CALL Friends, eMail Friends, to VOTE.
We are soooooo close VOTE, VOTE, VOTE...
see below for voter guides....
Register to VOTE Here
Double click to see full screen
Celebrate Freedom America - NEXT EVENT - Stay Tuned
Posted by Jon Fleischman at 12:35 am on Oct 24, 2014
On June 15, 2013, liberal Democrat Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi cast the deciding vote to pass ACA 8 out of the State Assembly — legislation so bad that Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis taxpayers Association called it at the time, “the most egregious attack on Prop. 13 ever to come out of the legislature. Muratsuchi’s vote was to gut the two-thirds vote requirement to raise taxes.
Is it any surprise that nearly a year and a half later, when running for re-election in the competitive 66th Assembly District in the South Bay Area of Los Angeles County, that Muratsuchi would not only be hoping that voters would forget about his anti-Prop. 13 vote, but he’s actually been serially lying to voters? Muratsuchi has had the audacity in his re-election bid to characterize himself as a “protector of Proposition 13” — which is opposite of the truth.
- See more at: http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2014/10/24/ad66-watch-hjtas-coupal-calls-out-muratsuchi-for-lying-about-his-anti-prop-13-record/#sthash.RA7Gul9Z.dpuf
From the other gary - Gary Aminoff:
For Republican candidates on the ballot:
For Judicial Candidate recommendations:
For voting recommendations on the Propositions:
Proposition Voting Guide - (Short Form Vote NO on all Propositions - gary)
Voting recommendations on races where no Republican is running:
State Senate Race - 26th Senatorial District - BEN ALLEN
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors - 3rd District -BOBBY SHRIVER
State Superintendent of Public Instruction - MARSHALL TUCK
The Daily Breeze endorsed David Hadley over the Democrat incumbent WOW!!!
DAVID HADLEY IN ASSEMBLY DISTRICT 66: In one of the most competitive and nastiest races in the South Bay, Republican David Hadley is our pick. A fiscal conservative who sees the recent film tax credit as lending a temporary hand to the industry, he is looking for more long-term economic fixes to encourage economic growth, including addressing problems with workers’ compensation. His approach is to unite the center-right and he sees this seat as one that could determine whether Democrats will keep their supermajority, a reality which has stifled bipartisanship and debate in Sacramento.
Incumbent Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, bills himself as a moderate Democrat with a focus on education, and he has made some strides in economic policy — for instance, with a bill that pushes to speed up solar-power installation.
Neither is likely to push either hard to the right or hard to the left, but Hadley’s clear fiscal prudence impressed the editorial board. As a newcomer to the Assembly, his challenge would be to forge alliances to be an effective legislator.
State Assembly 66: Of course DAVID HADLEY...
CD33 - Elan Carr is outstanding
Click here for more or page down
The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.
The America that works, and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t.
It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, to obey the law and support themselves and contribute to society, and others don’t.
That’s the divide in America.
It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.
That’s not invective, that’s truth.
And it’s about time someone said it.
The politics of envy was on proud display last week as the president said he would pledge the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He notes that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.
It was the rationale of thievery.
The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you.
It is the electoral philosophy that gave us Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.
And it conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense. It ends up not being a benefit to the people who support it, but a betrayal. The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them – in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victimhood and anger instead of ability and hope.
The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful – seeks to ignore and cheat the law of choices and consequences. It seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices.
Because, by and large, the variability in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.
And success and failure can manifest themselves in personal and family income.
You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education. You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course, you have them in wedlock and life is apt to take another course.
Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.
My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome. But, our lives also have had an inequality of effort. Whereas my doctor went to college and then gave the flower of his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice. And our choices led us to different outcomes.
His outcome pays a lot better than mine.
Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth?
No, it means we are both free men.
And in a free society, free choices will lead to different outcomes.
It is not inequality Barack Obama will take away, it is freedom.
The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. And there is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure.
The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy.
Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing.
Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.
Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort. The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.”
The progressive movement would turn that upside down.
Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement has replaced effort as the key to upward mobility in American society.
Or at least it has if Barack Obama gets his way.
He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive and fosters equality through mediocrity.
He and his party speak of two Americas.
And their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other.
America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts. And by the false philosophy that says one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.
What the president offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, he pitted one set of Americans against another.
For his own political benefit.
That’s what progressives offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow.
Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
- by Bob Lonsberry © 2013
Feb. 27, 2014 6:00pm Sharona Schwartz
The author of a German study that examined thousands of anti-Semitic hate messages told an Israeli newspaper that she was “very surprised” to discover that only 3 percent came from those described as members of the political “far-right.”
Monika Schwarz-Friesel, a linguistics professor at the Technical University of Berlin, and her team read 14,000 letters and emails addressed to the Israeli embassy in Berlin and to Germany’s Central Council of Jews, Haaretz reported.
The results were summarized in her book, “The Language of Hostility Towards Jews in the 21st Century,” which was published in German and is due out in English next year.
“I wanted to find out how modern anti-Semites think, feel and communicate,” Schwarz-Friesel told Haaretz.
The study concluded that a majority of the messages – 60 percent – were sent by educated Germans, including university professors and priests.
That finding shattered the research team’s initial assumptions.
“At first, we thought that most of the letters would be sent by right-wing extremists,” Schwarz-Friesel said. “But I was very surprised to discover that they were actually sent by people from the social mainstream – professors, Ph.D.s, lawyers, priests, university and high-school students.”
1. It started with “hope and change” ”While society is struggling toward liberty, these famous men who put themselves at its head are filled with the spirit of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They think only of subjecting mankind to the philanthropic tyranny of their own social inventions. Like Rousseau, they desire to force mankind docilely to bear this yoke of the public welfare that they have dreamed up in their own imaginations…
Listen to the ideas of a few of the writers and politicians during that period [the late 1780s]:
SAINT-JUST: The legislator commands the future. It is for him to will the good of mankind. It is for him to make men what he wills them to be.
ROBESPIERRE: The function of government is to direct the physical and moral powers of the nation toward the end for which the commonwealth has come into being.
BILLAUD-VARENNES: A people who are to be returned to liberty must be formed anew. A strong force and vigorous action are necessary to destroy old prejudices, to change old customs, to correct depraved affections, to restrict superfluous wants, and to destroy ingrained vices…. Citizens, the inflexible austerity of Lycurgus created the firm foundation of the Spartan republic. The weak and trusting character of Solon plunged Athens into slavery. This parallel embraces the whole science of government.
LE PELLETIER: Considering the extent of human degradation, I am convinced that it is necessary to effect a total regeneration and, if I may so express myself, of creating a new people.”
2. And a social justice agenda ”Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law — that is, by force — this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization — justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?”
3. That enabled Obamacare ”But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed — then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.
Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.”
4. And the IRS scandal, DOJ malfeasances, etc. ”Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim — when he defends himself — as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder”
5. Where law was used as a weapon ”But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.
- A Balanced Budget
- Constitutional, Limited Government,
- Stop the irresponsible spending
- No more bailouts
- Stop Generational Theft
-A Republic, One Nation Under God Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All
- Personal Responsibility
- Always telling the Truth