Delusional Liberals

I grabbed this screenshot off of MSNBC the other day.

I watch their programming, basically for its comedy value. Their opinions are so ridiculous that it actually is funny.

Liberals think Obama already has the election won. They act like Mitt Romney is "bothering" these voters in Florida and Ohio.

They don't mention the fact that Romney will win 24 states the minute the polls open in November.

Most delusional of all is the subtitle on the graphic saying that Obama has a 15 point lead with Catholics.

Yeah.

The same Catholic Church that is suing the Obama Administration for improperly interfering with their First Amendment right to practice their religion.

Yeah. They are all voting for Obama.

Sure, they are.

Nanny Staters will never stop

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would be rolling over in their graves if they saw what I saw today.

Right there on the Red Line subway train was a poster from the local government...telling you how to eat.

Yes, that's right. With the city about a half-billion dollars in the hole, some idiot bureaucrat thought it was a good idea to steal some more dollars from taxpayers to dictate to them that about how to eat properly. Unreal.

The first thing I felt was anger when seeing this.

Some poor schmuck who got his money stripped by force by the City of Los Angeles, whether through a parking ticket or whatever, had to see his money be spent for this nonsense.
The sight of it brought up thoughts of the book "1984" and "Big Brother".

Yes, Big Brother is watching you.

And he's telling you to put down those French fries, fatty!

My debate questions that expose Adam Schiff as a phony

Well, to be quite honest, I am not surprised by the current situation in my 2012 campaign.

Actually, I'm getting pretty used to it.

In my previous two political campaigns, I was never even able to get into the same room with my elected official opponents to discuss ideologies, philosophies, or to debate their views on current events. Voting members of the local community had no interest in holding their office holders accountable for their actions, and that trend continues to this day.

42 days until the election, and no civic groups have asked to see me debate Adam Schiff. The League of Women Voters is trying to put something together, but Adam Schiff is reluctant to leave his comfortable home in Maryland, come all the way back to California, and defend his Socialist voting record in front of a crowd of possibly hostile taxpayers.

In an attempt to get this message out to the media, I am going to use Twitter to tweet this article directly to several media sources. I have prepared several debate questions for Adam Schiff, but unfortunately, I will probably never get to ask them of him directly.

The questions are as follows....

1. Congressman Schiff, you are often seen in the media pandering to gay special interest groups. If you care so much about gay marriage, where were your legislative bills in the California State Senate to legalize and to institute gay marriage?

Of course, Schiff wouldn't be able to answer this question, because he is a phony. He is seizing on the issue of gay rights because it is currently trendy and he thinks it will get him votes (it might). But back in 1996-2001 when he was in the California State Senate and his district was a little more moderate, he wrote no such laws, because there was no advantage in it for him at the time. His district did not include the ultra-liberal City of West Hollywood like it does now.

I would also ask Schiff if he felt that it was a good idea to be riding around in gay pride parades in West Hollywood. Regardless of his answer, I would state that I felt it was improper for a government official to do something like that. To celebrate one group of people over another just because of how they define themselves through their sexual behavior is not something that the government should be doing.

2. Congressman Schiff, you are often held out to be an almost heroic figure to the Armenian community in Glendale for your political stance to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide. Would you be willing to hire someone who was a Muslim or a Turk to work on your staff in your offices in Washington?

I would love to see Adam Schiff twist and squirm trying to answer this question. Again, it exposes him as a huge phony. He is such a hero to the Armenian community, that he can't say yes, but he is such a  politically correct ultra-liberal that he can't say no, either.

Me? I'm a Conservative. I have no problem stating that I would not hire a Muslim to work in my offices. The reason being that Muslims do not believe in many crucial American freedoms... freedom of speech... freedom of religion... they don't believe in womens rights ... gay rights, etc...etc.. so their personal ideology deeply conflicts with mine and makes them unemployable by my office.

Adam Schiff would never make that statement. Not in a million years.

Why Adam Schiff is wrong about gay marriage

My opponent in the upcoming Congressional election, Representative Adam Schiff, believes in gay marriage.

I don't agree with him.

Here is why Adam Schiff is wrong about gay marriage:

1. Marriage is a religious institution, and pre-dates any government attempts to manage or interfere with it. This tradition should be left alone and respected.

People have been getting married for thousands of years. It is the oldest and most respected of all social customs. It has been up to the religions themselves that perform marriage to set their own standards, and all legitimate religions dictate that marriage is exclusively reserved for men and women. It wasn't even until after the Civil War that government in America started meddling in marriage and demanding certificates and registrations. The people of the world got on just fine for centuries without government meddling in the area of marriage. 

2. There is no such thing as Gay Marriage. It is a fantasy concept.

Homosexuals do not have the right to create or invent religious theology simply to fit their own desires. That is not the way the world works. If it did, people could create all types of wild theologies. The religions that perform the marriages set the rules. And none of them allow gays to marry.

3. Gay marriage is a dangerous trespass against the First Amendment.

This is the most disturbing of all arguments against gay marriage.

Our government shouldn't be in the position of dictating to religions what standards they have to accept when practicing their beliefs. More simply put.... if the government declares that it has the power to dictate that a man can get married to a man, then what is to stop that same government from declaring that a man can get married to a goat? Or that a woman can get married to a cat? Think about that for a minute.

Once government decides that they will make the rules of marriage, the religions are forced to become become subservient to any idea the government creates. This is very, very troubling for people of faith. And it is an egregious violation of the First Amendment protecting Freedom of Religion.

4. Gay Marriage is not about marriage. It is about legal rights.

Even gay couples will admit to this. They argue that they are being denied something like 1,100 rights that heterosexual couples are allowed. Now this is actually a legitimate argument from them. I'm willing to have this conversation. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to visit a loved one in a hospital, or be put on their significant others life insurance.

They can even inherit their loved ones pension payments of other types of contracts and property. If our laws need to be revised to protect the legal, contractual rights of gays, then that I am willing to accept. But gays do not have the right to invent religious theology, nor do they have the right to force cultural values on others that are offensive to them and/or violate their religious faith. 

Mayoral Debate in Hollywood

As the 2012 Republican Nominee for Congress from the 28th Congressional District, I felt that it would be a good idea for me to show up at the Mayoral Debate in Hollywood on Wednesday and welcome these candidates to my district.

The first candidate I ran into was Emanuel Pleitez, who was outside the event with a crowd of supporters/protesters who were upset about Pleitez being excluded from speaking at this debate.

I told Pleitez that I certainly had some sympathy for him. I had seen a bit of this in the past, with the Council District 2 elections in the past, and certain organizations deciding that only certain candidates were welcome to appear at a particular forum/debate. I find this policy highly offensive. Organizations that do this are stifling the Democratic process. Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain shot up from 2% support to about 15% support in the polls with a good debate performance. The damage that these organizations do to the different campaigns by excluding people is incalculable.

However, I did tell Pleitez that they actually had a right to exclude him at this point in time, because technically, nobody was on the 2013 ballot at this moment in time. Later on, after the paperwork is all completed and official, this may become a very different problem for these organizations.

I have a feeling that Pleitez isn't actually running to win this year, but that he is actually building his visibility for a future run at elected office. I did something very similar in 2009 when I ran for Mayor of Los Angeles with no previous political experience. I knew I wouldn't win, but the increased visibility definitely helped me further down the road, as I won the primary for Congress earlier this year.

The debate itself was actually kind of a big flop. Horrible rules, one minute answers, and no questions from the crowd. Wow, was that ever a dumb idea.

The debate got started off on the wrong foot when the moderator, some actress I didn't know, went on and on about her movie career and her family...etc...etc.. until people started rolling their eyes in the crowd. Someone needs to pull this woman aside and tell her that the crowd was there to see the candidates, not her. This woman also bookended the debate awfully, too, by obnoxiously pitching some movie she was appearing in after the candidates had finished their closing arguments. (Keep this menace away from politics in the future!)

As far as the debate went, there were few surprises.

Eric Garcetti was, by far, the smoothest and most polished career politician up there on the stage. Eric has higher aspirations and he also has serious people skills. However, he didn't take very many strong stands on the issues and seemed overly concerned about pleasing everyone, which is always a troubling trait in a political figure.

Wendy Greuel was her usual pixie self...all happiness and sunshine and cheerleading. 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. She actually had a pretty good sized crowd of supporters at the debate and I feel that she will be a force in this election. Los Angeles has never had a woman serve as Mayor, but if it ever does, I'd bet that Wendy has a decent shot at being that first female leader.

Kevin James did a great job of slamming the others and seriously put some dents in their campaigns, but I feel Kevin needs to veer away from some of the attack-dog mode and spend more time explaining his vision for the city. James had a very vocal crowd supporting him during the debate.

Jan Perry. Wow.

I hate saying this, because I can't stand her policies, but I came away from the debate most impressed by Jan Perry. Jan knows that she is running behind the two other Democratic political darlings --Wendy and Eric -- in this election. She knows that she has to stand out and make herself look different. She approached the crowd in a very disarming way, reminding them that she's not the favorite. She also told people she would make the tough choices and wouldn't give them the answer they wanted every time they asked. She really connected on a personal level, while Eric and Wendy sometimes sounded like they were reading from tele-prompters.

I came away from the debate very impressed with the human touch displayed by Jan Perry.

Because of her policies, however, I could never vote for her.
But that doesn't mean that others won't.

If I had to choose any of these four, I would choose Kevin James. But I'm not set on that decision, as I think the field is still open and other candidates might still appear.

Romney calls out the looters

And no apologies, either.

I'm not a big fan of Romney, but sometimes he does things that I like.

I have no problem with him saying what he said.

Liberals are having a meltdown..... but, they always act that way.

Michele Bachmann at the Value Voters Summit 2012