FLASHREPORT

That sound you hear is the wheels coming off the Arnold bandwagon. He's doing his best to push me away from him. This is a question I throw out to fellow conservatives...at what point do you reach your pain threshold and just call it quits on the Governor?

Hopefully now, Republicans will think twice about the "victory at any cost" strategy. Look where it got us.

At least Phil will stab us in the front.

I don't think even Gray Davis would have signed SB 1441.

As I responded to Steve Frank earlier today, The key to this is "receiving State funds".

In the same way that we should insist that government funds don't go to artists who produce works that are offensive to community standards, we should insist that those who receive government funds don't offend the community's standards against discrimination.

I think the CRI's response was a bit histrionic (are they taking lessons from Geoff Kors over at Equality California?). The legislation doesn't force anyone to "condone" anyone else - no one is forced to speak affirmatively of any particular person or group.

I'm sure you don't think that it would be appropriate to give government (our!) money to an Islamist school where they were to be taught to hate Jews, Christians, and Hindus or to praise Osama bin Laden. I would assert (and, to date, the court has agreed - allowing our military services to recruit on campuses receiving public money when the campuses tried to bar the recruiters for violating their non-discrimination policies, asserting free-speech) that when you accept public money, you are self-imposing limits on your freedoms, including speech.

If the bill would have sought to limit speech, in general, without the direct linkage to government funds, I'd agree completely. As a student, I actively opposed vague "speech codes" that were proposed for the law school at my university arguing that it would inhibit the free exchange of ideas, even those some might find offensive. We were successful in persuading the university president to overturn the law school dean's speech restrictions.

Bottom line - if you don't want "strings" attached, don't take government funds. As we limited-government conservatives well know, it's just the nature of the beast that more government involvement = less freedom.

Hey, look at the bright side - at least California textbooks can't legally say anything bad about J. Edgar Hoover anymore.

All kidding aside, I'm staying HOME.

I believe Shane Connelly makes a big mistake when he assumes that this law will simply affect those who are directly funded by the State. It is quite obvious, for example, that if a school district allows a ministry group or the Boy Scouts to meet on campus after hours, that school district, NOT THE MINISTRY, will be threatened with the cut-off of all, or some portion, of state funds for allowing that activity on their grounds. Likewise, it is also conceivable, per the insanity of the ACLU, that a religious institution, or other organization that does not recognize homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle,or hire open homosexuals for its ministry or other jobs, could be denied CHP or CDF fire protection because that would constitute receipt of 'state funding'. There is no doubt that traditional-values organizations will be cut from all student loans, or provision of housing or welfare programs for the needy.
This opens such a can of worms, that Shane Connelly's 'caveat' about 'receiving' government funds seems quite inane, and rather meaningless.
I can already foresee that my church will be forced from the city-owned theater it rents, since the city most assuredly receives a variety of state funds, and in order not to risk those funds, the city, every other city and county, as well as every school district in the state, will soon institute a blanket policy of refusing to have any business with or provide any services to any traditional-values organization. The Boy Scouts, already under heavy assault, will most assuredly vanish from the public square, and much of the private square, as clubs or groups that sponsor troops, but also do business with the State in some way, will soon also cut all ties and support for the Scouts. This could include Lions Clubs, Rotary, Chambers of Commerce, and other service groups, which might be involved in providing state-funded services, such as food share programs, job training and educational services, you name it. The effect will be vast, powerful and chilling. It was bad enough with just the threat of an ACLU lawsuit and some nutty federal judge dangling over our heads. Now that funding can be cut off, without any trial or hearing, with simply a bureaucratic decision by some anonymous functionary in Sacramento, just imagine the effect! Any group which holds to traditional values will soon find itself anathema throughout the State. It is coming. Just watch and see, unless this Orwellian law is somehow reversed.

The effect of this bill is terrible. If the Boy Scouts of America holds its meetings at a church that receives some state funding, they will no longer be able to do so. The ramifications of where this can lead is awful.

How the Governor can support this kind of legislation, especially during a campaign when he wants the support of his Republican base, is beyond me.

Liberals do all they can to make us all to pay higher taxes to create slush funds so they can hand out favors for votes. Then, they load up the requirements for accessing the funds with liberal conditions that make it impossible for conservative organizations to comply in good conscience. Then, liberals come along and blithely say to the conservative organizations, “just don’t take the money”. (Our money, by the way). Fair enough. But how about the government stays out of my wallet in the first place so I can send my kid to any school I want on my own dime, not the government’s laundered and string-laden funds.

But really, in the case of education, it is not middle class constituents that suffer the most. It is the poorest of our society, whose side the liberals profess to be on, who are denied choices. If an underperforming neighborhood public school is all that is left because a top flight private school cannot accept State grant funds given to the poor, then a third rate education for the poor is essentially mandated by the State. Liberals know how to keep their constituents in their place.

This is appalling!!!!
If Lieberman can do it, why can't Wesley? At least then we would have a choice.

Maybe we should just abstain and not vote for governor at all.