John Kanaley in runoff election in 37th Congressional District

The Republican Party of Los Angeles County Announces that
John Kanaley wins primary election in 37th Congressional District.

John Kanaley, in a race with three other Republican candidates on June 26th in the 37th Congressional District emerged as the highest vote-getter among Republicans and will face Laura Richardson (D) in a final election on August 21st.

John is to be congratulated on his success. It is now up to us as grass-roots Republicans to do all we can to support John and his candidacy. We need phone banks, precinct walks and whatever help we can give John to help him win his race.

About John Kanaley

John is married, has two adult daughters and an 18 month old son.

He has lived in Long Beach all his life and served 16 years in the Long Beach Police Department. John has also served in the Armed Forces for 22 years, and recently returned from his second tour of duty in Iraq, where he was awarded the Bronze Star and other medals and ribbons.

You can find out more about John, his biography and where he stands on the issues on his web site.

John Kanaley's goals are:

-Add support in Congress for the War on Terror from somebody who served in Iraq

-Support the Republican Party in its effort to regain control of Congress in 2008

-Ensure that the concerns of Long Beach are heard in Congress from a Long Beach native

-Make the tax cuts permanent

-Promote business at all levels in Long Beach, Carson, Compton and throughout the district.


The Republican Party of Los Angeles County is committed to do everything we can to help John Kanaley be the next representative for the citizens of the 37th Congressional District. For more information or to find out how you can help John's campaign, please contact John's campaign.

Let's all mobilize to support John in this important race.


Technorati Tags: Republican,37th Congressional District,John Kanaley

Ethnic Graduations are Anti-American

When I attended UCLA it was a multi-racial, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural campus. There were students from nearly every country, every religion and all races. Yet, most students thought of themselves as Bruins and as Americans. We were all graduated in a single commencement ceremony which made us feel we were all part of a single community

John Leo, in the City Journal, writes an article entitled, Let the segregation commence, in which he describes the various commencement ceremonies at UCLA.

"Commencement weekend is hard to plan at the University of California, Los Angeles. The university now has so many separate identity-group graduations that scheduling them not to conflict with one another is a challenge. The women's studies graduation and the Chicana/Chicano studies graduation are both set for 10 AM Saturday. The broader Hispanic graduation, "Raza," is in near-conflict with the black graduation, which starts just an hour later.

Planning was easier before a new crop of ethnic groups pushed for inclusion. Students of Asian heritage were once content with the Asian-Pacific Islanders ceremony. But now there are separate Filipino and Vietnamese commencements, and some talk of a Cambodian one in the future. Years ago, UCLA sponsored an Iranian graduation, but the school's commencement office couldn't tell me if the event was still around. The entire Middle East may yet be a fertile source for UCLA commencements."

I think this multi-cultural separatism is bad for America. Before multi-culturism became popular in the 1960's, the objective of schools was to cause everyone to assimilate into the American culture. Children pledged allegiance to the Flag, sang America the Beautiful and the Star Spangled Banner, learned that the Founders of our country were ordinary men with extraordinary ideas, and were taught that America provides freedom and opportunity that isn't available elsewhere. Children were taught what it was to be an American and to be glad that they were part of this great country. It was considered important to make sure that children, regardless of where they came from, or what race they were, became assimilated so that they were able to take advantage of the opportunities available to them in this great country.

Since "Multi-culturism" became fashionable, schools, rather than assimilating children into the American mainstream, have been causing children to celebrate their differences. Celebrating differences has the opposite effect. Children feel alienated from the main culture, and feel more of an attachment to their ethnic or racial group. Rather than assimilating children into the American culture, multi-culturism has caused them to feel apart from the American culture. That is particularly true among the Muslim community, but extends to the Latino and African-American communities as well.

John Leo concludes his article,

"But the core reason for separatist graduations is the obvious one: on campus, assimilation is a hostile force, the domestic version of American imperialism. On many campuses, identity-group training begins with separate freshman orientation programs for nonwhites, who arrive earlier and are encouraged to bond before the first Caucasian freshmen arrive. Some schools have separate orientations for gays as well. Administrations tend to foster separatism by arguing that bias is everywhere, justifying double standards that favor identity groups.

Four years ago Ward Connerly, then a regent of the University of California, tried to pass a resolution to stop funding of ethnic graduations and gay freshman orientations. He changed his mind and asked to withdraw his proposal, but the Regents wanted to vote on it and defeated it in committee 6-3.

No major objections to ethnic graduations have emerged since. As in so many areas of American life, the preposterous is now normal."

In my view, this does not portend well for the future of America.
____


Technorati Tags: Multiculturism,UCLA,Assimilation,Ethnic SeparatismMulticultural

Washington Pols Unworthy of Our Trust

I rarely post in full an article from another blog. This article by Gary Gross on The California Conservative is so on point that I felt it should be restated.

I just finished posting something that illustrates Harry Reid’s and Nancy Pelosi’s diminutive and shrinking credibility here. Now I’m writing another article that illustrates President Bush’s non-existent credibility on immigration reform. I’m basing this post on Thomas Lifson’s op-ed, which is posted on RealClearPolitics. Here’s the first section of Mr. Lifson’s op-ed that jumped out at me:

President Bush is threatening to revive the failed comprehensive immigration bill in “improved” form. He is wasting his and our time. No amount of improving can make the comprehensive approach the best path for America to solve its immigration woes. Instead of a big bang approach to immigration reform, we need to adopt a different sort of change strategy for America, a step-by-step, or iterative approach, learning as we go, passing reforms in a logical sequence, and learning from mistakes along the way.

It saddens me to think that this immigration bill’s most vocal supporters are bent on not taking this issue seriously. My disappointment on their lack of seriousness is only exceeded by my disappointment at their thinking that they know best and their acting like they have a shred of credibility left on the issue of enforcing immigration laws. Here’s Mr. Lifson’s quote that most jumps out at me:

The politicians do not seem to realize how completely they have lost the confidence of the American people when it comes to stemming the flow of illegals across the border.

That statement is spot on. Frankly, I’m not certain that they even care that they don’t have a shred of credibility left. This, I’m afraid, points to another trend that I think will play out during next year’s campaign.

The trend that I’m noticing is an anti-Washington wave building. This week’s polls that showed Harry Reid’s JA approval rating at 19 percent illustrates that point. The fact that President Bush’s JA rating is in the low 30’s is more proof that his policies aren’t well-liked. The fact that Congress’ JA rating is 5 points lower than President Bush’s rating tells me that people see Washington insiders like Trent Lott, Ted Kennedy and John McCain as not worthy of their trust.

Once the trust between politicians and the American people is broken, it’s finished. I’m convinced that that’s why activists’ reactions to this ugly compromise is seen in such a negative light. Polls show that that intensity isn’t exclusive to Republican activists or Democrat activists. The intensity is high and it’s coming from both sides of the aisle.

What this tells me is that candidates that give voters straight, logical answers will flourish. Similarly, those candidates that give evasive answers will be punished. (That’s why I think Hillary won’t do well and why Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney will do well.)

I’d also believe that Republicans will gain from this national mood if they show that they’re serious about reforms throughout the political system. Here’s how I can see that scenario playing out: I can picture Jon Bruning defeating Chuck Hagel in the GOP primary in Nebraska. Based on this report, I can also picture Lindsey Graham getting beaten in South Carolina:

People are talking about newly elected State Treasurer Thomas Ravenel, son of the legendary “Cousin Arthur” Ravenel who represented the 1st CD in Congress for a decade, then came home and ran again for State Senate, from where he sought and found the funds for the new Cooper River bridge which not coincidentally now bears his name, challenging Graham in the primaries next year.

I don’t know how Graham is holding on in his upstate base (a very conservative area), but Ravenel would run up large majorities in the Low country and Grand Strand. His father is perhaps the most beloved politician in the state, and he is an attractive and conservative candidate.

Based on what I’ve read about Bruning and based on this information, I think that it’s quite possible to knock off both Hagel and Graham in the primaries and to have Bruning and Ravenel keep those seats in GOP hands in the general election. Defeating Sens. Hagel and Graham would send a definitive message to wobblies throughout the GOP. Equally important is the fact that it’d send the message to voters that we’re serious about cleaning up our image with actions and that we’re serious about doing what’s right for the American people.

If those things happen, the GOP will be (a) charting a new course for America and (b) giving people a reason to trust them on a variety of issues, including the GWOT and immigration.

That’s a goal that’s worth our sweat and hard work. It’s a goal that’s worthy of the party of Reagan.

Technorati Tags: Harry Reid,Election 2008,Illegal Immigration,Republican Senators

France gets tough on illegal immigrants

I came across this article today about France - yes, France, getting tough on illegal immigrants. I decided not to make any editorial comment. The article speaks for itself.

France gets tough on illegal immigration, setting quotas for arrests, expulsions
By Associated Press
Monday, June 4, 2007 - Updated: 04:53 PM EST

PARIS - France set tough new quotas for the number of illegal immigrants authorities should arrest and expel each month, the new immigration minister said Monday.

Brice Hortefeux, who heads the newly created Ministry of Immigration, Integration, National Identity and Co-Development, said a monthly quota also would be set for ferreting out those employed in France illegally.

In a meeting with security officials, Hortefeux reiterated President Nicolas Sarkozy’s goal of 25,000 expulsions by the end of 2007 - compared with 24,000 in 2006 - and set a year-end goal of 125,000 arrests for alleged illegal entry or illegal residence, a ministry statement said. The number of those already arrested was not immediately clear.

Sarkozy, who was elected May 6, pledged during his campaign to create a ministry of immigration and national identity to rein in the flow of migrants and ensure they are integrated into French society. Riots in French housing projects in 2005 were largely driven by anger among children of immigrants at persistent discrimination and a feeling of alienation from mainstream society.

Hortefeux said the new measures were aimed at "dismantling networks that exploit the misery of illegal immigrants," the statement said.

His orders came after he and Prime Minister Francois Fillon visited a holding center for illegal immigrants Monday _ and three days after the bodies of 18 illegal immigrants were fished from the Mediterranean by the crew of a French frigate.

The dead _ 12 men, two adolescent boys and four women _ were believed to be seeking new lives in Europe, though it was not clear what country they were coming from. They will be buried in France.

"The French Republic will be extremely firm. It will ensure laws are applied," Fillon said, adding: "Naturally, these laws must be applied with the greatest humanity."

Many saw Sarkozy’s proposal as a nod to the electorate on the extreme right, which long has made fighting immigration one of its main causes.

"Generosity is not opening wide the borders without thought for how people will integrate, how they will live, how they will subsist," Fillon said. [emphasis added]

Hortefeux, in his meeting with security officials, also insisted on the need to develop a system of paying illegal immigrants to voluntarily return home, setting the number of paid departures at 2,500 for this year _ a 25 percent increase from 2006.

Those volunteering to leave, as part of a program started in late 2005, are given a fixed sum of money, normally $4,700 per couple, with $1,350 each for the first three children.

Technorati Tags: Illegal Immigration,France,deportation,Sarkozy

A Conservative Revolt?

The more I talk to conservatives and read articles posted by conservatives, it seems to me that there is a revolt brewing within the Republican Party. Conservatives feel that the Administration and the Congress have abandoned them and their concerns.

Peggy Noonan writes in the Wall Street Journal:

What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker -- "At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.

The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.

President Bush has torn asunder the conservative coalition.

For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.

But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic -- they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."

Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives? It is odd, but it is of a piece with, or a variation on, the "Too bad" governing style. And it is one that has, day by day for at least the past three years, been tearing apart the conservative movement.

No one has been a stronger supporter of President Bush than I have. When he stepped up in September of 2001 and took charge, he earned my undying gratitude for his courage, his leadership and his determination to prevent another attack on our country. I thought that, at last, we have a true conservative in the White House - another Ronald Reagan. I thought going into Iraq was the right thing to do to stabilize the Middle East and reduce the danger to our allies.

I have supported President Bush all along, even though I did not agree with his policy on illegal immigration. Even though I didn't agree with his "big government" stance and the growth in non-military spending, I felt that he deserved our support because he appointed conservative justices and was a proponent of freedom and conservatism. In the past year or so, however President Bush, and a substantial number of our Republican Congressmen and Senators, have chosen to abandon the conservative base.

Craig Shirley writes in Townhall.com:

In his now infamous “Malaise” speech in 1979, Jimmy Carter demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of his country and his countrymen. It was the tipping point for his presidency.

Last week, President Bush had his own malaise moment when he attacked a large segment of the American people and insinuated they were ignorant about the immigration bill he has fashioned with Ted Kennedy.

The American people don’t like to be criticized by their presidents, especially when they are at 28 percent approval, either then or now. This clash is a “Panama Canal moment” for the GOP.

The bar fight over the newest immigration “compromise” bill is the Gotterdammerung for the party and the conservative movement. The outcome will determine what direction the GOP will take and whether it will once again be consigned to minority status for a generation.

It is not the first time there has been a trial separation and eventually a divorce between conservatism and Republicanism. In 1971, conservatives gathered at Bill Buckley’s home in New York. The meeting was called because Richard Nixon had supported his aide, Pat Moynihan’s proposal for a federally-mandated guaranteed household income. That tore it for conservatives.

Nixon had already instituted wage and price controls, appointed liberals to his Administration, was cozying up to the Soviets and was about to betray America’s longtime ally, Taiwan, to recognize instead Red China. “Tricky Dick” tricked conservatives into supporting him in 1968 and then immediately set about to break every promise he’d ever made to the Right.

The group called themselves the “Manhattan Twelve” and signed a manifesto announcing their “Declaration of Independence” from Nixon and his Republican Party. They hence decided to forget about the losers that made up what was left of the GOP and focused instead on building a political movement. At this, they were very successful and were guided only by their principles.

The conservative movement all through the late 1970’s led the GOP around by the nose, on the Panama Canal treaties, on SALT II, on ERA, on tax cuts, on opposition to Jimmy Carter and support for Ronald Reagan. The GOP of the 1970’s was clueless, just as their fancy counterparts are of the current Republican Party.

True conservatives are now faced with this choice once again. In order to save their ideology, should the conservative movement declare it’s independence from the Bush Administration and the GOP? The arguments for doing so are compelling.

The immigration bill, most conservatives believe, is a sellout of everything they hold dear – the rule of law, justice, freedom and sovereignty. But rather than listen to the grassroots American people, the GOP elites are listening intently instead to their master’s voice, corporate America.

Conservatives do not understand the difference between someone breaking and entering their home and someone breaking and entering their country.

Despite “Bushophant” Michael Gerson’s derivative arguments calling conservatives bigots, the rule of law still means something to most people in this country.

The GOP’s arrogance is doubly insulting because they know how the grassroots feels or at least should. All they have to do is listen to Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, read any of a dozen conservative columnists, websites and blogs to know what conservatives think about this bill.

The outrage over this betrayal is evident. Republicans across the board seemed astonished when the first quarter FEC reports came out and all told, the Democratic presidential candidates out-raised the Republicans by $25 million. The party committees are lagging behind their Democratic counterparts, as reported in the Washington Times.

There is no mystery. Conservatives, who voted in droves for Democrats and against Republicans as a protest vote last November are now voting with their pocketbooks. The sleeping giant of the conservative movement has been awakened and if the immigration bill passes, one can imagine an organized effort to shut down all grassroots conservative money from going to any GOP party committee and instead, direct their hard-earned dollars to legitimate conservative groups.

Some may argue a breakup is premature citing the War on Terror, tax cuts and the appointments of Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the federal bench.

George W. Bush campaigned on supporting tax cuts and appointing conservatives to the courts and conservatives expected him to keep his promises. However, if the White House had had its way, Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Meiers would have been appointed instead. It was conservatives who demanded conservative judges and the White House unhappily went along. As my father used to say, you don’t get medals for not robbing banks. You’re supposed to not rob banks.

Traditional conservatives are patriots and are thus conflicted over the war in Iraq. They support and honor the American GI Joes and Janes, but deep down, they believe this is not their war or at least that it has been managed poorly. They may have sung a few hymns, they never joined the choir.

The war has held together the unhappy shotgun marriage of the elitist GOP and the populist conservatives, but the D-word (“divorce”) is now on the lips of many in the movement.

The arguments for at least a trial separation are legion; from steel tariffs to federal mandates to the states educational systems, to the biggest entitlement since the Great Society to the corruption of Republican “lawmakers” and Enron and the GOP K Street walkers, whose main job is to convince GOP lawmakers into doing un-Republican things. Arrogance, ignorance, the unseemly pursuit of power over principles and betrayal of conservatism are the hallmarks of the current GOP.

The elites in the Republican Party are in denial about this, as they are about last November. But this is not surprising. Republicans have made a cottage industry out of denial, in 1960 when JFK won, in 1992 when George H. W. Bush lost and August 9, 1974…the day Nixon resigned.

The American people, and especially conservative Republicans, are opposed to the immigration bill supported by some Republican Congressman and Senators, and the Administration. Republicans generally believe in fair play and the rule of law. To reward those who break our laws by coming here illegally, without requiring those lawbreakers to pay their back taxes, or to have to earn the right to stay here is the height of hubris. To not have a serious plan to protect our borders is foolishness, and is a major security risk to this country.

President Bush is well-meaning, and I am sure he is concerned about his legacy. He wants support of the American people, and feels that by appealing to the left in the immigration issue he will have a favorable legacy. I don't know the motivations of Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Jon Kyl and other Republican Senators who have betrayed their conservative base.

Pat Buchanan, in an essay on Townhall.com, says

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

So said Jefferson. It would appear to be time again for a little rebellion in the Grand Old Party -- this time against George II.

For President Bush has attacked his own loyalists for a lack of patriotism. "If you don't want to do what's right for America," he said of opponents of the Bush-Kennedy immigration bill, "if you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill's an amnesty bill. That's empty political rhetoric, trying to frighten our citizens."

But if the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens are instantly legalized, what other term is there to describe that than amnesty?

Not only are opponents not doing "what's right for America," their courage is in question: "People in Congress need the courage to go back to their districts and explain exactly what this bill is all about. The fundamental question is, will elected officials have the courage necessary to put a comprehensive immigration plan in place."

For, worse than a crime, this attack on his base was a blunder. The people Bush is savaging -- columnists, commentators, talk-show hosts, congressmen fighting his bill -- have been the front-line troops in his fight to sustain funding for the war.

Bush's attack on the motives and character of conservatives tell us it is Goldwater-Rockefeller time again -- time to split the blanket. Conservatives need to declare their independence of Bush and to repudiate Bushism as the philosophy of their movement and party.

While Bush's court appointments, setting aside the Harriet Miers mess, have been superb, while his tax cuts have been Reaganite, while his stand on traditional values is courageous, beyond is a vast wasteland as far as the eye can see.

His free-trade zealotry has led to five straight record trade deficits. While America's economy is now growing at under 1 percent, China's is booming at 10 percent. His refusal to defend and secure the borders is well-nigh impeachable. His compromises with Teddy Kennedy on No Child Left Behind have doubled the size of the Department of Education without any appreciable gain in test scores. His "Big Government Conservatism" marks him as his father's son, not Reagan's heir. In Ward Connerly's courageous battle against reverse discrimination, the Bushes have all been on the other side.

This, of course, begs the question, is there a true conservative candidate in the Republican Party who the conservative base can identify with and who can win the Republican primary and bring conservative values to the White House in 2009? Will the conservative base in the Republican Party stay loyal to this Administration? Anyone care to comment?

Update:
Rick Moran over at Right Wing Nut House has an additional take on this.

Technorati Tags: Conservatives,Bush,Illegal Immigration,Republican Party