Meg Whitman for Governor- So let me get this straight…

I truly want to keep an open mind about Meg Whitman’s candidacy for Governor. But judging by the LA Times interview published today, she is not off to a great start.


-She doesn’t know how she feels about school choice.
-She didn’t vote for Prop 187.
-She didn’t vote in the Recall.
-She “didn't vote as often as I should, and it's something I regret. And no good excuses for it. Wish I had. Should have."
-She believes that Pete Wilson is “the greatest governor in memory”.
-She “praised” him for raising taxes during the 1992 budget crisis.
-And she didn’t even become a Republican until 2007.

Why exactly should I vote for her?

First, there are certain bedrock issues that California Republicans care about. Immigration is #1 amongst these issues. She will need to take a firmer stance on how she will address this issue. And not being able to articulate a position on school choice is inexcusable. As public schools continue to fail our most vulnerable students, school choice is the premiere GOP solution to addressing this crisis.

And let’s talk about not voting in the recall and not even becoming a Republican until 2007. WHAT UP WITH THAT?! A the GOP candidate for the state’s highest office, she would be our standard barer. But if she hasn’t been willing to stand until just recently, why should she be elevated to lead our party? I mean, I am all for new converts coming and getting involved in my church. But I’m not going to make them the Pastor.

I will give her half a point for her statement about Pete Wilson. Compared to Davis and our current governor, I would welcome the moderate level of conservatism he brought to Sacramento. But I am alarmed by the level of contempt that he and others who support Whitman have shown toward the more conservative wing of our party. Whitman could inadvertently be labeled as an anti-conservative simply because of the company she keeps.

I am still checking her out. But if she is going to win the support of the GOP base, she has got to do better than this.

Bucking the Trend: DeLuz Brothers on CBS 13

Craig DeLuz on the Capitol Hour- The Republican Reformation

“And if by these things you are not reformed by Me, but walk contrary to Me, then I also will walk contrary to you, and I will punish you yet seven times for your sins.” Lev 26:23-24

Republican voters sent a clear message to Republican elected and candidates- start governing like Republicans or we will send you packing! So have we learned our lesson?

Is this the beginning of the Republican Reformation?

We will be talking about this and more TODAY on the Capitol Hour.

Details Below:

When: Today, November 26th

Station: KTKZ 1380AM

Live Audio Steaming at http://www.ktkz.com/ (for those of you out of the Sacramento Region)

TIME: 12 noon-1 pm (PST)

Call in Numbers: (916) 923-3300 or 1(800) 923-1380

Is the Religious Right wrong for the GOP?

I knew it was only a matter of time before my fellow Republicans started taking pot shots at us religious conservatives; blaming us for the outcome of this most recent election. (See Kathleen Parker: Religious right threatens Republican Party's future)

Is it just me or wasn’t the man at the top of our ticket a guy who took great pride in the fact that he was not a member of the Christian right? And wasn’t his campaign run by folks like Steve Schmitt, who did everything possible to run their candidate as anything but a conservative Republican? Face it, this was the year of the “Moderate Republican” and they lost.

The only reason it was as close as it was, was because of the addition of Sarah Palin to the ticket. We all watched as crowds cheered, donors gave and volunteers flooded the campaign. Why were they doing this? It was because this young energetic PRO-LIFE, PRO-GUN, PRO-MARRIAGE, CONSERVATIVE woman was now on the ticket. Like her or not, Sarah Palin brought energy and excitement to this presidential election at levels her more moderate running mate could not. And had it not been for the conservative haters in the campaign undermining her at every turn, the ticket might have done even better.


But let’s be honest, considering the level of Obamania that swept the country and the media, an almost $1 billion war chest and a meltdown of the financial markets; Ronald Regan- heck, even Abraham Lincoln couldn’t have won. So, I don’t blame John McCain. But to blame religious conservatives for the state of our party is just plain wrong.

I believe that there are two primary culprits to this meltdown.

The first is Republicans not walking the talk. We claimed to be about smaller government, but the greatest expansion of government spending happened under our watch. We claim to be about family values, but we had leaders propositioning congressional pages and playing footsies in the men’s room. We claimed to be the party of “Ethics and Moral Values”, meanwhile members of our party are being run out of office (some to jail) under corruption charges. We claim to be a party who supports equality for all, but we can’t seem to find our way to some communities until we need their vote. To make a long story short, we lost because we governed like democrats.

The second culprit is the GOP infighting. Moderates blame conservatives, stating that the only way to win is to abandon our socially conservative principles and change the party platform. Then conservatives fire back, questioning the “Republicanism” of anyone who disagrees with them on anything. We become the proverbial circular firing squad shooting at each other instead of the Democrats. If we are to turn this around two things are going to have to happen. First, moderates need to stop attacking our conservative values. Conservatives make up the core to of the GOP's base. We are the meat and potatoes, moderates are the side dish. So, stop trying to change the platform. Likewise, conservatives must realize that not everyone is going to score 100% on the conservative values test. The party platform is the measuring stick we should use when judging our candidates. But we must also keep in mind that in some cases the perfect Republican candidate will not be the perfect Republican. Believe it or not, one can be a fiscal conservative and social moderate and still be convicted of being a Republican. In the infamous words of Mr. King (Rodney that is) “Can’t we all just get along?”


However, there is a silver lining to this rather dark cloud. The best solution for the syndrome that now ails the Republican party past has always been a Democratic administration. Nothing brings combatants together like a common enemy.

Let us not forget that Jimmy Carter helped us usher in the Regan Revolution. Then there was Bill Clinton’s liberal leadership, which led to the Contract With America. The election of Barak Obama could turn out to be best thing that could have happened to the GOP. That is, if we can learn to get along, govern according to our values and take a serious look at how we plan to attract new Republican voters.

So, what will Republican need to do to attract these new voters? We need to go to where they are; to get to understand their issues; and then, effectively communicate how our common conservative values can produce societal and public policy solutions to the challenges they face.

We have a lot of heavy lifting to do to rebuild our party. And if we are to be successful, it will not be as some sort of "Democrat-Lite" Party. "All the liberal values without the annoying tax increases." It will be because we have committed the resources necessary to build relationships with voters and have focused our message on shared values of family, opportunity and freedom as it applies to all Americans.

This Brotha has escaped the plantation!

Thank God! Someone else gets it!

Debra Bowen hosts drive by registation, but has no voter reg cards for GOP

According to the California Republican Party, Secretary of State, Debra Bowen's office refused to fulfull their request for 20,000 voter registration cards. The excuse given was that the delayed budget caused them to run low on printed voter registration cards.

When confronted by the media, Bowen's office denied any such shortage. Little did the folks at the CRP saved the voicemail message for them from the Secretary's office. and it tells a very different story.

Meanwhile, Ms. Bowen has hooked up with her fellow Democrats to host a "Driveby Voter Registration" event at the Sacramento Convention Center. I guess they the shortage only applied to certain groups.

DeLuz Brothers Discuss Race And The Presidential Election

This week the Sacramento County Republican Party was in the news for having items on their website that some called racially motivated, others called stupid,sophomoric jokes. In any case, the issue has ignited a firestorm that leaves many asking "Who is really playing the race card in this year's historic presidential election?"

David believes that the Republicans are up to their old tricks, including fear-mongering. Meanwhile Craig thinks that while some of the complaints are legitimate, the Democrats are also doing whatever they can to deflect legitimate criticism away from their candidate by declaring it all to be racist.

To tune in simply go to http://www.deluzbrothers.com/ and click on the Listen Live Button at the top of the page.


You can even join the conversation by calling in at (347) 237-5073. We will be breaking down the upcoming election and much more. You don't want to miss the fireworks!


Details Below:

When: Friday, October 10th


Station: Blogtalk Radio

Live Audio Steaming at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/The-DeLuz-Brothers


TIME: 9:30-10 am (PST)

Call in Number: (347) 237-5073

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!

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.”

Should Republicans compromise their values in order to win? A lesson from the Compromise of 1877...

There are many in the Republican Party who claim that the only way we can win is by changing our positions on some of the more controversial issues. Specifically, they would like to see us eliminate our Party’s opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, as is outlined in our party platform.

It is for these folks that I offer this brief history lesson, outlining what happens when we compromise what we knew to be right in order to win an election. It was Republican's agreement to the Compromise of 1877 eventually ended reconstruction and ushered in 100 years of Jim Crowe and oppression of blacks, all so we could have a Republican in the white house .

Here was the agreement- The 1876 presidential election ended with no clear winner. So, Democrats agreed to accept the Republican presidential electors (thus assuring that Rutherford B. Hayes would become the next president), provided the Republicans would agree to the following:

• To withdraw federal soldiers from their remaining positions in the South
• To enact federal legislation that would spur industrialization in the South
• To appoint Democrats to patronage positions in the South
• To appoint a Democrat to the president’s cabinet

Once the parties had agreed to these terms, the Electoral Commission performed its duty. The Hayes’ electors were selected and Hayes was named president two days before the inauguration.

This deal effectively ended reconstruction. As it died, Republicans and Democrats made promises that the civil rights of all Southerners would be respected. And for a few years this was the case.

However, by the 1880s it was clear that the northern troops would never return. Thus, as the threat faded, Democrat officials were less likely to investigate and convict those implicated in voter intimidation, making Democratic victories even more lopsided as black voter participation (the most important Republican in the south at the time) began to decline.

Then, by the 1890s, the “redeemer governments” began to segregate facilities by race and the lynching of blacks began to accelerate greatly and soon more blacks than whites were being killed without the benefit of a trial. The final "approval" of the redeemer governments came in 1898 when the Plessy v. Ferguson decision legalized segregation with the famous phrase, "seperate but equal."

With that victory segregationists accelerated the separation of the races and soon did not even bother to worry about the "equal" part. Also in the 1890s, the great denial of civil rights to Southern blacks became commonplace as poll taxes, literacy tests and intimidation effectively ended the practice of voting by Southern blacks.

This 19th century version of "postpartisanship" would in the end, ruin our nation and our party for the next 100 years; all because of our willingness to sell out our values, simply to win an election.

Huckabee: More of Miracle Guy

Just a bit of GOP humor I thought you would appreciate.

Nunez says what California Republicans Can’t- “Post-partisanship?” Pfft…

If there was ever any doubt that Post-Partisanship meant anything other than doing what Democrats want; California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez has officially put that to idea rest.

The San Jose Mercury News has a story today in which the Speaker made it clear that it was the Democrat agenda not a bi-partisan agenda that got advanced last year.

Nuñez also commented skeptically about Schwarzenegger's newfound advocacy for what the governor calls ``post-partisan'' politics. While in Washington, Schwarzenegger repeated the phrase he coined earlier this year, referring to himself as a governor who accepts ideas from all sides.

``What he's talking about sounds good theoretically. I think in practical terms the way I read it is it's just semantics. Post-partisanship -- what does that mean? I don't know. It's some word he made up,'' Nuñez said.

``But I think he has a claim, in some ways, to that new term because last year we got a lot of things done. But you know we did it because we reached across the party aisle . . . Remember, everything we got done were Democratic issues.''

I was really hoping that some Republican in DC would speak up and say something about this, but it was a Democrat who finally spoke up. Maybe Speaker Nunez is tired of the Governor getting all the credit for the all that got done last year.

Could it be that he wants credit for getting a Republican Governor to go along with his agenda?

Time for a Sharp Stick in the Eye…

When a fellow Republican is attacked by liberals, I am usually the first to give them the benefit of the doubt, pending the facts. But it appears that might be alone in that practice.

Fellow Sacramento area Blogger Jason Daniel has chosen to join local liberal media and a political adversary of mine to take a swipe at yours truly.

At his website The Eyes of Argus Daniel writes:

Sacramento City Council will create an ethics commission for investigating campaign money violations because Election Loser Craig DeLuz blew campaign money on a silly rug and cross country trips

His comments are based on a Sacramento Bee article published last week regarding the City of Sacramento’s Campaign Matching Funds Program. The article reported the following:

The one candidate to receive matching funding, Craig DeLuz, ran against Sheedy in 2004 and collected nearly $17,000 in city funds.

A 2005 audit discovered that DeLuz used his campaign funds to fly to Washington, D.C., Chicago and San Francisco and purchase a rug for his office. Receipts were sometimes handwritten.

DeLuz defended his expenditures, saying it was necessary to raise money from people living outside the city in a tough fight against an incumbent.

DeLuz didn't violate the ordinance as written, the audit found.

Now I first commented on these false allegations when they first surfaced back in September 2005 in my post “What a ‘Sheedy’ Thing to Do!” where I wrote the following:

First of all, the total amount for the items mentioned above was a little over $725. $286 went for a stay at the State GOP Convention and $321 was for a fundraising trip to Washington DC (with a two hour layover in Chicago.) That makes a grand total $607 in travel expenses on two fundraising trips.

And as for the $126 spent on a rug; we had a space for volunteer operations donated to the campaign for the final three months. The storefront location consisted of bare walls and a dusty concrete floor. But we were grateful to have it. So in order to make the place a little more pleasant for volunteers, we purchased a large roll of carpet remnant to roll out on the floor to cover the bare concrete floor and keep the dust from flying around.

I shared this information with the reporter who covered this issue back in 2005 and yet she repeated the same false statement in last week’s article. But as much as that bugs me; what really upsets me is when a guy like this jumps on the liberal’s bandwagon and attacks a fellow Republican without getting all the facts. It especially gets my goat that he could have easily contacted me and ask me what was up.

Before posting this piece, I attempted to contact Jason via the email address on his website and got no response. I wanted to speak with him to clarify what was going on and give him an opportunity to publish the whole truth. Unfortunately, four days later I have heard nothing. But it took him less that 24 hours to slander my name. I now know where his priorities lie.

It is this sort of irresponsibility that gives bloggers a bad name. It is why we have such a difficult time being taken seriously by the Main Stream Media. In the past I have enjoyed his incite on local issues affecting Elk Grove. But I now have to question the accuracy of what he writes along with his motivation for writing it. I no longer can count on him as a credible source of information. That’s really too bad!

*********

UPDATE 2/28/2007

Hours after this post went up, I recieved an email from Mr. Daniel apoligizing for not getting back to me sooner. Unlike most of us bloggers, he actually has a life... go figure!

In his email he stated the following about his comments:

I have not checked but I hope that you do post a responce. I would have to check into it a bit before I retract anything. Besides I'm not sure how I added on to a sac bee hatchet job. I just posted a link and you happen to be connected to the topic. I don't blog on you much. And I'm not sure what your buying a rug for your campaign head quarters amounted to your questioning my conservatism. I would think that me not being to hip to you buying a rug (when we all know that you got matching city money to run) with campaign money, would be considered a Conservative position. I don't really read you blog because you tend to blog on state and national issues so I did not read your defense posting.

I did not remove any benefit of doubt to your spending. The real issue is the fact that you made some decisions with the money that seem to be questionable. it stands to reason that if its an issue 2 years later, you might have to ease up on defending yourself and agree that it did raise eyebrows.

I will take more time to read your position when i get the chance this weekend.

I would say that if you would like to write an opinion piece on the issue of this campaign reform movement i would post it for a day as a guest piece. Let me know what you think.

I will contact you next week.

And to his credit he didn't even wait until next week, but followed up the same evening with the following:

Well, I just saw your blog posting. Bravo. Thanks for lighting me up. fair is fair. The offer to write a post for Argus is still on the table.

Good stuff though! If you think that MY creditability is in question, I would give it a litte more time and thought. I would'nt get so caught up with your Battle against liberals that you hit everybody with your vitriol. Maybe the point of my mention of you is that I think that your actions might have been a little irresponsible? Not anything to do with my turning to the liberal dark side. LOL!!

Fair enough Jason! All is good!

The New Underground Railroad is looking for conductors

The New Underground Railroad started as the result of numerous conversations that have taken place with Black leaders from across the country. It was started with the goal of
dispelling the Myth that Blacks are incapable of being success without government programs. It will expose the Democrat Party’s legacy of bigotry and hatred.

Over time we have invited several likeminded black thinkers from across the nation to contribute to the discussion. Well, now the time has come for us to expand our reach and ask you, our loyal readers to join the fight to free our people from the psychological slavery of liberalism.

If you would like to be considered to be added as an official Conductor for the New Underground Railroad (Click Here)

Please be sure to include the following information for consideration:

1. The name and url of your blog or website.
2. Your name and email address
3. Your city and state of residence
4. A brief description of you political leanings ( Moderate to conservative commentators welcome. Liberals need not apply!)

Bipartisanship means working with Republicans too!

By definition “Bipartisanship” includes two parties. But despite all the talk of willingness to work together to solve California’s problems, recent history has proven that the Democrat’s definition of “Bipartisanship” is doing exactly what they want.

Sacramento Bee Columnist, Dan Walters puts it best when he writes:

The Republican governor's deals with Democratic legislators were on issues that they held dear -- such as global warming, borrowing more money for public works and raising the minimum wage -- and anything broadly controversial -- such as building more reservoirs -- was bypassed because he was eager to build a re-election record.

No conservative issues, such as reducing business regulation or reforming public employee pensions, were allowed on the table, and Republican lawmakers were largely excluded from the process. Thus, what happened in 2006 was scarcely a model of bipartisan policymaking, much less the "post-partisanship" that the governor now embraces.

So in looking to this new legislative year one can expect one of two scenarios. Either bipartisanship will continue to be the “Republican Governor” working with Democrat legislators to implement Democrat ideas. Or because re-election is behind him, the governor will work to include legislative Republicans and their ideas in the debate about how to fix California.

Only time will tell. But I’m hoping it’s the later. Walters does not seem so optimistic.

The enduring message from that experience isn't that California is entering a new, golden era of centrist and cooperative politics, but that Schwarzenegger may be able to extend his record only if he deals with matters that the Democrats value, such as increasing health coverage.

Were Schwarzenegger to expand his horizons and approach the broader array of knotty issues facing the state, not merely those favored by Democrats, he would not only have to overcome the realpolitik dynamics of the Capitol but overcome the divisions within California itself that flow from its incredible socioeconomic complexity.

Can a Republican win without Values Voters?

At a rally held earlier this week to encourage Governor Schwarzenegger to veto bills that would promote homosexuality in California’s public schools, I made the following statement:

“Our governor is a Republican. We represent what are called ‘values voters.’ No Republican has ever gotten elected in any state without the vote of values voters. No Republican has ever gotten elected in this state without our vote.”

Can a Republican get elected without our vote? There are those who are betting that this is not true.

Dan Walters writes in his Sacramento Bee column:

Schwarzenegger will probably veto some contested measures and sign others. He appears to lean against gay rights measures involving schoolchildren, but toward those that bar discrimination or enhance equality -- short of marriage -- for LGBT Californians in the larger society.

The question, of course, is whether positioning himself in no-man's land and dodging bullets from both sides help or hurt him in his quest for a second term. And all-in-all, it aligns him with the mainstream of voter ambivalence about gay rights.

As much as they may dislike Schwarzenegger's signing SB 1441 and other bills, those on the anti-gay rights side know that were he to lose to Democratic challenger Phil Angelides, the full gay rights agenda would be quickly enacted. Pro-gay rights blocs, meanwhile, are likely to already be committed to Angelides, so the downside political risk for Schwarzenegger is minimal.

Clearly there are those in the leadership of the California Republican Party and the Governor’s campaign who are betting on the fact that conservative voters will side with a candidate they agree with 20-40% of the time over one with whom they will never agree.

I wouldn’t bet on that if I were them. A lot of the votes he received during the Recall came from values voters who did not vote for the more conservative Tom McClintock because they did not believe he could win. And while nobody expected Arnold Schwarzenegger to be a right-wing relgious conservative, there were hopes that he would at least follow the example of Former Governor Pete Wilson.

Wilson was not prolife. Nor was he against the homosexual lifestyle. But he also did not do anything or sign any legislation that would expand or restrict abortion or gay rights. And without going into detail, it is obvious that the same cannot be said of Governor Scwarzenegger.

Many values voters are suffering from buyers remorse. They know that Arnold Schwarzenegger is better than Phil Angelides, but only marginally on the issues that are important to them. And to the most extreme conservatives there is no difference at all. They see this gubinatorial election as a choice between the lesser of two evils. And are thus, not motivated one way or the other.

Governor Schwarzenegger will not win without values voters. And the only way he will our votes is by distinguishing himself rom Phil Angelides on the issues that are important to us. And chief among them in keeping homosexual indoctrination out of our schools.

Governor, we don’t expect you to be perfect. And we have set a pretty low bar for you reach in order to be assured of getting many of our votes. Veto AB 1056, AB 606 and AB 1207 (the reincarnation of AB 866 you vetoed last year) And don’t take us or our votes for granted.

I think values voters have been willing to cut you some slack. However, you are on the verge of pushing their grace too far.

LA Times Plays the Race Card. But It's not going to work!

In a feeble effort to portray Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as a racist, the Los Angles Times released an excerpt from a tape that was recorded during a private meeting.

(Click Here to Listen to the tape)

The LA Times goes on to detail the closed door conversation:

They move on to Garcia, a Cathedral City lawmaker who is the daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants. On her website, Garcia is described as "born on the Lower East Side of New York to teen parents."

"Bonnie Garcia is great," Kennedy says on the recording. "She's a ball-buster. She's great. Is she Puerto Rican?"

"She seems to me like Cuban," Schwarzenegger says.

"She's not Mexican," Kennedy replies.

"No," the governor agrees.

"But she said something," Kennedy says, "and I thought, I thought she was Puerto Rican."

Then Schwarzenegger offers a theory.

"She maybe is Puerto Rican or the same thing as Cuban. I mean, they are all very hot. They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it."

My first question is how did they get this tape? Who was recording it? Well it appears that from time to time the governor records some of his meetings so that his speech writers can capture his speech patterns and language styles on policy issues. So, he does not record all of his conversations. But this was clearly meant for internal use and must have been leaked by someone inside the administration.

My second question is what are people supposed to be so offended about? Are Latinos and Blacks supposed to be up in arms because the governor said we are hot? I AM HOT!!! And so is Assemblywoman Garcia!

I'll tell you what does offend me though... The fact that the liberals like the LA Times and gubenatorial candidate Phil Angelides would think so little of Blacks and Latinos to believe that such trivial garbage is all that we care about.

Even the most liberal of liberal Blacks aren't falling for this one. In a statement released by Dr Amos Brown, the President of the San Francisco NAACP he stated:

Anyone who knows the Governor as I do shares my deep offense to Mr. Angelides' calculated political attack on the Governor today.

"Mr. Angelides' record of divisive and partisan politics stands in sharp contrast to this Governor's leadership and commitment to all communities."

While I do not agree with the governor on everything, he has done more to empower people of color within his administration and in the community than any of his recent predicesors. He has appointed more people of color (Blacks and Latinos in particular) than Gray Davis ever did. And unlike Davis, he has actually given them the authority necessary to do their jobs.

But you won't see the Times reporting on that; because it actually portrays a Republican in a good light. Not media bias here, eh?

Support the Platform Declares Victory!

Well the 2006 primary election is behind us. And here in Sacramento County, those who support the state and national platforms of the Republican Party were overwhelmingly successful.

Of the 16 candidates for the Sacramento County Republican Central Committee who participated in the Support the Platform Slate, 12 were elected. That is a success rate of 75%. WOW!!!!

Read More...

Fight the Republican Evolution!

Vote for "The Support The Platform Slate"!

Visit

http://supporttheplatform.blogspot.com/

Red States are going to church… Blue States are going to Hell!

Ok ….going to church does not necessarily mean that you are going to heaven. But according to a recently released two year study, it may mean that you are more likely to vote Republican. (Click Pic For Details.)

Gallop Poll conducted a two year study into the correlation between voting tendencies and church attendance. And what they discovered is the following:

• Forty-two percent of Americans attend a church or a synagogue once a-week or almost once a-week; 43% say they seldom or never attend church.

How often do you attend church or synagogue?

Once a week 31%
Almost once a week 11%
Once a month 13%
Seldom 27%
Never 16%

• There is a strong correlation between frequency of church attendance and partisan voting tendency. The more frequent a person attends church the more likely they are to vote Republican. Conversely, the less frequent a person attends church the more likely they are to vote Democrat.

• The closeness of the national political divide is mirrored by the nearly even split between regular church attendees (42%) and non-church attendees (43%).

• Nine of twelve swing states in Presidential politics are within 4% above or
below the national frequent church attendance average (ie: they range between
38% to 46% frequent church attendance.)

• There are eleven states where frequent (once a-week/almost once a-week) church attendance is 50% or more. Each is a safe Republican voting state in Presidential elections.

This study does nothing more than shine a light on what has long been obvious to us BIBLE BELIEVING Christian voters. Of the two major parties, it is the Republican Party that is most consistent with our Christian values.

But it also raises an interesting question for “Christian” Democrats. How do you explain the inverse relationship between those who regularly sit under the word of God and those who vote for Democrats? And secondly, do they see themselves as an anomaly in this phenomenon or is their church attendance and belief in the biblical scripture just as shaky as those who don’t call themselves Christians?

The fact is many who call themselves Christians, spend very little time getting to know Christ. Few attend church more than two times a year; Christmas and Easter. And even fewer actually spend time reading the Bible or praying. I have even encountered those who claim to be Christian, but don’t believe in the Bible. And without exception, these folks have all turned out to be liberal Democrats.

Then there are those who do attend Church, pray and I believe love God. But for some reason, they continue to support candidates for public office who are actively working to promote laws and statutes that conflict with the word of God.

I will be the first to admit that the Republican Party isn’t perfect. But when it comes to supporting Christian Values, it stands head and shoulders above the Democratic Party. In my six years of studying God’s word as it relates to the role that Christians are supposed to play in civil government, I have discovered the following duties that we, as believers are called to do:

1. Pray for Leaders- whether we like them or not.

“Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers,intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.” [I Timothy 2:1-2]

“IF My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, THEN I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” [II Chronicles 7:14]


2. Select God Fearing Leaders- who Advance Christian Principles in Civil Government

“Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.” [Exodus 18:21](e.g., Federal—State-County/City)

“You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the LORD your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment. You shall not pervert justice…” [Deuteronomy 16:18+]

3. Seek Knowledge and Wisdom (Biblical principles are to be the benchmark for selecting political parties, people (candidates for office), and ballot propositions.)

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...” [Hosea 4:6a]

“Incline your ear to wisdom. And apply your heart to understanding. …Cry out for discernment… Then you will understand the fear of the LORD.” [Proverbs 2:2, 3, 5]

4. Take Action to Advance His Principles Until He Returns

“Occupy [do business on My behalf] till I come…” [Luke 19:13b]

“Faith without works is dead…” [James 2:26b]

“For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required…” [Luke 12:48]

“Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” [James 4:17]

5. Obey Governing Authorities and Laws

“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” [Rom. 13:1] (see also I Pet. 2:13,14)

6. Resist Tyrants and Laws that Violate Scripture [Daniel 3 & 6, and
Acts 4 & 5] See Daniel 3 & 6 and Acts 4 & 5 for examples of godly individuals who violated man’s law in order to obey and honor God.

7. Teach Our Children the Biblical Principles (including their duty to select just leaders and the Biblical principles of Liberty); we must re-establish an inter-generational perspective

“And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children…” [Deut. 6:6-7a] (Also see Deut. 4:9 and Proverbs 22:6)

How many of us really do these things? I would say very few Christians do even half of them. If we did, we would not see the degradation in the moral values of our leadership that we see today.

Take for example my home state of California. Frequent church attendance stands at just 32% (23% once a-week and 8% almost once a-week) Placing the state near the bottom in frequent church attendance. Only six states have fewer people attend church on a regular basis. This is the same state who’s legislature was the first legislative body in the country to pass a bill legalizing same-sex marriage and is currently considering a measure (SB 1437) that would force school children to learn only about the positive contributions of gays, lesbians and trans-gendered individuals in history. How exactly is this in line with the values of Christian Democrats?

I would ask my Christian brothers and sisters to consider whether they have transformed their political world view to be consistent with their Christian faith or if they have perverted their faith to conform with their political beliefs. Are you a Christian first or a Democrat first? By their every action, the Democratic Party has demonstrated that they “despise” God. Do you?

No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. Matt 6:24