Post Election Rant - Good Luck to the Golden State (You're going to need it)

     Congratulations Californians on being officially deemed the dumbest constituency in the U.S. In case you have not been reading the news over the past few years, CALIFORNIA IS BROKE!!! Almost every other state in the union threw out their incumbents during yesterday's election as a means of infusing new thoughts and new blood into the system. California voters opted to reward those who have financially ruined our State by re-electing them. We are the laughing stock of the nation right now. Even New York had enough sense to have a turnover of politicians in statewide offices. I am not only referring to the transfer of power in the House of Reps, I am referring the statewide elections such as Governor and State Legislature. I care less about Barbara Boxer being re-elected than I do about that retread Jerry Brown being elected Governor. What is bothering me is that some are celebrating the fact that we have kept in office those individuals who are responsible for our financial disaster. Are we blind and stupid or are we just so easily swayed by punditry, television ads and voter manipulation (see Gloria Allred).
     Now, I was no Meg Whitman fan but she was definitely the lesser of two evils. Instead of her campaign being solely funded by labor unions which represent only 25% of employed Californians, she used her own money. She did NOT use workers' union dues and special interest money as Jerry Brown (and yes Barbara Boxer) did. Additionally, she is an experienced and shrewd businesswoman. And that, in case you have not been paying attention, is exactly what our bankrupt state needs.  Our State desperately needs pragmatists in office, not ideologues. 
     One of the most important things that everyone seemed to ignore is that Jerry Brown was already Governor of California in the 1970s-1980s. (He was also a failed Attorney General and a self-admitted failure as Mayor of Oakland.) And guess what, his tenure in office was stained with wide swept corruption. Although a fiscal conservative who maintained the surplus established by the previous Governor (Ronald Reagan), his behind closed doors dealings with labor unions ultimately lead to a loss of credibility.
It was during his bid for the Presidency in the 90's when he admitted on television that he LIED all the time while campaigning and while in office. Bill Clinton used this to his advantage and ultimately won the nomination and then the Presidency. So corrupt was Brown that the San Francisco punk band The Dead Kennedys wrote a song about him themed "power corrupts".
     At the end of the day, California has just elected a retread. A retread without any economic vision to bring our state out of the red and back into the black. His 1974 policies are no longer viable as the state is not in an economic boom where businesses are moving to California as it was in the 1974. We are in a steep recession where the largest employers have moved out of the state to a more business friendly state such as Texas. Appeasing labor unions (the ones who paid for his campaign) and letting them run our economy is going to prove disastrous and push even more businesses out of California.
     Now, I hope you are still following me, things are about to get more complex. Not only did you re-elect those who lead to our financial hardships but your proposition votes have now taken away and checks and balanced to protect yourselves. Allow me to break it down:
     1. You elect politicians who admittedly plan on levying taxes and fees on a wide variety of businesses, from Mom and Pop stores all the way to microchip and superconductor manufacturers in Silicon Valley. (You know, those pesky companies that make your computers, iPads, and cell phones possible and employ tens of thousands of Californians.)
     2. You then vote NO on prop 23, thus allowing Cap and Trade to be implemented during the worst economic crisis of our time. Now companies will have to pay the state a fee determined by how much energy they use in producing the goods and services you buy and use. How do you think they will recoup those costs? That's right, they will raise prices on everything. Experts have estimated the average household will now spend $3800 more annually on things like electricity, natural gas, gasoline and any products manufactured by the affected companies. (I am sure that those on the unemployment line don't mind.) This is actually the best case scenario. The worst case is that the companies will find it more profitable to leave the state and relocate to a state where they can keep operating costs down and not have to raise product prices and thus become less competitive. It is called ECONOMICS 101, and if California voters knew anything about economics they would have voted YES on this prop. Even if you are an environmentalist (and I consider myself one), you need to realize that the suspension on Cap and Trade, was just that, A SUSPENSION. It would still be implemented once the unemployment rate lowered to a level where consumers could weather the storm of higher prices.
     3. You then vote YES on Prop 25, thus making a simple majority (instead of a two-thirds vote in the Legislature) enough to pass a budget overturning the State Constitution that makes a two-thirds vote required. This was a deceptive prop as it looks good at first glance because it may stop some of the gridlock that has occurred in passing a budget in the past. But this prop was pork-barreled with all sorts of perks for politicians and now there is not sufficient checks and balances in the legislature. Anytime the Democrats want to raise taxes (and they will) they can and there is nothing the minority can do about it. And there is nothing you, the constituent, can do about it either. The Prop has a security mechanism in it that would NOT ALLOW a referendum to repeal it once implemented. Like I said in my Nov. 1 blog, "READ THE FINE PRINT".
     What is aggravating is that almost all other States realized that we cannot maintain the status quo and stay economically viable. But Californians failed to do their homework and have set the State back. The Bush tax cuts will likely be extended for two years now that the House of Reps has had the turnover, and that is a good thing. Does anyone in America really want their taxes to go up in 60 days? That is what was slated to happen; the Bush tax cuts were set to expire. But the people realize that they need every dollar in their pocket and voted accordingly. California will not fully appreciate this now that it has handed over all taxing power to the legislature and the Governor without any significant oversight or checks and balances. WHAT IS REALLY AGGRAVATING; is that many of you who voted DO NOT EVEN PAY SUBSTANTIAL TAXES. You may pay a little, but not enough to even cover the maintenance of the roads you drive on. So none of this directly affects you. But it screws the rest of us who have to pay for your share. You have set California up for failure while the rest of the union will thrive.  You have created the perfect storm. If you keep driving away those who pay the majority of the taxes in the state and you drive away all the business, WHAT WILL CALIFORNIA HAVE LEFT?  It cannot survive on Hollywood alone.
     I am sorry that I sound bitter. I should be very happy that nationally there has been a change in balance of power. I hate it when one side can govern and regulate unchecked! The country is stronger today than it was yesterday! But I am just very displeased and disappointed in the State that I have grown to love and have chosen to call my home. 

A rant on the eve of the mid-term election. Read before you vote.

     It is no secret, our electoral system is broken. Voter manipulation, coercion, fraud and even simple technical errors are severe problems and are seriously hindering the ability to have a fair and honest election. This is evidenced by the fact that during every election year, election day is immediately followed by investigation and lawsuit day. After every close election it seems the loser files a lawsuit or demands an investigation into voter fraud or manipulation by the hands of his or her opponent or their affiliated party. Most often these investigations and lawsuits do not go anywhere because there is never sufficient evidence to act on. However, evidence of various other forms violations are found quite often. An example of voter intimidation would be that by the Black Panthers who posted members in their quasi-paramilitary garb holding batons outside polling stations. An example of manipulation would be a group rallying people and busing them to a polling station in order to have them vote for a specific candidate or proposition in exchange for goods or services. (This is most commonly done in low income areas using disenfranchised people who could be subjected to this type of manipulation.) Examples of fraud would be an individual voting using someone else's identity (alive or dead) or voting multiple times using various identities or other methods of false registration. Most notably, ACORN employees were charged (and later pleaded guilty to) with (in the name of "VOTER REGISTRATION") filing false registration cards with phony names. No joke, in Washington State ACORN used the names of its political rivals to falsely register voters; and in Las Vegas, ACORN registered the entire Dallas Cowboy lineup. All of these examples have occurred and have been identified and even prosecuted over the past decade. This could easily be thwarted if we had stricter guidelines and better enforcement to protect the legitimacy of our most sacred privilege, the privilege to choose who we want to represent us in government.
     The current mess is amplified by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling last week that PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP IS NOT REQUIRED IN ORDER TO VOTE! They justify this by saying that certain portions of the American public do not have Passports, Driver's Licenses or Birth Certificates and in an effort to ensure they can vote, the government will not mandate any proof of citizenship. I am pretty sure that there is a better way to accomplish this without losing all electoral integrity. This ruling now empowers and enables those who would, in an effort to get a certain candidate elected, manipulate non-citizens into voting for a specified agenda. I will use the most obvious and prudent example to illustrate. If there was a candidate who campaigned on the platform of allowing illegal aliens open access to the U.S. and give all illegal aliens free health care, his campaign would be allowed to mobilize all the illegal immigrants to the ballot boxes to get him into office. And the illegal immigrants would gladly do so because it obviously benefits them. So, even if American citizens may disagree with his policy, they could be outvoted if his campaign could mobilize enough illegal personnel. Now regardless of how you feel about illegal immigration or the benefits afforded those here illegally, the issue is that SHOULDN'T AMERICAN CITIZENS BE THE ONES MAKING THAT DECISION? Does anyone believe that any other country would allow an American to vote in their election?
     If anything, we should be making it more difficult to vote, not easier. Voting is a privilege, and one that should be revered, not bought and sold. A very high percentage of voters do not even have an understanding of the issues and/or the policies of a candidate. A voter will vote on a proposition based on an endorsement or commercial and never read the fine print (i.e. Who is paying for what and where are they getting the money from? Are unions, businesses or religious groups funding the bill?  Does that green energy prop mandate the euthanizing of all people over the age of 80?).  If you do not fully read and understand the proposition, then do NOT vote on it.  In some cases, the voter just sees the (R) or (D) next to the name and votes accordingly. The candidate could be a complete fruitcake (see South Carolina's Alvin Greene). In other cases, the voter could be a complete idiot without any capacity to make a sound decision and votes based on what a celebrity tells him or what he saw on a billboard. DOES AMERICA REALLY NEED MORE STUPID OR CARELESS VOTERS? Do I discriminate when it come to who can vote? You are damn right I do! I discriminate against STUPID PEOPLE!
     I am all for the requirement to pass a test in order to vote. Not a hard one with questions like, "Is Australia a country or continent?"... just something to ensure that you actually have a functioning brain housing group and do not get all your current events from reruns of Jersey Shore. The test would include real mind-scramblers such as: Who is the Attorney General? How many branches of Government are there and can you name them? What does the "D.C." in Washington, D.C. stand for? Now if you needed help answering these three questions, you may want to rethink your reading list. All I want is comfort knowing that those who are voting have an idea of what it takes make a state, nation and country tick. And, in case you did not know, a state, a nation and a country are actually three different things. Our economy is in turmoil and unemployment rate is over 10%, things are not good. I want a voter who understands what it takes to keep our economy humming, and is not buying into the myth of "Obama Money" as described by a member of the voting public during the 2008 election.
     In conclusion, I am not a "Rock the Vote" kind of guy. I am more the Educate the Vote type of guy. Instead of dazzling the sheep with bright shiny things, I would rather inspire the people of the U.S. to learn about our state, our nation and our country and then vote accordingly.

You better say POTATO and not PATATO. And remeber we're wathcing.

     Once again the American people are faced with the task of protecting one of our fundamental rights. Now, we are used to this, and every once in a while someone (a politician, celebrity or commentator) makes an outrageous or quasi-outrageous statement that forces common sense Americans to take a step back and reflect on what our fundamental freedoms and rights are.  The typical outcome of these moments is a newly renewed fervor for the practice and appreciation of our unique American freedoms.  The difference this time is not that one of our rights is being outright challenged, but rather monitored and policed, censored in a way.  Today our most celebrated and fundamental right, the right to free speech, is under such an attack.  This is no more evident than in the events of the past week. 
     First let us look at what occurred on the daytime television show The View. Last Thursday, cable news pundit Bill O'Reilly was the guest and the discussion centered on the prudence of politicians' reactions to the building of a mosque at Ground Zero. All Hell broke loose when O'Reilly exclaimed that Americans were very uncomfortable with the mosque's location because "Muslims killed us on 9/11".  At this point, two of the show's hosts (Joy Bahar and Whoopi Goldberg) screamed at him and then walked off the set (of their own show) in apparent disgust.  The most important part of this occurrence was what co-host Barbara Walters said after they walked off the set.  She asked that the crowd settle down and asked that all listen to her for a minute.  She then told everyone that they just witnessed what SHOULD NOT happen.  She said that we as Americans SHOULD be able to sit down and have an intelligent debate without yelling, washing our hands of each other and walking off sets.  She is very right!  Unfortunately, in today's politically correct society, it is safer to yell and leave rather than to engage in intellectual banter which MAY just actually yield some results.  I notice how often people are content to yell and mock and then withdraw.  Later they badmouth their opponents at another venue where the opponent cannot counter or retort, how convenient and cowardly. 
     O'Reilly would soon apologize for the generalization of all Muslims and said that he should have specified "Muslim Extremists".  All hosts (including the now rejoined Goldberg and Bahar) concurred.  The question is, what was actually wrong with what he had said initially?  Any common sense person knows that not all Muslims attacked us.  They also know that it wasn't Buddhists, Taoists, Christians or Martians that attacked us.  At the end of the day, O'Reilly stated a fact.  The people who attacked us on 9/11 were indeed Muslims, period. Fanatical and extremist as they were, they were still Muslim.  But because O'Reilly did not include the word "extremists" he was treated as if he just told a fabricated story and was being bigoted and hateful.  When did stating a fact become such a dangerous endeavor.  He should of said POTATO!
     The second example of this unique form of censorship is the case involving the firing of journalist Juan Williams by National Public Radio (NPR).  Ironic as it is, this case centers around comments Mr. Williams made on Bill O'Reilly's show on Monday night.  (Damn you Mr. O.)  Juan Williams, a noted LIBERAL journalist and commentator, made the statement that in this post 9/11 world even he was uncomfortable when someone boarded a plane dressed in traditional Muslim garb.  He said this in the context that those feelings were wrong and were a product of the fears of our time.  Well, the uber-liberal NPR (which has employed Mr. Williams as a radio host for the past 10 years) fired Mr. Williams for that statement.  Funny, I thought that the term liberal was synonymous with open-minded, I guess that open-mindedness only applies when you are saying exactly what they want you to say and in exactly the manner in which they want you to say it.  Other NPR radio hosts have made significantly more egregious comments in the past; including wishing AIDS on Jessie Helms and his family.  (The gal that said that is still employed by NPR.)  The crazy thing is that NPR, and the groups that support NPR, are not even putting his comments into the context in which he said them.  He simply did not say EXACTLY the right thing, and that was just unacceptable to NPR and their agenda.  Now there may be other factors involved and maybe those will come to light.  But as of right now NPR is guilty of censoring speech that they did not agree with. 
     Political Correctness is running rampant and is now putting a stranglehold on our ability to speak and debate intelligently without fear of reprimand or being wrongly raked over the coals. In today's age, every word we say can and will be dissected and critiqued to the point where people will no longer speak about tough or controversial subjects.  Our public dialogue will be limited to the weather (as long as we are not discussing global warming). We must remember that the right of free speech as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment is designed to protect speech that is not popular.  I know that is a hard pill to swallow sometimes, but the examples above should be easily digested.

Anutha fine exampul of the Kalifornia educashunal sistem.

This week I learned that the vast majority of high school graduates in the greater Southern California area have never heard of Apartheid or The Killing Fields of Cambodia.  The Apartheid, of course, was the official policy of strict racial segregation and discrimination against nonwhites practiced in South Africa from 1950-1994. It was also the source of worldwide unease in its dealings with South Africa and the reason for a decades long embargo of that nation. Apartheid sparked significant internal/civil strife and violence as well as became the source for outrage for many pop culture icons.  "End Apartheid Now" signs often appeared in front of the White House as well as South African embassies; and yes, music videos too.  A series of popular uprisings and protests were met with the banning of opposition and imprisoning of anti-apartheid leaders. This of course gave rise to Nelson Mandela.  Bothersome as it may be to some reading this, many young Americans have heard his name but have no idea what his significance is; and that is a travesty.  Recent high school grads have told me that they have never heard of Pol Pot, the Kymer Rouge and the Killing Fields of Cambodia.  That event was the holocaust of the 1970s and is equally significant in history as Apartheid.  The period saw the death of approximately 2 million Cambodians through the combined result of political executions, starvation and forced labor. Additionally, in the spirit of his strong communist idealism, Pol Pot ordered the execution of anyone that was deemed a professional or with an education, including anyone who wore glasses (the regime believed that this was a symbol literacy). The concept was that Cambodia should be made up of pure blooded Cambodians who should be kept in ignorance and guided in all things by an educated elite, namely Pol Pot. Due to the large numbers, the deaths during the rule of the Khmer Rouge are often considered a genocide and commonly known as the Cambodian Holocaust or Cambodian Genocide. Lastly and perhaps most troublsome is the fact that time spent educating students about the Holocaust, Hitler and World War II has been replaced by more agenda driven curricula.  20 years ago, schools would dedicate a month focusing classes on that event as a means of ensuring that THAT would never happen again. School walls were covered with reminders about the atrocities that occurred at the hands of Hitler and the Nazis. Today there is a month for every special interest and ethnicity, except of course for the special interest of HUMANITY. Now the purpose of this blog is not to give a history lesson. Since the California school system is more concerned with celebrating plant diversity and petitioning MTV for the casting of one their students on "16 and Pregnant", I encourage everyone to research the Apartheid, The Killing Fields, Pol Pot and the Holocaust as they are crucial parts of world history and lessons learned in civil and human rights. Most importantly, it is our responsibility as world citizens to ensure that none of these events are ever repeated.  It is the responsibility of educators and parents to ensure that the youth of today enter adulthood with the skills and knowledge that will enable them to identfy the trends and warning signs that history has shown us will lead toward another horrific genocide or apartheid.