Thursday, January 31, 2013
This is a video clip of Democratic U.S. Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey.
In the clip, he explains how the Secret Service agents who solicited prostitutes down in Columbia should "all be fired".
Menendez is the exact same vile degenerate who just got caught using underage prostitutes himself while on visits to the Dominican Republic.
One Dominican prostitute told reporters that Menendez liked the "youngest and freshest hookers" that his campaign donors were willing to supply.
There are multiple prostitutes who back up this story.
So, voters of New Jersey should be proud of themselves.
They have elected a world-class hypocrite.
(It's an occupational hazard when you deal with Democrats...)
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
I spent a good part of the day yesterday handicapping the Mayoral Race in Los Angeles.
Election Day is March 5th, 2013.
I have written about this contest multiple times on my blog.
Way back in 2009, I had Eric Garcetti as the early favorite, slightly ahead of Rick Caruso, with Zev Yaroslavsky just behind them. Wendy Greuel wasn't even in the Top 5 at the time.
In 2011, the race had changed into more of an insiders operation , with elected officials like Garcetti, Yaroslavsky and Greuel moving towards the front of the pack, and outsiders like Magic Johnson and Rick Caruso starting to fade from the scene.
In August of 2012, when Zev Yaroslavsky officially dropped out of contention, I still saw developer Rick Caruso and his billions as the primary threat to the careers of ambitious, union-backed Socialist politicians here in Los Angeles.
By December of 2012, we were down to our Final Four: Garcetti, Greuel, James and Perry.
I still believe in the odds I had listed, with minor revisions. My current prediction for the March Election is as follows:
So...if Wendy Greuel is going to finish second in March, why am I predicting her victory in May?
First of all, you don't win the Mayors Office in Los Angeles without the big union voting blocs. The only exception to this rule could have been billionaire developer Rick Caruso, who declined to run.
Recently the SEIU, which controls a big union voting bloc, decided to consider endorsing Garcetti or Greuel. For them they only saw two options. This tells you one thing loud and clear: Kevin James and Jan Perry are done. They are out. They have no shot.
And I know this will upset their camps, but I am here to speak the truth, not to blow smoke.
Municipal elections here in LA are very low-turnout, and the few people who vote are usually government employees who are voting to protect their paycheck. Look at 2009. Antonio Villaraigosa handily won re-election due to the votes of these government dependents. His approval rating at the time was in the toilet due to his very public adultery and generally buffoonish preening in front of the media. But he won going away. Those voters wanted their government paycheck...and if Antonio had to be attached to that paycheck...hey...so be it.
These are the exact same voters who will decide this election.
They are not voting for Emanuel Pleitez, who just turned 30 and doesn't have a decade-long record of doling out goodies to these government voters.
Some of them will be voting for Jan Perry, but outside of her district, she is not as popular as Eric Garcetti and Wendy Greuel in the City Democratic Voter Machine.
Kevin James is a nice guy, and I like some of his policies, but again, he hasn't been handing out money, contracts, or other goodies to the voters here. He will get a good chunk of votes, but he won't win.
That leaves us with Eric & Wendy.
Once the smoke clears from the March Election... Democratic and union voters will be left to choose from Eric Garcetti and Wendy Greuel. These two political figures have had similar career arcs and both have similar political philosophies. So why am I siding with Wendy?
Five big things:
1. Wendy Greuel is Old School.
Wendy Greuel worked for Tom Bradley... yeah.. that's how far back she goes. Way back. She has been attending luncheons and shaking hands and cutting deals for decades now. Many people owe her a favor or at least the courtesy of their support. (Christine Essel is probably going to be a Deputy Mayor when this is all said and done.)
2. Wendy Greuel is a familiar name and a previous city-wide candidate
Eric Garcetti is also a city-wide name, but people in San Pedro and Venice and Woodland Hills have never marked his name on a ballot. They have marked the name Wendy Greuel in the past. People are creatures of habit, and lacking sufficient motivations, tend to go with what they know on most occasions.
3. Wendy Greuel is a woman.
Expect to hear this bell get rung about 1,000 times in the next four months; "Wendy Greuel would be the first female Mayor of Los Angeles". Yep. If women vote for her, she will be. Eric Garcetti will have nightmares about this factoid by May.
4. Wendy Greuel is a killer (politician)
Wendy Greuel has an instinct to go for the throat when trying to beat her opponents. Ever since squeaking by Tony Cardenas years ago, she has been routing people. Wendy got 168,680 votes in 2009 when she ran for Controller. She got more votes than Mayor Villaraigosa did in that election! In fact, she received the most votes of any single candidate in that election. She is already somewhat popular with voters.
5. The math is starting to favor Wendy Greuel.
Sometimes, the candidate is just along for the ride. Wendy Greuel has a variety of ways to get to the Mayors Office: If the unions choose Wendy, she wins. If government workers choose Wendy, she wins. If female voters choose Wendy, she wins. If her old school connections work out for her, she wins. If most of the people who voted for her in 2009 vote for her in 2013, she wins.
Eric Garcetti is still a real and viable threat to Wendy Greuels dreams, but the math is starting to work against him. At this point I'm not even 100% sure Eric will take first place in the primary.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Originally, I was going to skip watching the Los Angeles Mayoral debate yesterday. I knew these political figures and their stances. There was nothing that they were going to say that would affect the outcome in this election. In fact, I could pretty much predict almost every word that Wendy Greuel and Eric Garcetti would say.
So why did I watch?
Because my heart was filled with rage at the local media...who for some reason have decided that the 2013 candidates get a televised debate, while the 2009 candidates for Mayor got nothing. Some media sources wouldn't even list our names in the newspapers back in 2009.
If the media had given the 2009 candidates a televised debate, we could have forced Antonio Villaraigosa into a runoff election. The problem in 2009 was that most of the candidates were not well known or elected officials. The connected people were too cowardly to take on a sitting Mayor with entrenched labor and union voting-bloc support.
I wondered last night if Walter Moore (the runner-up in the 2009 election) was also feeling a seething rage while watching these 2013 candidates take up an hour of airtime in primetime on television.
I don't have much to say about the debate itself.
Kevin James was the closest thing to a Conservative I saw last night, but even he has some nutty Big Government ideas.
Wendy Greuel and Eric Garcetti, the front-runners, were their usual Beta-politician selves, trying hard not to offend or actually give any concrete answers to any questions about real-world problems.
This Emanuel Pleitez guy seems like a less-offensive Socialist than the others, but the fact that he just turned 30 years old a few weeks ago gives him virtually no chance to win against decade-long politicos like Greuel, Garcetti, and Perry.
I will finish by posting my Twitter tweets from the debate. They were my instantaneous thoughts and assessments at the moment, so I find them truthful and direct.
One of Wendy Greuels hard drives is malfunctioning. She sounds like iPhone Siri for Mayor!!
These clowns at the
#LADebate live in a fantasy world. If Big Government Socialists had all the answers , LA would already be a paradise!!
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Friday, January 25, 2013
I mean, seriously folks...
When does this stop being funny?
The next Mayor is facing a billion dollar pension wrecking ball and Jan Perry wants to talk about puppies.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
My first inclination is to move down to Orange County and run for Congress there. The voters in LA are hopeless. They are about to create a historically evil City Council, and no good can come from that.
My second thought was to possibly run for one of the big State offices in 2014.
My third option? Forget politics for good. Quit my blog. Do something else with my life.
A total change of pace.
Actually, I'm leaning more towards the third option right now.
I asked a few friends what I should do.
Two of them said I should write a book.
I had never even considered that.
What in the hell would I even write a book about?
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Somehow, due to an unfortunate government clerical error, I was "accidentally" left off of the list of official invitees to the Presidential Inauguration.
However, not all was lost.
I figured that I could catch up to the President by waiting for him at Ben's Chili Bowl... one of Washington's most popular restaurants.
Although Obama didn't show up, I did get my picture taken in Ben's, which is one of Obama's favorite restaurants. And to their credit, the Obama voters at that restaurant didn't mind me being there at all.
In fact, they couldn't take their eyes off of me.
Now, that was quality food service! I'll gladly eat there again!
Monday, January 21, 2013
When I was in college. I read Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail" and wrote a paper on it. I don't remember what I said in that assignment, but some of the lines in his letter were seared into my memory.
I remember them clearly many years after the fact.
Whatever you may think of him, Martin Luther King Jr. was willing to risk his life and his freedom to oppose laws that he felt were immoral and unjust. He was a fighter who believed in -- and lived -- his own personal moral code. No civilization in human history has ever had enough men like him.
"Letter from Birmingham Jail"
16 April 1963
My Dear Fellow Clergymen:
While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.
I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.
But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.
Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.
You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.
In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.
Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants--for example, to remove the stores' humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained. As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic-withdrawal program would be the by product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.
Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoral election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run off, we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct action program could be delayed no longer.
You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.
One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.
You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."
I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.
Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.
I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some -such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle--have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty nigger-lovers." Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation. Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.
But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.
When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows.
In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.
I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: "Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.
I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: "What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?"
Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.
There was a time when the church was very powerful--in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators."' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are.
But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.
Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation -and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands. Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.
It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."
I wish you had commended the Negro sit inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy two year old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: "My feets is tired, but my soul is at rest." They will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?
If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.
I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.
Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Friday, January 18, 2013
The upcoming March elections are going to be an absolute catastrophe for the voters here in the City of Los Angeles.
The results? Well, to borrow a line from "Star Wars", we are going to end up with an even more wretched hive of scum and villainy down at City Hall.
Follow along and see if you can argue that I'm wrong....
Eric Garcetti/Wendy Greuel
There will be some noise about this from the Perry and James camps, but Garcetti and Greuel have larger built-in constituencies than Perry or James. And their voters get out there and elect them. Garcetti will get the largest share of votes, but Greuel will be close behind him. They will go to the runoff in May. Both of them have spent years being part of the problem here in L.A. Neither one will fix anything. Most likely -- based on their track record -- they will make things worse.
Most TJR readers know that I support Carmen "Nuch" Trutanich for my own reasons, and I will be happy to see his victory here. Nuch has been tough as a City Attorney, and the city needs tough men to deal with tough problems. Mike Feuer couldn't beat that degenerate Rocky Delgadillo. He won't be beating Nuch.
Dennis Zine is the favorite here, but Galperin, Bornstein and Brazeman are all businessmen with money -- and that will complicate things for Zine. I fully expect that one of them will force Zine into a runoff in May. I actually like Zine, who has a few Conservative tendencies, but he also has a bad habit of voting in lockstep with the other Socialists downtown. So I don't know that him being in charge of the City purse strings will help anything.
Council District 1
"One Bill Gil" Cedillo will probably be the winner here. A vile, detestable man whose one act in the State Legislature every year was to bring up a bill to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.
Council District 2
The Dark Lord (a.k.a. Paul Krekorian) will continue his reign of terror over CD 2 until he sees another grandstanding political move to make. Krekorian is a wretched and vile political figure. A soap box pimp who will say and do anything to stay in power. And by the way CD 2 voters... when you have local activists dancing around and cheering for The Dark Lord, your section of the city has gone to a very dark place, morally and ethically.
Council District 3
Council Distict 3 has their own version of The Dark Lord... State Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield. "Two-Job Bob" as his critics like to call him, is an individual so vile and depraved that he is running for this position without leaving his State Assembly seat. Morally and ethically, he is by far the most repulsive of all candidates in this District. But with this being corrupt Los Angeles politics, naturally, he will win.
Council District 4
Touchdown Tommy LaBonge continues to build that million dollar pension at taxpayer expense. Pretty sweet work if you can get it. Getting a real job is for suckers. Being a "public servant" is where the money is at!
Council District 5
The Cat Whisperer (a.k.a. Paul Koretz) will win his lightly contested race. He will continue to make the world a safe place for kitties. If that's your type of thing.....
Council District 6
Gangster Tony Cardenas was about to be shown the door and become Private Citizen Cardenas when the redistricting commission went and gift-wrapped him a Latino Congressional District in the northeast Valley that was so terrifying demographically that Howard Berman abandoned any chance to run for re-election there and ran against the vile Brad Sherman out in the West Valley. A replacement has not been found for Tony Cardenas yet, but the villains will come out of the woodwork for that May election.
Council District 7
Voters in CD 7 are about to suffer from the election of the repulsive Felipe Fuentes. If there was any District that deserved to be punished with a job-hopping career politician, it would be CD 7. They put up with Richard Alarcons lies and open villainy for years without asking him to leave. Again, when your voters greatest hope is that their Councilman doesn't leave office under indictment, you have gone to a very dark place.
Council District 8
Bernard Parks will hang around here, double dipping into City funds for payroll and pension at the same time. But his career is over. He has been neutered by Herb Wesson, and has little power left. Much like Tom La Bonge, Parks is just killing time and building himself a fat pension.
Council District 9
Another depressing result. Job-hopping scumbags Mike Davis and Curren Price are the two favorites here. Typical political figures who treat their oaths of office as some type of joke. Well, it's not going to be very funny for the voters of CD 9 to live with one of these villains for the next 12 years. No matter how awful or corrupt they are, they won't be beaten in subsequent elections.
Council District 10
Gangster Herb "Boss" Wesson is starting to run this city like his own personal fiefdom. I actually like it that a true villain is operating out in the open, with out any pretenses or disguises. Boss Wesson will show this city exactly what it is like when a true gangster is in charge. I'm also happy that he screwed Jan Perry and Bernard Parks. Wesson showed them that they were just useful idiots to him. They were just along for the ride, and when the time came to dump them, Boss Wesson didn't blink an eye.
Council District 11
The physically ill Bill Rosendahl could have kept his seat here, but when faced with life-threatening health battles, he decided to gift wrap the seat for his lieutenant, Mike Bonin. I doubt any of the challengers will make even a dent here. Bonin wins in March without having to face a runoff in May.
Council District 12
Mitch Englander showed flashes of potential before he got elected. But he's been assimilated. He's just part of the Borg now. Don't expect much from him.
Council District 13
CD 13 will be the most entertaining race in the election, with a dozen candidates having qualified for the March ballot. There is no obvious professional villain here, with Mayor Villaraigosas henchman Matt Szabo being about as close as you can get. But even he is not an elected official, so he doesn't have any goodies to hand out to the voters. I have no prediction here, except that it sounds like John Choi is getting the money and labor behind him, so most likely he makes a runoff and wins in May.
Council District 14
Jose Huizar is not currently under indictment. Not yet.
Council District 15
Joe Buscaino is still somewhat popular in his district, and he won't be defeated by his lone challenger.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
I find it amusing that the Democrats that voted for Obama are shocked that their paychecks are smaller in 2013 than in 2012. What did you expect? Obama is a looter. He would make your tax rate 100% if he thought he could safely get away with it. An extra 2% for payroll tax isn't even a snack for him. Watch what happens in the next four years. He is going to collapse our economy and make your life a living hell.
Friday, January 11, 2013
There has been a lot of hubbub in the media over the last few days about Controller and Mayoral candidate Wendy Greuel striking back against media source Randy Economy and his exposé of her running for office on City time.
This should come as a surprise to no one.
This type of behavior is common with corrupt Los Angeles politicians. Our corrupt degenerate of a Mayor recently was photographed partying with drug-abusing TV star Charlie Sheen down at a resort in Mexico. There were no calls from the media for him to resign. Why would there be? The media is on his side.
Mayor Villaraigosa spent four years behaving like a buffoon, cheating on his wife and jet-setting around the country at taxpayer expense on one ridiculous, nonsensical mission after another. When the Mayor gave the middle finger to the voters in the 2009 Mayoral election by refusing to appear at a single campaign event with any of his opponents... he beat his nearest competitor by nearly 30 points.
Degenerate Council Member Richard Alarcon has been under indictment for over two years now, yet his voters refuse to demand that he resign.
This type of contempt for voters breeds further contempt.
The Wendy Greuel campaign striking back at Randy Economy shouldn't be a surprise. After all, she has a Mayoral election to win. And media sources who underestimate her will be doing so at their own peril.
"The Pixie", as I like to call her, is a much more dangerous opponent than anyone realizes. As I said in a previous blog post, "Wendy is very low-key about the way she sticks daggers in the backs of the other candidates. You almost don't notice her doing it."
In fact, she has a way of crippling her opponents. She has become a lethal politician.
A real knife-fighter who will twist the blade into those who get in her way.
The Pixie will cut you.
Go ask her former opponents. If Gangster Tony Cardenas had not been gifted a Latino Congressional District by the Redistricting Board, he would soon be called Private Citizen Tony Cardenas.
Nick Patsouras and Kathleen "Suzy" Evans? Yeah.
You'll be lucky if you ever see them on a ballot again.
Regardless of the outcries of unfairness from the media, Wendy Greuel will stomp most of her opponents in the March election.
I don't see any way that it is not her and Eric Garcetti in the runoff in May.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Piers Morgan is a British television personality who hosts a syndicated program on the Cable News Network (CNN). Morgan has come under fire recently from Conservative activists for espousing his anti-gun views after the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut.
Morgan recently invited Radio show host Alex Jones on his program to discuss the issue. Jones had actually participated in a recent petition to the White House to have Morgan deported from the United States for his political views.
Piers Morgan is a rather contemptible fellow, but for some reason CNN finds him valuable enough to employ him at their leisure. That is their prerogative and that is capitalism and free markets at their best. I disagree strongly with his views on firearms...but what do you expect of him? He's a European Socialist. They like to surrender their weapons so that people like Hitler and Stalin can kill millions of their fellow Socialists without being impeded by the nuisance of armed opposition. His views are idiotic, but they are no different than the views of the nutty American liberals like filmmaker Michael Moore and various others.
Alex Jones is a troublesome character. While I would defend his stances on gun control, his method of espousing those views is also contemptible. He not only signed the petition to deport Morgan, but also basically challenged him to a boxing match. He's a hothead...and he's not a Conservative.
Conservatives revere our Constitution. The very idea of deporting someone just because they held differing political opinions is offensive to Conservatives. We cherish our first Amendment rights and don't see them as conditional the way that liberals do.
Both Morgan and Jones are offensive and wrong, but they are entitled to their own political opinions.
To deport Morgan over his political views would be horribly wrong. That is something that countries like Cuba, Russia, and China would do. It would send a horrible message to the rest of the world if America started acting like her enemies.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
There are rumors floating around that President Obama is about to make some type of Executive Order concerning firearms in America.
In the long history of bad ideas perpetrated by this vile President, this would have to rank up near the top in stupidity.
Part of the reason I never want my President to be a naive, ignorant civilian is exactly things like this.
We have had multiple Generals become President. They know the power of weapons and warfare. They also know the human tendency to abuse power and control over others.
None of our former Generals who became President ever advocated for any type of government control over firearms. They knew exactly how quickly a political leader could become a maniacal dictator if left unchecked.
So President Obama wants my guns?
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa -- Charlie Sheen's Not My Bro ... It's Just a Picture - Watch More Celebrity Videos or Subscribe
Our depraved, degenerate joke of a Mayor was exposed recently by fellow partier Charlie Sheen while they were cavorting together down in Mexico.
The Mayor excused his behavior by saying that "I'm in the picture-taking business."
Maybe Mayor Villaraigosa can put that item on his resumé when becomes unemployed later this year.
On May 21, 2013, Los Angeles will elect a new Mayor to a four-year term.
Maybe we should ask Mr. Sheen who he will be endorsing.
Monday, January 7, 2013
There was a story last night on 60 minutes about the professional football team Barcelona. It reminded me of my time in Spain. If you ever get the chance to go to one of their games, do so. If you ever see them sing their anthem in person, you will never forget it.
I know I won't.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Mark Levin at his best at 7:30.
"As I have said over and over and over again...It's not about the rich! It's about you! You! He hasn't gotten enough and he wants more. Why? Because this isn't about economics or balancing budgets or revenue to pay for deficit spending and printing money... There is a...there is no connection whatsoever between tax revenue and what this man is doing in the White House. No connection between what he's doing and the Democrat Party is doing with their spending. None. None. We are unmoored from the Constitution. The issue isn't what can the government do, the issue is what can't the government do? They have been pushing for this for a century. You see, folks, the only thing that stands between us and tyranny is our Constitution...and the limits it places on Barack Obama and Harry Reid and yes....John Boehner...and the Supreme Court and all the rest of them. Well, for the most part, they're gone. They're gone...."
Friday, January 4, 2013
Here's my response to Cathy Viloria.
Everyone involved in their sham of a forum is a degenerate.
Everyone involved in their sham of a forum is a degenerate.
Your organization is basically full of shit because you are excluding multiple candidates.The 3 you mention have been in power for YEARS as LA burned through hundreds of millions without discipline.They are not the answer to the problems the city faces.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 4, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Cathy Viloria <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Dear Los Angeles City Council Candidate:Housing for a Stronger Los Angeles invites you to join us at the Los Angeles Mayoral Candidates Housing Forum on Affordable Housing scheduled to occur on January 11, 2013 from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm at the Cathedral Conference Center, 555 West Temple Street in downtown Los Angeles. The top three mayoral candidates, City Councilmember Eric Garcetti, City Controller Wendy Greuel, and City Councilmember Jan Perry, will share their strategies on addressing the housing needs of all of the residents of the City. The forum will be moderated by Raphael Bostic, Director, Bedrosian Center on Governance and Professor, Sol Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California.Housing for a Stronger Los Angeles is a broad-based coalition of affordable housing providers; social service, community based, and faith based organizations; and business and development industry leaders with a common commitment to housing as a means of promoting the health, education sustainability and economy of Los Angeles. Its platform calls for a dedicated source of funding for affordable housing of at least $100 million a year. Attached is more information about the coalition.We hope you will join us. Please confirm your attendance at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LAmayoralforum or email@example.com. Unfortunately there will not be an opportunity for the City Council Candidates to speak at the forum. We will acknowledge all candidates in attendance.Sincerely,Robin Hughes and Tony SalazarHousing for a Stronger Los AngelesSteering Committee Co-Chairs
Thursday, January 3, 2013
I hope that some courageous Congressmen are pulling some incredibly clever maneuvers right now, and making sure that Boehner gets the boot...but I am prepared to be disappointed. If the Democrats can't get rid of that monster Pelosi, I'm not optimistic we can stop the return of Obamas golfing buddy.