Monday, May 18, 2015

Congressman Loretta Sanchez, American Indians, WOO! WOO! WOO! WOO! WOO! WOO! WOO! WOO!; What Can Go Wrong?!

In less than one week, the nascent United States senate campaign of California Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Cal.) has imploded due to her once again overusing her one brain cell.

In the above video, Rep. Sanchez is yammering about something and then uses a term that, well I would not use in company I was not sure about their sensitivity.
The old American Indian war cry that was once a staple of the Saturday westerns and millions of boys and girls playing Cowboys and Indians.
And she did not just say it. Rep. Sanchez mimicked it with her right hand lightly tapping her mouth for full effect.
But it's what the dim bulb said that makes one totally shake one's head:

“I am going to his office, thinking that I am going to meet with a,” she said, while patting her hand over her mouth and making a noise. “Right? ... Because he said Indian American."

Because he said Indian American?!
SMH* until it bleeds!
Does this idiot, Sanchez, know the difference between INDIAN-American and AMERICAN-Indian?!
An INDIAN-American is one from the nation of India.
An AMERICAN-Indian is one who greeted the Pilgrims and may have been sorry they ever did,
But, to an intellect that is Loretta Sanchez, I suppose there is no real difference.
I am just going to write it but Rep. Sanchez is not exactly the best in the cause of taking women seriously in politics. Unless women want one to prove they can have one in congress be as dumb as some of the dudes.
Here's a couple of things about Rep. Sanchez that are interesting.
One, when Rep. Sanchez first ran for office, she ran for the Long Beach city council in 1994. One may not remember that because in that campaign, she ran as Loretta Bixley, which was her married name.
Next is when she ran for office again in 1996 and this time it was for congress. There she suddenly became Loretta Sanchez, her maiden name. and in a very bitter campaign against long-time Republican stalwart Rep. Robert "B-1 Bob" Dornan, Mrs. Sanchez-Bixley "won" the election. There was considerable voter fraud that was not fully investigated that may have changed the outcome.
Most important is that she has not lost an election since 1996 and her 47th district has become more Democrat.
In the strangeness that is the race to replace retiring nag Sen. Barbara "Ma'am" Boxer, Rep. Sanchez would seem a more logical choice than the barely in her second term attorney general, Kamala Harris.
But Rep. Sanchez is a loose cannon. She is the Sen. Boxer of the house of representatives.
But this stupid mimicking of the American Indian war cry and showing sheer ignorance may do her in before she even gets her campaign for senate off the ground.
Maybe it's all for the best.
The Cali GOP seems to be unable to, once again, attract any serious candidate to run for the office so it should be Miss Harris' or Rep Sanchez for the taking.
But it might be a little more fun if Rep. Sanchez could be elected, wouldn't it be?!

*SMH-Smack My Head

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Why I Have Lost ALL Respect For President Obama

I believe that if you look in an updated dictionary and find the word douchebrain, you will find as a definition two or three words.
Barack (Hussein) Obama.
In a panel discussion this past Wednesday at CINO* Georgetown University, the Dear Leader, President Obama, finally let his inner socialism spew out of his mouth.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, blamed the rich and or wealthy for the increase of poverty in the United States. Poverty that has quite bluntly increased under his stellar leadership.
In this account, The Dear Leader, President Obama, had this to say about hedge-fund managers:

"I'm not saying this because I dislike hedge fund managers or think they are evil. You pretty much have more than you'll ever use and your family will ever use."

In between the words of the Dear Leader, President Obama, is an anecdote about the top 25 hedge-fund managers making more than all the kindergarten teacher in the United States combined. What our Dear Leader, President Obama, failed to mention is how hedge-fund managers love giving their money to the Democrats. Tom Steyer is but one example. But if you do not believe me, here is some more proof from Open Secrets. I will concede that the tide is turning and they are donating more to Republicans. But maybe, just maybe they are tired of being like part of a Stockholm Syndrome cult and don't like giving money to the very people that want to take as much of it as possible.
And why does the Dear Leader, President Obama, refer to those who have any means as "society's lottery winners."?
Most importantly, who in the hell is the Dear Leader, President Obama, to say what is or is not enough money anyone should make and or have? The problem is that he let his inner socialism out with that comment. Too bad the Dear Leader, President Obama, did not take a look in the mirror at his own, very privileged life.
But it sure did not end there. The economic envy became education and by extension social envy.
In the eyes of our president, it is an awful thing for people wanting to send their children to private schools.
Again, in the words of the Dear Leader, President Obama:

“Those who are doing better and better, more skilled, more educated, – luckier – having greater advantages are withdrawing from the commons. Kids start going to private schools, kids start working out at private clubs instead of the public parks, an anti-government ideology then disinvests from those common goods and those things that draw us together.”

UGH! SMH** until it bleeds!
Does this dude believe the horse crap that comes out of his mouth?!
A primer on the Dear Leader, President Obama and his trajectory to the White House is needed.
Yes, Barack Obama was born in Hawai'i in 1961. He spent his early formative years in Indonesia and, surprise! Attended private school. When he did come back to the United States in his teenage years, Mr. Obama went to the prestigious Punahou School, courtesy of his banker grandma, you know, the one scared of black people on the street. And when Mr. Obama went to college, it sure as hell was not East Los Angeles Junior College. No, no, no!!! He went to Occidental College and for some reason did not finish undergraduate studies there. He transferred to Columbia University and finished there. And of course went on to Harvard law school.
Yeah, some interaction with the downtrodden of society.
In reality he did all the community organizing thing after years of left-wing indoctrination at elite private schools. And remember in his own words he talked about the kind of people he hung out with at Occidental:

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

Oh yes, these are your average folks. Yes indeed.
Where does this crap come from? Seriously? Most people do not know folks like this unless they are themselves politically active and on the left.
The total rank hypocrisy of this president is just so out there. I mean the dude has totally benefited from being an elitist himself. He did not grow up in poverty like say Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. He did not have a moderate middle-class upbringing like Harry S Truman. He did not have a quintessential middle-class lifestyle as Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon.
Yet he dumps and promotes lies to foment class warfare.
I did not want to go to the fact the president and Mrs. Dear Leader, Michelle Obama, send their two daughters to the moat elite private school in the Washington, D. C. area, Sidwell Friends School. But hey, why not point out his hypocrisy?
Most Americans, rightfully, aspire to get to a higher station in life than they may have been born into. Very few are in the truly elite families of the United States. Most would like to be able to attain a home, work a job that they at least like and maybe get a promotion or two. Have enough money to live a comfortable retirement and to leave a little something to their children if they have any. And that includes those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Maybe instead of dissing private schools, let the states have education back and break the power of teacher unions that dominate, especially in the large cities.
Instead of dumping on those of means, show that anyone can attain the same position. One of the reasons I love the show Shark Tank is that those who are the sharks are looking for something to take off with. They are investing in an idea and yes, eventually jobs. No, nSot everyone can get on Shark Tank, but there are people who are like them all across the United States.
Why can't our president unite the nation instead of dividing it every chance that he gets? Why can't he extol the virtues of hard work? Of the entrepreneur spirit that made the United States? Why can't he suggest that there are good ideas in private schooling and what needs to be done is bring them to public education? Why can't he stop playing the victim card and play the truth, the audacity of hope?
By letting the inner socialist out in the open, I have lost the little respect that I had for the Dear Leader, President Obama. I doubt he reads this blog (maybe the NSA does!) but what he needs to do is reach out and show a little humility. It will go a long way.

*CINO-Catholic In Name Only.
**SMH-Smack My Head.

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Joel Kotkin Strikes Again On What Ails California

Chapman University professor and Orange County Register columnist Joel Kotkin has written another brilliant piece on the monumental problems facing California that is certain to raise the hackles of the left.
As The Sacramento Bee is reporting that there is a $3,000,000,000 budget surplus and what the dominant Democrat majority in Sacramento want to do with it, Mr. Kotkin writes about the long-term prospects for California under the current Democrat regime.
Oh, FTR, the Democrats want to spend it all on education. A payoff for the teacher unions if there ever was one.
Mr. Kotkin and even I will give a bit of credit to Gov. Brown. It is as if he is the one adult left in the state capital.
But Mr. Kotkin does pretty much dissect the fact that in terms of economic growth, California is non-existent in that category.
For instance, a sure sign on economic growth is job creation.
Mr. Kotkin pointed out that last year, California added about 450,000 jobs and for the first time, in raw numbers, outranked Texas in the last 10 years. But a look beyond the numbers and it turns out that it is roughly the same rate of job growth. For the period of 2007-2014, California had an anemic 0.7% job growth while Texas had a 11% of job growth. And the number of jobs in California during that time? A rip-roaring 120,000 new jobs. Not good. Not good at all.
Another aspect of the so-called recovery is how narrow it is.
According to Mr. Kotkin, much of the recovery is centered in the San Francisco Bay Area and Silicon Valley. Outside of that area, the rest of the urban areas of California are not doing so well. my area, the Los Angeles area, is either at or below national average on all economic indicators. And while the rich are really getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and being joined by one-time middle-class workers. California has the fifth highest level of state unemployment in the United States.
Before anyone suggests that the high unemployment is centered in the inland areas, particularly and especially in the Central Valley, Three urban areas, Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco are in the top 10 in income inequality.
What this is leading to is a continuation of the exodus of the middle class that can get out. Many are just too tied to this state and or where they are and it is not viable to leave.
The most depressing aspect of all of this is the current progressive zeitgeist is the attempt to basically make California like, like . . .New York. That's state and city.
Look at the anti-farmer policies of Brown and company. It's not so much anti-farmer but more clueless than anything else.
We all know that industry is so disliked by the left. But they are under the delusion that the government, in this case the state of California, can jump start a nascent "green" economy. It is one of the main reasons why Gov. Brown is so pushing for the bullet train to nowhere. A rail line that will not be up and going in full until 2028 according to this article in this past Sunday's Los Angeles Times.
But here is something that is truth and not conspiracy.
The Democrats and the left now would like to pack cities with people instead of people wanting to live where they want.
One of the leftist fetishes is the concept of the mixed-use building.
What is a mixed-use building?
It is overwhelming apartments but, usually, on the ground floor are businesses of all kinds so that you don't have to drive to so many places. Even markets are located in some mixed-use buildings. And the other idea is to have one's workplace within walking and or bike-riding distance. What the left would like is to revert to Peking of the 1970s that we saw few if any cars (usually Communist party mucks) and lots of bikes on extremely wide thoroughfares.
Mr. Kotkin points all of this up in the article.
In fact, he ends the article with this point:

Being like New York – crowded and hectic but with better weather – is not exactly the future most people seek in California. I know few adults who look forward to giving up tree-lined sun-drenched residential streets for dark apartment warrens. It was better when the Eastern press laughed at us, since we always knew that we owned the better part of the deal. Now they are both praising us and becoming us and, in the process, challenging the very things that have made this such a special place.

Of course, as a native-born and raised Californian, the thought of being anything like New York is, well plain revolting.
What is needed to get California more on track?
First, getting rid of the cap and trade regulation that does not one thing that it claims it will do.
Second a complete audit of all state regulations and get rid of those that stunt economic growth and those that are redundant.
Lastly California needs a complete tax overhaul. Remember, by and large the ways of tax revenue are the state income tax, sales tax and property taxes.
It's a long-term project that just does not do well in 30 second sound bites. Or even 60 second sound bites. It will take a leader of courage to tell us the truth once and for all.
Maybe Joel Kotkin can run for governor?!

Saturday, May 09, 2015

Hot New Gay Question: Would You Baptize Our Baby?

With same-sex marriage a reality, something like this was bound to come up.
And it did in of all places, the Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida and two partnered men have a baby and want the baby to have the rite of Holy Baptism.
Here you maybe surprised but on the surface I do not see the problem.
But of course there is a problem with it, right?!
It all started when Rich McCaffrey posted on Facebook that he and his partner were interested in raising their adopted son, Jack, in the church as a Christian. According to the article, they did some research and looked at their local Episcopal church, the Cathedral church of St. Luke, the seat of the Central Florida diocese. The couple met with the dean of the cathedral, dean being essentially the rector of the church, and the Rt. Rev. Dean Anthony Clark agreed to perform the rite. Dean Clark suggested a service held on Sunday evening as that is a more "open-minded" group of parishioners.
That should have been a clue to the couple that there might be some resistance to this move.
But everything was moving along and the parents and baby were attending services and taking the required classes.
And then, well then is when bad news came to the parents.
Dean Clark contacted Mr. McCaffrey and his partner, Eric, and told them that they could not have the baptism at all. Not at the evening service, Sunday morning, not ever at that church. According to the article, Dean Clark said that there was an "internal debate" at the church and that some parishioners voiced opposition to having the service.
After all, Jack has two daddies and if they allowed the baptism to take place, wouldn't they in fact and indeed indirectly endorse the fact that the daddies are married.
I do not look at this at the level of being a full participant at a same-sex wedding. That should be a matter of conscience and it is quite different than baptizing a child in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
Some of the opposition is based of the part of the Episcopal baptism service where the parents and Godparents are asked some questions. Here they are, with the answers all are to provide:

Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces
of wickedness that rebel against God?

Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you renounce the evil powers of this world
which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you
from the love of God?
Answer I renounce them.

See, if one does not recognize the religious validity of the couple putting the child up for baptism, then wouldn't they be accepting the three questions in general and the third question especially? If you think the sexual act the is homosexuality is a sinful desire, well that is a valid point.
But how many parents and or Godparents are not living virtuous lives in answering any of the questions? How many could be having affairs? Unmarried? Addicts?
You get my point.
So, I have another, more theological quandary.
I became a Christian as an adult. When I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior, I made a conscious choice to join an Episcopal church. I was eventually baptised and confirmed in the Episcopal Church.
But I did so as an adult after making a decision for Christ.
I vacillate constantly about infant vs. adult baptism. In this case I think a dedication is appropriate. Or the parents could have had a private baptism. Or they could wait until Jack is of age to make his decision. Still take him to church and Sunday school and the like.
But as I think of all of this, including the valid arguments on both sides, I think that grace more than anything is needed for Jack's sake. There is a great book on the subject of grace in the Christian context, What's So Amazing About Grace by Phillip Yancey. It has helped me in those situations where grace is the only answer.
Sometimes when all else fails, grace is the only answer.
I commend the parents wanting to raise Jack in the Christian faith. Even if I don't get the fact that they are a married same-sex couple. They went to a church that they believed and were led to believe at the very least they would be able to have their son baptized. Some people in and out of leadership did not want it to happen for valid reasons. There was an impasse.
But the diocesan bishop, the Rt. Rev. Bishop Gregory Brewer, stepped in and personally reached out to Mr. McCaffrey and Eric and met with them personally. In the statement from the diocesan website, the Rt. Rev. Bishop Brewer said that the three had an open and frank discussion and eventually, Jack will be baptized later this year and the Rt. Rev. Bishop Brewer will perform the baptism himself.
This was and is a moment of grace.
The Rt. Rev. Bishop Brewer is a supporter of traditional marriage and thus had to exhibit a great deal of grace by showing himself to be open enough to performing the baptism of a child of two men that he does not believe is biblical correct.
It is for me to deal with this issue is to use grace and while maybe not being down with same-sex parents, that the child that will be baptised will be raised in the Christian faith and in the Episcopal tradition. And grace does not mean one is selling out serious belief. It means one is looking at a bigger picture.
So to answer the question from the headline, yes I think it is important not to deny the most important sacrament of the church to a child who cannot help his own upbringing and the baptism should be done.

Friday, May 08, 2015

The British Elections . . .We Were All Wrong

And happily so as the ruling Conservative party defied all odds and polls and cruised to a solid majority government gaining 24 seats and their junior partners in coalition, the Liberal Democrats, were solidly dispatched losing 49 seats.

The Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, and Mrs. Cameron

What this means is that the Conservatives are
seven seats above the necessary number to form a government without any other party in coalition. However, in the most technical terms, they only have a four-seat majority.
An aside as to why there are conflicting numbers, it is because the four Catholic MP's* from Northern Ireland run but never take part in parliament.
I wonder if they get paid?!
As I noted in yesterday's post, all the pre-election polling showed that the Conservatives would fall short of a majority and would either have a minority government or scramble to find partners to make a tenuous majority at best.
But as the results showed, it will not be necessary.
Now I am not a huge David Cameron fan. For a Conservative, he sure ain't no Margaret Thatcher. Not even a John Major. But he is superior to the alternative which would have been the Labour party led by Ed Milibrand.
Check that.
No longer led by Mr. Milibrand as he resigned as the Labour party leader. As well as he should since Labour took a double hit in losing 26 seats and and competitiveness in Scotland as the Scottish National Party are one of the two surprises of election night.
While I noted the huge losses of the Liberal Democrats, and I think 49  seats and single digits in the new parliament, the SNP gained 50 seats in Scotland, all at the expense of the Labour party. Now the SNP has all but three seats in Scotland and no doubt they will be pushing hard for another referendum on Scottish independence. And the SNP makes the Labour party look like, well the Conservatives as they are pretty hard-left socialists. And even with all that gain in seats, as a total of the vote, the SNP only had 4.7% of the total national vote. That is a substantive gain of 3.1%.
But the new uneven number three party is the UKIP as they now have one seat in the new parliament and a total of 12.6% of the national vote. A huge increase of 9.5%. But because it is 650 separate elections (the number of seats in parliament), the anti-European Union party only kept one of two seats it won in separate by-elections** before this national election. And while it did not win seats, they finished either second or third in most of the constituencies they competed in.
When added to the Conservative total of 36.8%, the U. K. took a good swing to the right as the combined percent of the vote between the Conservatives and the UKIP of 49%. And the combined left of Labour, Liberal Democrats and the SNP combined for a barely total of 43.1% of the national vote.
What this means in the practical is that the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom will not change. It will be frosty at best but not Israel-like frosty.
Domestically, the Conservatives will make serious cuts in the overall size of government and will have the aforementioned second referendum on Scottish independence and another one on exiting the European Union.
We have five years thereabouts to see how this all turns out.
But one thing is certain.
The polling leading up to the election was all wrong. Could this be good for the United States elections in 2016?

*-The four Catholic MPs represent the Sinn Fein and Social Democrat Labour parties from Northern Ireland.

**-By-election is a special election similar to that held in the United States.

Thursday, May 07, 2015

Who Will Win The British Election?

No one party will be able to come up with the magic number of 323 that it takes to form a government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in today's national election.
This is a rarity in British politics as this is a full-term government. Most of the time a prime minister of the ruling party will try to pad the numbers in the House of Commons by calling a "snap" election when their polling numbers are considered awesome enough.
The scorecard for us Americans is of the major parties in parliament now.
The semi-ruling party is the Conservatives led by David Cameron. It is the largest center-right party in the U.K.
The opposition is the Labour party and is the largest left-wing party in the U.K. The leader of the Labour party is Ed Milliband.
To be honest, neither leader is all that. They come off as boring technocrats. One on the right and one on the left.
Ahh, but this election has three minor parties that can claim the balance of power.
Currently the junior partner in the coalition government is the Liberal Democrats, the center-left party in the U. K. It is led by Nick Clegg.
But two upstart minor parties could be big players in a future government as well.
The United Kingdom Independence Party, or UKIP, is essentially the British variation of the Tea Party. It is led by the colorful Nigel Farage.
In Scotland, the Scottish National Party has surged and may be on the verge of winning all 59 possible seats in Scotland, thus dealing a blow to the Labour party in hopes of forming a coalition government.
The seemingly unlikely scenario is that one of the major parties wins the requisite number of seats and the monarch, Queen Elizabeth II asks that party to form the government.
One scenario is one of the major parties, which ever one emerges with the most seats, will form a weak, minority government. If that happens, look for another election very quickly.
Then there is an outside chance that the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition will be able to form again. It is expected that the Liberal Democrats will lose seats in today's vote.
For the right, the nightmare scenario could be that for the Conservatives to form a government, and if the UKIP scores enough seats (it already has two, both former Conservatives.), a possible coalition between these two forces.
For the left, the nightmare is for Labour to grovel at the SNP to form a government. The SNP is running to have another referendum on the question of Scottish independence from the U.K. It would be hard for the Labour party to justify a government with a party that wants to leave the U.K. in about two years or less.
But here is what I believe will happen.
The grandest of coalitions will occur, with a little of the left (the Liberal Democrats), a little of the right (the UKIP) and the center-right (the Conservatives). Between the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the UKIP, they would be able to have a tenuous but sustainable government for about a year.
This is the best primer on all the possible outcomes.
Whatever the results are, it does appear that the U. K. is in for a rocky year at least and voters will be the ones to blame in a sense. Weak leaders are a reason the polls for the big parties are so close.
The government will be a weak one, but keep the U.K. from causing world-wide economic panic.
Remember, the magic number is 323.

Here are two good links for complete election coverage; Sky News and the BBC.

Another Reason I Hate The Plastic Bag Ban

It has taken me a couple of weeks to write this post because I was absolutely outraged at what happened to Mrs. RVFTLC and I on a weekend shopping excursion.
Some background is necessary here.
My hometown of Pasadena, California has a ban on markets and similar establishments from providing plastic bags to customers. This is the ordinance. If one forgets to bring their plastic bag(s), you can still obtain a paper bag. For the price of 10c each bag. This is a local ordinance. However, a bill was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown that would make this ban statewide. It is on hold as enough valid signatures were obtained to put it on the general election ballot in November, 2016.
So, whenever I am with Mrs. RVFTLC, she always remembers a bag or more than one, depending on what we need to purchase. Me. Uh, not so much.
One of the reusable bags was an insulated bag. We used it for cold items and or when purchasing ice. Which is what we were going to do on this Saturday afternoon. It was the last of the shopping and then, home.
We went in the store, reusable insulated bag in hand and eventually the shopping cart as we have done many times before.
After we finished our shopping we went in the line, put our items on the conveyor belt and then were asked during check out if we wanted to purchase a bag. Mrs. RVFTLC and I looked at each other and realized something.
Our bag was gone.
Mrs. RVFTLC looked around the check out area and it was gone.
Someone stole our bag! A frickin' plastic, but insulated, bag!
Needless to say, we were righteously pissed off beyond belief. I mean, a plastic reusable bag can be had for as little as 99c at most supermarkets. Since we were close to home, the fury in me did not subside and after helping Mrs. RVFTLC put away the groceries, I railed on Facebook about the dastardly deed. My mistake was adding a line, this line in particular:


That ended up being a long argument with my sister over, you guessed it, plastic bags and how terrible they are. Needless to say, she missed the point of the post.
That coupled with the numerous times that I have forgotten a plastic bag as I noted here frustrates me about this abomination.
Look, as usual, environmentalist types get the whole issue wrong.
Firstly, supermarkets and the like used to have big boxes with signs for people to drop off plastic bags that they will not use for recycling. And also that people could trade or bring in used plastic bags to use. The problem was there was no incentive to do so. Under the current Pasadena ban, only one supermarket or like business offers any kind of credit for people bringing reusable plastic bags and that is the local Kroger outlet, Ralph's supermarket. Ralph's gives a 5c credit for all the bags one brings with them to shop. Why didn't places do that before, without the heavy hand of government?
Secondly, what ever happened to enforcing litter laws?
Has anyone not driven around your city and or suburban neighborhood and noticed, "Damn! Why is there just so much trash around?" I can tell you that the neighborhood park is one big trash can as there is trash all over the place.
What I would like to see is the kind of clean-ups that are done at the beaches. Most of that is done by kids through groups like Heal The Bay or the Surfrider Foundation.
As a conservationist, I see that as a real problem.
But this post is not about whether plastic bags are evil or a convenience.
It's about how low people can get to not spend a little money.
I don't exactly how much an insulated reusable plastic bag costs. Can't be more than $5 bucks, could it?  I mean, if one is going to steal a lousy bag, what the hell else are they going to steal.
Someone made the point on the now infamous Facebook thread that they might have been hungry and needed something like bread. Although that really had nothing to do with the issue, I got the Les Miserables analogy. First, I would not only personally buy the bread but any other food the person would want.
Maybe the crook was going to use said bag to steal more items. It's possible and more probable than not.
I will say that most people have not had the experience that we had but it is another reason why I hate the local ban on plastic bags. And am hopeful the voters of California will not allow a statewide ban next election.

Tuesday, May 05, 2015

Another Conservative Comes Out And The Left Goes Mad


That conservative would be political commentator Guy Benson and he is not out of the conservative closet but the gay closet and of course, the gay left goes mad.
From the website Qweerty the reaction was, well less than positive. Of course their position is clear that if anyone is not for same-sex marriage, then of course it's only because of homophobia and the fall back position of bigotry.
As Mr. Benson points out, most of the people that are opposed to same-sex marriage are not bigots. In fact I will make the point that it is on religious grounds (my personal opposition) that most are against it. Another reason is that for the most part, few if any state legislatures have changed marriage laws. That has been done almost entirely by courts.
But that is for another time.
The point is that Qweerty does not mention that Mr. Benson is in fact and indeed in favor of civil marriage for same-sex couples. But he favors broad laws that protect religious contientous objection to participating in any way a same-sex marriage ceremony.
Because according to the headline, being a gay and conservative is not inspirational.
Since I am friends with Mr. Benson on Facebook, long before this revelation, I found the response to be overwhelming support for Mr. Benson and the fact that, as an aside in the upcoming book, "End of Discussion: How the Left’s Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free (and Fun)", co-authored with partner in crime, Mary Katherine Ham. The reason Mr. Benson felt he even needed to address the issue is a chapter in the book. "Bake Me A Cake, Bigots!" Mr. Benson, correctly, felt that he should address how such an issue can personally affect him.
And he comes out on the side of liberty and individual rights over group think and group rights. Which is a distinctly conservative position.
And here is an aspect of policy that Mr. Benson readily acknowledges.
That at this point in time, the overall Republican position, at least in regards to same-sex marriage, will not change. And in this from the gay-friendly magazine The Advocate does make the point that some who are gay, even conservative, may be less than welcomed in the current GOP.
So, here is my take.
Until I started blogging, I had no idea there was such a thing as gay and conservative. I mean, I heard of the Log Cabin Republicans, but I looked at them as a liberal GOP group in the way I look at the Ripon Society. And while in college I was told they were gay Republicans. Meh was my reaction. It still is. And to me, they are still to liberal for my taste. Not because they support same-sex marriage and or are gay-friendly.
But back to my finding out about gay conservative Republicans.
So going around the internets, I fall into a site called Gay Patriot. I think, hmm, let me take a look. My reaction was WOW! There are gays, lesbians and others that think the way I do?! That believe in individual liberty and basically leaving people alone. That realize the fundamental threat to the United States are not obscure pastors wanting to kill gays and lesbians and transsexuals. The real threat are radical Islamics. That group think is dangerous. I thought that this is not an anomaly. And we are finding out more and more that it indeed is not an anomaly. The only reaction the left has is to defame.
I have more respect today for Guy Benson because he told his story. He did not have to. But he believed in being honest since he and Mrs. Ham wrote a chapter in their book on a subject that is very much personal to him.
So another conservative that happens to be gay comes out of the closet. He gets overwhelming support on the right. Of course, there are opponents. But all the left can do is get mad.