IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: The California Dream Act is Back!

With all the new pieces of legislation being churned out of the Bad Bill Mill, I almost missed the resurrection of the California Dream Act by former Speaker Fabian Nunez via AB 2083. This is the scheme originally cooked up by Senator Gil Cedillo (SB 160) in 2006, which would give illegal immigrants access to state funded financial aid.

Without pointing out the obvious fact that we should not be rewarding people for being in the country illegally, I would like to point out some problems with this measure.

First of all, California taxpayers subsidize somewhere between 70-80% of the cost of higher education in this state. This subsidy was expanded to include illegal immigrants thanks to the passage of SB 540 in 2001. So now they want Californians to subsidize the rest of their education? I think not!

Secondly, this measure comes with a low-balled estimated cost of $4.6 million, $12. million of which will come from Prop. 98 funds which funds K-12 education. Does it really make sense to increase spending on illegal immigrants when most state agencies are facing budget cuts? Keep in mind that every dollar spent on financial aid for illegal immigrants takes funding away from the core missions of our higher education institutions along with K-12 education.

Finally, just last year Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed this idea that came to him in the form of SB 1, also authored by Senator Cedillo. He stated in his veto message:

California has over 100,000 students here legally who apply annually for financial aid to attend college, and our state has limited funds available for this important purpose.

While I do not believe that undocumented children should be penalized for the acts of their parents, this bill would penalize students here legally by reducing the financial aid they rely on to allow them to go to college and pursue their dreams.

I find it hard (ok maybe not that hard) to believe that his position has changed on this issue; which causes one to beg the question: has a deal been cut between the former Speaker and the Governor? One can only speculate… And so… I am.

Craig DeLuz Speaks out against gay marriage- NO CENSORSHIP HERE!

Last week in Sacramento, Campaign for Children and Families held a news conference to publicly respond to the Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage.

Click Here to see the story that aired on News 1o in Sacramento

on a more humerous note, Chanel 7, the ABC affiliate out of the Bay area actually recorded the entire press conference. And while I am on the tape.... well.... I'll let you check it out for yourself. Fast forward to about 4:53 min and watch what happens.

You are going to love this!

> Streaming video of CCF's May 15 news conference (9:51)

NO CENSORSHIP HERE!

Craig DeLuz Debates Same-Sex Marriage on Capitol Public Radio

The host is Jeffrey Callison

The segment will be live TODAY 2:00 to 2:25 p.m. on
- KXJZ 90.9 Sacramento
- KKTO 90.5 Tahoe City
- KUOP 91.3 Stockton
- KQNC 88.1 Quincy KXPR

The Classical Station
- KXPR 88.9 Sacramento
- KXSR 91.7 Groveland/Sonora
- KXJS 88.7 Sutter/Yuba City
The show will be archived on their website: http://www.capradio.org/programs/insight/default.aspx

If you would like to call in during or after the interview, if the topic continues. The call-in number is 1-888-345-5959.

Why Values Matter- Republican appointed justices approve gay marriage

While Republican candidates and organizations send out a flurry of press releases and statements decrying last week’s California Supreme Court decision, few in the GOP have discussed the fact that three of the four judges who voted to legalize same-sex marriage were appointed by Republicans. Joyce Kennard (Deukmeijan), Kathryn Mickle (Wilson) and Chief Justice Ronald George (Wilson) joined Carlos Moreno (Davis), the only Democrat on the Supreme Court in legalizing same-sex marriage.

If there was ever an argument for supporting Real Republican candidates, it is the travesty that has been hoisted upon the voters of California by these liberal Republican Supreme Court justices. Take for example Chief Justice Ronald George. He was appointed to the Court in 1991 by Gov. Pete Wilson and has too often been on the wrong side of Republican values in his rulings.

In 1996 he and Justice Mickle were in the minority of a 4-3 decision that upheld a law requiring minors to obtain their parent’s consent before getting an abortion. A year later, Justice George would be a part of the 4-3 majority who, in an unprecedented move voted to overturn their own ruling.

It is also worth noting that the key to this reversal was the fact that Justice Armand Arabian, who voted to protect parents’ rights retired not long after the first decision. Unfortunately, he was then replaced by Justice Ming Chin, another Wilson appointee who would then vote to overturn the parental consent law passed by the legislature.

This just goes to show how schizophrenic our Republican controlled court can be when it comes to moral issues; one minute they are constitutional, the next minute they are not. Too many of their rulings have been textbook examples of liberal judicial activism. AND THESE ARE REPUBLICAN APPOINTEES!!!!

I would hate to see what the court would be like with a bunch of Democrat appoints. Of course, with Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?

Memo to Republicans: If we elect Real Republicans, we will get Real Justices and Real Justice!

Video: Waxman to Issa: 'I will have you physically removed'

I find it interesting that the committee chair didn't care at all about the rules of conduct that he is supposed to be enforcing. But then again, the only rule that Democrat representatives seem to care about is "Majority Rule".

Democrat Party’s racist roots are starting to show…

Despite years of trying to portray themselves as “The Party of Diversity” the true face of the Democrats are finally showing through, as exit polling from primary after primary shows that race is playing a major role in how Democrats are voting.

North Carolina & Indiana:

Race again played a pivotal role in Tuesday's Democratic presidential clashes, as whites in Indiana and North Carolina leaned solidly toward Hillary Rodham Clinton and blacks voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, exit polls showed.

West Virginia:

One in five white voters said race was an important factor in their vote and 83 percent of them voted for Clinton against Obama, who would be the first black major-party presidential nominee.

Mississippi:

As has been the case in many primary states, Obama won overwhelming support from African-American voters. They went for him over Clinton 91-9 percent.

But Mississippi white voters overwhelmingly backed the New York senator, supporting her over Obama 72 percent to 21 percent.


As a matter of fact Alan Fram of the Associate Press wrote:

Exit polls of voters in Democratic primaries also show that whites who considered the contender's race _ Clinton is white, Obama is black _ were three times likelier to say they would only be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee than if Obama were chosen.


Isn’t this the enlightened party? … Open to a diversity of cultures?

I could go on and on, but you get the point.

This just goes to show that the party that fought to keep slavery, founded the KKK, instituted Jim Crowe, authored the Southern Manafesto and fought against the 1964 Civil Rights Act hasn’t strayed too far from it’s racist roots.

As far at their modern day racist policies… I’ll leave that for another post.

Obama fails history lesson

Presidential hopeful, Barak Obama continues to demonstrate his ignorance of history as he continues to defend his commitment to meeting, unconditionally with the leaders of country’s that are enemies of the United States.

In his victory speech following the North Carolina Primary, Obama declared, "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."

Well Real Clear Politics published a commentary by Jack Kelly pointing out that Barak’s statement demonstrates stupidity, not wisdom. Kelly writes:

I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.

FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.

Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman's response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.

So apparently, Roosevelt and Truman did not agree with Barak’s belief in unconditional talks with enemy states. In fact, they held that the only condition that merited talks was that of “Unconditional Surrender.” Kelly goes on to debunk the Obama’s “wisdom” when it relates to the actions of President Kennedy:

Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961.

Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit.

"There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy's measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions," Mr. Abel wrote. "There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America's power. He questioned only the president's readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are 'too liberal to fight.'"

That view was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: "Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs," Mr. Reston wrote. "He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed."


Ok…. I’m still waiting for the “Wisdom” to which Obama is referring? Like a school yard bully, Khrushcev saw Kennedy’s overtures as a lack of will to fight, which we all know, will provoke said bullies to be even more bold and aggressive. I wonder how much sooner the cold war could have been ended, had Kennedy not compromised our credibility as a military superpower ready to do whatever it took to protect our citizens.

There is a popular saying: “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Well, through his own words, Barak Obama demonstrates that not only has he failed to learn vital lessons from history, he hasn’t even learned the facts of history.

Night of the Living Democrats!!!

The video says it all! Too Funny!

Will the Real Republicans Please Stand Up?

Sacramento Republican Activists Launch Effort to Support the Republican Wing of the Republican Party

(Sacramento) - Limited government, lower taxes and family values are just a few things that voters usually associate with the Republican Party. But recently, elected Republican officials have been actively taking positions against these bedrock Republican values and have supported efforts to increase minimum wage, driving up unemployment; proposed a tax increase on homeowners to pay for fire protection that they are already paying for; and fighting against an effort to protect the definition of marriage, as between a man and a women. Some say you can hardly tell the Republicans from the Democrats these days.

This has caused, a group of Republican Party activists in Sacramento to launch an effort to take back their Republican Party. Today, Support the Platform (STP) officially announced their slate of candidates for the Sacramento County Republican Party Central Committee, along with their plans to help Real Republicans get elected. “Our goal is to make sure that we elect Republican candidates to office who actually support Republican values”, declared Craig DeLuz, Chairman of STP. “Our values are outlined in our Republican Party platform. And if you want to represent Republicans in office, we believe you should support Republican principles.”

The Sacramento County Republican Party Central Committee (SCRP) is the official arm of the Republican Party in Sacramento County. Thirty-one of the Committee’s 44 members are elected by Republican voters in Sacramento County and run by Supervisorial District. The other 13 are positions held by Republican elected officials or party nominees for various partisan offices. “For too long we have allowed our Party to be controlled by people who are hostile to what we as Republicans stand for,” exclaimed Mali Currington, a candidate for the Ninth Assembly District in Sacramento, “I for one am glad to see Real Republicans standing up to be counted.”

STP’s efforts will start with the upcoming June primary where efforts are under way to elect their slate of candidates to the GOP Central Committee. Additionally, they are asking other Republican candidates to sign the “STP Pledge” declaring their commitment to support Republican values as outlined in the California Republican Party Platform. They also have launched a website SupportThePlatform.org to provide readers with up to date news and information on Republicans running for office in Sacramento County and where they stand on the issues important to Republican voters.

According to DeLuz, “We will be on the radio, on the web and in Republicans’ mailboxes letting them know there are still Republicans out there who believe in the values that make this Nation great.”