Politics

ProtectMarriage.com Urges Supreme Court to Reject Effort Denying Voters Right to Vote on Marriage Amendment

SACRAMENTO, June 23 /Christian Newswire/ -- Attorneys for ProtectMarriage.com today sent a letter to the California Supreme Court urging the Court to reject a last minute filing by backers of gay marriage to prohibit voters from enacting the California Marriage Amendment this November. The amendment restores the vote of 61% of the electorate who previously approved Proposition 22 defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. The organization "Equality California" with support for liberal groups including the ACLU filed a petition late Friday demanding that the justices prohibit voters from considering the proposed amendment.

"Backers of gay marriage have never secured anything close to a majority of Californians to support their position," said Ron Prentice, Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com. "They have had to rely on activist judges to do their bidding because voters do not support them. However, the People's right to vote on critical measures like this is of paramount importance and we believe the Supreme Court will rightfully allow voters to have their say."

Attorneys for the ProtectMarriage.com coalition, which is sponsoring the Marriage Amendment, said the Equality California lawsuit does not hold any merit and consists of flimsy legal arguments that will not hold up in court.

The suit contends said that the Marriage Amendment, a constitutional amendment, cannot be legally accomplished by a voter initiative, but instead must be passed through a different process for constitutional "revisions," which would stop the initiative all together.

A similar request to block such an initiative in Oregon was denied by that state's Court of Appeal as it was found not to be a revision under almost identical provisions to the California state constitution.

"We are confident that the California courts will throw this lawsuit in the round file so voters can reaffirm the decision they made several years ago when 61% of the electorate voted to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman," said Prentice.

Senator John McCain Endorses California Protection of Marriage Initiative

SACRAMENTO, June 26 /Christian Newswire/ -- United States Senator John McCain today announced his support for the California Protection of Marriage initiative on the state's November ballot, leaders of the ProtectMarriage.com campaign announced. In an email received by the ProtectMarriage.com campaign, Senator McCain issued the following statement:

"I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions."

Commenting on the endorsement of Senator McCain, ProtectMarriage.com Chairman Ron Prentice said, "We are honored to have the support of Senator McCain. As a leader in the United States Senate and the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Senator McCain's position will be an important factor to millions of Californians. Senator McCain has articulated a key feature of the initiative campaign, which is that voters and not judges should be determining this issue. Over 61% of the electorate has already voted to reaffirm marriage as between a man and a woman. Four activist judges on the California Supreme Court in San Francisco wrongly substituted their own narrow views for the opinion of over 4 million California voters. Fortunately, voters will be able to correct that mistake in November and restore the definition of marriage to our constitution. We look forward to working with Senator McCain and many other elected leaders to accomplish this. We hope that U.S Senator Barack Obama will join Senator McCain in endorsing the initiative, and would welcome his support as well."

Opponents of Marriage Amendment File Suit to Remove it From the November Ballot, Silencing the Voters

SACRAMENTO, June 20 /Christian Newswire/ -- Opponents of the California Marriage Amendment, which would restore marriage in California as only a man and a woman, filed a petition today asking the California Supreme Court to remove the proposed initiative from the November ballot, thereby silencing voters on this important issue.

Based on the recent California Supreme Court's ruling that led to the issuance of marriage licenses to same- sex partners this week, today's lawsuit contends that restoring the definition of marriage in the State Constitution cannot be legally accomplished by voter initiative, but rather must be passed through a different process for constitutional "revisions

Attorneys for the ProtectMarriage.com coalition, which is sponsoring the Marriage Amendment, said the lawsuit seeking to remove the initiative from the ballot is based on "flimsy" legal arguments and will likely be rejected by the court.

"This is an act of desperation," said Ron Prentice chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition which is sponsoring the Marriage Amendment. "The voters deserve a chance to vote on this important issue, but our extremist opponents want to silence the voters. This will only energize public support for overturning the court's decision."

Judge Alex Kozinski Must Resign
California judge overseeing obscenity trial admits his website contains explicit material

WASHINGTON, June 12 /Christian Newswire/ -- Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has admitted to the Los Angeles Times that a website he maintains contains sexually explicit pictures and videos. His severe lack of moral judgment demands that he either resign or, if he refuses, that Congress begin impeachment proceedings.

"Judge Kozinski's admission to maintaining a website with explicit and degrading pictures is enough to determine that he is morally incapable of providing objective judgment, especially over obscenity cases. Judge Kozinski must resign," said Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America. "If he refuses, Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against him. And the Department of Justice should immediately conduct an investigation against him."

Judge Kozinski is presiding over an obscenity trial that was to begin today against Ira Isaacs for distributing sexual fetish videos, featuring acts of bestiality and defecation. Yesterday the prosecutor requested a delay to look into "a potential conflict of interest concerning the court having a ... sexually explicit website with similar material to what is on trial here." Kozinski granted a 48-hour stay.

According to the Times, Kozinski's website includes images of masturbation, public sex, a transsexual strip tease, photos of women's private areas in tight clothing, naked women painted and posed as cows, a half-dressed man with a sexually-aroused farm animal, and a man performing fellatio on himself.

Several years ago, Judge Kozinski led an effort to remove filters that deny access to pornography from appeals court computers. He told the Times that he began saving sexually explicit materials on his website years ago and would pass items he found interesting or funny to others.

"For Judge Kozinski to remain not only as a judge but as the chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would make a mockery of justice and of our justice system. If he has any respect for the judiciary, for the law, and for America he would remove himself from this honorable position," stated Wendy Wright.

Concerned Women for America opposes pornography through community activism, lobbying for legislation, regulations against obscenity and pressing for vigorous prosecution of obscenity laws. Judges who follow and uphold the laws in the courtroom and their personal lives are fundamental to a just and decent society.

Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.

Black robes trash traditional marriage
Now California statutes limiting institution to opposite-sex couples 'unconstitutional'
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

The California Supreme Court today trashed society's traditional institution of marriage, opening it up for same-sex duos because retaining the historic definition "cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest."

In a 4-3 decision replete with concurring and dissenting opinions filed by individual members of the court, the majority opinion determined state laws specifying marriage as being between a man and a woman were unconstitutional

"First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples," the court opined. "Permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights."

Second, the court said, "Retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children...

"Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples," the court said. "Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise – now emphatically rejected by this state – that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects 'second-class citizens'…"

Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America, accused the court of usurping the role of the legislature.

"The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and, instead, legislating from the bench. It’s absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there'd be a day when so-called 'same-sex marriage' would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered. If anyone then had suggested the absurd notion, early Californians would have laughed their smocks off," he said.

"So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it's in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable," he said. "The majority of Americans recognize the fact that legitimate marriage and family are cornerstones of a healthy society. Reasonable people have had enough and are refusing to allow radical extremists to redefine marriage and family into oblivion. So-called 'same-sex marriage' is a ridiculous and oxymoronic notion that has been forced into popular lexicon by homosexual activists and their extremist left-wing allies."

"The people of California decided eight years ago that marriage in our state will be defined as between one man and one woman. Four arrogant, elitist, activist judges decided that they know better than the people how marriage should be defined," said Karen England, of Capitol Resource Institute.

"It is certainly disappointing that the court, in declaring a right to same-sex marriage in the California Constitution, has shown an outrageous lack of respect for a majority of California voters and ignored a long history of legal precedent supporting traditional marriage," said legal counsel Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom, one of the organizations that worked on the case.

California Assemblyman Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, said, "With the passage of Proposition 22, the voters of California agreed that marriage is 'between a man and a woman.' PERIOD. The court's decision today is further proof that some activist judges value their own beliefs over the will of the people."

"This ruling defies logic. It is a gross departure from the rule of law. It is outrageous. Traditional marriage is common sense. Yet, this decision is nonsense. No matter how you stretch California's Constitution, you cannot find anywhere in its text, its history, or tradition that now, after so many years, it magically protects what most societies condemn. Same-sex marriage is not part of our history nor is it woven in the fabric of fundamental freedom," said Mathew Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, which also worked on the case.

He cited a dissent by Justices Baxter and Chin, which concluded, "In reaching this decision, I believe, the majority violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error."

Another individual opinion called the majority opinion "legal jujitsu."

The ruling disposed of several individual challenges to California's marriage statutes that arose after the state's voters, by a margin of 4.6 million to 2.9 million, adopted a law that states California would recognize only marriages involving one man and one woman.

That same plan now is being proposed for a constitutional amendment by the ProtectMarriage.com campaign, a broad-based coalition of pro-family organizations, churches and individuals. The organization already has collected about 1.2 million signatures to put the issue on the ballot this fall, although those still must be verified.

That's now needed, the campaign says, because even though voters overwhelmingly passed the Proposition 22 law, that was a "regular statute" within the outlines of the California Family Code. But politicians and judges have been bypassing it, and chipping away at it, to ignore the will of the voters, the campaign says.

For example: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom thumbed his nose at California voters by issuing marriage licenses to thousands of homosexual couples and court decisions have undermined Proposition 22 and marriage by affirming legislative plans to give "domestic partners" the full legal status of married spou

The battle dates to 1996, when then-Assemblyman William J. "Pete" Knight introduced legislation to protect traditional marriage. It failed by one vote in the state Senate.

He later led the Protection of Marriage Coalition to gather more than 600,000 petition signatures and qualify Prop 22 for the ballot, an effort that was approved by 61.4 percent of the voters in 2000.

It reads, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

State lawmakers, however, immediately began passing laws to give same-sex "domestic partners" the legal status of married spouses in various sections of the state law, and outgoing Gov. Gray Davis in one of his final acts, signed into a law a plan conferring the full legal status of married spouses on homosexual "domestic partners."

A judge who heard the resulting legal challenge found that Proposition 22 limits only the word "marriage," not the legal status of marriage.

Then came Newsom's San Francisco action, openly defying Proposition 22 by issuing 4,000 "licenses" to same-sex duos. The state Supreme Court stopped that, finding Newsom didn't have the authority to rewrite state law, but left the door open for new legal challenges, which prompted the cases decided today.

And the dispute has continued. Just weeks ago WND reported that a new San Francisco plan that could be the last step needed to eliminate marriage from society was being advanced in the California State Senate.

SB 1066 by Sen. Carole Migden, a Democrat, gained approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee. "This bill functionally abolishes marriage," warned Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families. "Why get married, since you can get all the 'goodies' of marriage without the commitment of marriage?"

He also said the decision will galvanize the people of California to participate in the amendment campaign. "The people will have the last word," he told WND.

The proposal, according to Concerned Women for America of California, "extends California domestic partnerships to any two persons who share a common residence and are over 18. This means that all marriage benefits would be given to mere roommates…"

"The California legislature has already given away marriage benefits to same-sex couples without the consent of the people by passing existing domestic partnership laws," the group said. "Migden asserts that SB 1066 is 'a very practical expansion that absolutely reflects the new family unit today.'"

Six different cases stemming from the San Francisco situation were consolidated on the appeal, and Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University's School of Law, was one of those arguing on behalf of traditional marriage before the high court.

Staver suggested the fundamental constitutional right to marry includes rights and obligations that cannot be eliminated, because they come from the inherent nature of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"Marriage is more than a private relationship between two people who love each other," he said. "While it is a private relationship, marriage serves a public purpose to preserve society's interest in procreation and to provide the optimal environment for children."

Supporters of the constitutional amendment plan say that is the only way to stop politicians and courts from "re-defining marriage." They note that about two dozen other states already have added such provisions to their constitutions. In fact, of 28 states where such a vote has come before voters, it had been approved 27 times.

Staver told WND earlier the state has an interest in protecting the institution of marriage, which predates government, in order to encourage responsible procreation among opposite-sex couples.

"Among opposite-sex couples, procreation is sometimes planned and sometimes unplanned. Children are thus the natural consequence of opposite-sex relationships. Providing for the next generation is essential to any society, but providing an environment that encourages stable relationships for the well-being of children is critically important," he said. "Marriage thus provides encouragement for opposite-sex couples to unite for the sake of children. Same-sex couples do not need marriage to encourage their unions, because such relationships never produce unplanned children."

When Newsom launched his activism for same-sex marriages, Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit on behalf of Campaign for Children and Families and its executive director Randy Thomasson.

The California Supreme Court eventually ruled 7-0 that the mayor lacked the authority to issue licenses to same-sex couples. But the court voted only 5-2 to overturn the licenses that already had been issued. Then several of those duos, as well as the city and county of San Francisco, filed a series of lawsuits challenging the state's marriage laws.

Props Fail to Remedy Eminent Domain and Threaten City and County Rent Control

(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 6, 2008--The California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance ("CCEEB"), a coalition of business, labor and public leaders agreed today to oppose Proposition 98, a statewide ballot proposition that aims to prohibit rent control. CCEEB also voted to take no position on Proposition 99 because existing laws already provide property owners with the protections offered in the proposition.

"We agree that eminent domain concerns exist but California's system of protections largely provides adequate due process and fair evaluations but Prop 98 goes overboard and puts at risk essential public works. Our board of directors concluded that this just isn't the way to address the issue," said Gerald Secundy, CCEEB president

In a related action, CCEEB determined that Prop 99 is a strategic attempt to counter Prop 98 and does not provide any new significant eminent domain reforms or any required changes to existing law. As a result, CCEEB declined to adopt a position on the initiative.

CCEEB strives to advance collaborative strategies for a sound economy and a healthy environment. Founded in 1973 by Governor Edmund G. "Pat" Brown, CCEEB is the only statewide private, nonprofit, nonpartisan association to represent the interests of both industry and labor. CCEEB members include dozens of "Fortune-500" companies as well as leading state and local labor unions.

Kinney High of Rancho to Receive $679,860 for Safe School Routes

Senator Dave Cox today announced the awarding of $679,860 to Kinney High School of Rancho Cordova. The grant money is to be used to make school routes safer for students.

“Kinney High School is deserving of this state funding to make their community’s streets and sidewalks safer for the students they serve,” said Senator Dave Cox. “I applaud the school board, Kinney High administrators, teachers and parents for their efforts.”

Under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, Safe Routes to School (SR2S) is a program aimed to increase the number of children who walk or bike to school. SR2S funds projects that remove barriers and promote walking and bicycling through education/encouragement programs aimed at children, parents, and the community.

Kinney High School was one of 139 applications for approximately $52 million in available funding selected from a competitive pool of almost 500 applicants statewide.

“With safe school routes, parents will have the peace of mind that their children can get to school safely,” Cox added.

Senator Dave Cox represents the residents of the First Senate District, which includes all or portions of Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Lassen, Placer, Plumas, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Sacramento and Sierra Counties. Contact his office at 916-651-4001, or via email at senator.cox@sen.ca.gov.

Steroids Foul Foods Children Love Best - Hamburgers, Chicken Nuggets, Milk
by Philip Shabecoff

The news has been filled with stories about the surreptitious use of performance enhancing drugs by many of our sports heroes. Superstars like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Marion Jones reportedly have used steroids to give them a competitive edge. Others, such as New York Yankee pitcher Andy Pettitte have had growth hormones injected into their bodies. Much of the public has been saddened and dismayed by these stories. These gifted athletes are supposed to be role models for our children and youth.

What the news reports have not told us is that all of us, unless we are vegans or observe a strictly organic diet, are unwittingly taking these or similar potentially hazardous substances regularly into our bodies. The same kinds of hormones outlawed for athletes are approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration for use in the cattle that supplies our meat. We are all Barry Bonds-except we are not taking these substances voluntarily and we are not rewarded with millions of dollars a year for subjecting ourselves to the attendant risks.

We ought to worry about what these substances do to us-and especially to our children. The kinds of foods our children love best, hamburgers, chicken nuggets, milk, are often filled with these kinds of substances. Beef, chicken, milk, and other foods we consume daily are laden with anabolic steroids and growth hormones, not to mention antibiotics and arsenic, all to increase production and profits for agribusiness.

An estimated 80 percent of our beef cattle are treated with anabolic steroid hormones, either in their feed or, most often, with a controlled released implant in their ears. (The ears of slaughtered cattle are then often sold for use in animal feed, pet food and in formulating cosmetics.) The hormones increase the weight of the cattle sufficiently to give the cattle growers an additional profit of $40 per head after deducting the price of the additives.

Then there is milk. Industrial dairy farms keep their cows perpetually pregnant with artificial insemination, a process that produces sky-high levels of hormones including progesterone, estrogen and a hormone known as Insulin-like Growth Factor or IGF-1. The levels of IGF-1 in dairy cattle are raised still more by injection. The process, according to Dr. Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition department at Harvard University, "ignites the fire that increases the likelihood of cancer."

The FDA also approves of the use of arsenic and antibiotics in the diets of chickens, hogs and other animals. Levels of these chemicals can build up in the small bodies of children. "Americans who consume chicken, such as my son who appeared to exist largely on chicken wings during high school, may be exposed to arsenic at levels far higher than recommended," said Ellen Silbergeld a toxicologist at the John Hopkins school of public health.

Agribusiness insists that hormone-treated food is safe. The dairy industry, for example, vehemently disputes that cows treated with IGF-1 present elevated health risks. It contends there is no proof that it does pose a risk, and that "milk is milk" with or without the substance.

The industry is right that there is usually no proof-it is rarely possible to prove conclusively that a given substance causes a specific illness in a specific human. But there is a substantial body of evidence that the substances put into our food can and do have serious health effects.

Studies have shown that consumption of hormones by a pregnant woman may distort her baby's sexual, intellectual and behavioral development. Hormone residues have been implicated in the early onset of puberty in girls, which puts them at a greater risk of developing breast cancer and other forms of cancer. Dr. Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester found that the consumption of beef by pregnant mothers could affect their son's sperm quality, even causing infertility. Steroids have also been linked to prostate cancer in some studies.

Americans enjoy an ample supply of relatively cheap food. There is no reason this cannot continue without subjecting us to potentially dangerous anabolic steroids and other hazardous substances on our dinner plates. These substances are used so that agribusiness can grow its livestock in mammoth factory farms where hundreds of thousands of animals are packed together in unsanitary conditions or produce extra pounds of meat or milk so that its profits can increase. Agribusiness is able to do so because government, which is supposed to look after the health of its citizens, has instead given industry a free rein to do as it will.

We can have a clean and naturally raised food supply. It is time for a whole new ballgame.

© 2007 Blue Ridge Press

Philip Shabecoff is a journalist and author. His latest book, Poisoned Profits, co-authored with his wife, will be published by Random House in August 2008.

Clarence Thomas' My Grandfatehr's Son -
Story of an Extraordinary American Life The Conservative Curmudgeon column by Allan C. Brownfeld

The life of Clarence Thomas, as set forth in his memoir, MY GRANDFATHER'S SON, is destined to become an American classic, not dissimilar to the autobiographies of Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington.

This book, which chronicles an extraordinary life, describes the education of an inquiring mind seeking to make sense of the racial politics and ideological divisions that confronted him during the turbulent l960s and l970s.

In an era when "Identity" politics dictated a particular political, economic, and social stance for black Americans, those individuals who persisted in thinking for themselves and following an often lonely path to discover their own view of truth were frequently isolated and often bitterly attacked.

Clarence Thomas was born in rural Georgia in l948, and was abandoned by his father. His mother was left to raise him and his brother and sister on the $10 dollars a week she earned as a maid. At the age of seven, Thomas and his six-year-old brother were sent to live with his mother's father, Myers Anderson, and her stepmother in their Savannah home. This was a move that would change Thomas' life.

His grandfather, whom he called "Daddy," had a strict work ethic. He owned his own fuel-oil business and he immediately subjected the two boys to a regime of sacrifice and hard work. His response to the poverty and segregation of black Savannah was the American ethic of self-help, faith in God, delayed gratification, and individual initiative. Thomas writes: "In every way that counts, I am my grandfather's son."

From Catholic elementary and high school, on to a seminary, and later to the College of the Holy Cross and the Yale Law School, Thomas went through many political transformations ? from altar boy to seminary student to campus radical and racial militant ? before coming back to the values his grandfather taught him and eventually arriving at his own understanding of society.

Slowly, Thomas came to oppose race-based affirmative action programs because such programs increase dependence on government: "That would amount to a new kind of enslavement, one which ultimately relied on the generosity ? and the ever-changing self-interests ? of politicians and activists. It seemed to me that the dependency it fostered might ultimately prove as diabolical as segregation, permanently condemning poor people to the lowest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder by cannibalizing the values without which they had no long-term hope of improving their lot... I began to suspect that Daddy had been right all along: the only hope I had of changing the world was to change myself first."

Thomas remembers that the more he read, the less inclined he was to conform to the cultural standards that blacks imposed on themselves and on one another. "Merely because I was black, it seemed, I was supposed to listen to Hugh Masekala instead of Carole King, just as I was expected to be a radical, not a conservative. I no longer cared to play that game... The black people I knew came from different places and backgrounds... yet the color of our skin was supposed to make us identical in spite of our differences. I didn't buy it. Of course we had all experienced racism in one way or another, but did that mean we had to think alike?

After law school, Thomas went to work for John Danforth, who was serving as Missouri's attorney general. When Danforth was elected to the U.S. Senate, Thomas followed him to Washington. Thomas later worked at the U. S. Department of Education and as head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before being named a federal judge

Along the way, he discovered the writings of leading black conservatives such as Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. He reports that, "One of the first people in Washington who talked sense to me about race was Jay Parker, the editor of a new magazine called THE LINCOLN REVIEW... Jay was friendly, energetic, unflappable, and unapologetically conservative. I'd never known a black person who called himself a conservative, and it surprised me that we rarely disagreed about anything of substance."

Thomas provides this assessment of the black conservatives who had influenced his thinking and became his friends: "They were all smart, courageous, independent-minded men who came from modest backgrounds. Politics meant nothing to them. All they cared about was truthfully describing urgent social problems, then finding ways to solve them. Unhampered by partisan allegiances, they could speak their minds with honesty and clarity... I'll never forget the time when Jay reminded me that freedom came from God, not Ronald Reagan. For Jay politics was a part of life, not a way of life. It was an attitude I sought to emulate."

There is much in this book about Clarence Thomas's personal life as well as a lengthy description of the Supreme Court confirmation hearings. In Washington, he writes, he was being pursued "not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flow ing sanctimony. For all the fear I'd known as a boy in Savannah, this was the first time I'd found myself at the mercy of people who would do whatever they could to hurt me and institutions that once prided themselves on bringing segregation and its abuses to an end were aiding and abetting in the assault."

Fortunately, Clarence Thomas survived the assault upon him and triumphed over his adversaries. He has lived the American Dream, and this book is an eloquent testimony to both that life and that dream.

THE CONSERVATIVE CURMUDGEON is copyright © 2008 by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation, http://www.fgfBooks.com. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use this column if credit is given to the author and the Foundation.

Allan C. Brownfeld is the author of five books, the latest of which is THE REVOLUTION LOBBY (Council for Inter-American Security). He has been a staff aide to a U.S. Vice President, Members of Congress, and the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.

In l980, Allan Brownfeld served with Clarence Thomas and Jay Parker as a member of President Ronald Reagan's transition team at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and wrote that group's report of policy recommendations.

Nina May

New Documentary on Ronald Reagan in Production

Nina May, has been writing and producing a daily commentary for radio and the internet for over 10 years. She produced and hosted, “American Renaissance,” founded Renaissance Women Productions, and is currently producing, directing, writing and editing films.

The most recent is an award-winning independent documentary film on the history of the civil rights movement in America, “Emancipation Revelation Revolution”.  She was with Salem Communications (WAVA radio) for 3 years, writing and hosting a daily political show (website was oneplace.com). 

Currently, Nina is producing a documentary on former president Ronald Reagan.  She continues to write political and social commentaries which can be found on RWNetwork.net and Townhall.com.

Phony Homeowners Group Fronts Phony Ballot Measure
By Jon Coupal

The story is told that to fool Catherine II, Russian minister Grigori Potemkin constructed hollow facades of villages along the desolate banks of the Dnieper River. When the monarch and her entourage sailed by, they were impressed with the prosperity in her new territories.

Backers of a phony property rights measure, Proposition 99 on the June ballot, have borrowed a page or two from Potemkin's book.

Last year, taxpayers, farmers and small business owners began qualifying a measure for the ballot -- Proposition 98 -- that would bar cities and counties from seizing private property from unwilling sellers so it can be turned over to favored developers for strip malls and other for profit projects.

To protect local officials' power over private property, the League of California Cities drafted their own initiative, Proposition 99 -- which is as fake as a three dollar bill. Although designed to be cosmetically attractive, a closer examination reveals that it is just another hollow shell. The non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office states Proposition 99, "is not likely to significantly alter current government land acquisition practices." In other words, Proposition 99 does nothing. Well, it does one thing. If it passes with more votes than Proposition 98, which is the "real deal" for property owners, it invalidates all the protections contained in that measure

Here is why the League of California Cities and their developer allies should be sending a royalty check to Potemkin for using his ideas. Not only have they constructed an initiative that has nothing of substance on the inside, but to further confuse the voters, they are featuring its support by the League of California Homeowners, Inc. While this attractive name may cause many voters to think this is a broad-based statewide homeowners organization, it is actually a corporation whose primary function is to act as a contractor referral service.

In fact, this organization is essentially a one-man-band headed by its president, Upland City Councilman Ken Willis. Apparently, Willis values his power to take property in his community because he is willing to violate his organization's bylaws to back the fake Proposition 99, and oppose the genuine Proposition 98. The bylaws of the League of California Homeowners clearly state, "...the Corporation shall not participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office or for or against any cause or measure being submitted to the people for a vote."

However, the website for the deceptive Proposition 99 lists the League of California Homeowners on the top of the list of endorsers. The same website shows this "homeowners group" as an opponent of Proposition 98, which would actually curtail abuses of governments' right to take private property.

What we have here is a contractor referral service with a misleading title being used to screen a phony property rights initiative. Potemkin would be proud. Property owners will get more protection from "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" than they will from the League of California Cities, the League of California Homeowners and their fraudulent Proposition 99.

Proposition 98, proudly sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, will allow governments to take property only for genuine public purposes, like schools and roads and will bar the seizure of property so that private developers can make a profit.

With the passage of Proposition 98 in June, property owners will get real protection, not just happy talk.

Jon Coupal is President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association - California's largest taxpayer organization -- which is dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and promoting taxpayers' rights. www.hjta.org

Corn Can't Save Us:
Debunking the Biofuel Myth, By David Pimentel

Dwindling foreign oil, rising prices at the gas pump, and hype from politically well-connected U.S. agribusiness have combined to create a frenzied rush to convert food grains into ethanol fuel. The move is badly conceived and ill advised. Corporate spin and pork barrel legislation aside, here, by the numbers, are the scientific reasons why corn won't provide our energy needs:

First, using corn or any other biomass for ethanol requires huge regions of fertile land, plus massive amounts of water and sunlight to maximize crop production. All green plants in the U.S. - including all crops, forests, and grasslands, combined - collect about 32 quads (32 x 1015 BTU) of sunlight energy per year. Meanwhile, the American population currently burns more than 3 times that amount of energy annually as fossil fuels! There isn't even close to enough biomass in America to supply our biofuel needs.

Second, biofuel enthusiasts - including agribusiness lobbyists and PR firms - suggest that ethanol produced from corn and cellulosic biomass (like grasses), could replace much of the oil used in the United States. But consider that 20 percent of the U.S. corn crop was converted into 5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2006, but that amount replaced only 1 percent of U.S. oil consumption. If the entire national corn crop were used to make ethanol, it would replace a mere 7% of U.S. oil consumption - far from making the U.S. independent of foreign oil.

Third, ethanol production is energy intensive: Cornell University's up-to-date analysis of the 14 energy inputs that go into corn production, plus the nine energy inputs invested in ethanol fermentation and distillation, confirms that more than 40 percent of the energy contained in one gallon of corn ethanol is expended to produce it. That expended energy to make ethanol comes mostly from highly valuable oil and natural gas.

Some investigators conveniently omit several of these energy inputs required in corn production and processing, such as energy for farm labor, farm machinery, energy production of hybrid corn-seed, irrigation, and processing equipment. Omitting energy inputs wrongly suggests that a corn-ethanol production system offers a more positive energy return. In reality, corn is an inefficient choice from an energy-cost and transport standpoint.

Cellulosic ethanol is also touted loudly as a replacement for corn ethanol. Unfortunately, cellulose biomass production requires major energy inputs to release minimal amounts of tightly bound starches and sugars needed to make fuel. About 70 percent more energy (coming again from precious oil and gas) is required to produce ethanol from cellulosic biomass than the ethanol produced. That makes cellulosic ethanol an even poorer performer than corn ethanol.

Also, the production of corn ethanol is highly subsidized: state and federal governments pay out more than $6 billion per year in subsidies, according to a 2006 report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development in Geneva, Switzerland. These subsidies for a gallon of ethanol are more than 60 times those for a gallon of gasoline.

Moreover, the environmental impacts of corn ethanol production are serious and diverse. These include severe soil erosion of valuable food cropland, plus the heavy use of nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides that pollute rivers. Fermenting corn to make one gallon of ethanol produces 12 gallons of noxious sewage effluent. Making ethanol requires the use of fossil fuels, releasing large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, adding to global warming.

Finally, using food crops, such as corn, to produce ethanol raises major nutritional and ethical concerns. Nearly 60 percent of the people on earth are currently malnourished according to the World Health Organization. Growing crops for fuel squanders land, water, and energy vital for human food production.

The use of corn for ethanol has led to major increases in the price of U.S. beef, chicken, pork, eggs, breads, cereals, and milk - a boon to agribusiness and bane to consumers. Director General of the U.N. Food & Agriculture Organization Jacques Diouf reports that using 22 pounds of corn to produce one gallon of ethanol is already causing food shortages for the world's poor.

One last set of statistics: The global population stands at 6.6 billion: a quarter-million mouths to feed are added daily. Energy experts report that peak oil production has already been reached. As cheap oil supplies decline, fuel prices will rise, causing food prices to climb too (because maximum agricultural production requires fossil fuel inputs).

As global population soars to 8 or 9 billion toward mid-century, and as we burn more grain as fuel, shortages and production costs could cause grain prices to skyrocket, taking food from the mouths of the world's poorest people.

The science is clear: The use of corn and other biofuels to solve our energy problem is an ethically, economically, and environmentally unworkable sham.

David Pimentel is a professor of entomology at the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University.

© 2008 Blue Ridge Press www.blueridgepress.com

Health Care Tough Love
by Ron Getty

In 1941, a woman was given a one-page, hand-written hospital bill for $73.75 after an 11-day stay following the caesarian birth of her son. Based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index, the same hospital bill today should be $1,023. However, the actual hospital bill would be closer to $13,300. This means that since 1941 medical costs have risen at twice the rate of the CPI.

Is it possible to make health care as affordable as it was back in 1941?

First, two truths need to be understood about basic economics. Prices rise when demand exceeds supply. Prices fall when supply exceeds demand

Achieving the increased supply of health care needed with a concurrent reduction in the bureaucracy in claims processing can reduce the cost of health care. However, let's acknowledge some relevant factors affecting health care costs and provide some health care tough love.

With aging Baby Boomers hitting retirement, demands on the health care system will increase and health care prices will rise. The uninsured create another dynamic that affects health care prices.

The witches' brew of HMOs, Medicare, Medicaid, and private and group medical insurance induces increases on the costs and supply of health care through the reimbursement process of what is and isn't covered. The massive paperwork and administration needed to process claims and payments by government agencies, insurers, and health care providers causes further ripples in the cost of medical care. Legislation dictating to medical insurers and providers what is to be covered also adds to health care costs.

The Food and Drug Administration creates additional disruption. The FDA's red-tape ridden bureaucratic process for approving new medications and medical equipment dramatically increases health care costs for medicine and medical equipment.

Overall, the biggest and gravest major factor that must be addressed is in the health care personnel needed to provide medical services

Thousands of retiring Baby Boomer personnel will reduce accessibility to trained and experienced medical staff, and cause long lines and lessened competition. To offset the loss of retirees, more people must enroll in training programs for doctors, nurses, pharmacists, medical technicians, and medical lab personnel. This means more training facilities for medical personnel and qualified medical teachers.

Public schools will have to stop graduating functional illiterates who need remedial math and English at the college level if we hope to have the number of necessary people capable of entering those medical training programs.

The American Medical Association and state licensing requirements further exacerbates the cost of medical care. The extensive mandatory training standards place barriers – some medically necessitated – in the way of additional health care personnel entering the field and competing for patients.

We need a physician-light program without the 12-year doctoral training program. A physician could specialize in specific types of medicine, like podiatrists are doing, with reduced training required. We also need an accelerated licensing program for qualified foreign-trained health care professionals, and we need to allow RNs to run bumps, bruises, scrapes, and basic shots medical clinics where MDs aren't needed.

More community hospitals, medical clinics, and medical training facilities must be opened to increase consumer options for health care, which will reduce costs through competition. As a result, we will need to rethink zoning and building permit processes to allow more such facilities.

Yes, these things can happen. However, to make an omelet, eggs are going to get broken. The biggest eggs to break will be politicians and their misguided efforts to omnisciently determine how health care must be provided for everyone at taxpayers' expense.

Radical measures are called for to increase the supply of health care and reduce prices through competition. This means doing the following:

• Eliminate licensing standards for hospitals, pharmacies, doctors, nurses, medical personnel, medical colleges and medical clinics
• Eliminate the FDA
• Deregulate the medical insurance industry
• Repeal the HMO Act of 1970
• Eliminate Medicare and Medicaid and all other involuntarily, taxpayer-funded, government programs providing medical benefits at the federal or the state level and
• Eliminate legislatively mandated employer health insurance

The tough love solution to the health care crisis is getting politicians and the government out of the health care business. Let free enterprise medical providers address the market demands for health care at a price anyone can afford. Affordable health care can happen when there are no politicians or government agencies infecting the medical marketplace.

Ron Getty is the senior staff member of a tax attorney with his practice located in San Francisco. His background includes an electrical engineering degree and 30 years of sales, marketing and advertising with small to large corporations. A Vietnam Veteran of Chu Lai - I Corps, he brings personal perspectives on veterans and their treatment by the government.

Libertarian Party of California | 14547 Titus Street | Suite 214 | Panorama City | CA | 91402-4935 | www.ca.lp.org

Archives...