Tuesday, November 30, 2010


Many believe the future of the Republican Party is riding on one issue and one issue alone. The issue is “Obamacare.” The question is ---- will the Republican leadership totally repeal Obamacare? Many believe that if the Republican leadership blows this, then kiss your political future goodbye ---not to mention our freedoms as well.
You have the issue in your hands, the Republican numbers to implement repeal, and public support just waiting for your leadership. The question is, do you have the will and the guts to stand up to the following: the back biting Washington D.C. establishment, the Lenin loving liberal media, the choir of “moderate” RINO compromisers in your own party.
Or will you trot out the list of excuses: "Oh, we might get the votes to pass the repeal but Obama will veto the bill,” or, “we didn't have bi-partisan support,” or “the public likes some parts of socialized medicine.” What! The Republicans now own the bloody pulpit; now show us the guts the Democrats displayed in shoving Obamacare down our throats.
The voting public spoke loud and clear; they didn't elect Republicans so they could preen, kiss up, and compromise with the "progressive" Lenin lovers in the other aisle.
Do what's right. Socialized medicine is evil. Keep your campaign promises. Be honorable men and women. Pass the repeal, put the ball in Obama's court, make him veto the will of the people and then override his veto. That will take care of him in 2012.
Vetoes can be overridden, it's been done in the past and it can be done again. It can be accomplished because it has been done under more difficult odds than you Republican leaders are facing today. And, against some of the same people you see in the other party across the aisle.
As an example, in 1977, both houses of the California legislature and the governor were very liberal, very anti-death penalty Democrats. The governor, Jerry Brown, was even an activist against the death penalty when his father Pat Brown was governor. As governor, he publicly stated he would veto a death penalty bill if passed. [Just like Obama says he will veto any repeal of Obamacare.]
Nobody thought it could be done, the press, the political pundits, academia, even the general public who wanted the death penalty, was skeptical. How was it even possible that it could succeed, certainly not in liberal minded California; especially since the Assembly liberal leadership held a 50 Democrat to 30 Republican advantage and the Senate advantage was 24 Democrats to 16 Republicans.
Senator George Deukmejean introduced the death penalty bill SB 155. It received mild attention by the media. I co-authored the bill and formed a political action committee named the Law and Order Campaign Committee {LOCC}. Its purpose was to drum up public support for tougher laws and for the death penalty legislation. LOCC went directly to the public with direct mail to build support for SB155. The results were excellent. What funds were received were quickly rolled over into new mail---time and time again this was repeated until tens of thousands of voters were reached and asked to sign a single petition and return it immediately to LOCC headquarters where their signatures would be personally shown to the legislators.
Twenty seven immense bags of mail containing close to 200,000 petitions were dramatically carried onto the floor of the Senate and Assembly. With every subsequent mailing, direction was given on which specific legislators were to be contacted, either by phone or by personal contact. Pressure was directed at specific legislator’s offices, especially their district offices. The volume of calls jammed the districts phone lines causing great anguish to staffs in both their districts and at the Capitol.
The death penalty bill began to attract wide public attention, even the press took notice --- so when we called for a press conference, the media showed up in massive numbers. They had to. Our direct mail had been so effective they had to report it.
To finish the story, the legislation passed both houses, Governor Brown vetoed the bill and we overrode his veto by the necessary two thirds vote.
Liberal California had the death penalty once more.
If the Republicans in Congress fail to repeal Obamacare they will be committing political suicide while creating a third party in the process. Man up! What's to compromise? Compromising with socialism is like compromising with cancer, even a little bit of it will eventually kill --aren't we sick enough already? The future of America is in your Republican hands ---man up!

Friday, November 12, 2010


In opening my remarks to college students, I always began the discussion with a friendly cheerful smile, a thank you for inviting me, and then I would say, " I'm well aware you already know that I am called a conservative and some of you consider yourselves to be liberally inclined. However, let's not rush to judgment.
"First, let us both check our epistemological presuppositions and see if we have anything in common, a set of ideological assumptions with which we both can agree. "Let me first ask all of you a simple question that I ask myself before I vote on any issue. Do any of you believe that anyone has a moral right to feather their nest at someone else's expense?"
At that point the class would quizzically look at each other, because some, if not most of the young class had never heard the expression. Smiling, I would explain, "in case some of you don't know what the expression 'feathering your own nest' means, it's a folksy old saying that our forefathers often used. Unfortunately, the last couple of generations seems to have forgotten it. To put it in the vernacular, it means to have a bad case of the wants for something that doesn't belong to you. It means to covet. Webster's dictionary defines coveting: 'is to want ardently something that another person rightfully has--- to long for with envy ---greediness.' In other words, to hanker for and to connive to possess that which doesn't really belong to you. Plucking goodies, 'feathers,' out of someone's nest and putting them in your own nest. Now, how many of you students believe you have a moral right to put another persons 'feathers' in your nest? Come on now--- let's see a show of hands."
Believe it or not, not one hand would be raised.
"Terrific," I would happily exclaim, "Neither do I. None of us really have a right to improve our lot at someone else's expense. In fact, the moral thing to do would be for each of us to help our fellow citizens keep their feathers from another citizen's covetous desires in hopes that they would do the same for us.
"Now, let me ask you another question. How many of you believe you can morally delegate to a third party the right for them to feather your nest at someone else's expense? In other words, you can employ, encourage a friend, or elect someone to take feathers from someone and give them to you? Let's see a show of hands." Again, no hands were raised.
"Terrific," I would happily exclaim. "If you thought it morally wrong to feather your nest at some one else's expense, you certainly couldn't delegate the task to another. Once more we all agree. Well now...would it be OK if you took from somebody who owned a big nest of feathers and gave their feathers to some poor soul who has a skinny nest with a few feathers? Is that moral either? I think not---same principle, you wouldn't do it for yourself then how could you justify doing it for someone else?
"Now, just one more question. How many of you believe might makes right…. that sheer numbers are always right….that if you are in the majority you can feather your nest or anyone else's if the majority jolly well desires?"
Believe it or not, when I called for a show of hands, most would still agree with me that might doesn't constitute right. I would then ask them one more question, “How many of you support governmental earmarks?”
Most of the students raised their hands.
"What's this?" I asked. “Isn't an earmark the same as someone getting money at someone else's expense? Isn't someone feathering their financial nest at some tax payers expense?” The students would usually justify their response, "Well, the majority of the legislature voted for it."
“Oh,” I would answer, “might makes right? Sheer political numbers justify the stealing of someone's feathers to satisfy the desires or the benefit of another? Think about it," I'd ask the class ---“you can't contradict yourself --now can you?”
By this time, the class would be in turmoil and I'd be having the time of my life. Hopefully, some of the students would be thinking for themselves and re-assessing their own fundamental assumptions.
Earmarks are nothing more than covetous actions of legislators stealing from one to benefit themselves and others, in the process breaking two Commandments out of ten. That's big time feather stealing don't cha think?