Tag Archives: California

Scott Walker endorses Ted Cruz for President, Cruz trails Trump by 1 in California

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker endorses Texas Senator Ted Cruz
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker endorses Texas Senator Ted Cruz

The big news, which was reported everywhere, is that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who was my first choice in the primary early on, has endorsed my current first choice in the Republican primary: Ted Cruz.

The Washington Times reports:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz for president Tuesday, giving Mr. Cruz a major boost ahead of the April 5 GOP primary in the Badger State.

“I am proud to endorse Ted Cruz,” Mr. Walker said on WTMJ radio. “After a lot of time looking at speeches, looking at the records, looking at what the candidates not only say but what they have done in the past, it was an easy call for me to support Ted Cruz.”

Many Republicans in recent weeks who have endorsed or supported Mr. Cruz have cited stopping GOP front-runner Donald Trump as part of their calculus. But Mr. Walker said he wanted to make sure he was supporting someone and that he wasn’t against something or someone.

Mr. Walker, who called Mr. Cruz a “constitutional conservative” capable of taking on special interests, said the Texas senator is best positioned both to win the GOP nomination and defeat Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton in the fall.

Mr. Walker said he got to know Mr. Cruz a bit better during the campaign.

“He is a decent man, he loves his family, he loves his wife — he adores his children,” Mr. Walker said. “He loves his country. He and I are both preacher’s kids, so I certainly can appreciate and feel strongly about the impact that his father had on him as a minister.”

[…]In a statement, Mr. Cruz said Mr. Walker has been “an outstanding leader in the conservative movement.”

“Gov. Walker courageously stood up to special interests and won in a bitter fight in Wisconsin,” Mr. Cruz said. “His leadership has made a profound impact on the people of Wisconsin and I welcome his advice on how we can unite the Republican party and defeat Hillary Clinton in November.”

Mr. Cruz, along with Mr. Trump and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, are in Wisconsin this week trying to build support ahead of the state’s primary next Tuesday.

Mr. Walker said he does anticipate campaigning with Mr. Cruz ahead of the primary next week.

Here’s the actual radio recording of Walker endorsing Cruz (4 minutes):

This endorsement will help Cruz a ton in Wisconsin, because Walker has a very high approval rating among Wisconsin Republicans:

“While Walker’s approval numbers have hovered below 40 percent statewide in polling after his exit from the 2016 race, his rating among Republicans is 85 percent, according to a Marquette University Law School poll taken last month. And his actions still attract attention from conservatives across the country.”

And more:

Walker was viewed favorably by 88% of all Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (a total of 9,725 voters) surveyed by Marquette between 2012 and 2014 — and unfavorably by just 10%. His popularity is highest on the right, but his negatives are low among almost all Republican groups:

  • he has a 95% favorability rating among “very conservative” Republicans, a 91% favorability rating among “conservative” Republicans and a 78% favorability rating among “moderate” Republicans (pooling Marquette’ s 27 surveys since 2012).
  • he has a 96% favorability rating among Republicans who like the tea party and a 75% favorability rating among Republicans who don’t like the tea party.
  • he has a 90% favorability rating among Republicans who are frequent churchgoers (Walker is the son of a minister and an evangelical Christian) and an 85% favorability rating among Republicans who seldom or never go to church.
  • he has a 92% favorability rating among Republicans who are opposed to abortion (Walker is staunchly “pro-life”) and an 86% rating among Republicans who favor abortion rights.

“It does bolster his claim to unify the party and appeal across lines,” says Marquette pollster Charles Franklin, who provided the polling data. While moderates and tea party opponents give Walker his lowest ratings among Wisconsin Republicans, “even they are three-quarters favorable,’ says Franklin. “They’re just not at 95%.”

Cruz is doing well in other state polls, too. In a poll of likely voters in deep blue California, conducted by the radically leftist Los Angeles Times, Cruz trails Trump by 1 point.

The Hill reports:

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump holds a razor-thin lead over rival Ted Cruz in California, according to a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times statewide poll.

Among likely June primary voters, Trump leads Cruz by just 1 point, 36 to 35 percent. John Kasich falls far behind, at 14 percent.

In all, about 75 percent of voters who were surveyed in California had an unfavorable view of Trump. Among Republicans, 43 percent had an unfavorable impression, while 51 percent had a favorable view of the front-runner.

Why is Cruz surging in the polls? Well, I think part of it is that people are realizing that Donald Trump is in no way, shape or form a conservative – not in his personal life, not in his political record. He’s been a Democrat all his life, and he’s a Democrat playing a Republican now. But I think the change in poll numbers has something to do with Trump’s constant stream of abuse against women, and in particular, against Heidi Cruz, as I blogged about before. Women voters are turning away from Trump.

But what can Ted Cruz do to convince those women voters who won’t vote for Trump to vote for him instead? That question was asked of Cruz in a town hall forum last night on CNN.

Watch Cruz respond to her:

There is a lot about his family background described in his bookI do think that you can look at a person’s family history and choice of spouse to find out more about them. Ted Cruz married a skilled, accomplished, hard-working woman – Heidi Cruz. And his mother studied math and then got a degree in computer science from Rice University.

Obviously, I think that women should stay home with young children when they arrive – that’s what is best for the children and for the marriage. But it helps a man a lot when the woman who makes that decision to put family first has a good education, good experience and maybe even some savings to help with the downpayment on the first home. And I have to say that Heidi Cruz is doing a great job of helping her husband with this election. Her education and skills are assets, not liabilities.

Democrat governor of California signs bill to register non-citizens to vote

Map of sanctuary cities
Map of sanctuary cities and states

Story from the Washington Times.


A bill signed Saturday by California Gov. Jerry Brown aimed at improving voter turnout has critics predicting that it will ramp up voter fraud by making it easier for noncitizens to cast ballots.

The New Motor Voter Act automatically registers to vote all eligible voters when they obtain or renew their driver’s licenses at the Department of Motor Vehicles instead of requiring them to fill out a form. Those eligible may opt out of voter registration.

The goal is to ease barriers to voting, but election-integrity advocates warn that the measure could inadvertently add millions of illegal voters to the rolls given that California allows undocumented aliens to obtain driver’s licenses.

Anti-fraud groups True the Vote and the Election Integrity Project of California had urged Mr. Brown, a Democrat, to veto the bill, saying it would lead to “‘state sanctioned’ voter fraud” and pointing out that the legislation exempts from penalties ineligible voters who wind up being registered.

“This bill is terrible. It makes an already bad situation much, much worse,” True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht said in a statement.

Ms. Engelbrecht said California’s registration databases “lack the necessary safeguards to keep noncitizens off the voter rolls.”

[…]In California… state officials “specifically chose not to make noncitizen license holders searchable in their DMV database,” said True the Vote spokesman Logan Churchwell, who called the newly signed bill “unprecedented.”

The measure, Assembly Bill 1461, “will effectively change the form of governance in California from a Republic whose elected officials are determined by United States citizens and will guarantee that noncitizens will participate in all California elections going forward,” Election Integrity Project of California President Linda Paine said in a statement.

True the Vote was one of the organizations persecuted by the IRS  while Obama was President. In addition, the Department of Justice sued Texas for passing laws designed to curb voter fraud. So this is something that Democrats really go to the mat for. This is a big deal to them.

Some of my readers in other countries often ask me – “if Obama is such a bad President, then how come the majority of Americans voted for him?”

Well, first of all, a lot of these people are simply voting for Obama in order to get a share of what their working neighbors earn. They aren’t voting for the good of the country, or for principles of liberty, limited government, etc. They want the government to give them someone else’s money, in short.

But voter fraud is important to them as well. People voting twice in two different states, dead people’s names being used by fraudulent voters, etc. Voter fraud is a Democrat specialty. In fact, our current President did work for ACORN – an organization that specialized in promoting voter fraud. That’s how mainstream this is in the Democrat party.

San Jose State University kicks Ratio Christi club off its campus

Story from the Ratio Christi blog.

Here’s the story:

On Wednesday, October 8, 2014, the Ratio Christi chapter at San Jose State University (SJSU) received a letter from the university stating that the club had been “de-recognized.” In the letter, school officials explained their actions to be in compliance with a new California State University Executive Order regarding how an organization selects its officers.

Ratio Christi, like many other campus Christian organizations, requires that chapter officers adhere to the Christian faith and biblical beliefs. This means that non-Christians, or Christians who do not feel it is necessary to follow New Testament principles as a guide for their daily lives, are not eligible for officer positions in the group. The State of California now deems this as “discriminatory,” and punishable by de-recognition.

“Colleges and universities should be encouraging student leadership, not stifling it,” said Ratio Christi President Rick Schenker. “All college students, including religious students, should have the right to form groups around shared beliefs and choose leaders who reflect those beliefs without being shut down and kicked off campus. Imagine the College Democrats being required to have a Republican student leader, or the local chapter of PETA being required to have a meat-eating leader. The results of the Cal State policy are simply ridiculous.”

Disturbingly, this has already happened to all twenty-three of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship’s chapters on California campuses in September and at Vanderbilt University in 2012.

In their letter to the SJSU Ratio Christi chapter, school officials explained the consequences of being “de-recognized,” a list that ranged from not being eligible for student funding and financial services to not being allowed to participate in student organization fairs, ceremonies, or training.

This is the Ratio Christi chapter that is run by Jane Pantig, who was mentioned here in a previous blog post.

The troubling thing about these rules is that it is also a violation of fundamental human rights, as this USA Today editorial explains:

In the massive California State University system, as at some other universities, new anti-discrimination rules for student groups mean it can no longer be required that the president of the Christian student fellowship is Christian, or that the head of the Muslim association is Muslim, or that the officers of any group buy into the interests and commitments of that group.

Student clubs that refuse to accept the new rules will find themselves on the sidelineswhen it comes to meeting space, recruitment opportunities and other valuable perks that go with being an officially recognized group.

Such is the fate that has befallen InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, a national campus ministry that finds itself “derecognized” in the 450,000-student Cal State system for insisting that student leaders of its campus chapters affirm the basic tenets of evangelical belief.

[…]InterVarsity estimates the cost of operations could rise by many thousands of dollars annually on some of the Cal State campuses. This is part of the reason why InterVarsity is continuing to pray and plead for relief from the new policy.

University officials and state lawmakers should reconsider, and not merely for the sake of InterVarsity. In addition to the freedom from discrimination, there are other relevant freedoms to factor: freedom of religion, freedom of association and our freedom to exercise common sense.

Loss of club status typically means 1) having to pay to reserve rooms, which is thousands of dollars per year, 2) losing access to student fairs, which means less recruitment, and 3) no official standing when speaking to faculty, students or administrators of the university.

I guess I would advise Christians who are not involved in politics to get more informed and involved. California is a Democrat-run state from top to bottom. It sounds nice to pious ears to say that we should be focused on the gospel and praise hymns, but if you ignore politics, politics will come after you. And that’s why every Christian should have a broad, comprehensive worldview that takes into account the Bible and integrates it with areas outside the Bible, like economics. The alternative is to feel pious and yet vote for a political party that makes the practice of Christianity illegal, and believe me, I know many people who call themselves Christians who do exactly that. And they are proud of it. I once had a hygienist working on my teeth who claimed to be a Christian and yet she was constantly bashing Republicans. She had the discipline to learn how to clean my teeth, but not to develop a comprehensive Christian worldview.

The good news I have about this story is that these de-recognition attacks can be defeated, if you get a lawyer from a good organization like the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Look at this story from September 2014:

At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill a Christian fraternity, Alpha Iota Omega (AIO), was stripped of its recognition after UNC administrator Jonathan Curtis declared that the fraternity was required to add an unconstitutional “nondiscrimination” clause to its student group constitution. AIO objected to the “nondiscrimination” clause because it would have forbidden the group from considering religion when determining “membership and participation” in the group. FIRE wrote to the university on AIO’s behalf outlining the group’s rights to freedom of association and religious liberty but the university was unmoved. FIRE teamed up with the Alliance Defense Fund and filed suit, and eventually AIO was granted the right not to enact the nondiscrimination clause.

But again, we have to have Christians getting serious about getting married and raising children who will go on to get the law degrees we need to fight these battles. I think a lot of Christians think that marriage is more like ziplining, surfing or skydiving than work, though. They want it to be free and easy and emotion-driven. But there’s a cost to this approach. We don’t have the influence in society to defend ourselves when the secular leftists come after us. We are paying them to do this to us, through taxes.

California orders churches to fund abortions, or face sanctions

This is from The Federalist.


California’s Department of Managed Health Care has ordered all insurance plans in the state to immediately begin covering elective abortion. Not Plan B. Not contraceptives. Elective surgical dismemberment abortion.

At the insistence of the American Civil Liberties Union, the DMHC concluded that a 40-year-old state law requiring health plans to cover “basic health services” had been misinterpreted all these decades. Every plan in the state was immediately ordered, effective August 22, to cover elective abortion. California had not even applied this test to its own state employee health plans (which covered only “medically necessary” abortions). But this novel reading was nevertheless quietly imposed on every plan in the state by fiat.

The news has slowly leaked out as insurers grappling with this change have begun quietly informing employers of this sudden change in the terms of their policy. This is how Kaiser Permanente broke the news to one California church that its insurance policy for its pastors and staff would now include elective abortion coverage:

I want to formally share with you that on August 22, 2014, the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) notified Kaiser Permanente and other affected health plans in writing regarding group contracts that exclude ‘voluntary termination of pregnancy.’

This letter made clear that the DMHC considered health care services related to the termination of pregnancies – whether or not a voluntary termination – a medically necessary basic health care service for which all health care services plans must provide coverage under the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act.  You may recall that at the request of some employer groups with religious affiliations, Kaiser Permanente submitted a regulatory filing in May 2012 properly notifying the DMHC of a benefit plan option that excluded coverage of voluntary terminations of pregnancies. The DMHC did not object to this filing, permitting Kaiser Permanente to offer such a coverage contract to large group purchasers that requested it. The DMHC acknowledged that it previously permitted these contract exclusions, but now is requiring health care service plans to provide coverage of all terminations of pregnancies, effective immediately.  To that end, the DMHC requires Kaiser Permanente and similar health care service plans to initiate steps to modify their plan contracts accordingly.

Effective August 22, Kaiser Permanente will comply with this regulatory mandate.

This is the kind of story that really justifies my suspicions about secular people’s ability to be “moral”. It seems to me that even if a person did not believe in God, that they would be respectful of those who do. But when you give up God, it does make a difference to whether you think that other people have these sorts of natural rights. How could you possibly ground natural rights in a materialist universe? And this does have an impact on how they act.

California State University system de-recognizes IVCF from 23 campuses

Princess Mandy posted this story from Christianity Today, and I am blogging it.

Excerpt: (links removed)

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF) has been, in modern campus terminology, “derecognized” by California State University schools. Basically, they will no longer be a recognized campus organization on any of the 23 schools in that system. IVCF has been derecognized because they require their leaders to have Christian beliefs.

It’s not just InterVarsity that will be impacted. Following the same logic, any group that insists on requiring its leaders to follow an agreed upon set of guiding beliefs is no longer kosher (irony intended) at California’s state universities. This will impact many other faith-based organizations with actual, well, faith-based beliefs. Presumably, even People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals would have to allow Oscar Meyer to lead their campus chapters.

[…]Now, it’s not persecution. Christians are not banned. People can share their faith. But, now, what we once called “equal access” has taken another hit—people of faith do not have equal access to the university community, like the environmentalist club, the LGBT organization, or the chess club.

The university system has decided that speech with beliefs that undergird it—and shape how it is organized—has to be derecognized.

I asked Greg Jao, who is National Field Director & Campus Access Coordinator, what this actually meant. He explained,

Loss of recognition means we lose 3 things: free access to rooms (this will cost our chapters $13k-30k/year to reserve room). We also lose access to student activities programs, including the new student fairs where we meet most students. We also lose standing when we engage faculty, students and administrators.

And while they still have freedom to request a meeting spot in some buildings, they no longer have the status when other officially recognized groups request the same spot—even though they are, well, fee-paying students in a facility owned by the people of California.

Jao indicated the work is not done, explaining,

We still intend to minister on campus but loss of recognition is a significant impediment.

The bigger, and ongoing, issue is the continual sanitization of unacceptable religious voices from universities. It’s ironic—those who champion nondiscrimination, in the name of nondiscrimination, are creating rules that push out those who “discriminate” based on biblical belief statements.

A few years ago, I asked in the pages of USAToday, are evangelicals no longer welcome in the public arena? If that arena is a California state university, and those evangelicals want an official school organization, that answer is obvious.

This has already happened in other places, perhaps most notably at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. But, Vanderbilt is a private university. Now, state schools have decided that, due to their odd policies restricting belief based organization from requiring belief, students who have evangelical beliefs—and think the leaders of their belief-based campus organization should also have beliefs—are no longer welcome as a student organization.

Christian taxpayers in California are paying into this school system, thanks to the compulsory collection of taxes. So now Christian families will have less money to send their own kids to schools that actually allow freedom of association and equal access to Christians. We have to pay twice – once into a system that treats us as second-class citizens, and once into a private system that recognizes our fundamental rights. This is why we should be voting to cut off the money supply to the non-essential responsibilities of government. We need to keep our money to work around the discrimination of the secularists.