Sunday, August 23, 2009

As California Goes, So Goes the Rest of the Country…

I don’t know if I have many readers left as I have been negligent in my blog posting after the passing of proposition 8. My attention is needed in so many areas that it is difficult to find time to do everything and please everyone. While my blog posting has been pushed aside for little league baseball, AYSO soccer, work, and other adventures, I have been keeping an eye on political news. It’s scary. I received an email the other day that I want to post. It’s long, but worth every word. PLEASE read this and share with your friends… if the few readers I have left share with the few readers they have who share with their friends, etc, etc… you know the outcome.

July 13th, 2009

Congressman Tom McClintock offered remarks in Washington, D. C., on Friday to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Pacific Research Institute that clearly illustrate why California is facing such a large fiscal mess. His beginning joke is so funny because it is so true:

"I know that everybody likes to poke fun at California - but I can tell you right now that despite all of its problems, California remains one of the best places in the world to build a successful small business. All you have to do is start with a successful large business."

Here is the rest of the speech:

Laugh if you will, but let me remind you that when these policies finish wrecking California, there are still 49 other states we can all move to - and yours is one of them.

I should also warn you of the strange sense of déja-vu that I have every day on the House floor as I watch the same folly and blunders that wrecked California now being passed with reckless abandon in this Congress.

We passed a "Cash-for-Clunkers" bill the other day - we did that years ago in California.

Doubling the entire debt every five years? Been there.

Increasing spending at unsustainable rates? Done that.

Save-the-Planet-Carbon-Dioxide restrictions? Got the T-Shirt.

To understand how these policies can utterly destroy an economy and bankrupt a government, you have to remember the Golden State in its Golden Age. A generation ago, California spent about half what it does today AFTER adjusting for both inflation and population growth.

And yet, we had the finest highway system in the world and the finest public school system in the country. California offered a FREE university education to every Californian who wanted one. We produced water and electricity so cheaply that many communities didn't bother to measure the stuff. Our unemployment rate consistently ran well below the national rate and its diversified economy was nearly recession-proof.

One thing - and one thing only - has changed in those years: public policy. The political Left gradually gained dominance over California's government and has imposed a disastrous agenda of radical and retrograde policies that have destroyed the quality of life that Californians once took for granted.

The Census Bureau reports that in the last two years 2/3 of a million more people have moved out of California than have moved into it. Many are leaving for the garden spots of Nevada, Arizona and Texas. Think about that. California is blessed with the most equitable climate in the entire Western Hemisphere; it has the most bountiful resources anywhere in the continental United States; it is poised on the Pacific Rim in a position to dominate world trade for the next century, and yet people are finding a better place to live and work and raise their families in the middle of the Nevada and Arizona and Texas deserts.

I submit to you that no conceivable act of God could wreak such devastation as to turn California into a less desirable place to live than the middle of the Nevada Nuclear Test Range. Only Acts of Government can do that. And they have.

You can trace the collapse of California's economy to several critical events: the rise of environmental Ludditism beginning in 1974; the abandonment of constitutional checks and balances that once constrained spending and borrowing; and the rise of rule by public employee unions. There are other factors as well: litigation, taxation, illegal immigration - but for the sake of time let me concentrate on the big three.

The first was the rise of environmental Ludditism with the election of a radical new-age leftist named Jerry Brown as governor of the state - an election that also produced overwhelming liberal majorities in both legislative houses.

Like Obama today, Brown lost little time in pursuing his vision of California - an incoherent combination of pastoral simplicity, European socialism and centralized planning. At the center of this world view was a backward ideology that he called his "era of limits" - the naive notion that public works were growth inducing and polluting and that stopping the expansion of infrastructure somehow excused government from meeting the needs of an expanding population. Conservation replaced abundance as the chief aim of California's public works, and public policy was redirected to developing irresistible incentives for the population to concentrate in dense urban cores rather than to settle in suburban communities. Brown infused his vision into every aspect of public policy, and it is a testament to his thoroughness and tenacity that its basic tenets have dominated the direction of California through both Republican and Democratic administrations.

He canceled the state's highway construction program, abandoning many routes in mid-construction. He canceled long-planned water projects, conveyance facilities and dams. He established the California Energy Commission that blocked approval of any significant new generating capacity. He enacted volumes of environmental regulations that created severe impediments to home and commercial construction, empowering an incipient no-growth movement that began on the most extreme fringe of the environmental cause and quickly spread. This movement reached its zenith with Arnold Schwarzenegger and the enactment of AB 32 and companion legislation in 2006. This measure gives virtually unchecked authority to the California Air Resources Board to force Draconian reductions in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. [this is what Kulongoski is trying to do with climate control in Oregon, tks]

This has dire implications to entire segments of California's economy: agriculture, baking, distilling, cargo and passenger transportation, cement production, manufacturing, construction and energy production, to name a few.

We, too, were promised an explosion of "green jobs," but exactly the opposite has happened.

Up until that bill took effect, California's unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate. But since then, California's unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures. Today, California's unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate, and at its highest point since 1941.

The second problem is structural: the collapse of the checks and balances and other constitutional and traditional constraints on government spending and borrowing.

Let me mention a few of them.

The State Supreme Court decision in Serrano v. Priest severed the use of local revenue for local schools and invited the state take-over of public education. [ sounds like equalization in Oregon, tks] AB 8 of 1979 - the legislature's response to Proposition 13 - essentially did the same thing to local governments generally.

This means that vast bureaucracies have grown up over the service delivery level, wasting more and more resources while hamstringing teachers in their classrooms, wardens in their prisons and city councils in their towns.

Next, constitutional constraints on fiscal excesses began to fall. In 1983, Gov. George Deukmejian approved legislation to remove the governor's ability to make mid-year budget corrections without having to return to the legislature. The loss of this provision exposed the state to chronic deficit spending by removing any ability of the governor to rapidly respond to changing economic conditions. In 1989, Deukmejian sponsored Proposition 111 that destroyed the Gann Spending Limit that had held increases in state spending to inflation and population growth. If that limit had remained intact, California would be enjoying a budget surplus today.

The disastrous tax increases by Pete Wilson in 1991 and Arnold Schwarzenegger this year were made possible by this tragic blunder. Finally, we've watched the constitutional budget process that had produced relatively punctual and relatively balanced budgets for nearly 150 years collapse in favor of an extra-constitutional abomination called the big five.

That new process, that began under Pete Wilson and has culminated under Arnold Schwarzenegger bypasses the entire legislative deliberative process in favor of an annual deal struck between the governor and legislative leaders behind closed doors and handed to the legislature as a fait accompli.

This short-circuits the separation of powers that is designed to discipline fiscal excess and it literally bargains away the line-item veto authority of the governor. It is a process that allows legislative leaders to extract concessions from the executive that would not be possible if the separation of powers were maintained. With the checks against excessive spending broken down, borrowing became the preferred method of public finance. The Constitutional requirement that all taxpayer-supported debt be approved by voters began to erode in the 1930's, when a depression-era Supreme Court decision allowed the state to run a temporary deficit in the event of an economic down-turn - as long as the shortfall was addressed in the following fiscal year. This practice was narrowly construed until the Wilson administration began using it to justify spreading out a single year's budget deficit over several years.

During the 1980's, Gov. Deukmejian began employing a legal fiction called a "lease revenue bond," to circumvent constitutionally required voter approval.

Although Proposition 13 still protects property owners from unsustainable increases in their property taxes, most of the other fiscal constraints are now gone, and California has entered a period of unprecedented public debt to finance an unprecedented expansion of state government.

The third factor that also can be traced back to the 1970's was the radical transformation that took place in the nature and power of the state's public employee unions. Until that time, state law prohibited public employee strikes against the public and prohibited collective bargaining or closed shops.

During the Jerry Brown era, a series of collective bargaining acts handed to public sector unions all the rights and powers of private sector unions - but without any of the natural constraints on private sector unions. The unions soon brought these newly-won powers to bear to elect hand-picked officials to state and local office.

Today, political expenditures by public employee unions exceed all other special interest groups, while they hold compliant majorities in the state legislature and most local agencies.

The result has been radically escalating personnel costs and radically deteriorating performance.

The impact on governmental services has been devastating. Despite exploding budgets, service delivery is collapsing. Firing incompetent teachers has become a virtual impossibility, adding to the deterioration of educational quality. Essential services can no longer be performed because labor costs have made it impossible to sustain those services.

Today, California is like the shopkeeper who leased out too much space, ordered too much inventory, hired too many people and paid them too much. Every month the shopkeeper covers his shortfalls with borrowing and bookkeeping tricks. Ultimately, he will reach a tipping point where anything he does makes his situation worse. Borrowing costs are eating him alive and he's running out of credit. Raising prices causes his sales to decline. And there's only so much discretionary spending he can cut.

That's the state's predicament in a nutshell. California's borrowing costs now exceed the budget of the entire University of California and it is increasingly likely that it will fail to find lenders when it must borrow billions to pay its bills at the end of this month. Ignoring dire warnings, Gov. Schwarzenegger and legislators from both parties earlier this year imposed the biggest state tax increase in American history.

And I can assure you that the Laffer curve is alive and well. In the first two months after the tax increase took effect, state revenues have plunged 33 percent.

Although there are many obsolete, duplicative or low priority programs and expenditures that the state can - and should - do without, there aren't enough of them to come anywhere close to closing California's deficit.

Sadly, California has reached the terminal stage of a bureaucratic state, where government has become so large and so tangled that it can no longer perform even basic functions.

Fortunately, we have a model that we know works. A generation ago, it produced a high quality of public service at a much lower cost. It maximized management flexibility and it required accountability at the service delivery level. It recognized that only when commerce and enterprise flourish can we finance the basic responsibilities of government.

Restoring this efficiency will require a governor and a legislature with the political will to wrestle control from the public employee unions, dismantle the enormous bureaucracies that have grown up over the service delivery level, decentralize administration and decision making, contract out services that the private sector can provide more efficiently, rescind the recent tax increases that are costing the state money and roll back the regulatory obstacles to productive enterprise.

Alas, we don't have such leaders and even if we did, the systemic reorganization of the state government can't be accomplished overnight. Restructuring the public schools would take at least a year; prisons at least two; and health and welfare three to five years before serious savings could be realized.

This brings us to the fine point of the matter. What Churchill called history's "terrible, chilling words" are about to be pronounced on California's failed leadership: "too late."

A federal loan guarantee or bailout may be the only way to buy time for the restructuring of California's bureaucracies to take effect, but the discussion remains academic until and unless the state actually adopts the replacement structures, unburdens its shrinking productive sector and presents a credible plan to redeem the state's crushing debt and looming obligations.

Without these actions, federal intervention will only make California's problems worse by postponing reform, continuing unsustainable spending and piling up still more debt.

In short, if California won't help itself, the federal government cannot, should not and must not..

And before anyone gets too smug at California's agony, remember this: Congress is now enacting the same policies at the national level that have caused the collapse of California. So whistle past this cemetery if you must, but remember the medieval epitaph: "Remember man as you walk by, as you are now so once was I; as I am now so you will be." The good news is there is still time for the nation to avoid California's fate. If anything, the collapse of California can at least serve as a morality play for the rest of the nation - unfortunately in the form of a Greek tragedy.


Thursday, July 16, 2009

Words of Wisdom

You cannot help the poor
by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak
by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity
by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up
by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man
by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage
by taking away people's initiative and independence.

You cannot help people permanently by doing for them
what they could and should do for themselves.

-Abraham Lincoln

Monday, July 13, 2009

The Truth Behind Signing Petitions

It has come to my attention that professional signature gatherers will begin standing outside stores and other venues to gather the necessary signatures to put the gay marriage issue back on the ballot for November. 

The best and most effective way to defeat this measure, and the least costly, is to make sure it just doesn't get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.  In order to do this we need to inform people to not sign the petitions at store fronts, unless they are very aware of the issue and indeed want it on the ballot.  A phrase used by professional signature gatherers, "it doesn't matter if you sign it, this is on only so the people can vote on it," is rhetoric of those who profit from each signature.  It does matter, and we need to assure that we do our part to keep this off the ballot.

It is important that we save millions of dollars in campaign costs and stop this issue from getting back on the ballot.


Thursday, July 9, 2009

Making Sure Our Vote Counts…

This is from our friends at

As if the Legislature doesn’t have enough issues to deal with given the chronic $26 billion state budget deficit, some legislators are advancing a new bill in Sacramento designed to rip a huge hole in Proposition 8 and further undercut traditional marriage in California.

We need your help immediately to contact legislators and the Governor to oppose Senate Bill 54, which seeks to undermine Proposition 8, and further attempts to sneak this change by the people of California through a legislative maneuver known as the “gut and amend.”

Last week, Senator Mark Leno stripped out the contents of SB 54 – dealing with health care coverage -- and inserted language that would legalize gay marriages performed in other states and nations prior to the passage of Proposition 8. This proposal is in direct conflict with California’s constitution – as amended by the passage of Proposition 8 – that provides only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California. Further, it goes well beyond the California Supreme Court’s decision that allowed to remain valid a limited number of same-sex marriages performed in California last summer before Proposition 8 passed.
It is simply wrong and undemocratic for liberal gay activists like Senator Mark Leno to attempt to circumvent the decision of voters and rewrite our constitution behind our backs with this sneaky “gut and amend” maneuver. That’s why we’re asking you to take action TODAY and urge the legislature, and if it gets to him, the Governor, to oppose this effort to undermine Proposition 8.

Please become an active supporter by opposing SB 54.

Senator Leno’s SB 54 is such a direct assault, and your action will make a difference.

SB 54 will be heard THURSDAY in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. While the odds of stopping the bill here are low, we think that applying pressure now will drive up more no votes on this bill, which helps increase the odds of the Governor vetoing the bill. If the bill makes it to his desk, we are ultimately looking at an effort designed to encourage Governor Schwarzenegger to veto this legislation.

But for now, the fight is in the State Assembly.

Write your state Assembly representative expressing your opposition to SB 54. Ask him or her to vote against SB 54 if it makes it to the Assembly floor.

In particular, if any of the following members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee represent your home area, please call or email them immediately to urge them to oppose SB 54. Your immediate action will send a clear message that Californians are watching and will not sit idly by while liberal legislators attempt to rip a huge hole in Proposition 8.

Assembly Member Mike Feuer (D – West LA, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood)
(310) 285-5490

Assembly Member Van Tran (R – Costa Mesa, Garden Grove)
(714) 668-2100

Assembly Member Julia Brownley (D - Calabasas, Oxnard)
(818) 596-4141

Assembly Member Noreen Evans (D – Santa Rose, Napa)
(707) 546-4500

Assembly Member Dave Jones (D – Sacramento)
(916) 324-4676

Assembly Member Steve Knight (R – Palmdale, Victorville)
(661) 267-7636

Assembly Member Paul Krekorian (D – Burbank)
(818) 558-3043

Assembly Member Ted Lieu (D – El Segundo)
(310) 615-3515

Assembly Member William Monning (D – Santa Cruz, Monterey, Carmel)
(831) 425-1503

Assemblyman Jim Nielsen (R – Redding, Yuba City)


Saturday, June 20, 2009

Harvey Milk Day

News from our friends at “

The good news is "Harvey Milk Gay Day" for public schools might be vetoed.

The bad news is SB 572 also could be signed -- unless you pick up the phone today and ask your friends to do the same.

You see, while Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the same bill last year, it was because of a large outpouring of public opposition.

That opposition remains strong among the "silent majority." A recent poll found only 1 out of 5 Californians want a statewide "day of significance" honoring Harvey Milk.

But homosexual-agenda advocates are turning up the heat. Sean Penn, who starred in the movie "Milk" about the late San Francisco homosexual activist, has talked to Schwarzengger to ask him to sign SB 572. So has Milk's homosexual activist nephew.

Of course, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual activist groups are working hard to pass "Harvey Milk Gay Day" into law. They're generating calls and emails to Schwarzenegger urging him to sign this horrible bill. You had better be doing the same, only to demand a VETO instead, especially right now, since SB 572 has just passed another committee.

As you can see, this is a dynamic situation that could go either way. But one thing's for sure. If Arnold Schwarzenegger receives more calls, emails and faxes supporting "Harvey Milk Gay Day," he will be tempted to sign it. Don't let this happen!


    • Call Schwarzeneggers' State Capitol office at 916-445-2841 right now. Listen to the recorded message and push the buttons to get to a live constituent services representative.

    • Kindly but firmly tell him or her, "I'm calling to urge the Governor to veto SB 572, "Harvey Milk Gay Day," like he did last year.

        • Parents don't want this, and children don't need this. Schools should teach children academics, not the 'lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender' values of Harvey Milk."

          Wednesday, June 10, 2009

          Drop Homosexual Activist from Education Department

          This is from our friends at the Family Resource Council:

          “Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), was appointed by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to be Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. GLSEN is the chief national group promoting policies to force affirmation of homosexuality in schools, beginning in kindergarten. GLSEN once sponsored a conference at Tufts University that was advertised to "youth only ages 14 to 21." Three homosexual activists employed by the Massachusetts Departments of Health and Education led a youth workshop titled "What They Didn't Tell You about Queer Sex & Sexuality in Health Class." Among other activities, the activists guided the students on gay sex practices.

          Jennings has spoken publicly about a high school student he once counseled who was in a sexual relationship with an older man -- yet Jennings never reported this abuse to the authorities, the school, or the child's parents. Should he be overseeing a major federal program designed to promote the health and well being of students and families? We can only assume, given his past, that he will steer grant money toward programs like those offered by GLSEN that put a homosexual agenda ahead of the rights of parents and the safety of students.

          This is unacceptable. Jennings' appointment should be withdrawn. Email Arne Duncan today. Tell him to withdraw the appointment of Kevin Jennings.”

          Apparently just voting to protect traditional marriage isn’t enough. Now we have to make our voices heard. It takes only a minute to fill out the form. Please, please, let our leaders know that their actions are not acceptable and that they ARE accountable to US.

          Tuesday, May 26, 2009

          Does My Vote Really Matter?


          The CA Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 in a vote of 6-1! So, for right now, we can say YES, our vote does matter!

          I’ve been quiet for a while, not having the time to post on my blog. But I have been following other blogs and the news. I find it very interesting that other states are not putting the issue of traditional marriage to the vote of the people, but rather making laws that allow same-sex couples to be “married” among the legislature. Why? Is this not a country where the people make the laws?

          Another question I have to put out there – I thought the entire nation was watching California in November because “as California goes, so goes the rest of the nation”… well, that hasn’t happened.

          Okay friends… today is a good day. My faith in our judicial system has been restored, for now.

          Thursday, April 16, 2009

          my favorite part of protesting...

          ... all the creative signs!

          Tuesday, March 3, 2009

          GLAD Files Lawsuit Against Federal Government

          Here’s another update from our friends at The Family Leader Network.

          Handful of same-sex couples attack federal Defense of Marriage Act passed overwhelmingly by Democrats and Republicans

          A lawsuit was filed yesterday with the federal District Court in Boston that seeks to declare portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, unconstitutional.

          The suit addresses the use of DOMA Section 3, which makes clear that spousal protections in Social Security, federal income tax, federal employees' and retirees' benefits, and in the issuance of passports are reserved for married couples only.

          The plaintiffs in the suit are eight homosexual couples who say they are "married" and three individuals whose homosexual partners have passed away.

          The suit was filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD).

          "Public policy should be decided by the public, not by one judge and a very small number of radical activists," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum. "America continues to overwhelmingly reaffirm that marriage is one man and one woman. Does the democratic process mean anything anymore?"

          • 45 states have laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
          • All 30 states that have sought to affirm marriage as one man and one woman in their state constitutions have done so.
          • DOMA passed in 1996 by an overwhelming majority of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate and was then signed by President Bill Clinton.

          "None of these facts appear to matter to the people who have filed this lawsuit," Raum explained. "They do not care about the negative social impact on children if federal judges redefine marriage. Courts should never impose a system which guarantees that more kids will be brought up in homes without a married mom and dad. How can we justify hurting millions of children for the possible emotional benefit of a very small number of adults?"

          Family Research Council president Tony Perkins expressed concerns that the Obama administration's Department of Justice would not suitably defend DOMA against the lawsuit, given Obama's personal position in favor of repealing the law.

          "We advise the Obama Administration to fulfill its constitutional duties and defend DOMA energetically and competently. We also urge any federal courts that hear this case to dismiss it and preserve the right of the people to decide such important public policy decisions," said Perkins.

          My question is why are these people filing a lawsuit now? Where were they in 1996 when this was signed into law? The majority of America feels that marriage is between a man and a woman. And that’s the way it needs to stay.

          State Legislators Didn’t Listen to Our Vote

          From CRI: California Legislature Violates Separation of Powers, Passes Anti-Prop 8 Resolutions

          The Assembly and Senate passed resolutions stating their opposition to Proposition 8.

          Both houses of the state legislature are trying to go on record opposing Proposition 8 prior to the California Supreme Court’s hearing of the lawsuits against Proposition 8 on Thursday. In lengthy floor debates, Democrats passed HR 5 (Ammiano) and SR 7 (Leno), which express the opinion of the legislature that Proposition 8 was an unconstitutional revision and must be ruled invalid. However, the legislature’s passage of HR 5 and SR 7 violates the separation of powers doctrine which clearly instructs the legislature to refrain from influencing the judicial process, particularly pending legal cases.

          Many Democrats rose to speak out against Proposition 8, even those from districts that clearly voted in favor of Proposition 8. “How arrogant for these lawmakers to express their personal opposition to Proposition 8 and try to persuade the court when their constituents voted in favor of traditional marriage,” stated Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

          Assemblyman Van Tran eloquently pointed out that HR 5 is an attempt to “retroactively disenfranchise the votes of over 7 million voters” who passed Proposition 8. He explained that HR 5 is also an “illegal ex parte communication with the court.” Tran went on to chastise the Democrats for seeking to unduly influence the judicial review of Proposition 8 after the people had voted, and the legislature is politicizing the judicial process just a few days before the hearing.

          Republican assemblymen Chuck DeVore, Ted Gaines, Joel Anderson, Steve Knight, Mike Villines and Dan Logue all rose to speak out against HR 5 and affirm the people’s right to pass Proposition 8.

          Joel Anderson called on this fellow lawmakers to refrain from interpreting the law in the legislature, leaving that constitutional duty to the judicial branch.

          Friday, February 20, 2009

          First NBC, Now CNN Rejects Pro-Life Ad

          I received this email from We all know that the media is very liberal, which is why it is even more important to keep our voices going strong on the internet.

          We have been quieter than usual the past two weeks for good reason. Following NBC's refusal to air our ad during the Super Bowl, we received some great feedback from our members on what we should do next.  The consensus was that our latest ad should be broadcast following President Obama's first State of the Union Address -- scheduled for next Tuesday. 

          So we contacted CNN, thinking their audience contains precisely the type of people we want to reach.  Further, given CNN's track record of running advocacy ads, we were confident we would succeed.  Not so.

          For the past two weeks, we have been pushing and prodding them for an answer.  And late this week we finally got a response: No way.

          A representative from CNN wrote: "Thank you for your patience.  We have decided to pass on this creative. CNN doesn't accept advocacy ads that portray personal decisions in a manner that suggests a position in favor of the advocacy message, without having permission of the persons involved."

          This is absurd. Our ad does not suggest that Barack Obama is pro-life. Instead, our ad presents nothing but facts. President Obama, like every human being, began as an unborn child. Because he was born, he was able to become the President of the United States.

          CNN and others simply don't like the obvious conclusion of our ad - there was no ‘choice' for abortion back in 1961. Thankfully, we had laws then safeguarding unborn children -- laws that protected the life of a future president who tragically is unwilling to fight for those same protections today.

          But wait. Is this fair?

          The standard CNN used to reject our ad did not prevent the network from airing a 2005 ad sponsored by the pro-abortion group NARAL that suggested that then Judge John Roberts supported violence against abortion clinics.

 described the NARAL ad this way: "An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers ‘supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber' and of having an ideology that ‘leads him to excuse violence against other Americans' It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham, Alabama. The ad is false.'"

          Several prominent pro-abortion supporters condemned the ad, including President Clinton's Solicitor General Walter Dellinger. The commercial, which attributed views to John Roberts that were not his, was ultimately pulled from the air not by CNN, but by NARAL.

          At the time CNN issued a statement saying: "CNN accepts advocacy advertising from responsible groups from across the political spectrum who wish to express their views and their opinions about issues of public importance."

          CNN is willing to run ads insinuating that a federal judge supports violent criminal activity, but it won't allow an ad celebrating the potential of all human life, including Barack Obama? Not to mention, we are fairly sure NARAL didn't get permission from John Roberts to run their ad.

          If you want to express your concerns, please do so firmly, but charitably.  You can write CNN President Jonathan Klein at

          So what now?

          We aren't going to sit back and complain.  We are still looking at several additional options to air the ad.  We are also working on our next ad, and have set our sights high once again.

          If you liked what we have done so far, we are confident you will be excited about what is coming next.

          Brian Burch

          P.S. I discussed the decision by CNN to reject our recent ad with an executive of a prominent commercial ad agency. He said bluntly: "Their excuse is a textbook answer for a network that does not want to run your ad."

          Of course, all is not lost. CNN's refusal will only create more attention for our ad, which has been widely discussed even among abortion groups like NARAL and nationally-syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman. The ad remains a viral hit on the Internet with over 1.6 million views on YouTube.

          We have successfully provoked a national conversation about the gift of every human life -- which is why we created the ad to begin with.

          Friday, February 13, 2009

          Time to Make YOUR Vote Count

          I received this email from United Families. It is time to stand up and make your vote count. Here’s the email with all the details:

          On Tuesday, February 17th at 10:30 am, The Assembly Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing followed at 12:30 pm by a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Proposition 8. The committees will be considering crafting a joint resolution encouraging the California State Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8. By issuing the resolution the Assembly will officially express its opposition to Proposition 8, calling for its repeal, and stating that it was an "improper revision" to the state constitution.

          Passing these resolutions flies in the face of the will of the voters.  Prop 8, was passed by a clear majority of California voters in November 2008. Fifty-two percent of California voters stood up to protect the family, which is the lynch pin of civilization. William Glaston, a former policy advisor to President Clinton, is quoted in the UFI Marriage Advantage Family Guide. He states, "Marriage is an important social good, associated with an impressively broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike....Whether American society succeeds or fails in building a healthy marriage culture is clearly a matter of legitimate public concern."

          Don't let the Assembly take your vote away. Join us in protecting marriage, children and the future of family and our society.

          What You Can Do

          DOT.jpg Attend the hearing. It is taking place Tuesday, February 17th at the state capitol in Sacramento. The Assembly hearing will be in room 4202 at 10:30 am. The Senate hearing will be in room 4203 at 12:30pm. We encourage you to make the trip. By attending you will send a visible signal to the committee members in support of the family. To get driving directions and parking information follow the click on the links below:

          For directions
          For parking information

          Call the members of the committees and fax letters asking them to vote no on HR5 and SR7

          Julia Brownley
          Phone: 916 319 2041
          Fax: 916 319 2141

          Noreen Evans
          Phone: 916 319 2007
          Fax: 916 319 2107

          Mike Feuer (Chair)
          Phone: 916 319 2042
          Fax: 916 319 2142

          Dave Jones
          Phone: 916 319 2009
          Fax: 916 319 2109

          Steve Knight
          Phone: 916 319 2036
          Fax: 916 319 2136

          Paul Krekorian
          Phone: 916 319 2043
          Fax: 916 319 2143

          Ted Lieu
          Phone: 916 319 2053
          Fax: 916 319 2153

          Bill Monning
          Phone: 916 319 2027
          Fax: 916 319 2127

          Jim Nielsen
          Phone: 916 319 2002
          Fax: 916 319 2102

          Van Tran
          Phone: 916 319 2068
          Fax: 916 319 2168 

          Senate Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on SR7
          Ellen Corbett
          Phone: 916 651 4010
          Fax: 916 327 2433

          Dean Florez
          Phone: 916 651 4016
          Fax: 916 327 5989

          Tom Harman
          Phone: 916 651 4035
          Fax: 916 445 9263

          Mark Leno
          Phone: 916 651 4003
          Mimi Walters
          Phone: 916 651 4033
          Fax: 916 445 9754 

          Please forward this to your friends and family members. We believe that through a grassroots movement, we can secure a safe future for families in our state. 
          United Families California

          Thursday, February 12, 2009

          Are We A Socialist Society?


          You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
          You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
          You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
          You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
          You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
          You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatreds.
          You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
          You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
          You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

          William J. H. Boetcker, 1916 (often attributed to Lincoln )

          My mom said that her goal was to raise her children to be independent and contribute to society. Now, as the youngest of six turns 18 in a couple of months, I look at my brothers and sisters and where we are in our lives. I think my mom has reached her goal.

          How is the list by Boetcker related to the paragraph about my family? It is my strong belief, back by research, that it is the responsibility of parents to teach their children how to become members of society. It is not up to the teachers at school, leaders in church, or president of the United States. Outside leaders assist in the teaching, but the primary responsibility is up to the parents.

          Saturday, February 7, 2009

          Court Date Set for Supreme Court to Hear Arguments Regarding Prop 8

          Well, get ready... we have a court date for the Supreme Court to hear the case regarding proposition 8. Below is an article from Advocates for Faith and Freedom.

          Marriage has its final day in Court!

          The California Supreme Court announced this week that on March 5, 2009, they will hear oral arguments concerning the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the initiative that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

          The oral argument will be broadcast live on the California Channel. In addition to considering challenges to Prop 8, the Court will consider the fate of 18,000 same-sex marriages that occurred before the November election.

          On January 15, 2009, Advocates for Faith and Freedom filed an Amicus Brief (“friend of the court brief”) with the California Supreme Court in defense of Prop 8 and to preserve the will of the people.

          The homosexual agenda is spreading across America, one state at a time, as state legislatures consider significant expansion of homosexual rights. View our Top Story, “The Advance of Same-Sex Rights in New Mexico," here:

          In the coming weeks, please cover the hearing on March 5th with your fervent prayers believing that God will intervene in a sovereign way and speak to the hearts and souls of the California Supreme Court justices. Also lift up the attorneys presenting the case in support of Prop 8.

          Thursday, February 5, 2009

          Obama Picks Porn Lawyer for Deputy Attorney General

          It’s time to get your pen/pencil/computer out and write another letter to our senators. They should know us by name now! Our President has elected a porn lawyer for Deputy Attorney General. We need to let our Senators know that this is not okay with us, to have someone with such a reputation in a leadership position.

          Obama Picks Porn Lawyer for #2 at Justice

          CHICAGO, February 4, 2009 ( - President Obama has made a major mistake and put America's families at risk by selecting David Ogden to become Deputy Attorney General, says Fidelis, a pro-family organization.

          "David Ogden is a hired gun from Playboy and ACLU. He can't run from his long record of opposing common sense laws protecting families, women, and children.  The United States Senate has a responsibility to the American people to insure that Mr. Ogden's full record is fully reviewed before any vote on his nomination" said Brian Burch, President of Fidelis.

          "Ogden's record is nothing short of obscene. He has represented Playboy Enterprises in multiple cases, Penthouse Magazine, the ACLU, and the largest distributor of hard-core pornography videos.  He has opposed filters on library computers protecting children from Internet smut, and successfully defended the right of pornographers to produce material with underage children."

          "David Ogden has collected checks from Playboy and Penthouse to fight any attempts to establish filters on federally-funded public libraries. Ogden even sued the federal government in an attempt to publish Braille versions of Playboy magazine - at taxpayer expense, of course," said Burch.

          As a lawyer in private practice, Ogden has argued for an unlimited abortion license, gays in the military, and has urged courts to treat traditional definitions of marriage as a social prejudice.

          "A vast majority of Americans support parental notification before a minor's abortion and protecting kids from Internet pornography in our libraries," continued Burch.  "Yet David Ogden has fought tooth and nail against these common sense laws protecting our children from harm. At a time when America's families are under increasing assault, Mr. Ogden is a dangerous choice for a position whose responsibilities include the enforcement of our nation's laws. "

          See a full dossier on Ogden compiled by Fidelis here:

          To express concern to Senators regarding the appointment visit:


          Friday, January 30, 2009

          Sacked by the Mainstream Media

          I just heard that NBC refused to show an ad from, saying that the NFL and NBC are not interested in advertisements that involve “political candidates or issues.”

          Really? Because I’m quite the sports fan and I remember watching the Super Bowl last year and I remember seeing an ad for Mitt Romney, who was running for President of the United States at the time. I’ve also been told that NBC has allowed PETA to run an ad.

          So what’s the real deal here, NBC? They are willing to sell everything from tortilla chips to beer to cars to sex, even show a commercial for the most extreme animal rights activists, but not allow a conservative message about hope and life?

          Here is the commercial that NBC does not want to show:

          We need to stand up and let the mainstream media know that the majority of the people in the United States would rather watch a message about how sacred life is than watch half naked anorexic barbie dolls drooling over a guy because of the beer bottle in his hand.

          Wednesday, January 28, 2009

          Who Do the Legislators Represent?


          “For politicians, standing up for marriage equality is not touching a third-rail; rather, it is a track to re-election,” said Freedom to Marry Executive Director Evan Wolfson. “Legislators should take the findings of this report as proof that there’s no reason to back down from supporting the freedom to marry and opposing anti-gay measures. And those of us outside the legislature should not be afraid to ask our representatives to do the right thing.”

          While I agree with the last sentence of this quote, the rest of it is quite troublesome. It is time that we make sure that our vote counts… and how do we do that? By letting our legislators know that they represent the people, not the lobbyists or liberal agenda. If they do not uphold our vote, then it is our responsibility to vote them out of office.

          You can read the entire article here.

          Thursday, January 22, 2009

          Obama’s “New” Ideas

          If you have problems viewing the video, you can watch it from Comedy Central’s website here.

          Obama Shows His True Agenda

          Updated just minutes after the inauguration, the new Obama White House website declares "we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act," instantly jeopardizing the marriage laws of 45 states, including constitutional amendments in 30 states where voters have recently acted to give marriage the greatest protection possible at the state level.

          Instead of protecting the will of voters all across the country, President Obama's policy would allow a handful of judges in Massachusetts and Connecticut to force same-sex marriage on the entire nation.

          Go Viral:
          Use this link to write our representatives in Congress.

          Go! Write! Email! Post on Facebook, mention it on Twitter, Do whatever you can to get the message out.  The only way to stop the repeal of DOMA is through a massive groundswell of grassroots involvement.

          Tuesday, January 20, 2009

          Common Sense – A Good Man

          My parents told me about Mr. Common Sense early in my life and told me I would do well to call on him when making decisions. It seems he was always around in my early years but less and less as time passed by until today I read his obituary. Please join me in a moment of silence in remembrance, for Common Sense had served us all so well for so many generations.

          Obituary - Common Sense
          Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.
          He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, life isn't always fair, and maybe it was my fault.

          Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not children are in charge). His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentions but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a class mate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

          Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they themselves failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer Aspirin, sun lotion or a sticky plaster to a student; but could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

          Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

          Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar can sue you for assault.

          Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

          Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I'm a Victim.

          Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.

          Author Unknown

          Friday, January 16, 2009

          Time to Take Action

          It is time to write letters to the California Supreme Court letting them know why they should uphold OUR VOTE.

          There are pre-fab letters out there, but I think it would be best if you took a few minutes and wrote out, in your own words, why you think the Supreme Court should uphold our vote.

          I know I’ve already commented on this, but I will tell the Supreme Court that the people have voted on this issue TWICE, both times they have voted in favor of upholding traditional marriage. It is time to stop being “politically correct” and starting standing up for what is right.

          You can send your letters to:

          Chief Justice Ronald M. George and the
          Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court
          350 McAllister Street
          San Francisco, CA 94102

          Monday, January 12, 2009


          The economy is bad, schools are hurting everywhere, and budget cuts are a necessity, but in Massachusetts, funding for the gay agenda is untouchable.  This story really illustrates how serious the gay lobby is, and how complicit educators are in getting our children indoctrinated with this agenda in our schools.