BREAKING NEWS: Scott Brown Elected to United States Senate
The Associated Press is projecting that Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown is now United States Senator-Elect Scott Brown. Republican Scott Brown has won the Massachusetts Senate seat held for nearly a half-century by Democrat Edward Kennedy.
Brown’s victory in the special election gives Senate Republicans the 41st vote they need to block legislation favored by majority Democrats and President Barack Obama.
Sen. Edward Kennedy (1932-2009)
This morning we learned of the sad news of the passing of Massachusetts Senator Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy. He died at the age of 77 after a lengthy battle with brain cancer. These thoughts this morning that I type are rushed, so forgive my grammatical errors along the way.
Regardless of the political differences that I and many conservatives may have had with the liberal Lion of the Senate, my thoughts and prayers go out to his family. Sen. Kennedy may have been someone that I found myself disagreeing with on a number of political issues, but he was a faithful public servant to the people of Massachusets, and a true American statesman. He fought for and championed causes that he felt were right and was able to find and strive for compromise when necessary. He worked with Republicans on numerous pieces of legislation that have ended up benefiting the American people. In a political climate where there is much disagreement and contention, Sen. Kennedy worked and strived to find a common ground. Despite anyones feelings, political or otherwise, towards Sen. Kennedy, today we should pay tribute to a man who was a dedicated public servant. Today is not the day for politics, or barrages and attacks over past indiscretions or personal mistakes.
May Senator Kennedy rest in peace, and may his family find the comfort and condolence of a higher power to cope with this loss. May God bless Sen. Kennedy and provide his family a respite from their grief.
Who “Acted Stupidly?”
>UPDATE: Read the Police Report from Cambridge Police Dept. (.pdf) – HERE
By now we have all heard of the foot in mouth moment for President Obama at his Wednesday Press Conference. While responding to a question at the end of the conference relating to the arrest of well known Harvard black scholar Henry Gates Jr. President Obama said that Cambrige Police “acted stupidly” in arresting Gates, accused the men of essentially being racist, and impugned police officers everywhere. All this, as with much of what Obama has done in his 6 months in office, without all of the facts.
Gates was arrested July 16th by Sgt. James Crowley, who was the first officer to respond to the home which the renowned scholar rents from Harvard University, after a woman reported seeing two black men trying to force open the front door. Gates said he had to shove the door open because it was jammed.
He was charged with disorderly conduct after police said he (Gates) yelled at the white officer, accused him of racial bias, made insulting remarks about the officer’s mother, and refused to calm down after Crowley demanded Gates show him identification to prove he lived in the home. Gates responded firstly to these requests with “Why because I am a black man in America?” It was Gates who became beligerent and began throwing around charges of racism, when it appears racial profiling had nothing to do with this situation. There was a report of two black men breaking into the house. JUST FYI, Professor Gates is BLACK! He wasn’t profiled, he fit a citizen’s description of someone who was thought to be breaking into a home! The charge was dropped Tuesday, but Gates has demanded an apology, calling his arrest a case of racial profiling. But it was Gates who is responsible for reverse racial profiling. He assumed that a white police officer was only asking him these questions because he was black.
Obama was asked about Gates’ arrest at the end of a nationally televised news conference on health care Wednesday night and began his response by saying Gates was a friend and he didn’t have all the facts.
This is Obama’s response from the press conference on Wednesday (and I will respond individually to certain aspects in bold), “But I think it’s fair to say (a), No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry. No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly (b) in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home (c). And No. 3 — what I think we know separate and apart from this incident — is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that’s just a fact.” (d)
- A – “It’s fair to say that any of us would be angry.” Obama thinks that anyone of us would be angry if a police officer was investigating a break-in and asked us for identification to show we lived at the house. All Prof. Gates had to say was, ‘this is my home, here’s my ID that shows that.’ If it were me I would perhaps feel it to be awkward but would give the Officer a chance to explain and not accuse him of racial profiling.
- B – Is it stupid to arrest a man who essentially verbally acosts a police officer? Is it stupid to ask someone if they live at a home when it is reported that people are breaking into it? Lest we forget that someone reported to police that two BLACK men were breaking into Gates’ home. When the officer responded he saw Gates, who is a BLACK man. So one of two thoughts, this is either the homeowner and there two people in the home that he doesn’t know about, or this is one of the men who is reported to have broken into the home! How is that stupid, Mr. President?
- C – There was no proof the Professor Gates was in his home. Why? Because he initially REFUSED to provide identifcation to the officer. He could have been arrested for failure to identify himself to the officer. When he later identified himself, he began a tirade against the officer following the officer out on to the porch and lodging accusations of racism, making disparaging comments about the officer’s mother, and using foul and abrasive language. Remember, Prof. Gates was not arrested for trespassing but rather for disorderly conduct. He was warned that his behavior was disorderly and he could be arrested, yet he continued his tirade toward the officer. Race had nothing to do with it… in fact there are photos (which I will post links to here when I find them as I saw them on television) that shows black officers present as Prof. Gates was being arrested!
- D – Yes there is a history of people being pulled over for DWB or DWM (driving while black or mexican), but to assume based on what you’ve heard that the police are automatically at fault is just as wrong. Again I point out that the report was that two black men broke into this home and Prof. Gates is black. The officer wasn’t trolling the neighborhood looking for a black man going into a home … if he was I would say he was wrong. Gates was arrested for verbally acostive behavior not for trespassing. He was arrested for his actions after the officer realized he was the occupant of the home not based on race. The President is wrong, not because he’s black, but because he is simply wrong.
This afternoon, the President stopped short of apologizing. He said that through his words, “I gave an impression” that the Sgt. or the Cambrige police were wrong. Well, refer yourself to his statement from Wednesday. The Presient plainly said, “the Cambridge police acted stupidly.” You didn’t give an impression, you SAID THAT! All this based on what you heard, not what you knew. You could have read the police report Mr. President, but you didn’t.
The President also said that race is still a troubling aspect of our society. I myself am a minority, and I have never felt maligned or profiled against. However, what appears to be a continued antagonism by high profile black activists (i.e. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) have led to a culture where some blacks automatically assume any questioning of them by police is “racial profiling.” Does it happen? Yes, that can not be denied. However, at times some are too quick to rush to that judgement. This can even be seen in the statement from Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D), who said that what happened to Prof. Gates was, “every black man’s nightmare.” I would say to Gov. Patrick that any policeman’s nightmare is likely being publicly accused of “stupidly” acting racist wether it be by the public, or by your President and Governor.
Another interesting take is found here from a Professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. It is a good read!
BREAKING: Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa will not run for CA Governor
The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa has announced that he will not run for the California Governor’s Office in 2010. The Mayor made the announcement in an interview with CNN this afternoon (Monday 06/22). The Mayor has been facing many challenges at LA City Hall, including massive red ink as the budget has been out of balance during his first term. This from KCAL 9/KCBS 2:
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is out of the running in next year’s race for California governor.
The Democratic mayor was considering jumping into the 2010 contest, but he says he’s bypassing the campaign because he wants to finish his job as mayor. He starts his second term July 1.
He says “I’ve go a lot of work to do.”
Villaraigosa announced his decision Monday on CNN.
The mayor has been struggling with a budget crisis at City Hall after an uneven first term that included the breakup of his marriage during his affair with a TV newscaster.
As the Mayor nears the begining of his second term, his approval ratings have been falling with the voters of Los Angeles. The most recent numbers show that the Mayor is less popular than the much often criticized and maligned Los Angeles Police Department. Perhaps the reason is that Mayor Villaraigosa hasn’t been able to get a handle of the LA City Budget, had an affair, and other issues. Just as an FYI, the LAPD has nearly 77% approval rating, while the Mayor has a nearly 55% approval rating (just above the 53.3% vote total he got in March).
Perhaps there will be tough times ahead in Los Angeles with Mayor Villaraigosa … but I think he realized that he had no shot if he couldn’t get the budget under control in LA. Voters want someone to run California that can get the budget mess under control and move California forward.
What Would a President Mousavi Mean in Iran?
Protests still continue in Iran, after President Ahmedinejad being declared the winner over Mir-Hossien Mousavi in what has been percieved as a fraudulant presidential election. With the interest in these protests growing, it is important to look at what a President Mousavi would mean. This piece was in the Foriegn Policy blog by Ranj Alaaldin:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s official electoral victory in Iran continues to pit the baton against the green flag in a battle between state security forces and an army of Mir Hossein Mousavi supporters, armed with nothing but unity and a limited degree of strength in their numbers.
Amid the protests, the international community, most notably the United States, Britain, and the European Union, is either — depending on your viewpoint — taking a cautious stance or dithering over what to do. The dilemma for Western officials is this: Do they build on the democratic movement unfolding in Iran and assist with the uprising or a coup d’état, or do they bide their time, take a step back, and reconcile themselves to an Ahmadinejad-led Iran?
Serious events are unfolding in Tehran that make it tempting for foreign forces to capitalize on the moment and try to promote change, without necessarily resorting to armed conflict — simply take out Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s name, put in Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, and you have 1978 Iran with the same fear, despair, and furious protests against dictatorship and tyranny.
What makes this discontent dangerous for the Islamic regime is that the widespread unrest, the biggest since 1979, is led not by some opposition group in exile or as part of some foreign-sponsored “color revolution,” but by domestic forces operating under the leadership of former post-Iranian Revolution Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, who has the backing of fellow presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi, a collection of senior Islamic clerics, and powerful former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. The regime’s reaction in the form of mass censorship, widespread arrests, and unleashing of security forces upon the population in a ruthless and systematic manner shows a government struck down with fear and worry, giving the lie to the calm and collected posture of Ahmadinejad in his numerous post-election appearances. For the first time, the very legitimacy of the Islamic Republic is being questioned not just abroad, but also at home.
So why is the international community yet to seize on this opportunity? One reason could be that Western leaders think that any so-called “green revolution” would make no difference in the foreign-policy challenges that Iran, in its current shape and form, presents them, and as a result are reluctant to back a losing horse.
There’s something to this argument. Even with Mousavi in power, Iran’s foreign policy would likely be no different than it has been under Ahmadinejad. A 20-year absence from the public eye, coupled with dazzling words of change that skillfully capitalize on the “Obama effect” gripping the world, does wonders to beguile a young generation of supporters who never knew or have forgotten the radicalism and bloodshed that marked Mousavi’s tenure as prime minister from 1981 to 1989 (the Iranian Revolution’s most significant years).
Indeed, anyone believing Mousavi would be the one to unclench the Iranian fist for a hand-in-hand partnership of peace with the United States is guilty of wishful thinking. It was Mousavi, after all, who was at the center of the Iran hostage crisis and remains complicit in an operation he commended as “the beginning of the second stage of our revolution.” And it was Mousavi who was the protégé of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (chief architect of the Iranian Revolution and founder of theocratic Iran), a former member of Hezbollah’s leadership council, sworn enemy of Israel, and a prime minister under whose watch thousands of political prisoners were massacred in 1988. And finally, it was Mousavi who initiated Iran’s nuclear program in the 1980s and likely would be intent on carrying through Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the foremost issue central to any improvement in relations with the West.
All of this discussion assumes that it is even worth debating whether Mousavi would bring change to Iranian foreign policy when he would have no authority to do so in the first place. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has the final say on matters of foreign policy, not the president. Given Khamenei’s clear approval of what he called a “glittering” Ahmadinejad victory, and because it is the theocracy that verifies the count in the absence of any outside monitors — meaning that any election rigging was done with the supreme leader’s backing — it is he who will need convincing if Iran is to divert from a path of nuclear capability, hostility toward the United States, and support for terrorism.
Still, these assumptions — widely held in the international community — are now open to question. Although a Mousavi presidency itself would probably not deliver a sensational change in Iranian foreign policy, the movement he has spawned might. The tenacious middle-class, educated, and youthful Mousavi supporters who have cried foul and rallied and bled in the streets could bring a new order to Tehran by forcing the country’s supreme leader to take into account public opinion that demands engagement with the West.
More likely, however, the unelected mullahs who rule Iran behind the scenes will be concerned about a galvanized army of reformists who have undermined its authority in recent weeks by, for example, entering the squares and openly mixing and dancing in groups of males and females in direct contravention of clerical law. The leadership might therefore double down on its hard-line foreign and domestic policies, starting with a ruthless endeavor to keep Ahmadinejad in power through any means necessary, so long as the end remains a theocratic Iran.
Whoever wins this violent showdown, there is one clear loser — the Islamic Republic, whose internal legitimacy has forever been shattered. Should Mousavi go down fighting, that’s one victory that can never be taken away from his brave supporters.
I think this is the overall arc of story for this event. It isn’t necessarily that Mousavi would be better for American foriegn policy than Ahmedinejad (even though he might be incrementally better), its that we in America feel a connection to the struggle the protesters have now. The outcome of the election is not necessarily the most important, what is important is the impression that the government has actually counted the ballots and made an attempt to make this a fair, free, open, and honest election. They didn’t do that in this case, and if you are going to have these elections, you should count the votes. If you were simply going to have Ahmedinejad win from the outset, then why have the campaign, let the people get invested, and risk this reaction? There is now a permanent crack in the institutions of the government, and even if the fall of the theocracy doesn’t happen now, it will. The youth who are protesting, will teach this lesson to their children, and grandchildren, and we could see another revolution in Iran sooner than we could possibly assume.
PRESS RELEASE: State College Republican Officers Resign, Replacements Announced
TEXAS COLLEGE REPUBLICANS
Office of Communications and Public Relations
Andres Bocanegra, Director of Communications
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 8, 2009
Contact: Andres Bocanegra
STATE OFFICIERS RESIGN, REPLACEMENTS NAMED
AUSTIN – The Texas College Republicans has the duty to announce the resignation of two of the organization’s state officers. Both Ryan Pitts (SMU) and Lance Kennedy (Texas) have announced their resignations from the organization.
In an e-mail to executive board members Ryan Pitts said, “With much gratitude and humility I would like to announce my resignation as State Treasurer. This was by no means an easy decision for me but after much thought and consideration I have decided this is the best course of action personally and for Texas College Republicans. I will be attending law school in the fall and do not feel confident I will be able devote all of the time needed to properly address the needs of treasurer.” Pitts will be attending the Texas School of Law in Austin in the fall. The executive board then approved Ryan Ellis (Texas-Austin) as Pitts’ replacement as State Treasurer.
Lance Kennedy (Texas-Austin) has also announced his resignation as State Chairman of the Texas College Republicans. Kennedy is resigning because he has been accepted, and will be attending Notre Dame Law School in the fall. Upon his resignation, Vice Chairwoman Nickole Heater (Texas-El Paso) assumed the position of Chairwoman.
In an email statement Heater said, “Not only do I want to congratulate Lance, I also want to take the time to thank him for all that he is done for the State Organization. He will be missed. … As Chairwoman, I am going to continue what Lance has started. I feel that it isn’t neccessary to wipe clean the great things that have been accomplished here in such little time. I want to continue to increase membership as Chair, because we will be working in a primary season, and I think it is important that we turn College Republicans into volunteers during elections.”
Geoffrey Geiger (Texas-Austin) has been appointed and approved by the State Board to replace Heater as State Vice Chairman. Geiger was recently re-elected by the chapters in his region to serve as Regional Vice Chair for the Central Texas Region. Central Texas includes schools such as University of Texas-Austin, Baylor, St. Edward’s, Texas State, Southwestern University, and others. Chapters in the Central Texas region will conduct a vote for a new Regional Vice Chair, which will take place on or before the first statewide meeting in November.
Texas College Republicans wishes the best to both Lance and Ryan as they move forward with their academic careers. The organization thanks both of them for their service to the organization and congratulates them on all of their achievements.
###
Responding to the Murder of Abortion Doctor George Tiller
By now I am sure that most, if not all, of you have heard of the murder of late-term abortion provider George Tiller. The murder took place while Dr. Tiller was handing out programs in the lobby of his church. I feel it necessary to at least share some thoughts on what has happened. I am personally against what Dr. Tiller chose to do with his practice of performing late – term abortions. I find it reprehensible and morally wrong. I consider late term abortions to be murder and wrong. That being said, the man who shot Dr. Tiller is purported to be a pro-life advocate, and he is equally repugnant in his actions against Dr. Tiller. Who in their right mind believes that murdering an abortion doctor (who I assume this man considered a murderer) is anywhere near right. A private citizen killing another because he, in your belief killed someone else, is always wrong. It is different if a government has decided if that is a reasonable punishment, and one is convicted of a crime that rises to that status. The person knows that they could face the death penalty, and still chooses to commit that crime. The vigilante mentality of killing someone in cold blood is not the answer.
I just felt that I should share that. But let me also say this. The Attorney General of the United States has directed the United States Marshalls Office to provide protection for late term abortion providers. However, a US Marine was gunned down in Arkansas by a man who converted to Islam and said he did it because of how the military treats Muslims (making it essentially a terrorist action…) and nothing is done to look into securtiy at our military recruiting centers. Where is the equity in that?
BREAKING NEWS: Calif. Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8
The California State Supreme Court has ruled to uphold Proposition 8 in the State of California, which bans gay marriages. The Court, however, allows 18,000 gay couples to remain married that were married while gay marriage was briefly legalized in the state prior to the ban. However, the Court did not make a ruling on the issue of gay marriage itself, rather it decided whether or not the voters in the State of California had the right to amend the State’s constitution in this manner. It also placed some limitations on the reach of the marriage ban. As I have not been able to read the decision I can not make a full judgement of the ramifications it will have.
I can however, make at least a pasive judgemnt on this issue. As a conservative and a Republican (and a part of the youth that is trying make inroads into the Republican party) I understand the debate on this issue. I myself do belive in traditional marriage and supported Prop 8. However, I would not have been devastated, upset, or up in arms had it failed. I have often said that the government should get out of the marriage business all together. Rather than issuing marriage licenses they should (if the states so choose) to create civil union “contracts” between two parties. Marriage is a religious occassion or event, what the government recognizes is civil unions essentially. The government has also set up a process by which to recognize people who don’t get marriage licenses in “common law” marriages. If two people wanted to get married in a religious sense they (and their church) should be free to do so. If they wanted to extend benefits, or share assets, they should enter into “contracts” that allow for that to happen. Heterosexual people who don’t feel the need to do that wouldn’t have to and still get married at a church if they chose to do so. This is at least one thought, which likely wouldn’t happen or be the most successful (outside of a simple society). This is a complicated issue that will not be quickly solved, nor will it adequately appease all parties involved. However, one thing should remain true for everyone who claims to be a Republican, or a conservative. We should fight to keep this issue to be resolved by the states. The federal government has no place in determining marriage policy. However, we do need a clarification on the full faith and credit clause that would force other states to recognize unions from other states. But this SHOULD REMAIN A STATE ISSUE, NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE.
More to come soon.
Breaking: Concealed Carry Passes in Texas Senate
The Texas State Senate passed the Concealed Carry on Campus Bill by a vote of 20-10. This bill would allow those over the age of 21 with Concealed Handgun Licenses (CHL) to be able to carry their concealed handgun onto a college campus. Interestingly enough today the United States Cogress also passed a measure that allows concealed handguns to be carried into National Parks as well. While these are victories for those who believe in the fundamental second amendment rights of Americans, but the fight isn’t over yet. We still have work to do in the Texas State House, the Concealed Carry on Campus bill deserves and needs to be brought to a vote on the House floor. This is from the Young Conservaives of Texas (YCT) website:
The concealed carry on campus bill, SB1164 has officially passed the Senate! The vote to suspend the rules was a whopping 30-0. The official vote ended up being 20-10.
It’s because of student support that the bill made it through the Senate, but now Texas students have a bigger task ahead of them – pushing the bill through the TX House. It hasn’t been a very conservative environment in the House this session, making your hard work even more important.
We need you all to call the House Public Safety Committee members and urge them to vote SB1164 out of committee. Next, call Calendar members and ask them to set the bill on the calendar quickly.
House Public Safety
Chair: Rep. Tommy Merritt 512 463-0750 Joint Author
Vice Chair: Rep. Stephen Frost 512 463-0692 Co-author
Members:
Rep. Lon Burnam 512 463-0740
Rep. Joe Driver 512 463-0574 Author
Rep. Phil King 512 463-0738 Co-author
Rep. Tryon D. Lewis 512 463-0546
Rep. Barbara Mallory Caraway 512 463-0664
Rep. Eddie Rodriguez 512 463-0674
Rep. Hubert Vo 512 463-0568
House Calendars Committee
Brian McCall (chair) 512 463 0758 This is his Calendar’s office- Call THIS number!
Eddie Lucio III 512 463 0606
Norma Chavez 512 463 0622
Garnet Coleman 512 463 0524
Byron Cook 512 463 0730
Brandon Creighton 512 463 0726
Charlie Geren 512 463 0610
Jim Keffer 512 463 0656
Lois Kolkhorse 512 463 0600
Edmund Kuempel 512 463 0602
Jim McReynolds 512 463 0490
Allan Ritter 512 463 0706
Burt Solomons 512 463 0478
Remind these members that this bill has passed the Senate and has a majority of the House as sponsors, therefore, they would do an injustice to their constituents if they did not at least give the bill a vote on the House floor.
Thanks for all of your help so far. Let’s keep up the momentum.
We can do it … Stay tuned for updates!
SA Elections: Castro Elected Mayor, Trish Comes in Second
It is the first day post-election in San Antonio. Julian Castro is now the Mayor-elect of the City of San Antonio. He was able to garner enough votes to avoid a run-off in his second bid for the office. Castro got the support of 54% of voters (42,745 votes), Trish DeBerry-Mejia came in second place with 29% (22,031 votes). The one person I definitely did not want to be elected Mayor, Diane Cibrian only received a paltry 8% of the vote (6,181 votes). Shelia McNeil (whose connection to tax-payer funded trips, including the Inauguration; and having city workers paint her fence may have hurt her chances) recieved only 4% of the vote (2,962 votes). Here are links to interviews from KENS 5 with each of the four major candidates:
Julian Castro | Trish DeBerry-Mejia | Diane Cibrian | Sheila McNeil
Diane considered tonights bleak performance a victory for her? Trish spoke tonight about needing more people to be involved in the process, and that more people need to get out and vote in city elections. She would have been a great choice for the City of San Antonio. She was the only candidate who had real business experience and could have led a city that needs to manage its budget and still provide basic city services. DeBerry-Mejia also spoke out during the campaign about Castro’s links to unions, and his support for “meet and confer” legislation in the Texas Legislature. And with a low turnout overall in San Antonio, those last minute robo-calls (likely backed by Cibrian or Castro) could have made a difference in this race.
Trish ran a quality campaign. She promised supporters at her campaign headquarters tonight that “this will not be the last you see of Trish DeBerry-Mejia.” I certainly hope that it isn’t. I am glad that I supported Trish for Mayor, and I was glad to volunteer and help out in any way that I could. And of course thanks goes out to all the College Republicans, who lent their support and volunteer hours to the Trish campaign. In the history of CR support for Mayoral candidates, we have improved. In 2005, the candidate we supported came in third. Now, our candidate has come in second. Next time, who knows maybe we can be vicotrious and take City Hall. But now begins a new phase of this blog that covers politics. We now will transition into keeping Castro and the new City Hall honest, and I look forward to that.
Perry 2010
