866 and AB 215.

Sincerely,
TIM LESLIE
Assemblyman, Fourth District


I urge you to join Assemblyman Leslie in writing the Governor and asking him to veto these bills. Click Here for more Details!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

RED SQUIRREL HALTS £1M CASTLE PLAN


First it was frogs in France, now Red Squirrels in Scotland.

Has World War III begun? Are the animals taking over? Could PETA be behind this animal uprising?

The Sunday Mail is reporting:

A RED squirrel has brought a £1million development at a Scots castle to a halt.

The endangered animal was found at National Trust-owned Crathes Castle, Aberdeenshire.

Builders were working on an 82ft-high obstacle course, named Skytrek, when the rare mammal was spotted.

The work was due to be finished next month but has been shelved until October when bosses hope the squirrel will have moved on.

Breeding season for the species is usually from March until late August and the young nest until September.

By October they are usually ready to fend for themselves.

A Scottish Wildlife Trust spokesman said: "We are delighted the Trust have deferred their building plans.


Ok so maybe WWIII isn’t here quite yet. But you never can trust those Commie Red Squirells!


Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Thursday, August 25, 2005

Craig DeLuz in for Eric Hogue Again Tommorow **Listen in!**


We had a great show this morning! So good in fact that I will be sitting in for Eric Hogue again tomorrow moring. Listen and Call in!

Details Below:

FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 2005

Station: 1380AM
Live Audio Steaming at www.ktkz.com

TIME: 5-9 am (PST)

Call in Number: (916) 923-3300

Also, Listen in tonight 5-6pm on AM 710 KFIA. Joe Pursh and I will be discussing Prop. 73 "Parental Notification"

Who's Girlie On Crime?

Last week, Assemblyman Mark Leno (D- San Francisco) had the nerve to be upset over Governor Schwarzenegger’s comments that Republicans are more interested in public safety issues than Democrats.

However, a closer look at his record suggests that it is actually Mr. Leno who should be apologizing to victims of crime and their families for his outrageous pursuit of greater rights for criminals and weaker sentences.

(Click Here for More)


Feinstein laying groundwork for "No" Vote on Roberts


In the Beginning, California Senator Diane Fienstein appeared to be openminded; sometimes even supportive of Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts. Needless to say, it didn't last long!

The Senator has begun expressing doubt and reservations about Judge Roberts. In this effort she has gone out of her way to find and outline reasons to vote no on his nomination to the nation's high court.

Her most recent excuse is reported by the Associated Press:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Wednesday that Roberts could be called to account for some of his humor from his years in the Reagan administration, when he frequently leavened his legal opinions with bursts of wit that could run from playful to caustic.

Feinstein, the only woman on the Judiciary Committee, pointed to one memo in which Roberts, while disparaging state efforts to combat discrimination against women, wondered whether "encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."

As unimaginable as it is that the Senator would bring up jokes made by Roberts decades ago, it is consistant with her recent trend of comments laying the groundwork for a no vote on Justice Roberts.

Consider initial statements about Robert's and the appointment to the Supreme Court:

I don't think there's anybody on the court quite like he will be in that sense, because my sense is that he really grapples with the law and the interpretation of the law rather than any extraneous points of bias,

"He clearly is, I think, a very unusual person, because you do get the direct feeling of humility and modesty, and yet he apparently is very precise in his writing, his judging, his ability to put cases together when he was an attorney,"


But despite the fact that she clearly believes he is qualified, her conserns stem around more ideoligical concerns:

It would be very difficult for me to vote to confirm someone to the Supreme Court whom I knew would overturn Roe...

"I believe the choice is clear," she said. "Government should not be allowed to interfere in personal, family decisions and overrule the most difficult choices a family can make. The question I have is how John Roberts will react to these real-life dilemmas when and if they come before him."

In reality, John Roberts will get a vote and will be confirmed by a narrow margin. But Democrats are setting the stage for the battle when Chief Justice Rehnquist retires. They are drawing a line in the sand and declaring Justice Roberts as the most conservative justice they are willing to approve.

This confirmation hearing will be interesting, but the real fireworks are yet to come.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com


Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Jessie Jackson Jumps on the Anti- Pat Robertson Bandwagon



Jessie “My Baby Daddy” Jackson and other liberals continue on the war path over Pat Robertson’s comments encouraging the assassination of Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez. And while I agree that his comments were over the top, I cannot help but laugh at their blatant hypocrisy.

According to the The New York Times:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson called for the Federal Communications Commission to investigate, just as it did when Janet Jackson's breast was exposed in the Super Bowl broadcast in 2004. "This is even more threatening to hemispheric stability than the flash of a breast on television during a ballgame," Mr. Jackson said.

One liberal watchdog group, Media Matters for America, sent a letter urging the ABC Family network to stop carrying Mr. Robertson's show. Another group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, asked Mr. Bush to repudiate Mr. Robertson personally.

Where were these folks when Dick Durbin-Landen was likening Gitmo to the WWII concentration camps and American Troops to Nazis? Where was Jessie when PETA was likening animal cruelty to the slavery and lynching of Blacks? They never have anything to say when one of thier own, does or says something treasonist, racist or just plain dumb.

As far as I am concerned, if it is still ok for MSM to keep putting a microphone front of Jessie’s pie hole after his infamous “Jaime-Town” comment, then I don’t see what right they have to silence Pat Robertson.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

65 of 490 female Students at a Canton High School are pregnant. Sex Ed must be working!


15% of the female students at Timken High School in Canton Ohio are pregnant. That means that almost 1 in 6 female students is expecting!

News Net 5 out of Canton, Ohio is reporting:

There are 490 female students at Timken High School, and 65 are pregnant, according to a recent report in the Canton Repository.

The article reported that some would say that movies, TV, videogames, lazy parents and lax discipline may all be to blame.

I wonder why education officials aren’t taking credit for the success of public school sex education programs? Clearly it’s working! As for their pregnancy prevention programs…not so much.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

JP Morgan Chase seeks to expand their customer base… “Dear Palestinian Bomber” You’ve been Pre-Approved!


JP Morgan Chase credit card services sent a form letter advertisement for their Visa Platinum card to a Palestinian Grocery store manager in California. The salutation read "Dear Palestinian Bomber."

ABC News reports:

Officials at JP Morgan Chase have apologized and promised to improve their screening policies, after a credit card solicitation letter sent to a 54-year-old naturalized American citizen came addressed to "Palestinian Bomber."

The form letter for a Visa Platinum card arrived earlier this month at the home of Sami Habbas, a grocery store manager from Corona, Calif. The words "Palestinian Bomber" appear above his address and the salutation reads, "Dear Palestinian Bomber." The document included the signature of Carter Franke, chief marketing officer for Chase Card Services.

JP Morgan has got to stop recruiting their employees from the Federal Department of Immigration.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Monday, August 22, 2005

France at war with American Bull Frog! General Kermit declares French Retreat Eminent.


Agence France-Presse released a story today with the following lead in:

PICTURE this: French hunters stealing out at night in pairs, one with a torch to light up the eyes of their prey, the other armed with a .22 calibre rifle equipped with a telescopic sight and a silencer.

Their quarry? Invaders from the United States - bullfrogs, to be precise…

A great website French Military Victories chronicles the French’s less than stellar war record.

Gallic Wars
- Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War
- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.

Italian Wars
- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

Wars of Religion
- France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

Thirty Years War
- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

War of Revolution
- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

The Dutch War
- Tied

War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War
- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

War of the Spanish Succession
- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

American Revolution
- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

French Revolution
- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

The Napoleonic Wars
- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

The Franco-Prussian War
- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

World War I
- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

World War II
- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

War in Indochina
- Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

Algerian Rebellion
- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

War on Terrorism
- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.


If history is any indication, this American occupation could last for quite some time. That is of course unless the press starts running stories of Miss Piggy camping out in Crawford, calling the French-Frog War a quagmire and demanding that Kermit be sent home.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Friday, August 19, 2005

Cindy Sheehan Joins NWA (Naders With Agendas)


NWA (Ni**az With Attitude) which featured the likes of Ice Cube, Eazy E and Dr. Dre gained fame and riches in the 1990’s by exploiting the very worst of the Black experience. Today, the new NWA (Naders With Agendas) are following in their footsteps by claiming the affinity with blacks and exploiting our culture to forward their own personal agenda.

Why call them Naders? Rather than use the N-word, I figure they should be named after their ring leader, Ralph Nader who actually admits to feeling like a Ni**er!

Talk show host Eric Hogue points out that by allowing Code Pink to dub her the “New Rosa Parks” , Cindy Sheehan has joined the growing chorus of liberals who are abusing Black history and cultural icons to promote their own Agendas; which by the way have nothing to do with issues facing the Black community.

The NWA crew includes:

PETA (aka Da’ Lynch Mob)- Fellow Western Alliance member, Fetching Jen reports on they chose to equate cruelty to animals to the lynching of Blacks.

Equality California (aka By Any Means Necessary)– At their EQCA Los Angeles Equality Awards this homosexual advocacy group will be pimping the memory of slain Black activist and Nation of Islam member Malcolm X by promoting the attendance of his widow, Betty Shabazz. I guess she’s not exactly an Islamic fundamentalist.

California NAACP President Alice Huffman (aka Sista Sellout)- She dared to liken 400 years of slavery, Jim Crow, lynching and the destruction of the Black family to the homosexual effort to destroy marriage. She had the nerve to say that Black Christians did not under stand the issue. She even went as far as to trade marriage for memberships in the NAACP.

Ralph Nader (aka Grand Dragon…I mean Grand Master “N”)- At a political fundraiser, he was quoted as saying “I felt like a Ni**er!” because DEMOCRATS were fighting to keep him off the presidential ballot in the south. They always tryin to keep a brotha down!

Now I realize that the NWA posse reaches much farther than the few members above, but they represent the most recent examples of just how far the left will go to exploit Blacks to get what they want. And like the epidemic of Gangsta Rap, I am sure we can count on the movement growing.

I think they should name their first CD “Pimp Blacks or Die!”

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Robla Elementary School District gets Uncommon Sense


After a long and grueling interview process, the Robla Elementary School District Board of Trustees tonight voted 3-0-1 to appoint yours truly to fill a vacancy on their board.

I am looking forward to the experience. I have been involved in education at just about every level; as a parent, teacher, charter school board member and public policy consultant. However, this is my first experience as an elected representative.

Wish me luck!


Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Leno Demands Governor Apologize to Democrats for calling them soft on Crime.


Yesterday, Assemblyman Mark Leno (D- San Francisco) had the nerve to be upset over Governor Schwarzenegger’s comments that Republicans are more interested in public safety issues than Democrats.

“(Leno) called Schwarzenegger’s proposals ‘not thoughtful,’ estimated that they could cost at least $500 million a year and said Schwarzenegger ‘owes every Democrat an apology’ for suggesting they’re less interested in public safety than Republicans.” (Sacramento Bee, August 17, 2005)

However, a closer look at his record suggests that it is actually Mr. Leno who should be apologizing to victims of crime and their families for his outrageous pursuit of greater rights for criminals and weaker sentences.

While helping pass such “tough on crime” proposals as condoms for convicts (AB 1677) and weaker penalties for crack cocaine (AB 125), Leno, as Chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, killed several victims’ rights bills including:

  • AB 35 (Spitzer), which would have expanded the information on the Megan’s Law website to include home addresses, business addresses and vehicle information of all serious sex offenders.

  • AB 221 (Bogh), which would have denied early release credits to inmates who have committed violent sex offenses.

  • AB 335 (Walters), which would have required judges to consider child molestation a serious offense for purposes of determining bail and would have required child molesters granted release on bail or their own recognizance to be placed on an electronic monitoring device while in the community.

  • AB 1109 (S. Horton), which would have allowed additional time for public comment about the placement of a sexually violent predator in the Department of Mental Health’s conditional release program.

Mr. Leno is often one of a handful of legislators who continue to fight against strong public safety legislation, even after the bills clear his committee.

  • Mr. Leno was the only member of the committee to vote against SB 33 (Battin), which would close current loopholes in the treatment of child molesters who prey on family members. This bill nonetheless was approved over his opposition.
  • Mr. Leno was one of only three members of the Assembly to vote against AB 677 (Parra), which would make solicitation to commit murder a serious felony. This bill was approved by the full Assembly, but later was defeated in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

But Mr. Leno’s well-deserved reputation as a “tough on crime” leader did not begin when the sign company owner was appointed to chair the Public Safety Committee. In fact, his crime-fighting days go back to his tenure on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

  • Responding to a proposal to install anti-pornography filters on the computers in public libraries in San Francisco, Mr. Leno stated that “this is a First Amendment right. Our country is built on the concept of free speech.” (ABC World News Tonight, April 4, 2002)

  • Challenging a sting of Internet sexual predators by San Francisco police officers, Mr. Leno argued that “this is a waste of taxpayers’ money, it is completely mean-spirited.” (Sacramento Bee, September 26, 1999)

Isn't it ironic that Mr. Leno, who almost always supports out-of-control government spending and making it easier for politicians to raise taxes on working families, becomes a fiscal conservative when it comes to spending money on protecting women and children.

But all is not lost! Mr. Leno and the rest of the Democrats will have a chance to prove the Governor wrong, when the Legislature considers Jessica’s Law.

He will have the chance to help give law enforcement the tools they need to keep our families safe from dangerous criminals.

But don't expect these "Girlie Men" to come through. ......(Governor's words not mine!)

(Hat-tip to Assembly Republican Staffers for the talking points!)

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Four California Women Die Killed by RU 486… Abortion advocates deny there’s a problem


Despite the fact that four women in California have died from infections related to the use of mifepristone also known as RU 486, leading advocates of abortion are denouncing calls to take the potentially fatal drug off the market.

Their argument… “It’s still safer than having a baby.”

According to the Los Angeles Times:

Health officials are investigating whether there are any links in the cases of four California women — at least two in Los Angeles County — who have died since 2003 of massive infection after taking the so-called abortion pill, RU-486, and a follow-up drug.

The state and federal probe follows an announcement last month by the Food and Drug Administration, after the June death of a Sherman Oaks woman, warning doctors and patients of the potential for serious bacterial infection under certain circumstances.

At the heart of the inquiry in California are why and how the deadly infections developed and whether more women might have been harmed.

In a July 2005 press release by The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Brown University professor Ralph P. Miech, MD, PhD, proposes two models of how this devastating reaction may occur.

During an abortion, mifepristone works by blocking the effects of progesterone, shutting off nutrition to the placenta and fetus. However, Miech points out, the antiprogesterone effects of mifepristone also cause changes in the cervix that allow C. sordellii, a common vaginal bacteria, to enter the cervical canal. C. sordellii thrives in this low-oxygen environment and derives nutrition from the decaying fetal tissue. Meanwhile, other hormonal effects of mifepristone, known as antiglucocorticoid actions, are taking place throughout the body. Through two models proposed by Miech, these antiglucocorticoid effects may interfere with chemical regulators known as cytokines, offsetting the delicate balance between over- and under-activation of the immune system. This disruption impairs the body’s ability to fight off C. sordellii and may help spread the bacteria’s toxic by-products, a combination that sometimes results in widespread septic shock.

But refusing to allow any restrictions on abortion, no matter how dangerous the procedure might be, abortion supporters continue to deny any causal effect and still claim that RU 486 is not as dangerous as childbirth.

Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, said such concerns were vastly overblown. "There has been no causal relationship established between the medical abortion and the subsequent infection," she said. "This is a very, very rare occurrence…. Childbirth is 10 to 13 times riskier than having an abortion, either medical or surgical. "

Tell that to the child being aborted!


Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Friday, August 12, 2005

The Truth About Yellow Elephants


Roseville Conservative was in rare form last night! While in the middle of a rant on Mrs. Sheehan and Moveon.org, he dispells the myth about the existance yellow elephants.

Your argument about supporting the Iraq war being hypocritical unless you are willing to sign up and serve is ridiculous... I did my time... so bark up some other tree.

How ridiculous is that Yellow Elephant Argument? Let's translate it into other issues...

Pro-Choice: You can not be truly Pro-Choice unless you are willing to grab a Pistol and execute a post-Partum Abortion on yourself.

Pro Gay Rights: You can not be truly Pro Gay Rights until you have had or are having a Gay relationship. (some of you may be, who knows?)

Pro Little Guy: Go sell all your stuff and work for a homeless shelter, then you have earned the right to take shots at "Rich Republicans". Leave us not forget that 89% of corporate donations go to Dems and Dem causes.


I think Aaron needs a hug!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Parental Notification Advocates win argument over ballot language.


A Sacramento Judge ordered changes in the ballot statement submitted by opponents of the Parental Notification initiative on the upcoming special election ballot. Unfortunately though, their ballot argument still stretches the truth.

According the Associate Press:

Superior Court Judge Raymond Cadei refused to strike a voter guide statement made by the measure's supporters that parental notification laws in other states had reduced teen pregnancy and abortion rates "without danger and harm to minors."

He also ordered opponents to find other wording than to say that girls who sought a waiver from a judge would be put "on trial."

But Judge Cadei did let stand a statement that “millions of concerned parents” oppose the initiate; even though the opposition offer no data to substantiate the claim. Additionally, the judge refused to replace the word “teenager” with the more proper term “minor” in their statement. The reasoning for the change was that the term teenager includes 18 and 19 year olds who are considered legal adults and not subject to this measure. But it leaves out 10, 11 and 12 year olds who are covered.

Abortion advocates want to pose this issue as a matter of “The government telling a woman what to do with her body.” But what Prop. 73 really does is protect a parent’s right to protect their minor child from harm.

Why? Because even liberals like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry support parental notification. (Don’t believe me? Read “This is about Parents' Rights” )

They understand that it is not necessarily an abortion issue. It’s about Parent’s Rights.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Was a Deal Cut on Paycheck Protection? I'm not the only one who thinks it was!


In today's Sacramento Bee, columnist Dan Weintraub questions whether or not teachers and business leaders cut a deal on Prop. 75; a measure that would require public employee labor unions to get thier members' permission before spending thier money on politics.

Last week in my post "CTA Drops Tax Hike Initiative for No Reason? I’m not buying it!" I shared the same concerns that the California business community might repeat history by taking a neutral position on paycheck protection as they did in 1998 in order to avoid initiatives that would propose raising taxes. Well Dan seems to share my concerns.

Did the business groups, in exchange for ducking the property tax hike headed their way, agree to abandon the governor in November and stop contributing to his favored measures?

Absolutely not, Hime said.

"That's not part of the deal," he said. "We're not going to turn our backs on the governor."

That will be clear soon enough, as Schwarzenegger's campaign gears up after Labor Day. Some of the biggest members of Hime's coalition have been major donors to the governor's campaigns. If they suddenly stop contributing, they will be conspicuous in their absence.

Keep this in mind... The Paycheck Protection Initiative is not part of the Governor's reform agenda. He hasn't even endorsed it! So if Hime's coalition didn't support it, he would not be going against the Governor, would he?

Dan is right about one thing... we will soon know!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

(Air America Investigation Update) The Wheels are Coming off the Wagon!


Despite the fact that the MSM is refusing to cover the Air America scandal, people are seeking out information on what is going on. Liberal bloggers and message boards are clinging desperately to the statment issued by AA stating that they will pay the money back. Well to all you liberal lurkers reading this post, it is time to face the facts.

1. Taking almost $1 million from a Boys & Girls Club is a big deal.

Regardless of how you try to spin it, this is just wrong. Even though the folks at Gloria Wise are ultimately responsible for giving up the money, officials with AA knew this was a risky venture and taking the money from a non-profit was not exactly the most ethical thing to do.

And if Evan Cohen was the only one who knew it was going on, then the lack of communication within the organization about key business dealings rises to almowt Enron-like proportions.


2. Air America has only said they would pay the money back. It is unclear if any money has actually changed hands.

The New York Post reported the following:

The left-wing radio network, which showcases Al Franken, last Friday made a $50,000 repayment on the loan to an escrow account controlled by the station's lawyer.
"The [city] Department of Investigation advised Air America to repay $875,000 into an escrow account from which no money can be disbursed without our approval," said DOI spokeswoman Emily Gest.

"Air America has not followed that recommendation."

But an Air America official told The Post yesterday that both sides had agreed to a payment plan months ago and that they were on schedule with their payments.

That was news to the Boys & Girls Club. "Air America has agreed in principle to give the money, but nothing has been finalized yet," Grossman said yesterday.

"They haven't agreed how and when to do it."


3. Air America was doomed from the start.

Just ask Al Franken who found points out on his show that he and other radio talent were dupped into believing that the network had enough funding to last three years. It turns out that three weeks was more like it. (Read a Transcript of Al's comments at Radio Equalizer.)

If you put thier lack of funding together with the fact that the way they tried to manufacture a large network instead of letting it grow naturally. Not that it would have grown, but they could have failed on a much more modest scale.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

PETA "Pimps" Blacks


I am passing on this story from fellow Western Alliance member, Fetching Jen.

Apparently, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals decided to compare the treatment of animals to that of Blacks during slavery and Jim Crowe eras. And how exactly do liberals respond when accused of equating Blacks to animals?

"I think it is an apt comparison,"

And they call us racists!


Read More...

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

It’s the Econo…der…ugh…Moral Values Stupid!


The saying used to be “It’s the Economy Stupid!” But of course that was before liberals went off the deep end into the abyss of moral relativism. A study by the New Democracy Corps clearly makes the point that when it comes to cultural issues, Democrats can’t be trusted.

The Washington Post writes:

Democrats have expressed bewilderment over Republican gains among lower-income, less-educated voters, saying they are voting against their economic self-interest by supporting Republican candidates. But the new Democracy Corps study concludes that cultural issues trump economic issues by a wide margin for many of these voters -- giving the GOP a significant electoral advantage.

Admittedly, this study was mostly conducted with rural low-income voters. So you might find very different results in urban low-income areas. But I think this study does undermine the liberal’s attempt to promote class warfare.

They want voters to think that high income earners have more than their fair share of the pie. And the best way to fix problems in our society is to have the government take more from them to give to the less wealthy. Take California for example.

In 2004 we passed a measure imposing a one percent tax on high income earners to pay for mental health. This year Rob Reiner is proposing another one percent tax on these folks to pay for universal preschool. Then the California Legislature tried to raise the state’s top tax bracket two percent in order to pay for increased school spending, despite the $3.1 billion it was already increased this year. All of these plans put together represent and about a 45% increase in state taxes on high income earners.

This Robin Hood Syndrome that has infected California’s has had little affect on low-income voters in more rural states because as far as they are concerned, moral values trump the economic issues.

The study is based on focus groups of rural voters in Wisconsin and Arkansas and disaffected supporters of President Bush in Colorado and Kentucky. The good news for Democrats: All the groups expressed dissatisfaction with the direction of the country and with the leadership of the president and the GOP-controlled Congress.

Then came the bad news: "As powerful as the concern over these issues is, the introduction of cultural themes -- specifically gay marriage, abortion, the importance of the traditional family unit and the role of religion in public life -- quickly renders them almost irrelevant in terms of electoral politics at the national level," the study said.

In other words, these voters see the attack on traditional moral values as a bigger threat to our society than class warfare that liberals are trying to manufacture. They see Democrat politicians as being anti-God, anti-marriage, anti-family, immoral baby killers. And while you would not know it by their policies, I will be the fist to admit that this is not the way all Democrat leaders are. Most of them are simply too weak and scared to stand up to the moral depravity that has taken over the Demoncrat…oops… I mean Democrat party.

Memo To Democrat Party: It's not a change of messaging that you need. It's a change of heart.


Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Monday, August 8, 2005

Air America Needs Call Screener... Baghdad Bob To the Rescue!


Well the first wave of calls to Air America had an interesting outcome. Sacramento’s Christine Craft mysteriously did not have a call screener today; so nobody was able to get through. I personally tried at least eight times and spoke to at least five other people who experienced the same thing.

I will not assume that the lack of a call screener was intentional, but it does fit the Air America MO.

But of course our absence did not stop Ms. Craft from bashing the Western Alliance. While I won’t go into all the details, let’s just say it wasn’t flattering. She spent the majority of each hour talking to herself and when she did open it up for calls only only CA High School Conservative could get through.

The interesting thing is that liberal boards and bloggers were talking about this issue all weekend. A message board for AA’s Randi Rhodes provides the best example. In the midst of their usual name calling are some interesting comments and questions.

KML asks:

Aren't they already paying the loan back? I haven't really been paying attention to this story.

Mailroom Clerk is beside himself as he inquires:

State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer yesterday opened an investigation into the Bronx social-services agency that made $875,000 in bizarre loans to Air America radio.
This cannot be true...taking money from poor kids??? Why would Al do this??

And evidently WA and friends are not the only one’s asking questions. State Campaigner shares:

I was half-listening on Franken, some guy called in from "Switzerland", all I heard clearly was his last comment to Franken was that he keeps reading about about the Air America Enron scandal. Guess the attack is in progress. Franken explained about the "Enron"scandal after the commercial break. Listen to see if anymore call in today.

And this all despite the fact that their most experienced members advised them that we would be watching.

Kathie Harris’ boy toy writes:

I think what Libertas is trying to say is don't advertise any activities regarding trolling other boards. Remember, we have lurkers who watch what we write and may cut and paste it to their own boards.

Was he talking about me? Tehe!

And needless to say, his worst nightmare was realized when the Mailroom Clerk exposes his concerns about how effective they have been..

Lets not be quite so dismissive. They've been kicking our ass ever since Hillbily Clintoon backed 'welfare reform.' Perhaps we need more organizing and less invective, otherwise we risk becoming the 'playground party'-good at calling names, and not much else. Coming close the past 2 pres. elections and in OH is nothing to brag about.

But the most telling comment was by intern:

As far as how to effectively put forth our own ideas and concerns in in this world of ideas, I think the Freepers, the Western Alliance and other right-wing media activists provide a good example. They're not stupid. The dittoheads, like my Dad, have been running circles around progressives. They know how to make their voices heard, they put financial support into various projects, they learn to counter the arguments of people they disagree with.

Of course we know how to counter their arguments. They lie, we tell the truth.

Amidst the trash talking, liberal rhetoric and left wing conspiracy theories, there was some interesting dialogue. They have the links to Michell Malkin and the Radio Equalizer. So they should know the issue. But other than the statement from Air America, they really did not have any way to refute the charges that might very well sink AA’s ship.

So all in all it was worth the effort. Thanks for your participation. Well keep you posted on what's next.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Queer aisle for straight guys


After evaluating the tax benefits provide to married couples, two straight men have decided to take the plunge! of the new same-sex marriage laws in Canada.

The Ottawa Sun reports:

“The proposal came last Monday at a Toronto bar amid shock and laughter from their friends. But the two -- both of whom were previously married and both of whom are looking for a good woman to love --…”

I don’t know that any commentary is really needed. But I do find it interesting to see how quickly the absurd becomes reality once you remove common sense from the equation.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Seeking Common Ground

I originally posted this piece back in March, but a recent commentary at Booker Rising brought up how Pro-life and Pro-Abortion Groups could work with members of the Black Congressional Caucus. I am still a firm believer that the only way we can work with the Pro-abortion crowd is if we set some parameters.

___________________________________________________



NARAL Pro-Choice America and their President, Nancy Keenan have embarked upon an aggressive campaign calling on Pro-life Advocates and supporters of abortion to find common ground where they can work.

The San Francisco Chronicle Reports:

Keenan noted that NARAL recently placed full-page ads in conservative publications, including the Weekly Standard, which invited political opponents to work together to develop efforts to reduce abortions and unwanted pregnancies -- a development she said would better the lives of women and children around the world.

I have to agree with Ms. Keenan on this issue. As someone who is Pro-Life, I believe that it should be illegal to kill an unborn child. But the reality is that abortion is currently legal. Understanding this fact, I believe that it is incumbent upon us to make every effort to at least reduce the number of children being sucked down the sink. And this does not have to be mutually exclusive of our fighting to stop abortion all together.

Having said that, In order for this “coming together” to work, Ms. Keenan, NARAL and others in the Pro-Abortion movement must be willing to work with us in the following areas:

Acknowledging the harm abortion causes. At least we must let women know of the physical and psychological risks that women face when having abortions. Also, it would be immoral to not discuss the physical pain that the unborn child experiences during this procedure. This will help women, who are considering an abortion, make a fully informed decision.

Promotion of abortion alternatives. If the goal of NARAL is truly to make abortion “legal, safe and rare”, then we must remove the barriers that have prevented discussion of alternatives to abortion during the pre-abortion counseling process.

Broader implementation of Abstinence Focused sex education. Studies show that abstinence is the ONLY Guaranteed way to prevent either unwanted pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases.

Streamlining the adoption process and making it more affordable. Statistics show that states which have taken the most aggressive stances against abortion, are also the most likely have a complicated and costly adoption process. This must change.

I’m willing to bet that this new “common ground” theme is nothing more that a PR stunt. But if abortion advocates truly willing to find common ground, I think we should at least see how serious they are.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

Saturday, August 6, 2005

The Northern Alliance Shares Battle Tactics


I bring you a message from the Northern Front!

________________________

Mitch Berg from the Northern Alliance here.

Thanks for the shout out.

A couple of pointers:

Call with a point that you think they want to talk about; "I wanna know when Christine thinks Karl Rove is going to resign, or if he's going to jail" or something like that.

THEN ask the questions. Because the screener will never let you on (or never let more than one or two on) if you say "I'm going to ask her about Kidsfundinggate".

Oh, yeah - keep it clean, and don't sound all pissed off. We have to beat them via the high road.

Good luck, keep us posted.


____________________________


It is encouraging to know that the word is getting around. I hope you will be ready on Monday as we start our campaign to get Air America to pay back the money they took from the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club.

Click Here for Mission Details!


Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Enemies of Parental Notification Stretch the Truth


In a lawsuit filed yesterday, supporters of Prop. 73 challenged the ballot arguments submitted by opponents which were not supported by the facts.

An Associated Press story filed last night states:

Parents' Right to Know, the group behind Proposition 73, said in a lawsuit filed Thursday that it objects to the Campaign for Teen Safety implying the law would apply to "teenagers" when it would cover only minors under 18. The sponsors also want the state to strike language saying "millions of concerned parents" are against the initiative without data backing that claim.

"It is illegal to present such false material because it costs several million dollars for the secretary of state to produce the official voter information guide and in several languages," said Albin Rhomberg, a spokesman for the pro-amendment campaign.

Rhomberg said his group also wants the state to strike or amend a section of the other side's rebuttal claiming "these teens don't need to be put on trial," a reference to a provision of the amendment that allows judges to provide girls with waivers exempting them from the parental notification requirement.

Prop. 73 opponents are also seeking changes in ballot language but their arguments, like their name are not supported by the facts.

Meanwhile, the Campaign for Teen Safety, which opposes the amendment, brought a lawsuit Friday on behalf of two California pediatricians and a public health expert. The group said it had identified language it wants stricken from the soon-to-be-published pamphlet that is mailed to registered voters.

It objects to the phrase provided by Parents' Right to Know: "Over 30 states already have such laws, and their real world experience shows these laws reduce minors' pregnancy and abortion rates without danger and harm to minors," the disputed section reads.

The group argues that the parental notification law wouldn't reduce pregnancy or abortion rates while putting teenage girls at risk of botched abortions, poor prenatal care and family conflict.
"Frightened teenagers who have doors closed to them are more likely to take unsafe risks than get the medical care they need," said Dr. Michael Taymor, a Palo Alto pediatrician who lent his name to the lawsuit.


How can a group call itself “Campaign for Teen Safety” when they advocate performing abortions on 12 year old girls without their parents even knowing?

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Friday, August 5, 2005

The Western Alliance Declares War on Air America!

THIS IS A CALL TO ARMS!!!!

The Western Bloggers Alliance Calls on our allies from The Northern Radio Alliance, Free Republic, Blog Critics, Booker Rising, The New Underground Railroad and the rest of the nation to Demand that Air America Pay back the almost $900,000 they owe the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club.

The Battle Plan:

Conservatives from across the country should bombard local AA talk show hosts during their shows and ask the following questions provided by Bob Johnson of Rightalk.com are provide at Michelle Malkin’s Blog.

Our first Sneak attack will be in right here in Sacramento!

Mission Details:

Date:
Monday
August 8, 2005

Target:
Sacramento, CA
Talk City 1240 AM
Christine Craft Show

Phone Number:
(916) 766-1240

Time:
4-6pm (PST)

Warning:
While on hold, do not actually listen to the host! Prolonged exposure to liberal talk radio could be hazardous to your health!

We are calling on all troops from across the country to bombard the phone banks of TalkCity!

We also encourage you to let us know how your call went. Click Here and tell us your battle story. We will be posting them on the Western Alliance Blog Site.

Good luck and Godspeed!

CTA Drops Tax Hike Initiative for No Reason? I’m not buying it!


Shades of the 1998 primary election and Prop. 226 come to mind when I think of this move by the California Teachers Association. Back then the state’s most powerful business advocacy groups cut a deal with labor not to support the paycheck protection initiative in exchange for unions not putting tax-hikes and anti-business initiatives on the ‘98 fall ballot.

Today’s Sacramento Bee reports:

The announcement by CTA President Barbara Kerr, in a news conference with business leaders who had opposed the measure, averted what was shaping up as a particularly bruising and costly ballot fight next year.

But instead of preparing for battle, an unlikely set of political bedfellows - teachers, prison guards, commercial property owners and manufacturers - announced they would work together to submit new proposals to the state Legislature to help fund California schools.

Unlikely is right! The CTA took $2 million dollars from their members to pass this initiative and had over 900,000 signatures to get it on the ballot. And if last year's Prop. 63 was any indidcation, Californians are more than willing to raise taxes, as long as it isn't thier own.

Now, it is important to note that business leaders insist that no deal has been cut.

Both Hime and Kerr denied that any deal had been worked out between opposing sides in exchange for dropping the initiative.

"It doesn't signal anything other than we're here and we're going to talk together," Hime said.


The California Chamber is also insistent that no deal has been cut. And I hope that it But it is important that these folks know that we remember how they bailed on Prop. 226.

CalVoter.org in their analysis of the measure stated:

Conspicuously absent from the effort, either in planning or its execution, is the business community. The California Chamber of Commerce and many of the state's top corporations have remained neutral to this point, saying they don't want to engender backlash at contract time from the unions who represent their employees.

So don’t be surprised if the business lobby (California Manufacturers & Technology Association, California Business Properties Association or the California Chamber of Commerce) takes a neutral position on Paycheck protection again this time around.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Thursday, August 4, 2005

Snuppy is first ever cloned dog. The 1095th time must be the charm!


As cloning advocates across the world celebrate the first ever cloning of a dog. I can’t help but wonder. If they were willing to sacrifice 1094 dogs to create one cloned dog, how many human babies are they willing to offer up on the alter of scientific research?

The Washington Post reports:
The process of dog cloning remains highly inefficient, a reflection of how much scientists still have to learn about how to make mammalian offspring from single parents and without the help of sperm. Multiple surgeries on more than 100 anesthetized dogs and the painstaking creation of more than 1,000 laboratory-grown embryos led to the birth of just two cloned puppies -- one of which died after three weeks.

They are not doing this research because they are interested in cloning animals. The truth is they are working their way of the latter to eventually clone human beings. Just notice how concentrated their efforts have been on cloning mammals.

"Dogs are really good models for biomedical research," said Mark E. Westhusin, a researcher at Texas A&M University who a few years ago abandoned a costly effort to be the first to clone a canine.

Scientists have cloned mice, cows, sheep, goats, rabbits, cats and a few other mammals since Dolly the sheep -- the first cloned mammal -- was born in 1996. But dog cloning has proved a formidable challenge, largely because of inefficiencies that result from the dog's quirky reproductive physiology, Westhusin said.

And while I rarely agree with PETA, their position on this issue is right on.

"The cruelty and the body count outweighs any benefit that can be gained from this," said Mary Beth Sweetland, a vice president at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in Norfolk.

Let’s be sure to remember that statement when we start talking about human babies.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Wednesday, August 3, 2005

Air America Investigation Update- The Al & Jessie Connection!


I am sure you all have wondered why none of the usual urban liberal shakedown artists have chimed in on the Air America Scandal (Air America Under Investigation- Possibly Funded with Non-Profit Grant Money)

Well, Michelle Malkin breaks it down for us so clearly that anyone can see that it’s all about the Benjamins! (That’s money for those of you who are Ebonically challenged.)

Michelle Malkin points out:

Air America's flagship New York City station is housed on Park Avenue at WLIB-AM, owned by Inner City Broadcasting. The company shunted aside its black-themed talk format at WLIB to accommodate Air America. In return, Air America made room for a few minority radio hosts and also entered into lucrative lease management agreements with Inner City Broadcasting, which owns and operates 17 radio stations in five markets.

So Scair America started off by taking over a station with “black-themed talk format”? The funny part is that they were probably more liberal before AA took over.

But I digress….

The co-founder of Inner City Broadcasting is New York media mogul Percy Sutton, best known as Malcolm X's lawyer and former Manhattan borough council president. Sutton helped bail Sharpton out after Sharpton was ordered to pay former Dutchess County prosecutor Steven Pagones over the Tawana Brawley race hoax. Sutton also raised and donated money for Sharpton's 2004 presidential bid. Sharpton still broadcasts a Sunday radio show on WLIB. Sutton and Jackson are longtime friends and partners. Sutton served as Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign finance chairman. Jackson has lobbied on Sutton's behalf. Sutton sits on Jackson's Citizenship Education Fund. As original investors, Jackson and his wife reportedly hold more than 23,000 shares in Inner City Broadcasting.

Not only did Al and Jesse profit from kicking blacks off the radio airwaves, but now they are a part of taking money children and seniors?

THE POVERTY PIMPS STRIKE AGAIN!!!!!


Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Tuesday, August 2, 2005

Do Domestic Partnerships Equate to Same-Sex Marriage? Courts are Inconsistent!


The California Supreme Court stated that domestic partners must be treated the same as married spouses because as California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno stated "the Legislature has granted legal recognition comparable to marriage.''

But doesn’t that mean that the Legislature violated the state constitution by amending Prop. 22? There is a glaring inconsistency in the California court system when it comes to the issue of whether domestic partnerships laws have made them significantly similar to marriage.

The Courts say Domestic Partnerships and Marriage are Completely Different.

As originally created back in 1999, domestic partnerships carried with them very limited rights and benefits. For example, they allowed partners to visit one another in the hospital and offered a vehicle whereby private companies and municipalities could offer benefits to the partners of their employees. Then in 2000 California passed the nation’s first ever measure protecting the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Prop. 22 was chaptered into law as the Defense of Marriage Act.

Since that time the California legislature passed two measures designed to elevate domestic partnerships to a level equivalent to marriage. The first was AB 25, which was passed in 2001 and acted as a weather balloon of sorts; in that it provided only a few additional marriage benefits to domestic partnerships. These included the ability to:

1. Make medical decisions in the hospital or act as a conservator.
2. Inherit property without a will.
3. Administer an estate.
4. Seek compensation for the loss of economic or social support.
5. Relocate with a domestic partner without losing unemployment benefits.
6. Use sick leave to care for a family member or provide them with employer-based health coverage without additional taxation.
7. File disability benefits on behalf of an incapacitated partner.
8. Adopt a partner’s child using the stepparent adoption process.
9. Continue health coverage for surviving domestic partners of retired government workers."


Then in 2003 the Legislature passed AB 205 which gave to domestic partners all of the rest of the rights and benefits afforded to married couples under California law. Interestingly though, this was not accomplished by enumerating these rights. Rather, they chose the following language which requires domestic partners to look at the rights granted to married spouses in order to determine what their rights are:

Registered domestic partners have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and are subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under [California state] law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses." Cal. Fam. Code 297.5(a).

In 2004, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Loren McMaster ruled that AB 205 did not undermine Prop. 22 in that it did not make domestic partnerships equivalent to traditional marriage. The California Third District Court of Appeals would later support his ruling stating:

The domestic partners act does not amend the defense of marriage initiative and therefore, it’s enactment without subsequent voter approval does not violate California’s Constitution,…

And within the last month, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously (6-0) not to hear the case, thus supporting the McMaster ruling and that of the Appellate Court. This dubious move occurred right after the Judge Janice Rogers-Brown, the lone conservative on the court stepped down to accept an appointment to the Federal Court of Appeals.

The Courts say Domestic Partnerships and Marriage are Significantly Similar.

In March of this year, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled that Prop. 22 was unconstitutional. As a major part of his reasoning, he pointed to the Legislature’s passage of AB 25 & AB 205.

…the existence of marriage-like rights without marriage actually cuts against the existence of a rational government interest for denying marriage to same-sex couples. California’s enactment of rights for same-sex couples belies any argument that the state would have a legitimate interest in denying marriage in order to preclude same-sex couples from acquiring some marital right that might somehow be inappropriate for them to have.

Kramer surmised that because the legislature passed laws creating an institution significantly similar to marriage (AB 25 and AB 205) there is no rational reason for the state to deny full marriage to same-sex couples.

The idea that marriage-like rights without the marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal.

And in this most recent ruling California Supreme Court Justice Moreno wrote in the opinion for this unanimous 6-0 ruling that like the decision to marry, a decision to enter into a domestic partnership results in "the creation of a new family unit with all of its implications in terms of personal commitment as well as legal rights and obligations,'' and that For those couples, he said, "the Legislature has granted legal recognition comparable to marriage.''

His assertion is that by extending all of the rights and benefits of marriage to domestic partners, California decided to “equalize” domestic partnerships with marriage.

"In creating domestic partners, the Legislature has also created a policy favoring such partnerships similar to the policy favoring marriage,"

The Inconsistency

Within one month the California Supreme Court has stood on opposite sides of this issue. By not addressing the McMaster decision, the statement was made that domestic partnerships have not been made significantly similar to marriage. But this most recent opinion is consistent with Judge Kramer’s assertion that domestic partnerships are now significantly similar to marriage. Well folks…Which is it?

Why does it Matter?

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer is lobbying to have the Kramer decision advance past the appellate courts and go directly to the State Supreme Court. Once there, it will be difficult for the court not to address this inconsistency in their reasoning.

If they rule that recently passed legislation has made domestic partnerships significantly similar to marriage, then that means that the Legislature in fact violated the state constitution by amending an initiative passed by the voters. Article II, Section 10(c) of the California Constitution states “The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.”

And while this should result in the dissolution of domestic partner laws, it could also result in the termination of Prop 22. This would not necessarily make same-sex marriage legal. But by eliminating the ban on such unions, it would open the door for the legislature to pass legislation making them legal.

On the other hand, if the court rules that domestic partnerships are not similar to marriage, then this will undermine the basis of Judge Kramer’s argument in that the passage of AB 25 & AB 205 do not constitute a significant change in public policy in regards to marriage and does not violate the separate but equal clause. Such a ruling should keep Prop. 22 in place, but may solidify the constitutionality of domestic partnerships in California.

What can we do?

Neither of the above mentioned scenarios are win-win. Both represent partial victories that would also open the door to the redefining and undermining of the institution of marriage. The only way to fully protect marriage in the State of California is by passing a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

Currently there are two amendments that have received title and summery by the Attorney General’s office. One is offered by VoteYesMarriage.com and the other by ProtectMarriage.com. I encourage you to visit both of their websites and review the language of their respective amendments. Please support one or the other, or even both!

If nothing else, the facts laid out in this commentary should serve as proof that the only way we are going to fully protect marriage is by codifying it in law as a part of our state constitution.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Monday, August 1, 2005

Bolton’s In! Let the Whining Begin!


President Bush wasted no time exercising his constitutional authority to appoint John Bolton to be the US representative to the United Nations. And liberals were equally as quick on the draw to cry about the fact that they didn’t get their way.

Senator Edward Kennedy accused the President of abusing the recess appointment process and called the action, “… a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the U.N.,"

He ignores the fact that Senate Democrats for Five months ignored “the constitutional requirement of the Senate consent…” by refusing Bolton and up or down vote. So the President did what was his right to do. But that didn’t stop Kennedy from mischaracterizing the constitutionally authorized move by declaring, “The abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues,"

Senator John Kerry chimed in saying "It only diminishes John Bolton's validity and leverage to secure America's goals at the UN," he said in a statement. "This is not the way to fill our most important diplomatic jobs." But this was only after admitting that the President was well within his authority to make the appointment.

Anticipating the Bolton appointment, Senator Chris Dodd went on Fox News Sunday and called Bolton “damaged goods”. Then following the announcement stated "The president has done a real disservice to our nation by appointing an indivdual who lacks the credibility to further U.S. interests at the United Nations. I will be monitoring his performance closely to ensure that he does not abuse his authority as he has in the past."

Get out your crying towels guys! You lost this one.


Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Lockyer accused of playing partisan politics…So what else is new!


Attorney General, Bill Lockyer has solidified himself in California history as one of the state’s most successful liberal partisan politicians. So it is hard to understand how accusations that he is allowing his partisan bias to interfere with his job as the state’s top law enforcement officer could come as much of a surprise.

The Los Angeles Times writes about a how Governor Schwarzenegger’s office, Republicans and conservatives demonstrate that Lockyer is putting politics ahead of his duties.

The Democratic attorney general has become, in fact, a major pain to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republicans and conservative activists who have been pushing their agendas in the November special election and beyond.

Lockyer — who under state law is required to review voter initiatives — has prompted complaints about what Republicans see as a liberal bias in his actions on four initiative efforts this year.

In the most recent case, a judge ordered a Schwarzenegger-backed redistricting measure off the ballot after Lockyer sued over a procedural flaw. His actions also have prompted the governor to delay his planned overhaul of the pension system for public employees and spurred the threat of another lawsuit by backers of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages.

While liberals will try to dismiss these charges as political sour grapes, objective observers have to lend some credibility them considering they come from one of Lockyer’s former top aides.

But Peter Siggins, Schwarzenegger's chief attorney, said the process with Lockyer was a little more complex. Siggins comes with a unique perspective; he served as a top-level deputy to Lockyer for five years before he started working for Schwarzenegger.

Lockyer "asked question and would make suggestions," Siggins said. "But if you are deputy A.G., or even chief deputy A.G. like me, and the attorney general has a suggestion or a question, then you try to discern his policy perspective and you try to give life to that."

How bad is his bias? Keeping in mind the following:

1. Lockyer all but admitted guilt by rewriting the title and summery for the “Live Within Your Means” initiative.

2. In the title and summery of the Marriage Protection Amendment submitted by VoteYesMarriage.com the Attorney General lied when he stated that it would prevent domestic partners from visiting their partners in the hospital; as this has never been a right of marriage, but is based on hospital policy.

3. The AG had several options to deal with the clerical error related to Proposition 77. But he chose the most extreme; to throw out what was clearly the most popular initiative on the ballot, sporting the signatures of one million California voters.

4. While liberal city officials in San Francisco, on the order of their Democrat Mayor Gavin Newsom were blatantly and knowingly violated California law by issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Lockyer had to be ordered by the Governor to put an end to these criminal acts, an has yet to prosecute anyone for breaking the law.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. We don’t need the LA Times to point out the obvious. But it does show how far out there Attorney General Bill Lockyer has gotten. Even this liberal rag can’t ignore his blatant partisanship.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com