The UT Shifts to the Left
I’m really sick of the bias of the UT. There are critical stories breaking every week about the fiscal trouble our country is in, not to mention stories about the corruption of the Obama administration – such as the “Fast and Furious” scandal – but you wouldn’t know much about such stories from reading the UT. If all you read was the UT, you would think everything in the country is fairly hunky-dory. But, no, both our state and our nation are on the verge of fiscal collapse and all we get from the UT is biased, dumbed-down wire service national stories and politically correct local stories.
When Mr. Light became editor, I had hoped he would bring more balance to the UT. A year ago I even had lunch with him and he agreed that the UT needed to do something to attract more conservatives. He mentioned to me the concept for the “Community Editorial Board” in which folks representing the entire political spectrum would be asked to submit editorials.
Well, the Community Editorial Board was announced yesterday and it’s appalling. There may be two people who could possibly have some conservative views, but most of these people are big government types who either work for a governmental entity or feed off the government bureaucracy. Many worked for the government-controlled higher education system which is infamous for churning out students who can’t reason, don’t know a thing about the U.S. Constitution and think America is the root of all evil in the world. Others on the board are just plain old left wing kooks. One belongs to a racist separatist group called MECHA that actually believes California belongs to the Aztecs. Another one was a featured speaker at a Communist Party event. One dedicates her life to propagating the conspiracy theory that private developers purposely build and develop projects in such a way so as to discriminate against minorities. One of them is a global warming nut obsessed with “carbon offsets.” And so forth.
I don’t think any of these people come even close to representing me or any other conservative or libertarian I know. I think it’s time those of us on the right simply cancel our subscriptions. I’ve had it. Let the UT fail. It does more damage misrepresenting the truth than it’s worth. Anyway, here’s an email message I sent to Jeff Light:
I must say Jeff, conservatives, libertarians, and tea party folks are not impressed with the UT’s new “Community Editorial Board.” In fact, it appears very unrepresentative of San Diego. There are probably around 10,000 people signed up as formal members of one tea party group or another in the county making it the largest political movement in the area. Yet I don’t think there’s anyone on the Community Editorial Board who reflects their views in more than a token way. Neither do the libertarians feel represented as you can see from the comment below by Dick Rider.
Judging from the bios of these people, you have assembled a group of people who are essentially apologists for growing big government. Congratulations. In the midst of a fiscal crises threatening to destroy this country and our state, you’ve decided to promote people who will argue for increasing the size of government in the name of “children,” or the “arts,” or “diversity” and some other buzz word used by statists to grow government.
When we had lunch a year ago I told you that conservatives and libertarians were turning away from the UT in large numbers. I’ve even been to tea party meetings recently at which it was urged to cancel subscriptions to the UT. I was hoping that when you mentioned to me your intent to broaden the voices represented in the UT that you would include folks from the center right but what I see now is a continued blackout of issues that we are concerned with. As the fiscal crises in our nation and in California continues to worsen, the tea party movement will continue to grow but they will also continue to rely on other sources for information as the UT becomes increasingly irrelevant.
Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher Sells Out Social Conservatives
After 35 years in politics I am no longer shocked to see politicians sell out their principles, but every once in a while, one in particular will really get under my skin. In this case, it’s Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher. Over the last six months he has spent much of his time meeting with evangelical leaders, pastors, prayer groups and individual prominent Christian businessmen to sell them on his impending campaign for mayor while also giving his testimony about his alleged conservative Christian beliefs. Then, he goes back to Sacramento and promptly sells them out on a number of issues, but most egregiously, issues involving gay “rights.”
Oh yes, people say, well he’s running to be San Diego Mayor so he has to be somewhat moderate. Well, that might be true, but we’re talking about gay “rights” that always come at the expense of the rights of others. Indeed, Fletcher has moved left on these issues solely to pander to the gay community in preparation for his mayoral run. What’s strange about this sell out is the nature of his gamble. Does Fletcher really believe that the gay community will abandon the gay candidates in the race and support him instead? Get real. In addition to being a political prostitute, Fletcher must not be too bright. He sold out his principles based on a gamble that won’t pay off.
Overall, his voting record in Sacramento has been horrendous and even to the left of the district he represents. The California Republican Assembly rated him a measly 63% in 2011, which means Fletcher voted against conservatives on key votes 37% of the time. He has cast bad votes not only on social issues but fiscal issues as well.
I won’t get into all the bad votes Fletcher has cast, but due to his all out effort to court the conservative Christian community, I will mention a few of his votes in favor of the homosexual agenda. Let’s be clear on this. There’s not a shred of research that proves homosexuals are born that way. We’re dealing with a class of people who engage in a sexual behavior that is not normal by any measure. So when we talk about the “gay agenda,” we’re talking about creating a body of law based upon an unnatural sexual behavior. It is equivalent to passing laws, for example, that create special rights and privileges for, say, alcoholics. California is on the verge of fiscal collapse and yet we have legislators like Fletcher spending an inordinate amount of time supporting legislation based upon the sexual behavior of a very small segment of our society. Is this why we sent Fletcher to Sacramento? I think not.
Every since Fletcher was the featured speaker at the homosexual Log Cabin Club meeting, I suspected a sellout was in the works. Here’s just a few of the gay rights bills supported by Fletcher this year:
Fletcher voted for SB 117, a bill to force any business contracting with a state agency for $100,000 or more to offer domestic partner or same-sex “spouse” benefits. This means if you’re a Christian opposed to the gay agenda and you own a large corporation seeking to obtain a contract with the state for the purpose of fixing widgets or whatever, you will be forced to pay out benefits to the lovers of any employee who might be gay. In other words, you would be forced to support a lifestyle you do not agree with. This is an unconstitutional infringement upon religious freedom and should be shot down by the courts, but Fletcher doesn’t seem to care to give a damn about everyone else’s rights.
Then there was a resolution in opposition to Prop 8 which was essentially an attack on traditional marriage. Nearly every Republican voted against it. But Fletcher refused to vote at all. Apparently, he cares more about the tiny gay community than he does about the most important institution in American culture, the institution of marriage.
Then Fletcher voted for AB 887, also known as the “Gender Expression” bill, which makes it illegal for a businessman to fire a cross-dressing employee. Yes, that’s right; this is a “transsexual rights” bill. Chalk up another attack on the constitution. Gay rights is not enough for Fletcher; he wants to create another category of “rights” for cross-dressers. Boy, just think of all the lawsuits the private sector will be subjected to as a result of this bill. Thank you Nathan.
Finally, Assemblyman Fletcher was the ONLY Republican to vote for SB 48, the most pro homosexual propaganda bill ever passed into law in this state. It forces our schools to focus on homosexual “heroes” in our history texts. It is designed to give “confused” children heroes than can identify with. This legislation will play a role in leading many children to this dark and immoral lifestyle. This is really shocking. Even Republicans in far more liberal districts than Nathan’s district voted “NO” on it. Not only will this cost taxpayers money we don’t have, but the idea of subjecting our children to textbooks full of propaganda written by the homosexual community is simply outrageous.
I’ve had it with Fletcher. His actions are undermining my constitutional rights and my state. Why should conservative Christians have to compromise their rights to help Fletcher win a mayor’s race? Will the city ever be controlled by conservatives? No, it won’t. Is it really worth compromising our principles to elect this guy to office? I don’t think so. There are plenty of real conservatives running for state and local offices here in San Diego County where conservatives can have real impact.
What’s even scarier is that we don’t know what promises Fletcher has already made to the various homosexual groups if he were to win. Will he ban the Boy Scouts from using all city facilities? Will he increase the scope and cost of city employee “Domestic Partnership” benefits? Will he pass more laws that harass businesses who refuse to hire some cross-dressers? What did he promise them? I’m not willing to find out so I’ll be campaigning against him.