I know that a lot of pundits are wondering what is wrong with the Republican presidential field for 2012.
Here is a contrast over at Hot Air:
Matt Latimer: Damn, This GOP Field Is Terrible
Jay Cost: Democrats Should Be Worried About The GOP Field.
Amazing that two people are looking at the same thing and coming to different conclusions.
Mr. Latimer seems to be taking an emotional approach to this. He is convinced that the Republicans should just vote for the former Minnesota governor, Tim Palwenty and watch a Bob Dole/John McCain redux. And for some reason, he bases some of this on the decision of the current Mississippi governor, Haley Barbour saying no to 2012.
To be honest, I did not think that Gov. Barbour would have much of a chance. Not because he is not a good solid conservative. It is the fact, like it or not, that Gov. Barbour is not just from the Deep South. His accent gives it away. But that it would be the worst contrast to the first Black president, the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Anyhow, Mr. Latimer seems to be writing off 2012 for the Republicans.
And then there is the analysis of Mr. Cost.
Mr. Cost points out that there are some serious Republicans wanting to run for president. They include, but not limited to the former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, the aforementioned Mr. Palwenty, as well as the current Indiana governor, Mitch Daniels. Where I seriously disagree with Mr. Cost is thinking the former Utah governor and former ambassador to Red China, John Huntsman, Jr. is a serious candidate. Mr. Huntsman will get absolutely nowhere in a GOP primary. Since his ambassadorship was handed to him by the Dear Leader, President Obama, he will be seen as nothing more than a fifth columnist by most Republican caucus and primary voters. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is much more to the base liking. As well as the three others already mentioned.
Mr. Cost also makes the point that there is little if any chance that the Republicans will vote for a fringe candidate. Sorry Donald and Ron Paul. You will not even be hired for the nomination.
Yes, the Dems will do all at their disposal to make the GOP nominee out to be a whack job. Remember Ronald Reagan? And if that fails, just make sure to note he or she is a dummy. How about George W. Bush?
But Mr. Cost makes the point that the GOP has not had a fringe candidate since Sen. Barry Goldwater in 1964. And, history had bared him out and he was just ahead of his time. The reality is no one could have beat President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, so soon after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush and John McCain were all well established members of the GOP. Some were defiantly more part of the establishment than others. But these were not off the reservation nominees.
And, something Mr. Latimer misses is the enthusiasm among Republicans vs. Democrats.
The fact is that most are not really paying attention to a campaign that is way more than a year away. With a weak economy, people are not having the luxury of handicapping a potential presidential field so soon. When the primaries and caucuses start early next year, and candidates are known, look for GOP voters to line up behind someone.
I am with Mr. Cost in general. I have a candidate that I believe can unify all forces if given the chance. And yeah, I even have a second choice. And that is another post.
Friday, April 29, 2011
F-Bombs The Pathway To The Presidency?
It appears that pseudo-Republican potential presidential candidate Donald Trump is fond of a not-so-nice word in the English language.
Mr. Trump likes dropping an f-bomb. Or two. Or apparently many according to this report.
You know the last guy that we know semi-publicly dropped an f-bomb and ran for president?
Why of course, as he affectionately called here, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain. I will not go into the history of that except to link you to this for background.
Call me old fashioned, but dropping f-bombs freely and referring to leaders as stupid as Mr. Trump did continues to diminish him and the office he claims to seek. The presidency of the United States.
Do I drop an f-bomb? Catch me watching a sporting event my teams are in. And if they are losing or do lose. But here is the catch.
I am not a real public figure. I do not need to set a better example for people. Donald Trump is a public figure and bringing out the worst in people. Thus, while I do not get his appeal, for some reason there is one. As a leader.
A leader shows some restraint. An ability to work well with others. And none of that fits Mr. Trump.
Dropping f-bombs and calling leaders stupid is not going to get Donald Trump anywhere near the front door of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And I am thankful for that.
Mr. Trump likes dropping an f-bomb. Or two. Or apparently many according to this report.
You know the last guy that we know semi-publicly dropped an f-bomb and ran for president?
Why of course, as he affectionately called here, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain. I will not go into the history of that except to link you to this for background.
Call me old fashioned, but dropping f-bombs freely and referring to leaders as stupid as Mr. Trump did continues to diminish him and the office he claims to seek. The presidency of the United States.
Do I drop an f-bomb? Catch me watching a sporting event my teams are in. And if they are losing or do lose. But here is the catch.
I am not a real public figure. I do not need to set a better example for people. Donald Trump is a public figure and bringing out the worst in people. Thus, while I do not get his appeal, for some reason there is one. As a leader.
A leader shows some restraint. An ability to work well with others. And none of that fits Mr. Trump.
Dropping f-bombs and calling leaders stupid is not going to get Donald Trump anywhere near the front door of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And I am thankful for that.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
We Eeeeevvviiiiilllll Republicans Are Trying To Keep You Vile Lower Classes From Voting!
At least according to The New York Times lead editorial of yesterday.
What The Times editorial board is objecting to, in essence, is the many states that are trying to tighten up the voting requirements that identify said voter to be who he or she (or in some areas, its) claims to be.
Right off the bat, the editorial states as fact that this is merely an attempt to prevent the young, poor and Blacks from voting.
Lets start with the claim of Blacks not being able to vote.
Is this the only identifiable minority group that would have a problem complying with something like providing a government-issued identification card? What about Hispanics? Asians? Native Americans (Indians)? Huh? What about them? No, according to The Times editorial board, based on a study by a lefty law group, 25% of Black Americans do not have a government-issued photo ID.
And why is that? Because they may have to do what many people do all across the United States. Go down to the state department of motor vehicles to obtain one. Oh, but because the lines are soooo long, according to the editorial, many of these people would have to give up a day's wages to do such a thing.
Really?
Has The Times editorial board ever heard of such a thing as a sick day? Or what some companies offer, time off with pay? Or a floating holiday? I guess not. The Times editorial board must think that Simon Legree is still in charge and people do not have these benefits.
Sorry, do not buy that argument.
Could it be that many Black Americans, unfortunately, have felony convictions and thus can not legally vote in the first place? Just asking a question.
The Times editorial board likes making voting beyond easy as possible. They do not like the fact that Florida is curtailing the early voting period. Shucks! People might have to actually wait and vote on election day! How awful! Such an inconvenience!
The editorial also asserts that voter fraud is rare and thus this kind of legislation is really unnecessary.
Again, really?
Has The Times editorial board not heard of ACORN? Maybe because of their perpetuation of voter fraud throughout the United States, they are no longer in business.
What about the city of Chicago and Cook county Illinois? Oh, that reputation of voters doing so from the Great Beyond is just silly! All those dead people voting for some guy named Kennedy in 1960 for president. Just speculation, doncha know!
John Fund of The Wall Street Journal has made a career out of exposing the little if any voting fraud throughout the United States. In fact, Mr. Fund is author of the 2004 book, "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy". Oh, I am certain it is all lies you know.
The rise of voting absentee is also filled with the potential of voting fraud. No one has to be who they say they are. Even the family pet can vote since all one has to do is send in the registration form.
There is no perfect system to totally prevent voter fraud. But is it really too much to ask that the person at least registering to vote is who they say that they are? And really, is it too much to ask that when they go to the polls, to be able to prove who they are? According to the Republicans, no. But to the Democrats, yes it is too much.
It is not too much. It is not about voter suppression. It is about being responsible and that potential voters need to be responsible about the serious undertaking they are doing. In participating in the democratic process.
The New York Times editorial board is not serious and does not take the franchise seriously.
What The Times editorial board is objecting to, in essence, is the many states that are trying to tighten up the voting requirements that identify said voter to be who he or she (or in some areas, its) claims to be.
Right off the bat, the editorial states as fact that this is merely an attempt to prevent the young, poor and Blacks from voting.
Lets start with the claim of Blacks not being able to vote.
Is this the only identifiable minority group that would have a problem complying with something like providing a government-issued identification card? What about Hispanics? Asians? Native Americans (Indians)? Huh? What about them? No, according to The Times editorial board, based on a study by a lefty law group, 25% of Black Americans do not have a government-issued photo ID.
And why is that? Because they may have to do what many people do all across the United States. Go down to the state department of motor vehicles to obtain one. Oh, but because the lines are soooo long, according to the editorial, many of these people would have to give up a day's wages to do such a thing.
Really?
Has The Times editorial board ever heard of such a thing as a sick day? Or what some companies offer, time off with pay? Or a floating holiday? I guess not. The Times editorial board must think that Simon Legree is still in charge and people do not have these benefits.
Sorry, do not buy that argument.
Could it be that many Black Americans, unfortunately, have felony convictions and thus can not legally vote in the first place? Just asking a question.
The Times editorial board likes making voting beyond easy as possible. They do not like the fact that Florida is curtailing the early voting period. Shucks! People might have to actually wait and vote on election day! How awful! Such an inconvenience!
The editorial also asserts that voter fraud is rare and thus this kind of legislation is really unnecessary.
Again, really?
Has The Times editorial board not heard of ACORN? Maybe because of their perpetuation of voter fraud throughout the United States, they are no longer in business.
What about the city of Chicago and Cook county Illinois? Oh, that reputation of voters doing so from the Great Beyond is just silly! All those dead people voting for some guy named Kennedy in 1960 for president. Just speculation, doncha know!
John Fund of The Wall Street Journal has made a career out of exposing the little if any voting fraud throughout the United States. In fact, Mr. Fund is author of the 2004 book, "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy". Oh, I am certain it is all lies you know.
The rise of voting absentee is also filled with the potential of voting fraud. No one has to be who they say they are. Even the family pet can vote since all one has to do is send in the registration form.
There is no perfect system to totally prevent voter fraud. But is it really too much to ask that the person at least registering to vote is who they say that they are? And really, is it too much to ask that when they go to the polls, to be able to prove who they are? According to the Republicans, no. But to the Democrats, yes it is too much.
It is not too much. It is not about voter suppression. It is about being responsible and that potential voters need to be responsible about the serious undertaking they are doing. In participating in the democratic process.
The New York Times editorial board is not serious and does not take the franchise seriously.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Just A Little More Silliness
Take a look at the dual headlines from the Drudge Report:
OBAMA: 'I've got better stuff to do'...
Heads to Chicago to tape Oprah show...
Hee! Hee!
Yes, we know that our Dear Leader, President Obama, has better things to do than finally stop the Birther madness. But somehow, he always finds time to attend a fundraiser for his reelection campaign. And of course, to sit down with an old pal, Oprah Winfrey, and get a slew of softball questions that would make Larry King look like a CIA interrogator.
Well, I am glad that the Dear Leader, President Obama, has better things to do. Better things than lead the nation.
OBAMA: 'I've got better stuff to do'...
Heads to Chicago to tape Oprah show...
Hee! Hee!
Yes, we know that our Dear Leader, President Obama, has better things to do than finally stop the Birther madness. But somehow, he always finds time to attend a fundraiser for his reelection campaign. And of course, to sit down with an old pal, Oprah Winfrey, and get a slew of softball questions that would make Larry King look like a CIA interrogator.
Well, I am glad that the Dear Leader, President Obama, has better things to do. Better things than lead the nation.
The Dear Leader Finally Releases The Long-Form Birth Certificate And Joe Biden Is Right-BFD
Finally, the Dear Leader, President Obama, released the long-dormant long-form birth certificate. And, surprise! It shows that he was born in. . .Hawai'i!
I know that this will not quiet the die-hards who believe that there is something not right about the certificate. I know that there is an argument among the Birther community that because Daddy Obama was not an American citizen that means the Dear Leader, President Obama, is not really a natural-born American citizen.
But for once, I will agree with our Vice-President, Joe Biden.
BFD.
Really, let us remember that the whole Birther issue was begun by the Hillary Clinton campaign during the presidential Death March campaign of 2008. It was team Hillary that found the photo of Messiah Barrack in a turban while he visited Kenya. You know, because he is really one of them there M u s l i m peoples!
Why so many people believed any of it goes back to my belief that the rise of the conspiracy theory has a lot to do with it.
How many people not all that long ago began to believe that former President George W. Bush was really behind the events of the 9/11 terrorist attacks? A lot. Many believe that it did play a part in the Democrats eventually taking back control of congress in the 2006 mid-term elections.
Or go back to the Clinton years. How many people believed that former President Bill Clinton was a closet drug lord? Or that he was behind the deaths of political enemies, real and imagined?
As I wrote on my Facebook page the following:
I am shocked! The Dear Leader FINALLY released the long-form BC. Good. As I have said, he was born in the USA, in Hawai'i. He is still a lousy president, born in the USA or not!
That, my friends, needs to be the focus of those of us that believe the Dear Leader, President Obama, is not up to the job. He is a lousy president. He is not prone to self-reflection. He does not take well any criticism. He does not know when to change course. He is bankrupting the United States. He is embarrassing us on the world stage.
I am glad that the Dear Leader, President Obama, finally released the long-form birth certificate. It is nothing but a BFD!
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Teleprompter Inventor Dies-White House In Mourning
This post will write itself.
The inventor of the teleprompter, Hubert J. “Hub” Schlafly Jr., died April 20 in Connecticut.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, is in deep mourning for the man that, unbeknownst to him, made his political odyssey come to life.
There is no word from the White House on if flags will be lowered to half-staff to honor Mr. Schlafly.
Yes, the last two paragraphs are a parody.
The inventor of the teleprompter, Hubert J. “Hub” Schlafly Jr., died April 20 in Connecticut.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, is in deep mourning for the man that, unbeknownst to him, made his political odyssey come to life.
There is no word from the White House on if flags will be lowered to half-staff to honor Mr. Schlafly.
Yes, the last two paragraphs are a parody.
While Gas Prices Go Up, Taxes Do Not Go Down
Yes, gasoline prices are rising at a rapid rate.
Oh sure, the left from the Dear Leader, President Obama, on down blame the eeeeevvviiiiilllll "speculators". You know, the guys with the stove-pipe hat and the Snidley Whiplash moustache twirling the stache around as they keep jacking up the prices.
But what I do not hear about is the fact that there are taxes on each fill-up of gasoline. There are federal, state and in some cases local taxes on each gallon of gasoline.
This is a very useful chart showing where the combined taxes are the highest and the lowest.
No surprise that California leads the way with 66.1c per gallon of gasoline purchased. The bottom is Alaska were the combined taxes are 26.4c a gallon.
In looking at this chart of average price per gallon by each state, lets look at California. The average price is $4.20c a gallon. If we took out the 66.1c in combined taxes, the total is really 3.54c a gallon. In Alaska, the average price per gallon is $4.19c a gallon. Take away the 26.4c combined taxes and the average would be $3.93c a gallon. Once one starts looking at this state by state, a trend emerges.
The higher gas tax the state, it seems to be a Blue, Democrat state. The lower the taxes tend to be Red Republican states. As in any case, there are some outliers either way.
But what I think should be done is that we pay for gasoline like other items. The unit price and then add the tax at the end of the bill. Like when one buys clothing. There is the price of the item and then where there is a sales tax, it shows on the receipt and then one pays their bill. I think that what we have now is the most disingenuous attempt to rob the public that governments at all levels have come up with.
Here in California, long before the spike in actual gasoline prices, as filling up the jalopy, I look at the signs around the pump that break down the actual taxes paid in the gallon price. But few, if any, take the time to do so. I would often comment to Mrs. RVFTLC that if people only knew how much the gallon of gasoline is taxes, they would be outraged.
So, lets look at the price of gasoline in California before taxes and with the taxes.
Taking a 17.5 gallon tank at $3.54c a gallon, if one fills up at that price, the total is $61.95c. That is a lot of cash. Add the taxes of 66.1c a gallon. That adds a total of $16.84c bringing that $61.95 to the grand total of $78.79c to fill up a
17.5 gallon tank.
With unemployment here in California at 12% plus, and more and more people depending on government assistance, one way the government can help is declaring a tax holiday. Just pay the actual price of gasoline for six months until there is some sign of economic growth and a serious decline in unemployment.
Maybe to the limousine libs out there, $16.84c a fill up is not a big deal. But, add that up by the week and it is over $67 dollars. If there are families and people on the margins out there, and there are, this would be a way to help get them to their jobs and or to look for work. To get to potential interviews.
Then all governments need to realize that this is not a good way to raise money. Because of the spike in prices, based on future potential events, people will adjust their lives accordingly. Another drawback is that people who are working will just drive less. Not take as many vacations in the car, crossover, SUV or trailer. They will not fly because the price of tickets, based on gasoline prices, are going up.
Yes, gasoline prices are going up. But taxes are staying the same. And some people think that yes, we should be paying even more in gasoline taxes. Some believe that this is good for the planet.
It is not good for the planet to have mass unemployment and an economy on the brink. A gas tax holiday and cutting these taxes is a much better way to go to recover the economy and produce tax revenues.
A very big HT to Kathleen McKinley, aka Right Wing Sparkle!
Oh sure, the left from the Dear Leader, President Obama, on down blame the eeeeevvviiiiilllll "speculators". You know, the guys with the stove-pipe hat and the Snidley Whiplash moustache twirling the stache around as they keep jacking up the prices.
But what I do not hear about is the fact that there are taxes on each fill-up of gasoline. There are federal, state and in some cases local taxes on each gallon of gasoline.
This is a very useful chart showing where the combined taxes are the highest and the lowest.
No surprise that California leads the way with 66.1c per gallon of gasoline purchased. The bottom is Alaska were the combined taxes are 26.4c a gallon.
In looking at this chart of average price per gallon by each state, lets look at California. The average price is $4.20c a gallon. If we took out the 66.1c in combined taxes, the total is really 3.54c a gallon. In Alaska, the average price per gallon is $4.19c a gallon. Take away the 26.4c combined taxes and the average would be $3.93c a gallon. Once one starts looking at this state by state, a trend emerges.
The higher gas tax the state, it seems to be a Blue, Democrat state. The lower the taxes tend to be Red Republican states. As in any case, there are some outliers either way.
But what I think should be done is that we pay for gasoline like other items. The unit price and then add the tax at the end of the bill. Like when one buys clothing. There is the price of the item and then where there is a sales tax, it shows on the receipt and then one pays their bill. I think that what we have now is the most disingenuous attempt to rob the public that governments at all levels have come up with.
Here in California, long before the spike in actual gasoline prices, as filling up the jalopy, I look at the signs around the pump that break down the actual taxes paid in the gallon price. But few, if any, take the time to do so. I would often comment to Mrs. RVFTLC that if people only knew how much the gallon of gasoline is taxes, they would be outraged.
So, lets look at the price of gasoline in California before taxes and with the taxes.
Taking a 17.5 gallon tank at $3.54c a gallon, if one fills up at that price, the total is $61.95c. That is a lot of cash. Add the taxes of 66.1c a gallon. That adds a total of $16.84c bringing that $61.95 to the grand total of $78.79c to fill up a
17.5 gallon tank.
With unemployment here in California at 12% plus, and more and more people depending on government assistance, one way the government can help is declaring a tax holiday. Just pay the actual price of gasoline for six months until there is some sign of economic growth and a serious decline in unemployment.
Maybe to the limousine libs out there, $16.84c a fill up is not a big deal. But, add that up by the week and it is over $67 dollars. If there are families and people on the margins out there, and there are, this would be a way to help get them to their jobs and or to look for work. To get to potential interviews.
Then all governments need to realize that this is not a good way to raise money. Because of the spike in prices, based on future potential events, people will adjust their lives accordingly. Another drawback is that people who are working will just drive less. Not take as many vacations in the car, crossover, SUV or trailer. They will not fly because the price of tickets, based on gasoline prices, are going up.
Yes, gasoline prices are going up. But taxes are staying the same. And some people think that yes, we should be paying even more in gasoline taxes. Some believe that this is good for the planet.
It is not good for the planet to have mass unemployment and an economy on the brink. A gas tax holiday and cutting these taxes is a much better way to go to recover the economy and produce tax revenues.
A very big HT to Kathleen McKinley, aka Right Wing Sparkle!
Monday, April 25, 2011
Conservatives Can Not Be Seduced By Donald Trump
Amazing that Donald Trump, the real estate developer, television personality and self promoter par excelance is really thinking about running for president.
It is not like he has not flirted with it before.
Mr. Chump flirted with a third-party run in 2000. He was thinking about running in the Reform party. Then he wanted to run as a so-called fiscal conservative and social moderate. You know, like another blowhard named Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger. And believe me, that drama has not ended well at all. Note in the above link that Mr. Chump wanted to raise taxes, promote protectionism and implement socialized medicine. Y
es, a real "fiscal conservative".
Now, The Donald as he is known is flirting with running for president once again. And he has a neat strategy. Raise the issue of whether or not the Dear Leader, President Obama, was born in Hawai'i or not. In other words, he is positioning himself as the most prominent "Birther" this side of Charlie Sheen.
And if we are to believe the latest incarnation of Mr. Chump, he is trying to be a born-again conservative and saying the right things, in general, to garner support.
My fellow conservatives and Republicans.
DO NOT FALL FOR THIS! THIS IS A SET-UP! DONALD CHUMP IS NOT ANY KIND OF SERIOUS CONSERVATIVE!
Firstly, Mr. Chump has been all over the place politically.
Until now, he has been at best a nominal Republican. Yes, he has spread his political cash around. Some has gone to Republicans as Sen. John "F--- You" McCain, former House speaker Newt Gingrich and former President George W. Bush. But, he has also supported such Democrats as the late Sen. Ted Kennedy and current Sen. John Kerry, and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
But beyond this, what I want to know is where does Mr. Chump stand on taxes? Does he want to raise them as he once advocated? Does he believe in tax reform? If so, what kind? A consumption tax? A flat income tax? And what about the Ryan budget plan? What does he believe about federal entitlement programs? What will he do about Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid?
And as far as social policy, what does he feel about federal judges? What kind of judges would he appoint to the bench? Where does he stand on the Second Amendment? On same-sex marriage (apperantly he is against it, but has not elaborated)? On abortion (again, he says that he is pro-life, but no elaboration)?
And foreign policy. We know that he believes Red China is an economic threat to the United States. But what would he do differently about it? Does he believe that there is a real threat from radical Islam? Does he believe that we are indeed in a struggle much like the Cold War against Soviet Communism?
See, while the Obamawhore media is orgasmic that Mr. Chump has put himself in with Birthers, and he keeps going along for the ride, where are the serious policy questions?
This is why I can not even think about this potential candidacy as a serious one.
What is troubling is that some conservatives are kind of flirting with Mr. Chump. Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham are two that come to mind that do not dismiss Mr. Chump out of hand.
And he should be.
Mr. Chump has been like dung politically-all over the place. He does not have moorings of a principled conservative.
There are other candidates that are not my favorites, but I could be with them if they win the Republican nomination. Mr. Chump, well I am hoping he does not make it that far.
Because while some conservatives may like his "straight talk" I think that there are a lot of forks in that straight talk road. We must hold Donald Chump as accountable as any other Republican seeking the highest office in the land.
It is not like he has not flirted with it before.
Mr. Chump flirted with a third-party run in 2000. He was thinking about running in the Reform party. Then he wanted to run as a so-called fiscal conservative and social moderate. You know, like another blowhard named Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger. And believe me, that drama has not ended well at all. Note in the above link that Mr. Chump wanted to raise taxes, promote protectionism and implement socialized medicine. Y
es, a real "fiscal conservative".
Now, The Donald as he is known is flirting with running for president once again. And he has a neat strategy. Raise the issue of whether or not the Dear Leader, President Obama, was born in Hawai'i or not. In other words, he is positioning himself as the most prominent "Birther" this side of Charlie Sheen.
And if we are to believe the latest incarnation of Mr. Chump, he is trying to be a born-again conservative and saying the right things, in general, to garner support.
My fellow conservatives and Republicans.
DO NOT FALL FOR THIS! THIS IS A SET-UP! DONALD CHUMP IS NOT ANY KIND OF SERIOUS CONSERVATIVE!
Firstly, Mr. Chump has been all over the place politically.
Until now, he has been at best a nominal Republican. Yes, he has spread his political cash around. Some has gone to Republicans as Sen. John "F--- You" McCain, former House speaker Newt Gingrich and former President George W. Bush. But, he has also supported such Democrats as the late Sen. Ted Kennedy and current Sen. John Kerry, and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
But beyond this, what I want to know is where does Mr. Chump stand on taxes? Does he want to raise them as he once advocated? Does he believe in tax reform? If so, what kind? A consumption tax? A flat income tax? And what about the Ryan budget plan? What does he believe about federal entitlement programs? What will he do about Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid?
And as far as social policy, what does he feel about federal judges? What kind of judges would he appoint to the bench? Where does he stand on the Second Amendment? On same-sex marriage (apperantly he is against it, but has not elaborated)? On abortion (again, he says that he is pro-life, but no elaboration)?
And foreign policy. We know that he believes Red China is an economic threat to the United States. But what would he do differently about it? Does he believe that there is a real threat from radical Islam? Does he believe that we are indeed in a struggle much like the Cold War against Soviet Communism?
See, while the Obamawhore media is orgasmic that Mr. Chump has put himself in with Birthers, and he keeps going along for the ride, where are the serious policy questions?
This is why I can not even think about this potential candidacy as a serious one.
What is troubling is that some conservatives are kind of flirting with Mr. Chump. Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham are two that come to mind that do not dismiss Mr. Chump out of hand.
And he should be.
Mr. Chump has been like dung politically-all over the place. He does not have moorings of a principled conservative.
There are other candidates that are not my favorites, but I could be with them if they win the Republican nomination. Mr. Chump, well I am hoping he does not make it that far.
Because while some conservatives may like his "straight talk" I think that there are a lot of forks in that straight talk road. We must hold Donald Chump as accountable as any other Republican seeking the highest office in the land.
Is Jerry Brown Really Gainning Support For Tax Hikes?
Well, according to this Los Angeles Times/USC poll, in reality it is somewhat hard to tell.
According to the way the headline and the article imply, the majority of registered California voters are willing to extend tax hikes for another five years with the alleged promise to also cut government spending.
Ahh, but one needs to look at the linked graphics to realize that it is not quite the way the Left Angeles Times is framing the debate.
When the question is broken down, 33% say to cut spending. Only nine percent say raise taxes. And then you get the answer to the combo question. And that is where one gets that the majority of registered California voters want a combination of both.
Then it gets convoluted.
Later in the graphic, the question is asked if respondents want to hold an election after June 30 to determine if the continuation of sales, income and vehicle tax increases should continue. A high number, 60% said yes. But, when asked if they want the state legislature to vote to do the same thing before June 30, 53% say no.
Again, the reality is that the polling data is contradictory. Thus, it is really hard to say that California voters really want to raise taxes. Yes, they want to vote on the issue, but one can not be certain that they, we, would vote to continue the tax hikes.
And when you read further into this article, the reality is that even the pollsters are not sure the voters would vote for the tax hike extension.
The reality is that having a costly special election to see the voters once again reject taxes in any form is still a hard sell. And that is why Gov. Jerry Brown has been up and down the state. To sell a plan that may be rejected by the actual voters.
The people want to see that every cut possible is being done before they will allow the Sacramento crowd any more of our money. Despite the fact that in the story, only the pro-tax people were quoted.
A funny thing called election results should be the final call. And last November, California voters rejected every tax proposal on the ballot. And, despite the apocolypse hammered home by Gov. Brown and his allies, I think the voters will once again reject continuing tax hikes. No matter what the Left Angeles Times tries to poll and manipulate on this issue.
According to the way the headline and the article imply, the majority of registered California voters are willing to extend tax hikes for another five years with the alleged promise to also cut government spending.
Ahh, but one needs to look at the linked graphics to realize that it is not quite the way the Left Angeles Times is framing the debate.
When the question is broken down, 33% say to cut spending. Only nine percent say raise taxes. And then you get the answer to the combo question. And that is where one gets that the majority of registered California voters want a combination of both.
Then it gets convoluted.
Later in the graphic, the question is asked if respondents want to hold an election after June 30 to determine if the continuation of sales, income and vehicle tax increases should continue. A high number, 60% said yes. But, when asked if they want the state legislature to vote to do the same thing before June 30, 53% say no.
Again, the reality is that the polling data is contradictory. Thus, it is really hard to say that California voters really want to raise taxes. Yes, they want to vote on the issue, but one can not be certain that they, we, would vote to continue the tax hikes.
And when you read further into this article, the reality is that even the pollsters are not sure the voters would vote for the tax hike extension.
The reality is that having a costly special election to see the voters once again reject taxes in any form is still a hard sell. And that is why Gov. Jerry Brown has been up and down the state. To sell a plan that may be rejected by the actual voters.
The people want to see that every cut possible is being done before they will allow the Sacramento crowd any more of our money. Despite the fact that in the story, only the pro-tax people were quoted.
A funny thing called election results should be the final call. And last November, California voters rejected every tax proposal on the ballot. And, despite the apocolypse hammered home by Gov. Brown and his allies, I think the voters will once again reject continuing tax hikes. No matter what the Left Angeles Times tries to poll and manipulate on this issue.
Is Comparing Osama bin Laden And Jesus Christ Ever Appropriate
Yesterday was the holiest day on the Christian calendar.
Resurrection Sunday, or as most are wont to call it, Easter Sunday.
As a faithful follower, Mrs. RVFTLC and I were at our church and celebrating Easter.
And of course there is a sermon. And it is always led by the head of the parish. In the Episcopal/Anglican tradition, the parish head is the rector.
Now usually Easter and Christmas are the two biggies. It is the time of year that many people who never set foot in a church do so. The sermon usually is positive and broad to reach that audience.
And yesterday was probably no exception.
Except for this line in the sermon:
Jesus was an outcast. He was misunderstood. Not unlike Osama bin Laden.
Osama bin Laden?
Beyond Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
I was dumbfounded. I could not remember anything else from the sermon. Shortly after it was said, I asked Mrs. RVFTLC if I heard correctly. And she said that I did.
Afterwards I asked a couple of people what they thought and they also agreed that it was not appropriate to make such a comparison.
Really?
This is what happens when we get down into the much of moral relativism. Of moral equivalence.
See, the real problem with bin Laden is that he is really just some misunderstood fellow. He has a legitimate point of view. And we silly gooses in the West should be more in tune to listen to that point of view.
OK, let me explain why it is not something to do.
Before the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, bin Laden and al-Queda tried to blow up the World Trade Center in New York City in 1993. And in 1998 did commit the twin embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. And in 2000, attacked the United States missile carrier the USS Cole, killing 17 servicemen. All before the dastardly attacks on 09/11/01.
So, if I understand correctly, we should have been more in contact with bin Laden? Tried to get his point of view? Negotiate with him?
I really do not understand.
What I do know is that there is no way to compare Jesus Christ, who sought to bring the world in perfect relationship with God peacefully, and Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden wants to bring the world closer to God at the point of a gun. The total opposite of Jesus.
There are consequences for what people do, good or bad. And look what happened to Jesus. He came to Jerusalem in triumph and the people turned against him as he turned out not to be a political leader that the captive Jews had hoped for. And he willingly went to the cross and was crucified. All to bring the world to God.
And bin Laden?
He will get his reward for his actions. Whether it is in this world or the next.
But let me be clear.
There is never a time or moment to compare the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ, and the Prince of Darkness, Osama bin Laden. And especially not on Easter.
Resurrection Sunday, or as most are wont to call it, Easter Sunday.
As a faithful follower, Mrs. RVFTLC and I were at our church and celebrating Easter.
And of course there is a sermon. And it is always led by the head of the parish. In the Episcopal/Anglican tradition, the parish head is the rector.
Now usually Easter and Christmas are the two biggies. It is the time of year that many people who never set foot in a church do so. The sermon usually is positive and broad to reach that audience.
And yesterday was probably no exception.
Except for this line in the sermon:
Jesus was an outcast. He was misunderstood. Not unlike Osama bin Laden.
Osama bin Laden?
Beyond Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
I was dumbfounded. I could not remember anything else from the sermon. Shortly after it was said, I asked Mrs. RVFTLC if I heard correctly. And she said that I did.
Afterwards I asked a couple of people what they thought and they also agreed that it was not appropriate to make such a comparison.
Really?
This is what happens when we get down into the much of moral relativism. Of moral equivalence.
See, the real problem with bin Laden is that he is really just some misunderstood fellow. He has a legitimate point of view. And we silly gooses in the West should be more in tune to listen to that point of view.
OK, let me explain why it is not something to do.
Before the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, bin Laden and al-Queda tried to blow up the World Trade Center in New York City in 1993. And in 1998 did commit the twin embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. And in 2000, attacked the United States missile carrier the USS Cole, killing 17 servicemen. All before the dastardly attacks on 09/11/01.
So, if I understand correctly, we should have been more in contact with bin Laden? Tried to get his point of view? Negotiate with him?
I really do not understand.
What I do know is that there is no way to compare Jesus Christ, who sought to bring the world in perfect relationship with God peacefully, and Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden wants to bring the world closer to God at the point of a gun. The total opposite of Jesus.
There are consequences for what people do, good or bad. And look what happened to Jesus. He came to Jerusalem in triumph and the people turned against him as he turned out not to be a political leader that the captive Jews had hoped for. And he willingly went to the cross and was crucified. All to bring the world to God.
And bin Laden?
He will get his reward for his actions. Whether it is in this world or the next.
But let me be clear.
There is never a time or moment to compare the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ, and the Prince of Darkness, Osama bin Laden. And especially not on Easter.
Happy Easter Monday
I hope that your Easter Sunday was a good one. In much of the civilized world, today is Easter Monday. But alas, here in the United States it is not.
Topics that I will comment on later.
Is it appropriate to compare Jesus Christ and Osama bin Laden. . .on Easter?!
According to the Left Angeles Times, people want to vote to raise their taxes. Yet the real story is not that at all.
Why we conservatives must not be seduced by Donald Chump.
And of course, what ever else in on my mind. Don't forget to leave a comment of what you think of the new blog design.
Topics that I will comment on later.
Is it appropriate to compare Jesus Christ and Osama bin Laden. . .on Easter?!
According to the Left Angeles Times, people want to vote to raise their taxes. Yet the real story is not that at all.
Why we conservatives must not be seduced by Donald Chump.
And of course, what ever else in on my mind. Don't forget to leave a comment of what you think of the new blog design.
Friday, April 22, 2011
A New Layout
One thing that a blogger must do to keep their blog fresh is a change in the layout every now and then.
And today, I have made a change in the layout and background of Right View From The Left Coast.
Please let me know what you think of the change in layout. And do not forget to like this on Facebook.
And today, I have made a change in the layout and background of Right View From The Left Coast.
Please let me know what you think of the change in layout. And do not forget to like this on Facebook.
A Take On The 2012 Potential Republican Presidential Field
In today's New York Daily News, Charles Krauthammer gives what he sees as the candidates and their odds of becoming the 2012 Republican presidential nominee.
As usual, it is a great column and has some good nuggets.
However, I do quibble with Mr. Krauthammer on a couple of points.
Mr. Krauthammer seems to be certain that Sarah Palin is not running for president this time around. What Mr. Krauthammer has not gotten yet is that Mrs. Palin never does the conventional approach. Sure, if she was conventional, she would have already announced that she was going to have the "exploratory committee" and be like two who have already announced that. The two are former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. I think that there is a better than 50/50 chance Mrs. Palin does run this time around. And, Mr. Krauthammer might want to take a look at this article in The Wall Street Journal. It is a very unconventional way to start a campaign, but that is Sarah Palin. Unconventional.
Another is that good odds that he places on the Mississippi governor, Haley Barbour.
To be clear, I like Gov. Barbour. The guy is a proven winner and should not be counted out in the least. But I fear that his negatives will end up being higher than Mrs. Palin's are at the moment. It is not just the years of lobbying and a mixed approach and or record on civil rights. He is from the very Deep South. And what more of a caricature can Team Obama have. Any other year and Gov. Barbour would deserve the kind of odds Mr. Krauthammer is giving. This is not the year.
And then there is the Indiana governor, Mitch Daniels. A good governor but can not win this election as a Johnny Onenote about spending and the growth of government. Two important things that turn me off about Gov. Daniels. One, thinking that there is going to be any kind of truce with the left of social issues. Not. Gonna. Happen.
Also, we have absolutely no idea where he stands on foreign policy. We see what happens when we go on a narrative rather than knowledge of a candidate and his or her policies.
But overall this is a thoughtful piece. And believe me, it will be subject to multiple reviews and revisions. But I will keep this in the back pocket.
As usual, it is a great column and has some good nuggets.
However, I do quibble with Mr. Krauthammer on a couple of points.
Mr. Krauthammer seems to be certain that Sarah Palin is not running for president this time around. What Mr. Krauthammer has not gotten yet is that Mrs. Palin never does the conventional approach. Sure, if she was conventional, she would have already announced that she was going to have the "exploratory committee" and be like two who have already announced that. The two are former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. I think that there is a better than 50/50 chance Mrs. Palin does run this time around. And, Mr. Krauthammer might want to take a look at this article in The Wall Street Journal. It is a very unconventional way to start a campaign, but that is Sarah Palin. Unconventional.
Another is that good odds that he places on the Mississippi governor, Haley Barbour.
To be clear, I like Gov. Barbour. The guy is a proven winner and should not be counted out in the least. But I fear that his negatives will end up being higher than Mrs. Palin's are at the moment. It is not just the years of lobbying and a mixed approach and or record on civil rights. He is from the very Deep South. And what more of a caricature can Team Obama have. Any other year and Gov. Barbour would deserve the kind of odds Mr. Krauthammer is giving. This is not the year.
And then there is the Indiana governor, Mitch Daniels. A good governor but can not win this election as a Johnny Onenote about spending and the growth of government. Two important things that turn me off about Gov. Daniels. One, thinking that there is going to be any kind of truce with the left of social issues. Not. Gonna. Happen.
Also, we have absolutely no idea where he stands on foreign policy. We see what happens when we go on a narrative rather than knowledge of a candidate and his or her policies.
But overall this is a thoughtful piece. And believe me, it will be subject to multiple reviews and revisions. But I will keep this in the back pocket.
HAPPY GOOD FRIDAY
Always confusing to me to celebrate a day in which a man, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, was executed in what has to be the most brutal forms of the process. By crucifixtion.
But that is what Good Friday is. A solemn celebration of the fufilment of Old Testament prophecy. That the Son of God must meet this fate.
But because he knew who he was while so many did not, Jesus Christ went to the cross. Nailed in his hands and feet. And fulfilled several of the prophecies of the Old Testatment.
For those of us in what is known as the liturgical church, we do no not celebrate the Holy Communion from now until the Great Vigil of Easter tomorrow night. A helpful guide is found here.
It is hard to think of this as a good day. Yet because of this, Jesus was resurrected and is sittith at the right hand of the father, as written in the Nicene Creed.
That is what I think about this day. Not the suffering of Christ. But the glory that comes with the resurrected Christ. That is the end result of the crucifiction.
That is why today is Good Friday. Not for the death, but the everlasting life.
So, Happy Good Friday!
Happy Dirt-Worshipers Day*
Today is the big day, folks.
No, not Good Friday, for heaven's sake.
But Dirt-Worshipers Day.
OK, you know it as Earth Day.
But come on. Really. It might as well be a national holiday. I am certain that the United Nations would like it to be an international holiday.
Again, to be clear, I consider myself a conservationist. Yes, we do have a moral obligation to be good stewards to the gift of Almighty God's creation. But the extemism of the enviornmental movement is what I am vehmently against.
If you go to the link above, go down far enough and you will see a poster proving my point. The poster, from the first Earth Day in 1970 says the following:
We have met the enemy and he is us.
Really? We are our own enemy?
It is that extremism that I abhor about the enviornmental movement.
Want a real scary coinkidink?
The American Earth Day zealot, former Wisconsin senator Gaylord Nelson, came up with celebrating this day on this date. And yet somehow he had no clue that this is also the birthday of the worst big government tyrant of all time, Vladamir Lenin. It is probably true that Mr. Nelson did not realize the coninkidink because Mr. Nelson was so engrossed in the enviornmental movement. And yes, it is true that Lenin was probably not an environmentalist. However, one can not doubt that he would be intrigued by the movement and its clear support of big govenrmnet and its clear anti-capitalist bent.
Arbor Day, usually the last Friday in April, is a celebration of life, renewal by the concept of planting trees to renew the land. It is decidedly a non-political event meant to renew not just the wonder of nature but the human spirit as well. This May 5, 2009 editorial in the Washington Times makes the point of the contrast between the two days.
Folks, I am not trying to intentionally disparage Earth Day. I am just trying to alert you to the fanaticism of the proponents.
If we are all good stewards of God's creation, then this planet will survive long after we are all gone. The problem is the differnce between the two sides. And that is going to be an ongoing debate for many a moon.
Meanwhile, have a Happy Dirt-Worshiping Day!*
*-Yes, I know, it is E A R T H D A Y!
No, not Good Friday, for heaven's sake.
But Dirt-Worshipers Day.
OK, you know it as Earth Day.
But come on. Really. It might as well be a national holiday. I am certain that the United Nations would like it to be an international holiday.
Again, to be clear, I consider myself a conservationist. Yes, we do have a moral obligation to be good stewards to the gift of Almighty God's creation. But the extemism of the enviornmental movement is what I am vehmently against.
If you go to the link above, go down far enough and you will see a poster proving my point. The poster, from the first Earth Day in 1970 says the following:
We have met the enemy and he is us.
Really? We are our own enemy?
It is that extremism that I abhor about the enviornmental movement.
Want a real scary coinkidink?
The American Earth Day zealot, former Wisconsin senator Gaylord Nelson, came up with celebrating this day on this date. And yet somehow he had no clue that this is also the birthday of the worst big government tyrant of all time, Vladamir Lenin. It is probably true that Mr. Nelson did not realize the coninkidink because Mr. Nelson was so engrossed in the enviornmental movement. And yes, it is true that Lenin was probably not an environmentalist. However, one can not doubt that he would be intrigued by the movement and its clear support of big govenrmnet and its clear anti-capitalist bent.
Arbor Day, usually the last Friday in April, is a celebration of life, renewal by the concept of planting trees to renew the land. It is decidedly a non-political event meant to renew not just the wonder of nature but the human spirit as well. This May 5, 2009 editorial in the Washington Times makes the point of the contrast between the two days.
Folks, I am not trying to intentionally disparage Earth Day. I am just trying to alert you to the fanaticism of the proponents.
If we are all good stewards of God's creation, then this planet will survive long after we are all gone. The problem is the differnce between the two sides. And that is going to be an ongoing debate for many a moon.
Meanwhile, have a Happy Dirt-Worshiping Day!*
*-Yes, I know, it is E A R T H D A Y!
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Hmm, Sen. Ensign To Retire Early?
UPDATE:
And the answer is yes, Sen. Ensign will quit tomorrow. And Gov. Sandoval is appointing current Congressman Dean Heller.
It appears to be the case. That Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign, who announced that he would not seek reelection in 2012, will retire sooner rather than later.
The reason that Sen. Ensign is in hot water is simple.
He could not keep it in his pants.
But, on the one hand, Sen. Ensign did admit to his affair with the wife of a staffer. But, he is also a married man. And it shows, once again, a politicians total lack of good judgement.
The only upside is that Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican, will appoint Sen. Ensign's replacement. Let's hope that Gov. Sandoval makes a good choice.
And the answer is yes, Sen. Ensign will quit tomorrow. And Gov. Sandoval is appointing current Congressman Dean Heller.
It appears to be the case. That Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign, who announced that he would not seek reelection in 2012, will retire sooner rather than later.
The reason that Sen. Ensign is in hot water is simple.
He could not keep it in his pants.
But, on the one hand, Sen. Ensign did admit to his affair with the wife of a staffer. But, he is also a married man. And it shows, once again, a politicians total lack of good judgement.
The only upside is that Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican, will appoint Sen. Ensign's replacement. Let's hope that Gov. Sandoval makes a good choice.
What Happens When "Earth Day" Falls On Good Friday?
ADDENDUM:
To be clear, not all stories in the Leftywhore media are decidedly anti-Christian. This one in today's USA Today is a postitve one about a now unique form of worship in the United States.
Well, it is another attempt by the Obamawhore-Leftywhore media to mock Good Friday and Easter, of course!
As Ed Morrisey notes over at Hot Air, the Leftywhore media is fawning over Earth Day, the dirt-worshiper's Christmas and Easter all rolled in one.
In the article that Ed linked from the Media Research Center, Erin Brown takes Holy Week 2010 to make the seemingly obvious point. That the media will use the most important celebrations in Christendom to bash the faith. Whether it is Roman Catholic bashing, favorite sport of the Leftywhore media, or ignoring the religious aspect of Easter, leave it to these people to be on that side. The side of the heathens.
Now, let me ask you what will be covered intensly tomorrow in the Obamawhore-Leftywhore media. And what of the two events will be brought to a postitive light?
I do not have anything against celebrating nature. And yes, we are obligated to be good stewards of what, I believe, God has given us. But let me be clear. "Earth Day" is a day that does not celebrate nature as much as it is propaganda to promote meaningless environmental extremism. Here is from the Hot Air link:
“And on this Earth Day we told you about the plastic lying around the earth,” Sawyer said on “World News.” “Well what if you could take it and turn it into an answered prayer for some children? One woman did just that. It’s the American heart.” …
“As we said earlier, this is Earth Day, the 40th anniversary, in fact, of what’s considered the birth of the modern environmental movement,” anchor Brian Williams said on “Nightly News.” “On this Earth Day there was this item in the news today, a way to remind us all to take a fresh look at something we look down and see just about every day: cigarette butts. Not only are they the most common form of litter, they are filled with toxins, every one of them that can leach out into the environment and make their way into drinking water supplies and pets, among other things.”
BLEECH!
Yes, I know, and I think that most people know that litter is a bad thing. However, may I give an example of how it is dealt with here in Pasadena every New Years?
The Rose Parade is held every New Years Day* and people camp out on New Year's Eve. They are "allowed" from 12noon on New Year's Eve on. Many start early that morning.
Well, imagine the fact that there is tons of trash left behind. Colorado Blvd is one five-mile long parking lot. By New Year's evening, thanks to our rubbish removal, one would not know that there was a parade and big camp out the evening before.
The point is that there is good and common-sense ways to be environmentally consious and aware. I never, ever have seen a story about that in the Leftywhore media. And it is an amazing act to clean up essentially a whole mini-city in mere hours.
I believe that would be a great story sometime.
Good Friday is the most solemn day on the Christian calendar. It deserves coverage that is at the very least non-confrontational. Same with Easter being the most joyous day on the Christian calendar.
Yet it seems to be an occasion to bash the Roman Church, and mock Christians in general in the Leftywhore media. And now, it will be used to elevate a faux holiday, Earth Day.
To be clear, not all stories in the Leftywhore media are decidedly anti-Christian. This one in today's USA Today is a postitve one about a now unique form of worship in the United States.
Well, it is another attempt by the Obamawhore-Leftywhore media to mock Good Friday and Easter, of course!
As Ed Morrisey notes over at Hot Air, the Leftywhore media is fawning over Earth Day, the dirt-worshiper's Christmas and Easter all rolled in one.
In the article that Ed linked from the Media Research Center, Erin Brown takes Holy Week 2010 to make the seemingly obvious point. That the media will use the most important celebrations in Christendom to bash the faith. Whether it is Roman Catholic bashing, favorite sport of the Leftywhore media, or ignoring the religious aspect of Easter, leave it to these people to be on that side. The side of the heathens.
Now, let me ask you what will be covered intensly tomorrow in the Obamawhore-Leftywhore media. And what of the two events will be brought to a postitive light?
I do not have anything against celebrating nature. And yes, we are obligated to be good stewards of what, I believe, God has given us. But let me be clear. "Earth Day" is a day that does not celebrate nature as much as it is propaganda to promote meaningless environmental extremism. Here is from the Hot Air link:
“And on this Earth Day we told you about the plastic lying around the earth,” Sawyer said on “World News.” “Well what if you could take it and turn it into an answered prayer for some children? One woman did just that. It’s the American heart.” …
“As we said earlier, this is Earth Day, the 40th anniversary, in fact, of what’s considered the birth of the modern environmental movement,” anchor Brian Williams said on “Nightly News.” “On this Earth Day there was this item in the news today, a way to remind us all to take a fresh look at something we look down and see just about every day: cigarette butts. Not only are they the most common form of litter, they are filled with toxins, every one of them that can leach out into the environment and make their way into drinking water supplies and pets, among other things.”
BLEECH!
Yes, I know, and I think that most people know that litter is a bad thing. However, may I give an example of how it is dealt with here in Pasadena every New Years?
The Rose Parade is held every New Years Day* and people camp out on New Year's Eve. They are "allowed" from 12noon on New Year's Eve on. Many start early that morning.
Well, imagine the fact that there is tons of trash left behind. Colorado Blvd is one five-mile long parking lot. By New Year's evening, thanks to our rubbish removal, one would not know that there was a parade and big camp out the evening before.
The point is that there is good and common-sense ways to be environmentally consious and aware. I never, ever have seen a story about that in the Leftywhore media. And it is an amazing act to clean up essentially a whole mini-city in mere hours.
I believe that would be a great story sometime.
Good Friday is the most solemn day on the Christian calendar. It deserves coverage that is at the very least non-confrontational. Same with Easter being the most joyous day on the Christian calendar.
Yet it seems to be an occasion to bash the Roman Church, and mock Christians in general in the Leftywhore media. And now, it will be used to elevate a faux holiday, Earth Day.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
A Sad Day For Baseball In Los Angeles
Today, the major league braintrust took over control of the Los Angeles Dodgers, thus ending the reign of error of Frank and or Jaime McCourt.
While the McCourts have turned out to be real louses, I do not have confidence in Bud Selig, the so-called major league baseball commissioner, taking over the team. According to the report, he will announce new ownership for the financially troubled team in the next few days.
Who would a new owner or owners be? Would he/she or they owe some alligence to Mr. Selig for giving them one of the most storied franchises in major league baseball history?
This is the same Bud Selig who, as he appointed himself commissioner wanted to essentially end the two leagues, the American League and National League. He wanted to rearrainge teams into leagues and divisions. But hey, he did move the Milwaukee Brewers, the team he owned, from the American to National league. And in as deceitful as what he did with the Brewers, Mr. Selig brought us the abortion known as interleague play. That was a compromise when he could not rearrange the baseball map. As an aside, this occurred when former president George W. Bush was owner of the Texas Rangers. He was the only owner to vote against interleague play. I am always thankful for his vote on that issue.
While the McCourts have done serious damage to the Dodger franchise, I just do not believe that Mr. Selig will do anything to reinvigorate the team. I hope that I am wrong. But today, I know, is a sad day in major league baseball.
While the McCourts have turned out to be real louses, I do not have confidence in Bud Selig, the so-called major league baseball commissioner, taking over the team. According to the report, he will announce new ownership for the financially troubled team in the next few days.
Who would a new owner or owners be? Would he/she or they owe some alligence to Mr. Selig for giving them one of the most storied franchises in major league baseball history?
This is the same Bud Selig who, as he appointed himself commissioner wanted to essentially end the two leagues, the American League and National League. He wanted to rearrainge teams into leagues and divisions. But hey, he did move the Milwaukee Brewers, the team he owned, from the American to National league. And in as deceitful as what he did with the Brewers, Mr. Selig brought us the abortion known as interleague play. That was a compromise when he could not rearrange the baseball map. As an aside, this occurred when former president George W. Bush was owner of the Texas Rangers. He was the only owner to vote against interleague play. I am always thankful for his vote on that issue.
While the McCourts have done serious damage to the Dodger franchise, I just do not believe that Mr. Selig will do anything to reinvigorate the team. I hope that I am wrong. But today, I know, is a sad day in major league baseball.
4/20, The Stoners Christmas
Ahh, today is April 20. In the world of the marijuana smoker, it is known as 4/20. A day to celebrate sparking it up.
It is the day that the stoner world gathers to celebrate the joys of the ganja.
In and of itself, I can care less about what adults do in regards to the consumption of Mary Jane. I do worry about the kiddies getting it and getting hooked. But adults, I do not think if one consumes at home and does nothing like get behind the wheel of a car or anything like that we should bother them.
What does bother me about the legalization crowd is the justification for doing so.
Most prominent is that is will be regulated. And taxed.
It is the fundamental reason I can not support legalizing the ganja.
I do think that we can decriminalize personal use as described above. But legalization for the purposes of another government revenue stream, no thanks.
Any attempt to justify the encroachment of big government, and that is what most advocates do not realize they are doing, is a bad thing.
But here is some amusing things our politicians have said and or maybe not about the Devil's weed.
It is something that we do, as a society, need to deal with. We have to be honest about the fact that for many, marijuana is a gateway drug. That means for many they graduate to stronger and yes dangerous drugs. Much worse than marijuana and alcohol. The dull high of marijuana, the mind-numbing, is OK for some of these people for a while. But they want something more. And stronger. Some go on to cocaine. Others to meth. Some to heroin. Really bad stuff.
Yes, many who toke it up are just wanting to "calm down" and do not even consume adult beverages.
But the other dishonesty from the legalize it now crowd is that marijuana is not a gateway for many. Not all, but enough to not completely legalize the wicked weed.
I do not think that our prisons need to be overloaded with people that consume marijuana for themsleves, in the privacy of their own home. And do not go out and drive or work under the influence. But legalizing it will not lead to the outcome the advocates claim. Regulating and taxing marijuana will lead back to the current situation that we have with tobacco.
In the mean time, stoners of the world, unite and have a good time today. Just don't bother me.
It is the day that the stoner world gathers to celebrate the joys of the ganja.
In and of itself, I can care less about what adults do in regards to the consumption of Mary Jane. I do worry about the kiddies getting it and getting hooked. But adults, I do not think if one consumes at home and does nothing like get behind the wheel of a car or anything like that we should bother them.
What does bother me about the legalization crowd is the justification for doing so.
Most prominent is that is will be regulated. And taxed.
It is the fundamental reason I can not support legalizing the ganja.
I do think that we can decriminalize personal use as described above. But legalization for the purposes of another government revenue stream, no thanks.
Any attempt to justify the encroachment of big government, and that is what most advocates do not realize they are doing, is a bad thing.
But here is some amusing things our politicians have said and or maybe not about the Devil's weed.
It is something that we do, as a society, need to deal with. We have to be honest about the fact that for many, marijuana is a gateway drug. That means for many they graduate to stronger and yes dangerous drugs. Much worse than marijuana and alcohol. The dull high of marijuana, the mind-numbing, is OK for some of these people for a while. But they want something more. And stronger. Some go on to cocaine. Others to meth. Some to heroin. Really bad stuff.
Yes, many who toke it up are just wanting to "calm down" and do not even consume adult beverages.
But the other dishonesty from the legalize it now crowd is that marijuana is not a gateway for many. Not all, but enough to not completely legalize the wicked weed.
I do not think that our prisons need to be overloaded with people that consume marijuana for themsleves, in the privacy of their own home. And do not go out and drive or work under the influence. But legalizing it will not lead to the outcome the advocates claim. Regulating and taxing marijuana will lead back to the current situation that we have with tobacco.
In the mean time, stoners of the world, unite and have a good time today. Just don't bother me.
Should We American Republicans Celebrate The British Royal Wedding?
BTW, that is republican, not the party but our form of government.
The Mother Country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is all set for the big wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton. The big event is next Friday.
My question is a simple one but a bit of a complex answer on my part.
For the liberal, this is n u a n c e.
I do like the fact that the Mother Country is still a monarchy. They have kept a tradition that has long seen it glory days. And there is a certain fascination with it for many Americans.
I would not ever want to see the monarchy in this Great Land. That is why we fought a revolution over 230 years ago. And yet I find myself fascinated by the goings on in the U. K.
Pick up a "respectable" newspaper, like the Daily Telegraph or The Times of London, and there is a little section called "Court and Social" which tells of the goings on with the immediate Royal Family and some far flung. No, it is not a gossip column. More of a calendar and social notebook.
Any how, I just find it something good that the U. K. has not succembed to those that want to change it to a republic. Although the results would be better than what happened in France or Germany, something would just be missing.
What I think is good about this match is that William and Miss Middleton seem to be normal people. After all, Miss Middleton is until next Friday a commoner. That is what makes this royal wedding something different.
Now I think that when a man and woman meet, date and marry it is always a time for celebration.
For me, that should be the point of this celebration writ large.
And for those that think the royal family are just a bunch of slobs at the government trough, let us look at the fact that they provide jobs and prestige for the people of the realm.
Sure, it is big government as the employees work for the government. But by and large, these are not burrecrats affecting the day to day lives of the citizens. But if there is no monarchy, what happens to all the people who work for the royals?
But back to the wedding.
It is going to be an economic boom for the people of the realm.
People from all over are desending on London hoping for a glimpse of the royal couple. And yeah, their gonna buy all the souvenirs and stuff like that. And in this economy, the people of the U. K. can use all the help that they can get.
So, I celebrate this blessed event. I am glad for William and Kate. And yeah, it is kind of too much for most Americans. But that is what makes it so unique. And something I would not want to see here in the United States.
The Mother Country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is all set for the big wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton. The big event is next Friday.
My question is a simple one but a bit of a complex answer on my part.
For the liberal, this is n u a n c e.
I do like the fact that the Mother Country is still a monarchy. They have kept a tradition that has long seen it glory days. And there is a certain fascination with it for many Americans.
I would not ever want to see the monarchy in this Great Land. That is why we fought a revolution over 230 years ago. And yet I find myself fascinated by the goings on in the U. K.
Pick up a "respectable" newspaper, like the Daily Telegraph or The Times of London, and there is a little section called "Court and Social" which tells of the goings on with the immediate Royal Family and some far flung. No, it is not a gossip column. More of a calendar and social notebook.
Any how, I just find it something good that the U. K. has not succembed to those that want to change it to a republic. Although the results would be better than what happened in France or Germany, something would just be missing.
What I think is good about this match is that William and Miss Middleton seem to be normal people. After all, Miss Middleton is until next Friday a commoner. That is what makes this royal wedding something different.
Now I think that when a man and woman meet, date and marry it is always a time for celebration.
For me, that should be the point of this celebration writ large.
And for those that think the royal family are just a bunch of slobs at the government trough, let us look at the fact that they provide jobs and prestige for the people of the realm.
Sure, it is big government as the employees work for the government. But by and large, these are not burrecrats affecting the day to day lives of the citizens. But if there is no monarchy, what happens to all the people who work for the royals?
But back to the wedding.
It is going to be an economic boom for the people of the realm.
People from all over are desending on London hoping for a glimpse of the royal couple. And yeah, their gonna buy all the souvenirs and stuff like that. And in this economy, the people of the U. K. can use all the help that they can get.
So, I celebrate this blessed event. I am glad for William and Kate. And yeah, it is kind of too much for most Americans. But that is what makes it so unique. And something I would not want to see here in the United States.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Another Reason California Will Never Be Rid Of Our Budget Albatross
Oooh boy! This is so rich and so freeking unbelivable. But if this was not California, well let me continue.
Gov. Jerry Brown got most of his support from labor unions. Majority are government employee unions.
And what do you know?
A payoff to one of the strongest supporters, the the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn., the prison guards union, spent nearly $2 million to help him win election last year has been made.
Now, the CCPOA, has a provision that includes, get this, can save their unused vacation time. And they will be able to cash out at the final salary. And they will in their first year of employement have up to eight weeks-thats two months-off in a year.
Now, one wonders what this will potentially cost the taxpayers of California?
Well, according to Nick Schroder of the state's non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office the average officer accumalated 19 weeks of time off. Nineteen freeking weeks! And the current cost of that is about $600,000,000 dollars.
So, we wonder why there is a problem solving the current budget mess. This is one of the reasons.
The excuse being made for this caving-in is that the prison guards have been working without a contract since 2006. Seems like that has not been all that bad. And it is not just this lump-sum payout but the fact that these guards will retire with a pension on top of this.
I do get that this is a tough job. But it is ridiculous to pay these guards money that we do not have. And to payoff like this, potentially 30,000 people, is reckless when the state can not balance its budget.
Gov. Brown will have to explain why we should raise taxes to pay off such employees when so many lower-level workers and private-sector workers are taking it on the chin.
Again, one wonders why California will not balance it's budget. This is but one glaring reason why.
Gov. Jerry Brown got most of his support from labor unions. Majority are government employee unions.
And what do you know?
A payoff to one of the strongest supporters, the the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn., the prison guards union, spent nearly $2 million to help him win election last year has been made.
Now, the CCPOA, has a provision that includes, get this, can save their unused vacation time. And they will be able to cash out at the final salary. And they will in their first year of employement have up to eight weeks-thats two months-off in a year.
Now, one wonders what this will potentially cost the taxpayers of California?
Well, according to Nick Schroder of the state's non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office the average officer accumalated 19 weeks of time off. Nineteen freeking weeks! And the current cost of that is about $600,000,000 dollars.
So, we wonder why there is a problem solving the current budget mess. This is one of the reasons.
The excuse being made for this caving-in is that the prison guards have been working without a contract since 2006. Seems like that has not been all that bad. And it is not just this lump-sum payout but the fact that these guards will retire with a pension on top of this.
I do get that this is a tough job. But it is ridiculous to pay these guards money that we do not have. And to payoff like this, potentially 30,000 people, is reckless when the state can not balance its budget.
Gov. Brown will have to explain why we should raise taxes to pay off such employees when so many lower-level workers and private-sector workers are taking it on the chin.
Again, one wonders why California will not balance it's budget. This is but one glaring reason why.
Monday, April 18, 2011
The Left Angeles Times Prefers A Corrupt Political Process
OK, I want to be fair about the headline. It is not the Left Angeles Times but one their stealar columnists, George Red Skelton.
In today's piece, Red Skelton yearns for a return of the days of the politicians drawing their own legislative districts. Red Skelton does not like the fact that the people of California, through the initiative process, took that away from the legislature. Well, actually, Red Skelton does not really like the initiative process at all.
Lets deal with Red Skelton's claim that if the Democrat-dominated legislature was able to redraw the districts for congress and the state legislature, things would be better for the tax scheme of Gov. Jerry Brown. And Red Skelton gives us how this would have played out in the old days:
This is the way it might have worked if voters had not stripped legislators of their traditional power to draw legislative and congressional districts:
A backbench Republican is summoned to an isolated, windowless room in the Capitol. There are two large maps on a table. "Here are two districts," he's told by a Democrat Tom Hagen type. "Which one do you want?
"Run in one and you survive. Run in the other, you sleep with the fishes."
"I'll take the first," the GOP lawmaker replies. "And, of course, I strongly support the governor's tax plan."
That's fiction based on historic fact. Many favors have been granted and much family business settled during redistricting. Allies gets comfy districts; adversaries get to retire.
WOW!
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. And themsome.
This is the kind of government that Red Skelton would like?
But if you read on, of course it is our own damn fault. We, the California voters that have voted on initiative in the past that have not helped the state budget process.
Here is the problem according to Red Skelton:
Reform isn't all good. The century-old citizens' initiative has led to ballot-box budgeting, a major contributor to deficit spending. Term limits weakened the Legislature's ability to respond to California's needs. And — although on a lesser scale — independent redistricting is undermining legislative leadership.
Well, Red, the real problem is that the vaunted legislators of both parties have screwed things up. They have chosen over the years to pay off their allies. When the Dems are in, it is their allies in the government labor unions and their contributors. For the Republicans, a lesser extent very few government employee unions and their contributors. When a problem comes up, they punt. Let some group write an initiative and it either is voted in or not. Term limits have not been part of the problem. A so-called full-time "professional" legislature has been a huge part of the problem. And really, you can not think the way the legislative lines were drawn in 2000 were good for democracy. Can you Red? If so, you should be orgasmic about a state like Massachusetts, a virtual one-party dictatorship.
Letting the very people that have created this mess draw their own lines is wrong. It totally corrupts the process. It makes general elections virtually meaningless. And that is not good for the process.
By letting the politicians draw the lines California has become a near one-party state.
But, an independent commission that may be imperfect will be better than what we had.
I would like to let the commission do their work and let us see the finished product before we yearn for the corrupt old days.
If George Red Skelton thinks that political blackmail is a way to run things, the Left Angeles Times needs to explain that to its dwindiling readership.
In today's piece, Red Skelton yearns for a return of the days of the politicians drawing their own legislative districts. Red Skelton does not like the fact that the people of California, through the initiative process, took that away from the legislature. Well, actually, Red Skelton does not really like the initiative process at all.
Lets deal with Red Skelton's claim that if the Democrat-dominated legislature was able to redraw the districts for congress and the state legislature, things would be better for the tax scheme of Gov. Jerry Brown. And Red Skelton gives us how this would have played out in the old days:
This is the way it might have worked if voters had not stripped legislators of their traditional power to draw legislative and congressional districts:
A backbench Republican is summoned to an isolated, windowless room in the Capitol. There are two large maps on a table. "Here are two districts," he's told by a Democrat Tom Hagen type. "Which one do you want?
"Run in one and you survive. Run in the other, you sleep with the fishes."
"I'll take the first," the GOP lawmaker replies. "And, of course, I strongly support the governor's tax plan."
That's fiction based on historic fact. Many favors have been granted and much family business settled during redistricting. Allies gets comfy districts; adversaries get to retire.
WOW!
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. And themsome.
This is the kind of government that Red Skelton would like?
But if you read on, of course it is our own damn fault. We, the California voters that have voted on initiative in the past that have not helped the state budget process.
Here is the problem according to Red Skelton:
Reform isn't all good. The century-old citizens' initiative has led to ballot-box budgeting, a major contributor to deficit spending. Term limits weakened the Legislature's ability to respond to California's needs. And — although on a lesser scale — independent redistricting is undermining legislative leadership.
Well, Red, the real problem is that the vaunted legislators of both parties have screwed things up. They have chosen over the years to pay off their allies. When the Dems are in, it is their allies in the government labor unions and their contributors. For the Republicans, a lesser extent very few government employee unions and their contributors. When a problem comes up, they punt. Let some group write an initiative and it either is voted in or not. Term limits have not been part of the problem. A so-called full-time "professional" legislature has been a huge part of the problem. And really, you can not think the way the legislative lines were drawn in 2000 were good for democracy. Can you Red? If so, you should be orgasmic about a state like Massachusetts, a virtual one-party dictatorship.
Letting the very people that have created this mess draw their own lines is wrong. It totally corrupts the process. It makes general elections virtually meaningless. And that is not good for the process.
By letting the politicians draw the lines California has become a near one-party state.
But, an independent commission that may be imperfect will be better than what we had.
I would like to let the commission do their work and let us see the finished product before we yearn for the corrupt old days.
If George Red Skelton thinks that political blackmail is a way to run things, the Left Angeles Times needs to explain that to its dwindiling readership.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Nit Wit Nancy Pelosi And Why Eleections SHOULD Matter
Good Lord! It is amazing that House minority leader Nancy Pelosi ever got to where she is. I mean, this is one of the dimmest bulbs to ever be in a leadership position in American politics.
This past weekend, Nit Wit Nancy had this bit of wisdom to share with her Republican friends:
“To my Republican friends: take back your party. So that it doesn’t matter so much who wins the election, because we have shared values about the education of our children, the growth of our economy, how we defend our country, our security and civil liberties, how we respect our seniors.”
Take back my party?!
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.?
From who?
From people that actually believe in that funny ol' document known as the constitution? From people that yes, care about education. Care tremendously about economic growth. Very much care about our national defense. Care more than she will ever know about our civil liberties. And yes, want to treat our senior citizens with dignity and respect.
The difference is how we do those things. And what the consitution, that funny ol' document allows the federal government to do.
But let me get back to Nit Wit Nancy's assertion that there should be little if any difference between the Democrat and Republican parties.
Yes, there was a time that the Republican party was so emasculated that there was little if any difference between the two parties. That was basically throughout the 1960s. Oh sure, the Democrat left made former President Richard Nixon out to be Atilla the Hun. Yet it was Mr. Nixon that wanted socialized medicine in this nation. Mr. Nixon is the one that began the process to recognize Red China over the Republic of China on Taiwan. And, Mr. Nixon also instituted a Democrat dream. Wage and price controls. To many on the left, Richard Nixon was their kind of Republican. And appearantly, also Nit Wit Nancy's kind of Republican.
Then the left wanted all the glory and forced Mr. Nixon to resign over the Watergate scandal. And they got Gerald Ford, another Republican that Democrats liked. ARTDL. And Mr. Ford was a decent man (and a brother Mason). But, he was a lot like Mr. Nixon. A mush. Again, one that did not fight the growth of the Welfare State. Who continued the policy of detente with the then Soviet Union. Yeah, you get the picture.
Then came along some guy named Ronald Reagan. That eeeeevvviiiiilllll conservative Republican that was governor of California. And he challenged not just Mr. Ford for the Republican nomination in 1976 for the White House. But the whole establishment of the Republican party at that time. Though he did not win the nomination, Mr. Reagan set the stage to fundamentally change the Republican party. He was storming the country club. He was bringing along them there Roman Catholics. Almost as bad to the CC set, those, those D E M O C R A T S. You know, they became known as Reagan Democrats. And the rest was history.
This is a Republican party that has been at its best when the differences in policy is clear from the Democrats. It is the party that is championing lower taxes. Hell, many talk about real tax reform. Wanting to return many of the usurped welfare programs back to the states. Letting people make choices regarding their children's education. This is the party that people like Nit Wit Nancy fear.
And she should.
For it is that Republican party that whipped her and her fellow-travelling Democrats right out of control of the House of Representatives. Nearly control of the United States senate. And the majority of governorships in the United States. It is this Republican party that is carrying on the Reagan tradition. And this famous speech in 1977 before the Conservative Political Action Committee laid it out for all the world to see.
But poor Nit Wit Nancy. Poor lady that when she was the Speaker of the House thought of the Republican majority as not much more than gnats. Did not include them in any process what so ever. Rammed through the most expansion of government in most of our lifetimes. And never tried to get those Republicans that may have shared the Democrat values on board.
Now she thinks our party is just too extreme. That we somehow do not care about all of the above mentioned priorites. The fact is that we do. It is that we have a different way of getting there. And that is what is driving Nit Wit Nancy nuts. Nuts enough to say such a riduculous thing as elections should not matter.
This past weekend, Nit Wit Nancy had this bit of wisdom to share with her Republican friends:
“To my Republican friends: take back your party. So that it doesn’t matter so much who wins the election, because we have shared values about the education of our children, the growth of our economy, how we defend our country, our security and civil liberties, how we respect our seniors.”
Take back my party?!
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.?
From who?
From people that actually believe in that funny ol' document known as the constitution? From people that yes, care about education. Care tremendously about economic growth. Very much care about our national defense. Care more than she will ever know about our civil liberties. And yes, want to treat our senior citizens with dignity and respect.
The difference is how we do those things. And what the consitution, that funny ol' document allows the federal government to do.
But let me get back to Nit Wit Nancy's assertion that there should be little if any difference between the Democrat and Republican parties.
Yes, there was a time that the Republican party was so emasculated that there was little if any difference between the two parties. That was basically throughout the 1960s. Oh sure, the Democrat left made former President Richard Nixon out to be Atilla the Hun. Yet it was Mr. Nixon that wanted socialized medicine in this nation. Mr. Nixon is the one that began the process to recognize Red China over the Republic of China on Taiwan. And, Mr. Nixon also instituted a Democrat dream. Wage and price controls. To many on the left, Richard Nixon was their kind of Republican. And appearantly, also Nit Wit Nancy's kind of Republican.
Then the left wanted all the glory and forced Mr. Nixon to resign over the Watergate scandal. And they got Gerald Ford, another Republican that Democrats liked. ARTDL. And Mr. Ford was a decent man (and a brother Mason). But, he was a lot like Mr. Nixon. A mush. Again, one that did not fight the growth of the Welfare State. Who continued the policy of detente with the then Soviet Union. Yeah, you get the picture.
Then came along some guy named Ronald Reagan. That eeeeevvviiiiilllll conservative Republican that was governor of California. And he challenged not just Mr. Ford for the Republican nomination in 1976 for the White House. But the whole establishment of the Republican party at that time. Though he did not win the nomination, Mr. Reagan set the stage to fundamentally change the Republican party. He was storming the country club. He was bringing along them there Roman Catholics. Almost as bad to the CC set, those, those D E M O C R A T S. You know, they became known as Reagan Democrats. And the rest was history.
This is a Republican party that has been at its best when the differences in policy is clear from the Democrats. It is the party that is championing lower taxes. Hell, many talk about real tax reform. Wanting to return many of the usurped welfare programs back to the states. Letting people make choices regarding their children's education. This is the party that people like Nit Wit Nancy fear.
And she should.
For it is that Republican party that whipped her and her fellow-travelling Democrats right out of control of the House of Representatives. Nearly control of the United States senate. And the majority of governorships in the United States. It is this Republican party that is carrying on the Reagan tradition. And this famous speech in 1977 before the Conservative Political Action Committee laid it out for all the world to see.
But poor Nit Wit Nancy. Poor lady that when she was the Speaker of the House thought of the Republican majority as not much more than gnats. Did not include them in any process what so ever. Rammed through the most expansion of government in most of our lifetimes. And never tried to get those Republicans that may have shared the Democrat values on board.
Now she thinks our party is just too extreme. That we somehow do not care about all of the above mentioned priorites. The fact is that we do. It is that we have a different way of getting there. And that is what is driving Nit Wit Nancy nuts. Nuts enough to say such a riduculous thing as elections should not matter.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
The Left Angeles Times Hit Job On Tim Donnelly Fails
Last November, in one of the few bright spots for the California Republican party, Tim Donnelly, a former member of The Minutemen movement won a seat on the California state assembly.
And the Left Angeles Times has gotten around to noticing him in the state assembly.
No question that this linked article started out being a typical hit piece. You know, the kind that make someone like Mr. Donnelly sound, well as he himself notes, like a whack job.
But I urge you to read the whole article.
Because it is one of those that end up making Mr. Donnelly to be a pretty decent guy and a good legislator.
The article starts off with the brash side of Mr. Donnelly. Talking about the war-not literal but euphemism-that is politics. And of course there is the attempt to juxtapose Mr. Donnelly's rehtoric with the recent shooting of Congressman Gabrielle Giffords.
And then it tries to make Mr. Donnelly out to be some eeeeevvviiiiilllll racist because he founded a chapter of the Minutemen border security group in California. The fact that Mrs. Donnelly is a Filapina is noted in the article. You know, kind of like the some of my best friends are Black thing. Why that should be of any importance is mind blowing. But, it is mentioned.
To close, the Times writer indicated that Mr. Donnelly had a problem.
Being a small government conservative, the writer pointed out that Mr. Donnelly has a Ford Edge and that the cost was $32,000. Note that there is a For The Record in the online article. That the $32,000 is for the total cost of the vehicle. Not annually as the article indicated.
The fact is that Mr. Donnelly has the issues that got him elected in the first place. And he is standing by his convictions. Even if that is not always the cool thing. Or the most popular. When he has to, he even works with the Democrats. Because like a broken clock is right twice a day, there are issues that can unite people of opposite ideologies. And parties.
At the end of the article, I found a lot more respect for Mr. Donnelly and the fact that he is the kind of citizen legislator that the founders had in mind.
Yet somehow, I do not think that is what the Left Angeles Times had in mind.
I wonder if people came to the conclusion that I did?
And the Left Angeles Times has gotten around to noticing him in the state assembly.
No question that this linked article started out being a typical hit piece. You know, the kind that make someone like Mr. Donnelly sound, well as he himself notes, like a whack job.
But I urge you to read the whole article.
Because it is one of those that end up making Mr. Donnelly to be a pretty decent guy and a good legislator.
The article starts off with the brash side of Mr. Donnelly. Talking about the war-not literal but euphemism-that is politics. And of course there is the attempt to juxtapose Mr. Donnelly's rehtoric with the recent shooting of Congressman Gabrielle Giffords.
And then it tries to make Mr. Donnelly out to be some eeeeevvviiiiilllll racist because he founded a chapter of the Minutemen border security group in California. The fact that Mrs. Donnelly is a Filapina is noted in the article. You know, kind of like the some of my best friends are Black thing. Why that should be of any importance is mind blowing. But, it is mentioned.
To close, the Times writer indicated that Mr. Donnelly had a problem.
Being a small government conservative, the writer pointed out that Mr. Donnelly has a Ford Edge and that the cost was $32,000. Note that there is a For The Record in the online article. That the $32,000 is for the total cost of the vehicle. Not annually as the article indicated.
The fact is that Mr. Donnelly has the issues that got him elected in the first place. And he is standing by his convictions. Even if that is not always the cool thing. Or the most popular. When he has to, he even works with the Democrats. Because like a broken clock is right twice a day, there are issues that can unite people of opposite ideologies. And parties.
At the end of the article, I found a lot more respect for Mr. Donnelly and the fact that he is the kind of citizen legislator that the founders had in mind.
Yet somehow, I do not think that is what the Left Angeles Times had in mind.
I wonder if people came to the conclusion that I did?
The Naggy State Hits Chicago School
Ooh boy!
Here is one for the books.
Little Village Academy is an elementary school on the west side of Chicago.
And the principal is one Elsa Carmona. And let me tell you folks, she knows better than you what is good for your kiddies to eat.
That is why she is not allowing her charges to bring lunch from home.
Again, the words Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. just roll off the tounge. Well, a little stronger than that.
Get this.
Principal Carmona says that the food served in the school cafeteria is nutritious and excellent quality. From the Food Nazi's mouth herself:
"Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke.
Excellent quality of food? Milk versus coke?
Firstly, I know I have not been in school for over 25 years. But I am absolutely certain that there is no way that the "quality" of the food has changed for the better. Unless Wolfgang Puck himself is the cook, no way, no how has school cafeteria food quality improved at all. In fact, according to the article, most kids did not eat their lunch at all. They just threw it away. Hey, Carmona, is that not worse than a kid eating some thing that they will enjoy from home?
Now to be fair, if a kiddie has a reason, such as food allergies, they can bring lunch home from school.
The article pointed out my first thought. That this benefits the food provider, in the case a company called Chartwells-Thompson. Get this. The feds pay the district for each free or reduced lunch provided by the school. And the food provider gets the money, no matter what, from the school. Nice little arrangement.
Most interesting is that this has been the policy at this particular school for six years now. And the general public is just finding out about this?
Judging from the article, the majority of students and parents are Hispanic. As is the principal. Is there something underlying in Miss Carmona's thinking? That because this is a Hispanic school, maybe all the kids will bring burritos and tacos? Does she not think that Hispanic parents will care enough to provide good lunches for their kids?
This smacks of the Naggy State run amok. Because this is not a uniform policy throughout Chicago Public Schools. The article points out that there is no uniform policy. That individual school Food Nazis, er principals, can set the kind of policy they want.
Does Miss Carmona not think that the kiddies in the more affluent schools in the Northside of Chitown eat crap? Does she not think that the kids eat crap outside of the school? Should she try to take kids out of their parents home that do not meet her guidelines of "right" eating?
There is no excuse for this policy. It should be abandoned and parents should take charge of what their kids eat. And the Food Nazi should take time to help parents make better choices rather than be a dicatator about food.
One more for the Naggy State books.
Here is one for the books.
Little Village Academy is an elementary school on the west side of Chicago.
And the principal is one Elsa Carmona. And let me tell you folks, she knows better than you what is good for your kiddies to eat.
That is why she is not allowing her charges to bring lunch from home.
Again, the words Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. just roll off the tounge. Well, a little stronger than that.
Get this.
Principal Carmona says that the food served in the school cafeteria is nutritious and excellent quality. From the Food Nazi's mouth herself:
"Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke.
Excellent quality of food? Milk versus coke?
Firstly, I know I have not been in school for over 25 years. But I am absolutely certain that there is no way that the "quality" of the food has changed for the better. Unless Wolfgang Puck himself is the cook, no way, no how has school cafeteria food quality improved at all. In fact, according to the article, most kids did not eat their lunch at all. They just threw it away. Hey, Carmona, is that not worse than a kid eating some thing that they will enjoy from home?
Now to be fair, if a kiddie has a reason, such as food allergies, they can bring lunch home from school.
The article pointed out my first thought. That this benefits the food provider, in the case a company called Chartwells-Thompson. Get this. The feds pay the district for each free or reduced lunch provided by the school. And the food provider gets the money, no matter what, from the school. Nice little arrangement.
Most interesting is that this has been the policy at this particular school for six years now. And the general public is just finding out about this?
Judging from the article, the majority of students and parents are Hispanic. As is the principal. Is there something underlying in Miss Carmona's thinking? That because this is a Hispanic school, maybe all the kids will bring burritos and tacos? Does she not think that Hispanic parents will care enough to provide good lunches for their kids?
This smacks of the Naggy State run amok. Because this is not a uniform policy throughout Chicago Public Schools. The article points out that there is no uniform policy. That individual school Food Nazis, er principals, can set the kind of policy they want.
Does Miss Carmona not think that the kiddies in the more affluent schools in the Northside of Chitown eat crap? Does she not think that the kids eat crap outside of the school? Should she try to take kids out of their parents home that do not meet her guidelines of "right" eating?
There is no excuse for this policy. It should be abandoned and parents should take charge of what their kids eat. And the Food Nazi should take time to help parents make better choices rather than be a dicatator about food.
One more for the Naggy State books.
Leading For The GOP Presidential Nomination. . .Donald Trump?!
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
Being a family blog, I can not use stronger language over the fact that, according to this poll, Donald Trump is tied for the lead for the Republican nomination for president.
Just as bad is who Mr. Trump is tied with.
That would be the former Arkansas governor, the Rev. Mike Huckabee.
The disturbing aspect of this poll is that fact that two of the more serious candidates, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty have lost ground.
The poll was of 824 adults and 385 Republicans and completed over this past weekend.
So, the trend is great for Mr. Trump and the Rev. Mike. Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor, is holding steady. Losing ground is Mr. Romney and the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
I just do not get it. Really, I don't get it.
I mean, there are a lot of serious people wanting to run for president. I just do not see Mr. Trump as a serious candidate. I mean, he is riding on the ridiculous issue of whether or not the Dear Leader, President Obama, was born in the United States. Really, is that what Republican voters care about? I do not think so. Now, he is talking about the role of the United States in the world and how we are not exactly loved and respected. You know, all that the Dear Leader, President Obama promised if we just elected him president.
My thought is that people believe that he is a straight shooter. And at some level, that is true. But I just do not see him as focused enough. I have not heard anything on how he would handle the federal budget deficit. Does Mr. Trump support the Paul Ryan budget plan? If not, what would he do differently?
See, name is not the only thing.
What Mr. Trump believes and how that separates him from the rest of the pack is what matters.
And, for those that find Mrs. Palin to not be someone to take seriously, how can anyone take Mr. Trump seriously?
In a way, I think he has the potential to be our version of the Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi. Now, if one thinks that the United States is on the decline, would having a President Trump not be a sign that the decline is real?
Please my fellow Republicans, take a deep breath and realize that while Mr. Trump may sound good, he is way beyond a flawed person that can not really be the president of the United States. Do not continue enabling this potential train to destruction.
Being a family blog, I can not use stronger language over the fact that, according to this poll, Donald Trump is tied for the lead for the Republican nomination for president.
Just as bad is who Mr. Trump is tied with.
That would be the former Arkansas governor, the Rev. Mike Huckabee.
The disturbing aspect of this poll is that fact that two of the more serious candidates, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty have lost ground.
The poll was of 824 adults and 385 Republicans and completed over this past weekend.
So, the trend is great for Mr. Trump and the Rev. Mike. Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor, is holding steady. Losing ground is Mr. Romney and the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
I just do not get it. Really, I don't get it.
I mean, there are a lot of serious people wanting to run for president. I just do not see Mr. Trump as a serious candidate. I mean, he is riding on the ridiculous issue of whether or not the Dear Leader, President Obama, was born in the United States. Really, is that what Republican voters care about? I do not think so. Now, he is talking about the role of the United States in the world and how we are not exactly loved and respected. You know, all that the Dear Leader, President Obama promised if we just elected him president.
My thought is that people believe that he is a straight shooter. And at some level, that is true. But I just do not see him as focused enough. I have not heard anything on how he would handle the federal budget deficit. Does Mr. Trump support the Paul Ryan budget plan? If not, what would he do differently?
See, name is not the only thing.
What Mr. Trump believes and how that separates him from the rest of the pack is what matters.
And, for those that find Mrs. Palin to not be someone to take seriously, how can anyone take Mr. Trump seriously?
In a way, I think he has the potential to be our version of the Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi. Now, if one thinks that the United States is on the decline, would having a President Trump not be a sign that the decline is real?
Please my fellow Republicans, take a deep breath and realize that while Mr. Trump may sound good, he is way beyond a flawed person that can not really be the president of the United States. Do not continue enabling this potential train to destruction.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Mitt Is In The '12 Race For The White House
Mitt Romney has made it official and is setting up the exploratory committtee to seek the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2012.
In a two minute and 30 second announcement at the link above, Mr. Romney in a understated manner lays out why he wants to be president. It is entirely devoted to the economy, nothing about foreign policy at all.
I think that Mr. Romney is going to talk a lot about the economy in the coming weeks and months. And that will put Team Obama on a constant defensive.
Not that Mitt does not have his own problems.
After all, he institued a form of Obamacare as governor of Massachussetts. He will have to continue to appeal to social conservatives and the growing Tea Party movement within the Republican party. And he will have to have an unbelievable passion for wanting to be president.
Mitt will have to overcome a party that wants someone who will fight the Dear Leader, President Obama, all the way to November, 2012. He will have to light a fire that he failed to do last time.
And, Mitt will have to fend off people that have already done that such as former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and Congressman Michelle Bachmann.
It is a lofty task ahead for Mitt Romney, but he may be the right man at the right moment in American history.
In a two minute and 30 second announcement at the link above, Mr. Romney in a understated manner lays out why he wants to be president. It is entirely devoted to the economy, nothing about foreign policy at all.
I think that Mr. Romney is going to talk a lot about the economy in the coming weeks and months. And that will put Team Obama on a constant defensive.
Not that Mitt does not have his own problems.
After all, he institued a form of Obamacare as governor of Massachussetts. He will have to continue to appeal to social conservatives and the growing Tea Party movement within the Republican party. And he will have to have an unbelievable passion for wanting to be president.
Mitt will have to overcome a party that wants someone who will fight the Dear Leader, President Obama, all the way to November, 2012. He will have to light a fire that he failed to do last time.
And, Mitt will have to fend off people that have already done that such as former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and Congressman Michelle Bachmann.
It is a lofty task ahead for Mitt Romney, but he may be the right man at the right moment in American history.
So, Who Really Won The D C Budget Battle?
Ok, I really had to mull this over the weekend. Because my immediate thought was that we should close the federal government down until the other side, the Democrats, agreed to at least $61,000,000,000 in budget cuts.
But then I did some thinking about the whole thing.
Speaker of the House, John Bohener (R-Ohio), did get the Democrats from zero-0-budget cuts to the neighborhood of $40,000,000,000. Not bad. Not the $61,000,000,000 that I would have liked to see. But some progress.
Then another thought came to mind.
The fact is that the Republicans are, once again, cleaning a mess of the Democrats making.
After all, this is all about the 2010 fiscal year budget. A budget that fell under the auspicies of the previous, 111th congress. And what party controlled both houses of congress. Wait, I've got it! The D E M O C R A T S! And why was there not a budget passed in the first place?
Well the reason the Dems did not want to pass a budget. They spent every bit of their capital passing the dreaded Obamacare so called health care "reform". Because they spent little if any time on any cuts in the federal budget, and it got closer to the mid-term election, they realized that passing a budget would be a loser. A loser of more seats, especially in the house. So, they just let it sit there like a turd. And still lost 63 seats in the House of Representatives.
Now comes the Republicans and they won on the basis that they would actually cut the fat of the federal budget. And this is the starting point.
Again, please note that we got the Dems to go from nothing to nearly $40,000,000,000 in cuts. It is part of the point that Ed Morrissey makes over at Hot Air. And Ed makes this very important point:
One last point along these lines. Democrats have spent the last four months arguing that Republicans were too radical to govern and wanted to destroy government. Instead, Republicans fashioned a deal on their own terms and passed a budget deal — something Democrats couldn’t or wouldn’t do when they had all the power in DC. This gives the GOP a lot of credibility on leadership and governance, and all of it at the expense of Harry Reid and Barack Obama.
It may be a bit o' nuance, but it is true. The threat of a government shutdown in the end made the Dems blink.
So, some believe that a shutdown would be OK.
I am there. I think that while the shutdown hung over the head of both parties, the narrative was that it would hurt the Republicans just as it did in 1995 when Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton were duking it out over the federal budget.
But today is a different time.
While Newt and the GOP took it in the chin, there are ways to blunt that today that were not available in 1995.
Today there is the internets. There is conservative talk radio. There is Facebook. There is twitter. There is Fox News Channel. In other words, a way to smackback at the leftywhore media. Sure, we saw all the stories of doom had the government shut down. But there were those of us trying to explain why it may have been nessecary.
But, it did not happen. And that is a feather in the hat of the Republicans.
So, let me take you around the conservative media to give you some of the reaction to the deal.
For those that see the forest through the trees, W. James Antle over at The American Spectator makes the point that it is a long term war, not a short term victory that this is all about.
Andrew Stiles at National Review says that this is a win for Speaker Boehner. Not that it comes without perils, but a victory none the less.
Jim Geragthy at the Campaign Spot puts it this way:
So if the GOP stands its ground, the government shuts down, and they lose the messaging war . . . then what? What do Republicans do if two weeks into a shutdown, they've lost all the independents and they're limping along with only 30 percent of the public backing them? Keep in mind, no matter how the 2011 budget fight ends, there are two more major spending fights coming up, in the decision to raise or not raise the debt ceiling, as well as the 2012 budget. What happens if the Republicans are politically crushed before those fights begin?
There are some budget hawks who seem extremely confident that the public will stay on their side; I suppose others would say that congressional Republicans should have held out for the full $100 billion in cuts even if they had approval ratings of 10 percent. But at the end of the day, you don't have the votes to get what you want, and the government has to reopen sometime (remember, as of midnight on Friday, our
men and women in uniform would be serving without pay until the shutdown ended).
I'm not saying I wouldn't have liked to have seen steeper cuts. I'm just not seeing a viable strategy to get there with the GOP's current limited leverage. If anybody has one, I'm all ears.
Which is in reality the fundamental problem.
But, that does not stop some very valid critism of this deal.
Andy McCarthy at National Review pretty much makes the case here, here. Yes, it is a fight in The Corner, but Mr. McCarthy makes some very salient points, especially on the constitutional issues.
Mark Levin is livid that a deal was cut. Check out some of his Facebook posts.
The Other McCain makes a good point. That a lot of people in the Republican grass roots are not going to see this as much of a win.
So, my take.
It is the Republicans mopping up the Dem mess. In the grand scheme of things, this is a down payment on the proposals of Congressman Paul Ryan to finally reign in the grotseque spending of the federal government.
We need to claim victory and set the stage for Congressman Ryan and the Republican party to get this spending and government under control.
This is a battle in a long term war and I think that this is a tactical win for the Republicans.
But then I did some thinking about the whole thing.
Speaker of the House, John Bohener (R-Ohio), did get the Democrats from zero-0-budget cuts to the neighborhood of $40,000,000,000. Not bad. Not the $61,000,000,000 that I would have liked to see. But some progress.
Then another thought came to mind.
The fact is that the Republicans are, once again, cleaning a mess of the Democrats making.
After all, this is all about the 2010 fiscal year budget. A budget that fell under the auspicies of the previous, 111th congress. And what party controlled both houses of congress. Wait, I've got it! The D E M O C R A T S! And why was there not a budget passed in the first place?
Well the reason the Dems did not want to pass a budget. They spent every bit of their capital passing the dreaded Obamacare so called health care "reform". Because they spent little if any time on any cuts in the federal budget, and it got closer to the mid-term election, they realized that passing a budget would be a loser. A loser of more seats, especially in the house. So, they just let it sit there like a turd. And still lost 63 seats in the House of Representatives.
Now comes the Republicans and they won on the basis that they would actually cut the fat of the federal budget. And this is the starting point.
Again, please note that we got the Dems to go from nothing to nearly $40,000,000,000 in cuts. It is part of the point that Ed Morrissey makes over at Hot Air. And Ed makes this very important point:
One last point along these lines. Democrats have spent the last four months arguing that Republicans were too radical to govern and wanted to destroy government. Instead, Republicans fashioned a deal on their own terms and passed a budget deal — something Democrats couldn’t or wouldn’t do when they had all the power in DC. This gives the GOP a lot of credibility on leadership and governance, and all of it at the expense of Harry Reid and Barack Obama.
It may be a bit o' nuance, but it is true. The threat of a government shutdown in the end made the Dems blink.
So, some believe that a shutdown would be OK.
I am there. I think that while the shutdown hung over the head of both parties, the narrative was that it would hurt the Republicans just as it did in 1995 when Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton were duking it out over the federal budget.
But today is a different time.
While Newt and the GOP took it in the chin, there are ways to blunt that today that were not available in 1995.
Today there is the internets. There is conservative talk radio. There is Facebook. There is twitter. There is Fox News Channel. In other words, a way to smackback at the leftywhore media. Sure, we saw all the stories of doom had the government shut down. But there were those of us trying to explain why it may have been nessecary.
But, it did not happen. And that is a feather in the hat of the Republicans.
So, let me take you around the conservative media to give you some of the reaction to the deal.
For those that see the forest through the trees, W. James Antle over at The American Spectator makes the point that it is a long term war, not a short term victory that this is all about.
Andrew Stiles at National Review says that this is a win for Speaker Boehner. Not that it comes without perils, but a victory none the less.
Jim Geragthy at the Campaign Spot puts it this way:
So if the GOP stands its ground, the government shuts down, and they lose the messaging war . . . then what? What do Republicans do if two weeks into a shutdown, they've lost all the independents and they're limping along with only 30 percent of the public backing them? Keep in mind, no matter how the 2011 budget fight ends, there are two more major spending fights coming up, in the decision to raise or not raise the debt ceiling, as well as the 2012 budget. What happens if the Republicans are politically crushed before those fights begin?
There are some budget hawks who seem extremely confident that the public will stay on their side; I suppose others would say that congressional Republicans should have held out for the full $100 billion in cuts even if they had approval ratings of 10 percent. But at the end of the day, you don't have the votes to get what you want, and the government has to reopen sometime (remember, as of midnight on Friday, our
men and women in uniform would be serving without pay until the shutdown ended).
I'm not saying I wouldn't have liked to have seen steeper cuts. I'm just not seeing a viable strategy to get there with the GOP's current limited leverage. If anybody has one, I'm all ears.
Which is in reality the fundamental problem.
But, that does not stop some very valid critism of this deal.
Andy McCarthy at National Review pretty much makes the case here, here. Yes, it is a fight in The Corner, but Mr. McCarthy makes some very salient points, especially on the constitutional issues.
Mark Levin is livid that a deal was cut. Check out some of his Facebook posts.
The Other McCain makes a good point. That a lot of people in the Republican grass roots are not going to see this as much of a win.
So, my take.
It is the Republicans mopping up the Dem mess. In the grand scheme of things, this is a down payment on the proposals of Congressman Paul Ryan to finally reign in the grotseque spending of the federal government.
We need to claim victory and set the stage for Congressman Ryan and the Republican party to get this spending and government under control.
This is a battle in a long term war and I think that this is a tactical win for the Republicans.
Friday, April 08, 2011
Vaughn Walker Admits He's Gay
The former federal judge, Vaughn Walker, who presided over the federal case regarding California Prop 8 and same-sex marriage let the cat out of the bag.
Mr. Walker is G A Y.Not that there is anything wrong with that. It had been one of those open secrets that until now never confirmed or denied by Mr. Walker.
But is there something wrong with it? That Mr. Walker, as a gay man that can not marry legally in the state of California presided over a trial that could determine that possibility?
One of the arguements that those filing on appeal are making is that Mr. Walker bent over backwards for the proponents of same-sex marriage and was tough on the opponenents during the trial.
That is for an appeals court to decide.
But I do believe that Mr. Walker needed to recuse himself because he was not just an arbitor of law. He was an interested party. By not having a jury trial, he was going to make the decision as to the validity of Prop 8. Again, if he believes that same-sex marriage is a right protected by the United States constitution, that is fine. But it is not his role to be the final say on the matter.
And he did try to do that in his ruling. He used brilliant legalese to make it very hard for further courts to over rule his decision.
Thus as a really interested party, he needed to recuse himself.
This could be an important decision that will overturn the stated will of the majority of Californian who voted on how the state recognizes marriage.
And that should not have been made by one that could indeed benefit from it.
Mr. Walker is G A Y.Not that there is anything wrong with that. It had been one of those open secrets that until now never confirmed or denied by Mr. Walker.
But is there something wrong with it? That Mr. Walker, as a gay man that can not marry legally in the state of California presided over a trial that could determine that possibility?
One of the arguements that those filing on appeal are making is that Mr. Walker bent over backwards for the proponents of same-sex marriage and was tough on the opponenents during the trial.
That is for an appeals court to decide.
But I do believe that Mr. Walker needed to recuse himself because he was not just an arbitor of law. He was an interested party. By not having a jury trial, he was going to make the decision as to the validity of Prop 8. Again, if he believes that same-sex marriage is a right protected by the United States constitution, that is fine. But it is not his role to be the final say on the matter.
And he did try to do that in his ruling. He used brilliant legalese to make it very hard for further courts to over rule his decision.
Thus as a really interested party, he needed to recuse himself.
This could be an important decision that will overturn the stated will of the majority of Californian who voted on how the state recognizes marriage.
And that should not have been made by one that could indeed benefit from it.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
See-Saw Continues In Wisconsin Supreme Court Race
Yesterday, it appeared that the left in Wisconsin was having their orgasm over the declared victory of JoAnne Kloppenburg over incumbent Justice David Prosser in the Wisconsin supreme court race.
What a difference a day makes!
It appears that Justice Prosser is moving back into the lead as a Republican leaning county has adjusted its vote totals.
Waukesha county is adjusting its votes giving Justice Prosser 11,000 votes and Mrs. Kloppenburg 3,000.
That appears to be putting Justice Prosser back in the lead.
Although these numbers still show Mrs. Kloppenburg with the 204 lead, it has not been updated to reflect these new numbers.
Overall Justice Prosser has made gains in the canvass being done by the Wisconsin county election boards. Justice Prosser has gained in Winnebago county as well as Kenosha county.
Yeah, all this seems pretty arcane and out there, but this election is one that the public employee unions, the professional left and even the Obama administration was putting all the marbles in. A loss here will be a huge setback for their agenda.
If they were to get Mrs. Kloppenburg on the court, it is expected that she would be a certain vote to end the reform of public employee unions in Wisconsin.
That is why a lot of places not many outside Wisconsin have heard of are becoming so important.
And keeping this race a see-saw battle.
What a difference a day makes!
It appears that Justice Prosser is moving back into the lead as a Republican leaning county has adjusted its vote totals.
Waukesha county is adjusting its votes giving Justice Prosser 11,000 votes and Mrs. Kloppenburg 3,000.
That appears to be putting Justice Prosser back in the lead.
Although these numbers still show Mrs. Kloppenburg with the 204 lead, it has not been updated to reflect these new numbers.
Overall Justice Prosser has made gains in the canvass being done by the Wisconsin county election boards. Justice Prosser has gained in Winnebago county as well as Kenosha county.
Yeah, all this seems pretty arcane and out there, but this election is one that the public employee unions, the professional left and even the Obama administration was putting all the marbles in. A loss here will be a huge setback for their agenda.
If they were to get Mrs. Kloppenburg on the court, it is expected that she would be a certain vote to end the reform of public employee unions in Wisconsin.
That is why a lot of places not many outside Wisconsin have heard of are becoming so important.
And keeping this race a see-saw battle.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Emabarassing To Be A Dodger Fan On This Incident
As many of you know, I am a fanatical Los Angeles Dodgers fan. Have been since a little kid back in the 1970s.
Two prerequistes to being a Dodger fan.
One, you must HATE, visceral hate, the New York Yankees. It goes back to the days of the Brooklyn Dodgers and the proclivity for the dreaded Yankees to embarass the Dodgers every October in the World Series. The only Brooklyn win over the hated Yankees was in 1955.
Two, see the above and replace the team with the New York/San Francisco Giants. Again, one must have visceral hate for the Gnats.
But, when two so-called Dodger "fans" took their anger out on a Gnats fan last week at Dodger Stadium, well certain things changed. And worse of all is that the fan, Brian Stow, now has brain damage.
There is a lot to gleam off of this story and none of it good.
In recent years, the once family-friendly ball park has had to have armed Los Angeles police walking around the ballpark to keep things in line. When I went to Dodger games in the 1970s and 80s and even the 90s, one rarely saw the black uniform of the L. A. police. Because the ushers had everything under control usually.
Some are blaming this on the current Dodger owner, Frank McCourt. I do not think that it is all his fault.
An observation from my pal An Unmarried Man is spot on.
Only recently I’ve noticed with dismay that the Dodger organization and franchise seem to have inadvertently found themselves drawing the “skinhead” crowd. You know, those mini-gangster Hispanic mafioso urban guys with shaved heads, sagging jeans, white sneakers and Dodger jerseys and caps. This demographic seemed to have fulfilled the void left by the departed Los Angeles Raiders and company.
Ahh yes, the once Los Angeles Raiders. They have had a lovely rep in the sports world. The "fans" of the Raiders are, how can I write this nicely. . .goons and savages. They thrive on being some of the worst that sports has to offer. It is as if at an American football game, soccer hooligans invaded. And the rep is mostly deserved.
I survived my one and only Raider game in the Los Angeles coliseum back in 1994. That is when the Raiders were playing the mighty Cleveland Browns. The Browns mopped the floor with the Raiders. I was decked out in Browns regalia. I did not get beaten up or anything like that. Maybe that was because by then it was pretty clear that the Raiders were heading back to Oakland, their original home.
Back to An Unmarried Man's point.
The quality of Dodger "fans" is now the lowest common denominator.
I have been to at least three to four games a season. And one aspect I notice about the goon fans is that they are no longer relagated to the cheap seats. No, not at all.
They are somehow buying the good seats. And acting like buffoons for all to see.
Now I do not know if all these "fans" are juiced-up on adult beverages and or worse. But they just seem to be looking for trouble.
Another important point is that the Leftywhore media did not want to identify the two suspects as Hispanic until they absolutely had to. And of course it was kind of nessecary once the police released skecthes of the suspects. What a shock! Two Hispanics that had shaved heads. But hey, we do not want to indict the whole Hispanic community, right?
Sometimes it is nessecary. I am not suggesting that all trouble makers are Hispanic skinheads. But a lousy "fan" is a lousy "fan". And if pointing out that these goons are Hispanic, so be it.
I know that some are going to say what about the way Gnat's fans treat Dodger fans up in AT & T Park?
If there are fans beaten by others, it is bad no matter what.
One thing to shout at the players. Another to smack other people around.
I am a player shouter. As I have gotten older and realize that there are kiddies around, I have to try to be creative in insulting players on the other team. A stream of profanities is not good. But there is nothing wrong with showing displeaseure at the other team. But remember, it is a game after all.
Too bad these two goons did not realize it.
I hate to admit that I am embaressed being a Dodger fan. But I would never beat someone just because they are for the other team. It is called savagery.
Two prerequistes to being a Dodger fan.
One, you must HATE, visceral hate, the New York Yankees. It goes back to the days of the Brooklyn Dodgers and the proclivity for the dreaded Yankees to embarass the Dodgers every October in the World Series. The only Brooklyn win over the hated Yankees was in 1955.
Two, see the above and replace the team with the New York/San Francisco Giants. Again, one must have visceral hate for the Gnats.
But, when two so-called Dodger "fans" took their anger out on a Gnats fan last week at Dodger Stadium, well certain things changed. And worse of all is that the fan, Brian Stow, now has brain damage.
There is a lot to gleam off of this story and none of it good.
In recent years, the once family-friendly ball park has had to have armed Los Angeles police walking around the ballpark to keep things in line. When I went to Dodger games in the 1970s and 80s and even the 90s, one rarely saw the black uniform of the L. A. police. Because the ushers had everything under control usually.
Some are blaming this on the current Dodger owner, Frank McCourt. I do not think that it is all his fault.
An observation from my pal An Unmarried Man is spot on.
Only recently I’ve noticed with dismay that the Dodger organization and franchise seem to have inadvertently found themselves drawing the “skinhead” crowd. You know, those mini-gangster Hispanic mafioso urban guys with shaved heads, sagging jeans, white sneakers and Dodger jerseys and caps. This demographic seemed to have fulfilled the void left by the departed Los Angeles Raiders and company.
Ahh yes, the once Los Angeles Raiders. They have had a lovely rep in the sports world. The "fans" of the Raiders are, how can I write this nicely. . .goons and savages. They thrive on being some of the worst that sports has to offer. It is as if at an American football game, soccer hooligans invaded. And the rep is mostly deserved.
I survived my one and only Raider game in the Los Angeles coliseum back in 1994. That is when the Raiders were playing the mighty Cleveland Browns. The Browns mopped the floor with the Raiders. I was decked out in Browns regalia. I did not get beaten up or anything like that. Maybe that was because by then it was pretty clear that the Raiders were heading back to Oakland, their original home.
Back to An Unmarried Man's point.
The quality of Dodger "fans" is now the lowest common denominator.
I have been to at least three to four games a season. And one aspect I notice about the goon fans is that they are no longer relagated to the cheap seats. No, not at all.
They are somehow buying the good seats. And acting like buffoons for all to see.
Now I do not know if all these "fans" are juiced-up on adult beverages and or worse. But they just seem to be looking for trouble.
Another important point is that the Leftywhore media did not want to identify the two suspects as Hispanic until they absolutely had to. And of course it was kind of nessecary once the police released skecthes of the suspects. What a shock! Two Hispanics that had shaved heads. But hey, we do not want to indict the whole Hispanic community, right?
Sometimes it is nessecary. I am not suggesting that all trouble makers are Hispanic skinheads. But a lousy "fan" is a lousy "fan". And if pointing out that these goons are Hispanic, so be it.
I know that some are going to say what about the way Gnat's fans treat Dodger fans up in AT & T Park?
If there are fans beaten by others, it is bad no matter what.
One thing to shout at the players. Another to smack other people around.
I am a player shouter. As I have gotten older and realize that there are kiddies around, I have to try to be creative in insulting players on the other team. A stream of profanities is not good. But there is nothing wrong with showing displeaseure at the other team. But remember, it is a game after all.
Too bad these two goons did not realize it.
I hate to admit that I am embaressed being a Dodger fan. But I would never beat someone just because they are for the other team. It is called savagery.
The Naggy State In Pasadena In Full Gear
Ahh, my hometown, Pasadena. I am sooooo glad that they are looking out for poor, little ol' me. I mean, the big, bad cigarette smokers need to be stopped. By any means nessecary.
And that, my friends, is what the Pasadena city council is doing by authorizing the city attorney to write up an ordanince to ban smoking in apartments, condos and townhomes. Yeah, can you believe that? A legal product is now being further put into black market territory. Because you know, it is that darned second-hand smoke that just offends people. And, according to some in the scientific community it causes cancer. You know. The second hand smoke.
Some disclosure.
My father died from lung cancer. Smoked non-filtered Chesterfield ciggies for 40 years. Two-packs a day sometimes. I may, or may not have the effects of second hand smoke. However, my father, God rest his soul, has been off to the Glory for 25 years. Hmm. Amazing that long. Anyhow, yes it is safe to say that ciggies probably killed my father.
I myself on occasion like to smoke a cigar. Maybe three to four times a year. I do not consider myself a smoker in the least.
Having that out of the way, there is so much of this proposed ordinance that just rankles me.
First it is the clear class distinction that this ordinance will have. It will affect mostly lower class people. After all, apartment dwellers are not usually the eeeeeviiiiillllll rich people that are in apartments. And those that rent a condo and or a townhome. But that is the point methinks. It is to bring to poor slobs along.
Second, if you are a stoner, your cool. You can keep lighting up. Sure, just go to that doc who will say you need the ganga for "medicinal" purposes and spark it up, dude. Because the cops can't do anything to you. Just make sure it is the whacky tabacky, not a Marlboro. Hey, dudes. Last I checked, unless you have a prescription for it, marijuana is I L L E G A L. You know, really against the law.
Thridly, it is just the we-know-better approach than you.
Read this from the Pasadena Public Health Department director, Eric Walsh:
"We have a responsibility to protect people. The council has a decision to make, do you lead in the safety of your residents or do you follow?"
Well, Mr. Walsh, there are other things that could help protect the safety of us yokels from ourselves. Hey, how about banning alcohol sales within city limits? Close down the bars? No more wine for the elites? Martinis for the snobs? Come on Mr. Walsh. Alcohol causes more death and or long-term effects than smoking ciggies. There are a lot of things that people can and should do for themselves and fellow citizens. But is that not what we can do ourselves? I guess not.
Here is a real dim bulb, the former mayor of Calabasas, Barry Groveman. Under his watch, Calabasas became the first Cali city to enact such an encroachment on rights. Oops! My bad! According to Mr. Groveman, there is no right to light up:
"There isn't a right to smoke. There is a right to be safe."
Hmm. I missed both items in the United States constitution. And the California constitution. In a way, Mr. Groveman is correct. There is nothing specific that gives people the "right" to smoke. Except that it is a legal to smoke ciggies. And cigars. And a pipe. And while we are on the right to be safe, is this something that law enforcement should be doing to make people safe? How would it be if a copper is called to an apartment to harrass a smoker. While right down the street a burgler gets caught by homeowners robbing their home. And they are tied up and killed. While the copper up the road is keeping non-smokers safe from smokers. And if there is no right to smoke, just ban tobacco products?
Julie Selders, a Pasadena resident that spoke against the ordinance said this:
"I think it's an invasion of individual liberty. I live in a condo. I own that property."
Hello?! Miss Selders owns a condo. And yet if she is a smoker (and there is no indication one way or the other), she can not light up in the condo that she owns.
And Coldwell Banker real estate agent Marge Mellody said this:
"If it's so traumatic than shouldn't we take children away from every parent that smokes. I think (the ordinance) is too intrusive."
Spot on Marge, spot on! It is too intrusive. It is an assault on the freedom of people, adults, to make decisions affecting their lives.
But let me bring back Mr. Groveman to kind of sort of point out the idiocy of the ordinance:
"We didn't talk about enforcement," Groveman said about the ordinance in Calabassas. "People want to comply."
Then why in the hell do we need this legislation if people WANT to do it?! If the people that live in an apartment, condo or townhome want to have a ban on smoking, including marijuana, let them work it out among themselves. There is no need for the city govenment to force this issue.
But you see, at the end it is all about control. The city of Pasadena wants to control an icky habit that some people have. There is an assumption that only lower-class people are smokers. And smoke those icky cigarettes. Notice that this ordinance does not affect home owners and or home rentals. This is but another example of do-gooders run amok. Well meaning people that believe they are doing the right thing. But there is something greater at stake. It is the ability of people in a free country to make free decisions. When that collides, we must as a society, err on the side of freedom. If we do not, at some point the government will simply take away more freedom in the name of public safety.
And that, my friends, is what the Pasadena city council is doing by authorizing the city attorney to write up an ordanince to ban smoking in apartments, condos and townhomes. Yeah, can you believe that? A legal product is now being further put into black market territory. Because you know, it is that darned second-hand smoke that just offends people. And, according to some in the scientific community it causes cancer. You know. The second hand smoke.
Some disclosure.
My father died from lung cancer. Smoked non-filtered Chesterfield ciggies for 40 years. Two-packs a day sometimes. I may, or may not have the effects of second hand smoke. However, my father, God rest his soul, has been off to the Glory for 25 years. Hmm. Amazing that long. Anyhow, yes it is safe to say that ciggies probably killed my father.
I myself on occasion like to smoke a cigar. Maybe three to four times a year. I do not consider myself a smoker in the least.
Having that out of the way, there is so much of this proposed ordinance that just rankles me.
First it is the clear class distinction that this ordinance will have. It will affect mostly lower class people. After all, apartment dwellers are not usually the eeeeeviiiiillllll rich people that are in apartments. And those that rent a condo and or a townhome. But that is the point methinks. It is to bring to poor slobs along.
Second, if you are a stoner, your cool. You can keep lighting up. Sure, just go to that doc who will say you need the ganga for "medicinal" purposes and spark it up, dude. Because the cops can't do anything to you. Just make sure it is the whacky tabacky, not a Marlboro. Hey, dudes. Last I checked, unless you have a prescription for it, marijuana is I L L E G A L. You know, really against the law.
Thridly, it is just the we-know-better approach than you.
Read this from the Pasadena Public Health Department director, Eric Walsh:
"We have a responsibility to protect people. The council has a decision to make, do you lead in the safety of your residents or do you follow?"
Well, Mr. Walsh, there are other things that could help protect the safety of us yokels from ourselves. Hey, how about banning alcohol sales within city limits? Close down the bars? No more wine for the elites? Martinis for the snobs? Come on Mr. Walsh. Alcohol causes more death and or long-term effects than smoking ciggies. There are a lot of things that people can and should do for themselves and fellow citizens. But is that not what we can do ourselves? I guess not.
Here is a real dim bulb, the former mayor of Calabasas, Barry Groveman. Under his watch, Calabasas became the first Cali city to enact such an encroachment on rights. Oops! My bad! According to Mr. Groveman, there is no right to light up:
"There isn't a right to smoke. There is a right to be safe."
Hmm. I missed both items in the United States constitution. And the California constitution. In a way, Mr. Groveman is correct. There is nothing specific that gives people the "right" to smoke. Except that it is a legal to smoke ciggies. And cigars. And a pipe. And while we are on the right to be safe, is this something that law enforcement should be doing to make people safe? How would it be if a copper is called to an apartment to harrass a smoker. While right down the street a burgler gets caught by homeowners robbing their home. And they are tied up and killed. While the copper up the road is keeping non-smokers safe from smokers. And if there is no right to smoke, just ban tobacco products?
Julie Selders, a Pasadena resident that spoke against the ordinance said this:
"I think it's an invasion of individual liberty. I live in a condo. I own that property."
Hello?! Miss Selders owns a condo. And yet if she is a smoker (and there is no indication one way or the other), she can not light up in the condo that she owns.
And Coldwell Banker real estate agent Marge Mellody said this:
"If it's so traumatic than shouldn't we take children away from every parent that smokes. I think (the ordinance) is too intrusive."
Spot on Marge, spot on! It is too intrusive. It is an assault on the freedom of people, adults, to make decisions affecting their lives.
But let me bring back Mr. Groveman to kind of sort of point out the idiocy of the ordinance:
"We didn't talk about enforcement," Groveman said about the ordinance in Calabassas. "People want to comply."
Then why in the hell do we need this legislation if people WANT to do it?! If the people that live in an apartment, condo or townhome want to have a ban on smoking, including marijuana, let them work it out among themselves. There is no need for the city govenment to force this issue.
But you see, at the end it is all about control. The city of Pasadena wants to control an icky habit that some people have. There is an assumption that only lower-class people are smokers. And smoke those icky cigarettes. Notice that this ordinance does not affect home owners and or home rentals. This is but another example of do-gooders run amok. Well meaning people that believe they are doing the right thing. But there is something greater at stake. It is the ability of people in a free country to make free decisions. When that collides, we must as a society, err on the side of freedom. If we do not, at some point the government will simply take away more freedom in the name of public safety.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Race WAY Too Close To Call
The race for the Wisconsin state supreme court seat currently held by Justice David Prosser is way too close to call as of this posting. The opponent, JoAnne Kloppenburg, has taken a razor-thin lead over Justice Prosser. Mrs. Kloppenburg now has a 224 vote lead. And it appears that, surprise, votes are coming in from the left-leaning counties of Dane and Milwaukee. Whoever wins, the real losers are the labor unions that thought they could overwhelm Justice Prosser and "send a message" to Gov. Scott Walker. Think about it. The state public employee unions got everyone in a tizzy and stomped on the capital, Madison, to protest the passage of the law that reforms the very unions. And yet they and their allies will have to steal this election. It will be the only way to get Mrs. Kloppenburg on the court. Thanks to The Other McCain's analysis, it made me realize how underwhelming the public employee unions and their allies performed in this election. And that even if Mrs. Kloppenburg "wins" the election, it will be a tainted victory. If she had won by say 55%, then the case could be in favor of the public employee unions. But the fact that this will be stolen pretty much sums up how the unions and their allies operate. By fraud. I hope that Justice Prosser pulls this off and he retains his seat. If he does, it will be a victory for the rule of law. If not, it will be a victory for voter and labor union fraud. Funny how that goes hand in hand.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Wisconsin, Do The Right Thing
NEW UPDATE: With 97% of precincts reporting statewide, Justice Prosser has pulled ahead after trailing most of the evening. Here is the latest count: David Prosser: 703,675 50% JoAnne Kloppenburg: 701,760 50% Makes this race tighter than a Janitor In A Drum. Expect a lot of hollering on the left if this trend continues. It will be a victory for the rule of law and an independent judiciary. UPDATED AND BUMPED: Here is where you can keep up with the results of this election. Come on Wisconsin, don't let us down! Good people of the Badger State of Wisconsin, I implore on you to do the right thing and vote to retain state supreme court justice David Prosser today! The race matters because at this point, the Wisconsin state supreme court has a 4-3 conservative majority. If his opponent, assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg, wins, it could put the union reform legislation of Gov. Scott Walker in serious danger. It is already in danger. Dane county judge Maryann Sumi has issued a temporary injunction blocking the union reform from taking place. If it does get to the Wisconsin state supreme court, the difference is going to be who is in this seat. The incumbent Justice Prosser or Mrs. Kloppenburg. This race is ground zero for reforming the out of control public employee unions that are bankrupting many enabling states such as the once Golden State of California. Wisconsin voters I believe will make a difference and vote to retain Justice Prosser. But, you need to V O T E.
Joe Wilson Was Right About The Dear Leader-YOU LIE!
UGH! It is amazing what crap comes out of the mouth of the Dear Leader, President Obama. Today, the Dear Leader, President Obama, treated White House reporters to an impromptu news conference. In the news conference, the Dear Leader, President Obama, said the following: "It would be inexcusable for us to not be able to take care of last year's business -- keep in mind we are dealing with a budget that could have gotten done three months ago, could have gotten done two months ago. Could have gotten done last month." Hey, Dear Leader, President Obama, how about last freaking year? Oh, why was there no budget passed last year? Hmm, let me think. Oh, yes, that was when the Democrats contolled both houses of congress. That was when Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House. Now, why does one think that the Democrat controlled House not pass a budget? Because they were in the middle of the mid-term election campaign. One that was focused on stopping the bleeding of Democrat seats. The Democrats ended up losing 63 seats in the House. Yet the belief was that passing a budget could not be done when so many House members were fighting for their political lives. Tough decisions can not be made in an election year. A year that would change the hands of the House from Democrat to Republican. What the Dear Leader, President Obama, proved today is that Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) was right. He was right when during the Dear Leader, President Obama's first speech before congress he shouted "YOU LIE!" The Dear Leader, President Obama, starts off by admitting that the budget in question is last year's budget. One that should have been passed in October. Yet we are well over halfway through the fiscal year and there has been no budget. A helluva lot of "continuing resolutions" that have kept the federal government going. But no concrete budget. Now, the Republican leadership in the House is mopping up the mess left by the Democrats. And the Dear Leader, President Obama, lies about who is to blame for this mess in the first place.
Friday, April 01, 2011
More April Fools Laughs!
To continue the April Tomfoolery, here is a laugh at the expense of the Dear Leader, President Obama http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VIA5aszzA18. One of these days I will figure out how to actually put the screen on to this blog. Yes, on that I am technically challenged! Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)