Earlier this year, I had a chance to participate in the Frederick Douglas Foundation's 2nd Annual Conference. Particpants came from all across the nation and shared their thoughts on our values and how they pertain to the black community.
With private sector jobs disappearing at an alarming rate, Assembly Republican Leader Martin Garrick, of Carlsbad, says in his weekly address that California must reduce the size of government to balance the budget. Here is the Assembly Republicans’ compilation of job statistics titled Real Facts: California Private Sector Job Loss vs. State Employee Job Cost.
California Unemployment Rate - 12.3% Source: California Employment Development Department
Californians Currently Listed as Unemployed- 2.24 Million Source: California Employment Development Department
Private Sector Jobs Lost in California Since 2005- 1,298,700 Source: California Employment Development Department
State Government Jobs Added Since 2005- 38,100 Source: California Employment Development Department
Average California Private Sector Job Salary- $55,000 Source: California Employment Development Department
Average State Taxes Paid by Each Private Sector Employee- $3,600 Source: Franchise Tax Board / Board of Equalization
Average Cost to Taxpayers to Pay Salary and Benefits for Each California Government Job- $90,000 Source: California Department of Finance
Number of Private Sector Jobs it Takes to Support One Government Job- 25 Source: Franchise Tax Board / Board of Equalization
So what is the Democrat's answer to these alarming numbers? RAISE TAXES AND CONTINUE TO GROW GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS...
Voters have had enough of the Sacramento City Council's refusal to do something about it.
After the Mayor and six council members voted to institute a boycott of the state of Arizona (in protest of their new immigration enforcement law) a group of Sacramento area residents opted to organize a recall of those who voted in favor of the boycott.
Congressional District 5 candidate, Paul Smith; Conservative Radio Talk Show Host, Eric Hogue; and Tea Party Express Organizer Mark Williams have put together RecallSacramento.com to gather the names and addresses of city residents who would be willing to sign a recall petition. The plan is to move on each member of the council, once they have commitment from enough voters in each district.
Organizers admit that it is unlikely that they will gain enough support to recall all the members of the council. But they feel that if they are able to remove even one, their point would be made. And the truth is, there are plenty of other reasons to want a change in city leadership.
Sacramento is facing a budget deficit of at least $43 million. Crime, including violent crime is on the rise. And despite gathering more than enough signatures to put a referendum for a Strong Mayor on the ballot, the city council refused to allow the people to vote on the idea. In fact, there is such dissatisfaction with the council that in the most recent election, two incumbents (Robbie Waters and Ray Tretheway) failed to win reelection.
If there was ever a time to take back our city government from these "Not so ready for prime time players" now is that time. The only question is going to be whether or not folks are actually going to fully invest in this effort. Because without a commitment of time, talent and treasury this recall will go nowhere.
Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina and leading Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman have begun there general election runs early. And they have done so by targeting those who Democrats seem to take most for granted- people of color.
The LA Times reported that over the weekend Carly was the only candidate of at any level to attend a Juneteenth celebration in Los Angeles.
Though many people had to ask her staff who Fiorina was, they crowded around to shake her hand, request her autograph and thank her for visiting South Los Angeles.
"I think it's very brave of her to come out, because she certainly knows the kind of crowd she's facing," said Cathy Youngblood, 58, a cultural anthropologist from Watts. "She's shown by being here, she's willing to listen. … Do you see any other politicians here?"
And last week Meg Whitman began running Spanish language ads during the World Cup; making her the first Republican I can remember to ever do so, as well as the only candidate doing it at this time.
This just goes to show that these are not your typical Republican candidates. And this is not your typical lineup of GOP slate of candidates. Heavy on diversity and real world business experience, they present a stark contrast to the group of liberal political insiders offered up by the Democrats.
And unlike Republicans of the past (and their Democratic opponents) this new group of conservative leaders are not taking ethnic voters for granted. A strategy that I believe will pay off in the long run.
There may be issues that separate Republicans from Black and Latino voters. However, there are just as many issues upon which we have significant agreement. The need for real reform of our public schools, abortion, protecting the definition of marriage and the need for comprehensive immigration reform that includes aggressive enforcement of existing immigration laws; are just a few areas where there is support for conservative ideas amongst black and brown voters. And just like other voters, these groups are not happy with status quo incumbent politics.
Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are engaging these voters; and engaging them early. They are hitting Democrats in their own backyard; making them step up and start offering a real alternative to these fresh new faces.
I hope that Meg and Carly keep up the pressure on their Democratic opponents. It will serve to not only help the GOP; but to give all voters a real choice come November.
Yesterday, President Obama delivered his first ever national address from the Oval Office. This is move usually reserved for important announcements, not whimsical political speeches. Guess which one he delivered last night?
As he discussed the current environmental crisis facing the Gulf Coast, it was evident that he had very little of substance to say. He announced a 6 month moratorium on offshore drilling, which was old news. He assured viewers that British Petroleum would be held responsible for the spill. Then in the spirit of “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste…” he declared a need for new environmental regulations.
President Obama did not explain why it has taken his administration almost two months to kick into gear on this issue as the economy and environment of the Gulf Coast is ruined. He offered no substantive plan as to how the oil spill will be cleaned up and the habitat restored.
But he did do as he usually does… talks about the future in an effort to inspire in order to distract from his lack of meaningful action on the issues facing the nation right now.
I cannot decide if this story is funny or just plain sad.
In South Carolina, Democrats nominated Alvin Greene to be their candidate for US Senate against Sen. Jim DeMint. They funny part is that now their party leadership is crying foul and accusing Mr. Greene of being a plant by the Republican Party.
They claim that someone else paid his filing fees and put him up to run because his being black would garner a good chunk of the democratic vote, since much of the electorate in South Carolina also happens to be black. Little did they suspect how right they would be.
After raising no money and doing no campaigning, Alvin Greene garnered almost 60% of the Democratic vote in their primary, making him their nominee. And as you can tell from the above video, he is eminently qualified.
The California Public Employees, Retirement & Social Security Committee (PERSS) will be hearing AB 2621 (Norby) which would remove restrictions that have hampered the ability of school districts to contract out non-educational services.
Watch as Craig, a who is a member of the Robla School Board testifies in favor of this measure. He will share why he sees this as an important way to help local school districts save money during these tough economic times.
While many opponents of the Democratic health care takeover bill gathered together in protest over the weekend, Craig DeLuz took a different approach. Rather than preaching to choir, He chose to take on the proponents of the bill head on.
Zeta Phi Beta hosted a Town Hall Meeting on Health Care at Sacramento State University in which Craig was a participant last Saturday. This “Bi-partisan” panel consisted of five liberal/progressive supporters of the President’s health care proposal and Craig, the only opponent to the measure. "I guess it takes five liberals to keep up with one conservative." joked Craig. "But I really enjoyed the opportunity to sshare the facts of the health care bill with an audience not probably has never heard them before."
Although, even having Craig there was a big step for them; as most of the time, folks on the left do not engage in true debate on issues. Rather, they usually promote only one side of the issue- theirs. And the audience , as well as the panelists clearly appreciated having another perspective.
Craig outlined the true cost of the President's proposal and pointed out a number of significant flaws with the bill. He even went as far as to point out the areas where Republicans & Democrats agreed on reforms,"Republicans have proposed legislation to protect people with pre-existing conditions, who have lost their coverage through no fault of their own; to go after those insurance companies who maliciously terminate coverage when some one gets sick; and even extend the length of time children can stay on their parent's insurance to age 25." shared Craig.
But Craig also made clear the differences between the Republic proposals that have been ignored by the Democrats in favor of the President's bill, which he calls in the Sacramento Bee, "a wholesale big-government takeover of our health care system."
He went on to point out how market-based solutions should be at the center of health care reform. Specifically he mentioned allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines, expanding the availability of Health Savings Accounts, allowing individuals to have the same tax breaks when purchasing insurance as do businesses and allowing insurance companies to reward policy holders who make positive lifestyle choices when it comes to their health. "I work out five days a week, eat relatively healthy and don't smoke. Why should I have to pay the same as someone who doesn't workout, drinks a twelve pack a day, smokes a cartoon a day and is morbidly obese?" asked Craig.
The United Republicans for America hosted a Black History Month Celebration Featuring Author/Actor/Commentator Joseph C. Phillips and Conservative Activist, Craig DeLuz.
Here, Craig is talking about how he came to be a Republican and how he believes we can win more blacks over to the GOP.
The end of President Barak Obama’s first year in office was officially marked by his first State of the Union Address. But for anyone who has actually been paying attention over the last year, it sounded more like the President was expressing a state of denial.
President Obama refuses to accept that the American people don’t want more government programs, with more government spending. So, that’s exactly what he offered. He refuses to hear the people when we say we are tired of the class warfare. So, he plots out a tax policy that supposedly targets the middle class, but in fact raises taxes on those who actually create jobs in this country. He put forth a call for ideas from Republican lawmakers, after a year of ignoring every proposal put on the table by the GOP.
In total, President Obama’s State of the Union Address signaled more of the same. More gridlock; more name calling; more finger pointing; and more of ignoring the voice of the people. And just like here in California, the people are fed up with it.
The only thing that separates Sacramento from Washington DC is our inability to print money. In both cases liberal leaders have sought take the government in a direction opposite of that which the people think it should go. In both cases, calls for transparency and bipartisanship ring hollow as Republicans are locked out of the room while Democrats cut deals with left-wing interest groups behind closed doors. And in both cases, the 2010 elections are shaping up to be the first battle in what is sure to become a major taxpayer revolt.
Victory will go to those who respect the people’s inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It will go to those who recognize that the money we pay in taxes does not belong to the politicians, but belongs to the people. It will not go to those who are believe in empowering the government to fix our problems, but to those who wish to empower the people to help themselves and one another.
Some in our government have heard and are responding to this rally cry. Others, like our President, continue to wallow in what can best be described as state of denial.
As Craig DeLuz made his impassioned plea to the Board Members of the Twin River's Unified School District to end their policy which allows students to be released from school without their parent's knowledge, KCRA Channel 3 was on the scene.
On Tuesday, January 19th parents & community leaders attended the Board Meeting for the Newly formed, Twin Rivers School District to stand against their policy of releasing children from school without parental consent or notification.
Here Craig DeLuz, who is also a local school board member, former teacher and parent of two children in the district asked the board to change the policy at their next board meeting. I have been told by at least one member of the board that they will look into this policy immediately.
According to the Declaration of Independence, "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Every election cycle we have the opportunity to conduct non-violent revolution. And if there is one thing that we have learned from 2009 it's that 2010 might be the year for just such a revolution.
Thanks to the pressure put on by parents, community members and pro-family activists the San Juan School Board voted 3-2 to not implement a new policy that would allow them to release students for "confidential medical services" without even notifying their parents.
"As a former teacher, current parent of two high school age children and a fellow school board member I know what you are going through in making this decision. I know that parents and voters have entrusted you make educational decisions for this district." Craig DeLuz who is a candidate for the State Assembly in California's Fifth District told the board, "But it is completely unacceptable for any board to take the power and trust we place in them and use it to undermine our rights and responsibilities as parents."
Also speaking before the board were known conservative activists, Karen England with the Capitol Resource Institute who made it clear that other area school districts have opted to require parental notification and/or permission before a student is released for confidential medical services. "So far no school districts have been sued." according to England. Karen went on to point out that the author of the legislation being sited as the reason for the policy change never intended for the bill to require a change in school district policy. In fact, she presented a 1987 letter from the assemblyman which stated that his intent was merely to require school districts to notify parents of what their policy was in regards to releasing students for such services.
Brad Dacus with the Pacific Justice Institute provided a bit of a legal seminar on the issue, as even the General Counsel for the district seemed to be misinformed as to what the law actually said. "The law say that school districts 'may' have such policies; not 'shall'"
Parents, pro-life activists, community members and the media all looked on as the board, which was clearly uncomfortable with all of the new found attention narrowly voted down the new policy. Board members Larry Masuoka, Greg Paulo and Lucinda Lutgen all voted down the new policy, while Board President Richard Luaney and Assembly District 5 candidate Larry Miles voted to keep parents in the dark.
"It was fact that the people showed up that made the board do the right thing." DeLuz declared "That's why I was here. Because we need leaders who are going to show up."
Here at the NAACP Voter Education Rally, Craig challenge's the audience to be open to all sides of the political debate. Not looking for agreement, but for a deeper understanding of the truth.
President Barak Obama's declaration that America is not a Christian nation has sparked debate and controversy throughout the country. So, how would you answer the question?
For me,the answer to this question would depend on your interpretation of what it is to be a “Christian Nation”. America is not is not a theocracy (a church run state) and Americans have never been compelled to believe in any one faith perspective. But it is undeniable that America has a distinctly Judeo-Christian heritage and that our history is rooted in Biblical principles from which all freedom flows. Absent these Judeo-Christian principles, there would be no America and no liberty!
Consider the following:
1.52 of the 55 Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were evangelical Christians (see David Barton’s resources at Wallbuilders.com).
2. A study conducted at the University of Houston involving a sample of over 15,000 writings revealed that 94% of the Founders’ quotes were directly or indirectly based on the Bible (David Barton).
3. Key components of our governmental structure are clearly derived from Scripture:
a. The rationale for the Separation of Powers comes from Jeremiah 17:9 based on the Biblical idea of fallen man
b. The structure of the three-Branch System of Government comes from Isaiah 33:22 and
c. Tax Exemptions for Churches comes from Ezra 7:24.
d. The concept of Federal, State and Local Governments comes from Exodus 18:21
4. Our Founders instituted prayer at the beginning of every session of Congress and a Chaplain system in the military.
5. The Motto of the American Revolution was “No King but King Jesus!”
6. The Bible was called the “Great Political Textbook of the Patriot.”
7. The Mayflower Compact, dated November 20, 1620, records the purpose for the Plymouth colony and subsequent expansion across North America, “for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith…” This is the American Covenant, that is, the document which organized the first civil government with linkage to the Great Commission and based on the principle of Christian self-government!
8. Our Declaration of Independence, dated July 4, 1776, makes four direct references to God and our dependence on Him.
9. Our US Constitution was ratified on September 17 “in the Year of our Lord” 1787 (Article VII, subscription clause)! Its principles are distinctly Biblical.
And if our founders were truly Deists, how do you explain the following quotes:
George Washington The first President of the United States in his Farewell Address (Sept. 19, 1796) stated, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars…”
John Jay The First Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court and one of the three men most responsible for the Constitution said, “It is the duty—as well as the privilege and interest—of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
Noah Webster Founding Father, Author of Webster’s Dictionary, educator, largely responsible for Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution “The religion that has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles… to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government. …No truth is more evident to my mind than that Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
John Quincy Adams America's sixth President, said (in a speech delivered on July 4, 1837, at Newburyport): “Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?”
These are not the words of Deists. These are Christian men declaring that the precepts upon which our nation is founded are indeed Christian and to preserve the blessings of this nation, we must preserve this Christian foundation.
What are these precepts?
1. Man is fallen and capable of wickedness (Jer. 17:9), therefore, the powers of civil government must be separated (and found the Biblical pattern for separation in Is. 33:22).
2. God-granted inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (private property and free enterprise): this stands in stark contrast to the idea of Man-granted privileges (“divine right of kings” which allows the sovereign to live “above” God’s and man’s law).
3. God’s principle of individuality: Exalts God and explains how He works through individuals and individual nations; each person is a unique and valuable creation of God.
It exposes the error of secular collectivism (i.e., the idea that the state has value, not the individual) and the error of individualism separate from Christ. (I Corinthians 12:4-11)
4. The Christian principle of self-government: In order to have true liberty, man must be governed internally by the Spirit of God rather than by external forces. Government is first individual, and then extends outward to the family, church, and community. The principle of self-government involves God ruling internally from the heart of the individual and is dependent upon man’s obedience to “the spirit of the law of Christ” (Rom. 8:2; Prov. 16:32; Rom. 8:2; Eph. 6:6; I Tim. 3:5)
5. America’s heritage of Christian character: The image of God engraved inside the individual brings dominion and change to his outside environment. The Founders understood that Christian Character (based on a strong sense of accountability to God) in governmental leadership is essential to the preservation of liberty in America. The model of Christian character is the Pilgrim and Patriot character. Becoming accountable for one’s individual actions and productivity is the fruit of Christian character. (Matt. 7:24-29; Acts 24:16; Phil. 4:13; II Tim. 4:7)
6. Private property with conscience as the most sacred of all property: Christians are required to exercise faithful stewardship of their God-given sense of right and wrong which is the key to the proper use of private property. Conscience is also a tool for the development of self-government as each child learns to submit his will. (Acts 5:4, 24:16; Eph. 2:10; I Tim. 3:9; II Tim. 1:3; Heb. 13:18)
7. Planting the seed of local self-government and the importance of the home: Identifies the Judeo-Christian home’s responsibility for maintaining religious and civil liberty under law (and the fruits of local sovereignty) including teaching and practicing industry, charity, and obedience to all laws not contrary to Scripture. (Deut. 6:1-9; 10:12-14; Is. 9:6; Lk. 9:6)
8. The Christian principle of voluntary union: God wants His children to cooperate and work together politically, commercially, and in meeting community needs through voluntary consent, without compromising a Christian conscience or Scriptural separation. (Ps. 133:1; I Cor. 1:10; Eph. 4:1-3)
With all this, the question still remains, “Is America a Christian nation?”
If one were to judge based on our foundation the answer would be undeniably “Yes!” But as we turn away from these precepts, we become less and less a Christian nation. And despite what some would have us believe, this is not a good thing.
Maybe it us just me. But I find it outrageous that Birthcontrol would be considered as a part of the economic stimulus package. Regardless of how you feel about birth control, to utilize funds from any economic stimulus proposal to pay for birth control is beyond obsurd.
It harkens back to the time when Planned Parenthood's Founder, Margaret Sanger sought to use birth control as a method of population control. It was her desire to keep certain "undesirable groups" from multiplying. And her primary arguement was that they would be a burden on taxpayers.
Here is a quote from Margaret Sanger:
Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."
This quote comes from Margaret Sanger's- The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition. And as you can see Pelosi, like Sanger believes that the goverment should be in the business of making sure that "poor folk" don't go having babies.
While I do agree that everyone should be responsible in their reproductive choices. I cannot belive that anyone would go as far as to promote birth control as economic stimulas.
In light of the history making events we witnessed this week and because today marks the 36 year anniversary of the passage of Roe v. Wade, I would like to offer the following food for thought
As one who was also born prior to Roe v. Wade and was unwanted by my paternal parents, this part of the President's story resonates with me. Furthermore, I have come to learn that had Roe been the law of the land in 1969, I myself would likely not be here. Just think, what if our President had been concieved just a few years later?
How many doctors, lawyers, teachers, pastors, community organizers or presidents have been sacrificed on the altar of choice? It it truly justice to allow one person's right to choose supersede another's right to live?
