Craig DeLuz

Writer, Actor, Public Speaker, Media Personality
Posts Tagged ‘GOP’

Governor Accuses Unions of Using Scare Tactics…So what else is new?

In his most recent television commercials, Governor Schwarzenegger declares “They’re trying to scare you and make me look like I want to be dictator of California,”

While the use of scare tactics is nothing new for Democrats, I can’t remember them being as blatantly hostile and dishonest. This morning the San Francisco Chronicle reported:

Tony Ledoux, a sheet metal worker from Modesto, said the governor is attacking unions.

“I take it personally for every working person in California,” he said. “I don’t think the people in shiny cars going into the event are union people.”

About 80 local firefighters came to protest, said Kirk Summers, a Turlock firefighter.
“We want to send a message to the people of California,” he said. Prop. 75 “is an important issue that will hurt firefighters and all public employee unions.”

Some of those attending the rally had to park their cars and run the gantlet of protesters shouting “Shame on you!”

So Are the Democrats lying and using scare tactics? Let’s look at what they are saying:

Prop. 74

They call it: The Teacher Terminator
Their Lie: It is an attack on hard working teachers. It will allow good teachers to be fired for no reason and with no due process.

The Truth: Prop. 74 is an attack on teachers…BAD ONES! It allows school districts to take their time in evaluating teachers before granting them jobs for life. Additionally, it provides a way to fire tenured teachers who are not doing their jobs. Currently it can take up to three years and cost more than $200K to fire a bad teacher.

Prop. 75

Their Slogan: Don’t Silence Our Voice
Their Lie: Governor Schwarzenegger is trying to silence working families. This initiative will prevent unions from raising money and contributing to causes and candidates that support the working man. This measure is an unfair because it doesn’t limit corporations who give money to Republicans.

The Truth: Nothing in Prop. 75 prevents unions from raising money. Nothing in the measure prevents union members from agreeing to have their dues go for political contributions or from giving even more if they wish. All Prop. 75 does is require the unions to get permission BEFORE taking money out of their member’s check.

Prop. 76

They call it: A Power Grab by the Governor.
Their lie: This would give the governor unprecedented, unchecked power to cut education and social programs.

The Truth: Prior to 1983 the Governor of California had the power to do exactly what is in Prop. 76; only back then, he did not have to give the legislature first crack at solving the problem. Also, this measure does not give the governor the ability to cut education below Prop. 98 levels without a two-thirds vote of the legislature.

Prop. 77

They call it: A Republican attempt to takeover California.
Their lie: This initiative will take control of the redistricting process out of the hands of the people and put it in the control of unelected, unaccountable judges.

The Truth: Back in 2001, Republicans and Democrats in the California Legislature agreed to a redistricting plan that would create a permanent Democrat majority in the state legislature and a permanent Republican majority in the state’s congressional delegation. The agreement they reached drew lines that were so gerrymandered it was dubbed “The Incumbent Protection Act”. Prop. 77 places the redistricting process in the hands of individuals who have no direct interest in the outcome of the process. And once they are done, the map that they have drawn goes to a vote of the people.

While I realize that I am, for the most part preaching to the choir, I felt it necessary to get the Governor’s back on this one. The Democrats are clearly using scare tactics to get voters not to back the reform initiatives.

I just wish that Gov. Schwarzenegger would take the gloves off and call them what they are….LIARS!!!!!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…

Was Harriet Miers setup for failure?

I haven’t commented at all on the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, because I really wasn’t sure what to think of her. Like many, I was hoping that something… anything would come out to shine light on her candidacy and explain why President Bush thought she was a good choice to serve on the Supreme Court. That something never showed up. That ace in the hole was never played. And now that Miers has withdrawn her name from consideration, one is left thinking….Why did President Bush set Miers up to failure?

How could he (or his staff) not foresee the eventual challenges that Miers would face? While no one of the knocks against her was enough to thwart her confirmation; all of them together were too much to ignore. She’s never served as a judge. She has little to no experience in constitutional law. Nothing in her resume, as impressive as it was, stood out as uniquely qualifying her to serve on the highest court in the land. And she has not written one thing that could be considered demonstrative of super intellect or understanding of constitutional law.

Then there are all the debacles that have taken place since her nomination. There was her declaration that Warren Berger, who voted in favor of Rove v. Wade was her favorite Supreme Court Justice, the anemic job she did of selling herself in individual meetings with Republican Senators and the fact that she did so poorly on her senate questionnaire that they had to give her a second shot at it. It was all so bad that I had to ask myself, “What was the President was thinking?”

The truth is…I really don’t know. I wish I could intellectualize for you the White House’s strategy on this nomination. But I can’t for the life of me figure it out.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…

Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed! Children’s book raises Hillary’s Ire…

An new children’s book bashing the left has provoked comments from the staff of New York Senator, Hillary Clinton. Apparently they do not appreciate the fact that the arch-villan of “Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!” bears an uncanny resemblance to Sen. Clinton.

The Hill reported in their Capital Living Section:
The storybook involves two young brothers who sell lemonade to pay for a swing set — the idea being that they will feel better about themselves if they earn the money to buy their own toy.
The author is Katherine DeBrecht, a journalist and member of the South Carolina Federation of Republican Women. Her book, published by World Ahead Publishing, incorporates caricatures of contemporary politicians. They include Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as Congresswoman Clunkton, who orders the boys to reduce the sugar in their lemonade and add broccoli to each glass, and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who, as Mayor Leach, takes half the lemonade profits to purchase dustpans instead of a more charitable cause.
It sounds to me like they copied a more than just Clinton’s looks. The caricature was so true to life that Clinton’s staff had to resort to attacking Republicans instead of the merits of the books arguments.
Philippe “Salty” Reines, Clinton’s press secretary, remarked, “Can’t wait for the sequel, Help! Mom! I Can’t Read This Book Because Republicans Have Cut Literacy Programs!”

I gotta find this book!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…

Key Issues Discussed at CRP Convention

You all probably think that all I did was crack jokes about people at the convention. But I did have a chance to talk with some important people about key issues that will be on the ballot in November and even in 2006.

Congressman Darrel Issa discusses congressional support for Proposition 77 (Redistricting Reform)

(Click Pic For Video)

Assemblyman Chuck DeVorre believes that the passage of Prop. 75 & Prop 77 together are the key to promoting true reform in the upcoming election.

(Click Pic For Video)

Assemblyman Doug Lamalfa outlines the legislative effort to prevent the abuse of eminent domain.

(Click Pic For Video)

Assemblyman Ray Haynes solicits support for the California Boarder Police Initiative.

(Click Pic For Video)

Rev. Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition believes that voter turnout will be the key to passing Prop. 73 (Parental Notification)

(Click Pic For Video)

Also, for Great Photo’s of the California Republican Party Convention visit Sacto Dan’s Blog.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…

Western Alliance in the House at CRP Convention…Squishes Beware!!!

Ok… Day one of the Fall California Republican Convention and Roseville Conservative is already looking for red meat.

We hadn’t even gotten in the door before he let’s loose a verbal rant.

(Click Pic for Video)

Dude needs help!!!!!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…

It’s the Econo…der…ugh…Moral Values Stupid!

The saying used to be “It’s the Economy Stupid!” But of course that was before liberals went off the deep end into the abyss of moral relativism. A study by the New Democracy Corps clearly makes the point that when it comes to cultural issues, Democrats can’t be trusted.

The Washington Post writes:

Democrats have expressed bewilderment over Republican gains among lower-income, less-educated voters, saying they are voting against their economic self-interest by supporting Republican candidates. But the new Democracy Corps study concludes that cultural issues trump economic issues by a wide margin for many of these voters — giving the GOP a significant electoral advantage.

Admittedly, this study was mostly conducted with rural low-income voters. So you might find very different results in urban low-income areas. But I think this study does undermine the liberal’s attempt to promote class warfare.

They want voters to think that high income earners have more than their fair share of the pie. And the best way to fix problems in our society is to have the government take more from them to give to the less wealthy. Take California for example.

In 2004 we passed a measure imposing a one percent tax on high income earners to pay for mental health. This year Rob Reiner is proposing another one percent tax on these folks to pay for universal preschool. Then the California Legislature tried to raise the state’s top tax bracket two percent in order to pay for increased school spending, despite the $3.1 billion it was already increased this year. All of these plans put together represent and about a 45% increase in state taxes on high income earners.

This Robin Hood Syndrome that has infected California’s has had little affect on low-income voters in more rural states because as far as they are concerned, moral values trump the economic issues.

The study is based on focus groups of rural voters in Wisconsin and Arkansas and disaffected supporters of President Bush in Colorado and Kentucky. The good news for Democrats: All the groups expressed dissatisfaction with the direction of the country and with the leadership of the president and the GOP-controlled Congress.

Then came the bad news: “As powerful as the concern over these issues is, the introduction of cultural themes — specifically gay marriage, abortion, the importance of the traditional family unit and the role of religion in public life — quickly renders them almost irrelevant in terms of electoral politics at the national level,” the study said.

In other words, these voters see the attack on traditional moral values as a bigger threat to our society than class warfare that liberals are trying to manufacture. They see Democrat politicians as being anti-God, anti-marriage, anti-family, immoral baby killers. And while you would not know it by their policies, I will be the fist to admit that this is not the way all Democrat leaders are. Most of them are simply too weak and scared to stand up to the moral depravity that has taken over the Demoncrat…oops… I mean Democrat party.

Memo To Democrat Party: It’s not a change of messaging that you need. It’s a change of heart.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…

He’s Seen the Light!

Like many of us who were Democrats at one time in our lives, Callimachus (a Republican moderate Blogger) shares his thoughts as he observes his liberal friends through his new found perspective.

My Left Behind III is a great read!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…

Beware of Charging RINOs

As 2006 campaigns begin to take shape RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) are taking aim, not at Democrats, but fellow Republicans. While this is nothing new, what is different is their willingness to use talking points provided by the liberal mass media.

On June 28th Carl Burton, President of the California Congress of Republicans (CCR) broadcast emailed “Blindly Fighting For the Right to Loose” by a liberal columnist with the Los Angeles Times. Then the very next day, GOP candidate for State Treasurer and Assemblyman Keith Richman sent out a similar article by Jill Stewart of the San Francisco Chronicle entitled “Why Dems Dominate State”. Both of these commentaries were published in liberal rags, by liberal columnists and blame conservative Republicans for the Democrat majority in the California legislature. No surprise here. But what is disturbing is that they are being circulated by leaders in the California Republican Party.

In the introduction to his email Richman comments:

Most Californians think political parties are established to win elections for their members. Yet the attached San Francisco Chronicle column, Why Dems dominate state by Jill Stewart, details how some of the most conservative members of the California Republican Party work against the mainstream candidates best positioned to beat Democrats.

First of all, let’s not confuse RINOs with ideological moderates. I have no problem with ideological moderates. While I may not always agree with them, these are individuals who’s positions on the issues are based on what they truly believe to be right. Contrary to Richman’s assertion, political parties are established by like-minded individuals to promote a common political philosophy. If he can’t support that philophy, then maybe he is in the wrong party.

But this attack on conservatives is not based on the merit of their principles. Rather, it is based on the RINO theory that compromising on our party’s principles is the only way we win elections in California.

…instead of drafting non-ideologues capable of winning statewide races and rebuilding the party, GOP activists are doing what they do best: taking position in the circular firing squad.

What is a non-ideologue? It is someone who does not advocate for an ideology or specific set of principles. The National and State platforms for the Republican Party are clearly Pro-family and Pro-life. There is no denying it.

So, is Mr. Richman saying that in order for Republicans to win, we must sacrifice our principles? Does he truly believe that it is more important that our candidates win than that they represent the principles of our Party?

…the most conservative members of the California Republican Party work against the mainstream candidates best positioned to beat Democrats.

If moderates want to promote their centrist ideology, they should feel free to go right ahead. Heck! That’s what primary elections are supposed to be about, an opportunity for candidates to share their values and their vision with GOP voters in an effort to win their support. But I wonder if moderates ever considered the fact that maybe they reason they aren’t winning these Republican primaries is because their views are not truly mainstream?

For example: How are Republicans supposed to take seriously candidates like Steve Poizner. This GOP candidate for Insurance Commissioner gave $10,000 to the 2000 Democrat recount effort and $2000 to John Kerry. As a matter of fact, I am not even sure he endorsed George W. Bush for President in 2004. Even if we look past his pro-abortion, anti-marriage, anti-war views there is very little about Mr. Poizner that would cause one to confuse him an actual Republican. He is as close to being a Democrat as one can get without actually being one. He is a RINO in the truest sense of the word.

Then there is Keith Richman. Although not quite as out there as Poizner, has established a liberal enough record to be dubbed “RINO of The Year” by TV and Radio commentator Larry Elder. He has supported tax increases when not other Republican was willing to do so (Not exactly smart for a guy running for State Treasurer) and was the only Republican to support a 2003 Father’s Day resolution by homosexual assembly members which was meant to trounce traditional marriage The sad part was, he was the deciding vote (41-21 with 17 abstentions). But even worse than his liberal positions on the issues is his insistence that the only way for Republicans to win is to be like him. And groups like the California Congress of Republicans are falling into this same mindset.

CCR has plenty of ideological moderates who believe in core Republican prinicples, but differ with conservatives on some high profile policy matters. I know this because I was once an active member with this group, as a board member and editor of the newsletter for the Sacramento Chapter. During that time, I felt at home amongst moderates and conservatives who believed in the organization’s big tent mission. But today is a different story.
Many in the leadership of this group see conservative Republicans as the enemy. I encourage the members of CCR to beware of charging RINOs in their mitst. Lest they become like the New Majority, the California Republican League and the Log Cabin Republicans; groups that seek to undermine the core values of the Republican Party… All in the name of winning!

Memo to “non-ideological” moderates (aka RINOs): The battle cry of “Vote for me if you want to win!” doesn’t inspire anyone (Just ask Dick Riordan). Winning for the sake of winning is worthless, especially if you have to give up your principles in the process.

P.S. This strategy of quoting far left columnists in order to endear yourselves to those of us who DO support Republican principles….Bad Idea!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…

True Budget Debate or Sad Sitcom?


Although most of the mainstream media reported on the Budget vote, it was interesting all of the interesting facts and details they left out of their reports. So I thought you might be interested in some of more relevant details not discussed.

First of all, it is important to remember that an overwhelming majority of the budget is not really being debated. Interestingly, the amount at dispute is so small in comparison to the overall budget that the Sacrament Bee quoted Democrat Assebmlywoman Jackie Goldberg had the nerve to say that it was just like the Governor’s budget.

We are, make no mistake, voting to support the governor’s budget,” said Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles. “I find it odd and interesting that it is the Democratic Party that supports the governor’s budget and not his own party.”

If you remember, In a recent column entitled “$4 billion is the key to budget war” Dan Wietraub points out that the budget debate is really over a small percentage of overall spending.
No matter when it is signed into law, the next budget will total somewhere around $90 billion from the state’s general fund, $110 billion from all state funds and about $170 billion in state and federal funds combined. The differences between the Republican governor and the Democrats who control the Legislature, meanwhile, can be boiled down to about $4 billion, perhaps less.

And sure enough he was right! The San Jose Mercury notes:

Depending on who does the counting, the Democrat-backed budget plan differs from Schwarzenegger’s latest proposal by $1 billion, maybe $2 billion. Real money, to be sure, but only a sliver of the total.

Both versions give schools roughly $3 billion more than they get now — although Democrats make available about $800 million more for general purposes. Both infuse $1.3 billion more for transportation projects and rely on the same level of borrowing. Neither raises taxes.

But what got very little reporting was that Legislators received the 700 page budget less than 24 hours before they were to vote on it.

“We should have time to look at a real budget,” said Assemblyman Michael Villines, R-Clovis. “I’ve had the chance to go through – since it’s been in print yesterday – maybe 200 pages.”

As a matter of fact, just about every Democrat who spoke literally read directly from a sheet of paper containing the Democrat Caucus talking points.

But not included in those talking points were some very pertinent facts:

1. Although their budget did not include any new taxes, it also did not include $1.2 million in VLF revenue the Governor promised to return to local governments. Instead of paying of this debt, they want to spend the money on programs. So it’s not new debt, but we are still using debt to pay for programs we can’t afford.

2. While they did not propose any new taxes in the budget, immediately following the vote on the budget they put forth a proposal to significantly raise taxes on California’s highest income earners. NOT JUST THE RICH! But those who earn a lot of money.

3. The state’s commitment to fund STERS actually ended several years ago. But the state has continued to fund it anyway. So the $469 million that Democrats want to give to STRERS is above and beyond the state’s original commitment. This is fine if you have the money. The problem is that California doesn’t have the money.

4. Democrats also forget to mention the fact that their budget is adopted, California will spend about $700 million dollars more than under the Republican’s plan and does nothing to pay off outstanding debt.

5. They also conveniently leave out the fact that Republicans are also supportive of fully funding in home health services.

What took place yesterday, was not an honest vote and a real budget proposal. It was more like a poorly scripted sitcom where the Democrats had to read all their lines and the Absurdity of it all allowed Republicans to deliver all the punchlines.

“The spending addicts are back to score their fix once again,” said Assemblyman Ray Haynes, R-Murrieta. “Just like the common street thief, you are going to justify the theft by saying the people you are taking it from are rich.”

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…

Was Howard Dean Right?

It is not often that find myself agreeing with DNC Chairman Howard Dean. But I have to admit, that his characterization of the GOP as a “white Christian party” is not easily dismissed.

(Click Here for More)

Was Howard Dean Right?


It is not often that find myself agreeing with DNC Chairman Howard Dean. But I have to admit, that his characterization of the GOP as a “white Christian party” is not easily dismissed.

First of all, is the Republican Party White? Any objective onlooker would have to agree that the ethnic diversity of our party does not reflect the diversity of America. All too often, as I attend party events, I am one of few, if not the only Black in the room. There are generally a few more Latinos and Asians. But for the most part, the Republican Party is pretty white. But that does not mean that our party is not diverse.

We have diversity of ideas. In the Republican Party you can have divergent viewpoints on some issues and still be in leadership. You can be pro-life or pro-choice (President Bush vs. California Governor Schwarzenegger). You can be for or against affirmative action (Colin Powell vs. Ward Connerly). You can stand for traditional marriage or support giving rights to same-sex unions (Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich, Jr. vs. Vermont Governor Jodi Rell). But in the Democrat party unless you support abortion on demand, racial preferences, same-sex marriage and a whole host of other liberal policy initiatives; you will be silenced. Democrats only believe in the image of diversity, Republicans believe in diversity of ideas.

Secondly, is the Republican Party Christian? The GOP was founded on the same principles as our nation; that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. These principles find their roots in Christian faith and biblical scripture.

John Quincy Adams once stated, “Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?”

So if being Christian means that we support the Christian Principles upon which our nation was founded, then Yes. We are Christian. But the real question to Mr. Dean and other Democrats is “Why aren’t you?”

As George Washington said in his farewell address “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars…”

So in the final analysis, Dean’s generalization of the GOP may be correct in image, but not in substance. We are a party of principle first and image second. And unlike their Democrat counterparts, Republican leaders are not interested in making meaningless political statements to appease a few special interest groups. They seek to make a meaningful difference in the lives of all Americans.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…

Definition Of Insanity- Giving A Liberal Your Checkbook


Definition of Insanity- Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (Also See- Democratic Buget Prososals)

Last week, liberal newspapers up and down the state published editorials supporting Governor Schwarzenegger’s budget proposal. But that is not enough for the special interests and the Democrat controlled Legislature. They come up with their own plan!

An editorial in the Riverside Press Enterprise sums it up best:

The budget proposal that Assembly Democrats unveiled Tuesday would set California on a (familiar) road to fiscal disaster.

Tax increases and increased spending…that about sums up the Democratic Budget Proposal. All they have to offer is the same old tax and spend scheme that put us in debt in the first place.

In 1995-96, state income tax on stock options and capital gains — mostly the province of the well-to-do — brought in about $2 billion. By 2000-01, that revenue hit $17 billion, then fell to $5 billion two years later. By then California had committed the higher sum to ongoing programs, causing the state’s current budget mess.

The Democrats in the legislature have refused to face the reality that California has a spending problem. Or rather, they have a spending problem! No matter how much money comes into the state coffers, they find a way to spend more. And they haven’t seen a government program they didn’t like. Unless of course a Republican proposes it.

But it is not as though they are incapable of saying “NO!” They’ve said “No” to fiscal accountability in schools. They’ve said “No” to any attempt to reform our state pension system, which has seen the cost to taxpayers go from $150 million to over $2.2 billion in the last five years. They have said “No” to allowing school districts to save millions of dollars by contracting out some nonacademic services. They even said “NO” to school textbooks that are over 200 pages! (See “Children Can’t Read? Get Rid of The Books!” )

They know how to say “No.” They just can’t seem to say it to the special interests.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…

Janice Rogers Brown’s Equal Justice

Judge Brown’s nomination was a lightning rod for liberals because she’s black and doesn’t subscribe to the typical liberal thinking expected of them. According to liberals, blacks can’t be successful without the government’s help, so the government must take care of us. Blacks can’t excel in school, so standards must be lowered. Blacks are victims of a racist system, so we shouldn’t be held responsible for our actions.

As a successful black woman with humble beginnings who possesses a conservative world view, Janice Rogers Brown challenges those perceptions. Liberals are justifiably worried that, by her example, blacks will break free of what I call psychological slavery.

(Click Here for More)

Undoing The Incumbent Protection Act Of 2001

The 23rd Congressional District–dubbed the “Ribbon of Shame”
by critics–stretches 200 miles from Monterey to Ventura counties

Leave it to a liberal rag like the Sacramento News & Review (SNR) to get this one right.

While many are quick to couch Redistricting as a “Republican vs. Democrat” issue; it is really about Incumbent protection.

SNR points out:

Right now, democracy is diluted for many Californians. Because of the way the lines were drawn four years ago, election outcomes in many districts–whether a Democrat or Republican would win–were determined long before voters went to the ballot box. Your vote may not count.

That’s because legislators get to do the dividing.

In a carefully brokered agreement between the two parties in 2001, California state legislators cemented their jobs in place. Instead of fighting against one another for more political territory–or fighting for voters’ best interests–they drew lines that ensured the same number of Democrats and Republicans would get elected over and over again. A district held by a Democrat in 2000 would continue to be held by a Democrat throughout the next decade. In a unique bipartisan plan, legislators preserved the status quo.

I know… you’re asking why would Republicans agree to a deal that would relegate them to minority status for the next ten years?

“Protecting the Republican majority in the House of Representatives was the top Republican priority in the 2001 redistricting.”

As the thinking went, if Republicans accepted the hit at the state level, they could barter a lockup of the 20 congressional seats they held. Many believed that 20 of 53 congressional seats were as many as Republicans could hope for from this Democratic-leaning Golden State.

“With 20 Republican seats in California, Republicans should control the House of Representatives,” Brulte wrote. “That means that California legislators gave President Bush the tools he needs to keep our taxes down, protect us from terrorism, ensure accountability in our schools, protect family values, and save us the billions upon billions of dollars that a Democratic Congress certainly would spend if they regained control of the house.”

State Republicans were taking one for the national team.

So the question we must ask ourselves as Republicans is whether or not we want to risk our majority in Congress? Well I believe that our advantage in congress should not come at the expense of the electoral process. The integrity of the system is most important. On a level playing field, I believe that our ideas win. People want hope, not doom. They want opportunity, not oppression.

Here in California, Governor Schwarzenegger and Assembly Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy have shown extreme faith in our ability to reach the people with our message. And while I am not completely sure that everyone on our team is up to the task, I am impressed that they are willing to do what is right in and arena where most are content to do what is safe.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…

Come Back to the Republican Wing of the Republican Party!

Donna Schalansky
Sacramento County Repulican Party Chairman

Last night the Sacramento County Republican Party refused to support a resolution in favor of Traditional Marriage. Below is a blow by blow account from Angela Azevedo, Legislative Director for the Eagle Forum of California.

Tonight I attended the Sacramento County Republican Party Central Committee meeting. It was the most disgusting display of conservative versus liberal Republican politics I have ever witnessed. Last month one of my Sacramento Republican Assembly members brought forth a motion to waive the first reading of the resolution by Assemblyman Tim Leslie in support of Congressman Dan Lungren’s March 17, 2005 statement in support of marriage between one man and one woman; the motion to waive failed and was tabled for this month’s meeting.

A motion to table indefinitely was made by member Chuck Hobson and was seconded by Congressman Dan Lungren’s own appointed (and staff member) alternate, Peter Takeishi. Peter even voted in support of tabling the matter indefinitely, citing that Congressman Lungren wished the SCRP not to consider the resolution and stick to the SCRP’s strategy to focus on voter registration. The California Republican Party’s own party platform supports marriage between one man and one woman. Yet the Congressman, who signed the marriage protection pledge, refused take a position on a resolution that gives him credit for sticking to traditional marriage values.

Two other Central Committee alternates, the alternates for Gary Podesto and Roger Niello, also voted in favor of tabling the motion, even though Assemblyman Tim Leslie, who was in attendance of tonight’s SCRP meeting, strongly urged Central Committee members to support the resolution.

If you are as angry as I am, I urge everyone who are constituents of Congressman Lungren and Assemblyman Roger Niello, to write them and let them know that they’re representatives to the Central Committee are not standing to protect the sanctity of marriage. I don’t know how to get hold of Gary Podesto since he is no longer the mayor of Stockton. But if anyone has an address for him, I would appreciate it if you could forward that information. Tonight I witnessed members of the county party show that they are nothing but puppets to the SCRP Chairman Donna Schlansky and the overwhelming voting members of the Log Cabins, to vote against the resolution to support marriage between one man and one woman.

If ever there’s a need to stand united as a Party, as people of faith, and in support of the President’s Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, it’s now. I give thanks to Craig DeLuz who made the statement to the central committee that even Black Democrats support marriage between one woman, yet the SCRP won’t take a position.

Thank you for allowing me to vent …

Angela M. Azevedo, President
Sacramento Republican Assembly
State Legislative Director
Eagle Forum of California

For the first time last night I was ashamed to call myself a Republican. But I am not giving up my party that easily. I emplore you to let the Sacramento County Republican Party know that if they cannot support Traditional Marriage we will not support them.

2005 – 2006 Sacramento County Republican Committee Members
(Click on name for email address)

Chairman- Mrs. Donna Schalansky
1st Vice- Chairman Mr. Jim Bopp
2nd Vice- Chairman Mr. Richard Fiechtner
3rd Vice- Chairman Mr. John Madriz
4th Vice- Chairman Mr. Don Faller
Treasurer- Mr. Charles Hobson
Secretary- Mrs. Amber Schalansky-Fretwell (No Email)
Executive Director- Mrs. Karen Atteberry (No Email)

You can also call and fax the County Party office at:

(916) 925-1850 Fax (916) 925-0933


Lets encourage them to Come back to the Republican Wing of the Republican Party!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…