Archive for the 'Californication' Category

For those who haven’t seen this yet, the leading nominee of this year’s primary season for “over the top campaign video” – the infamous Demon Sheep ad.

Hard to get out of one’s brain once you’ve seen it. Though I wonder among other matters, if your target audience is fiscally conservative Republicans, does it really help your cause to portray your audience as sheep?

I don’t know how this will actually play out in the primary, but for Carly to actually make Babs appear sensible by comparison constitutes starting the general election with an own goal (should she manage to be the nominee).

Way to go, Carly. Pyrhhus would be proud.

Tom Campbell’s campaign came out with an obvious and unsubtle take-down which opened with

Carly Fiorina’s campaign is in full Mutton Meltdown mode, with an increasingly bizarre fixation on farm animals. She’s admitted missing a decade’s worth of opportunities to vote for budget reform, but instead of offering solutions, all she has for voters are dogs, cats and demon-sheep.

As for me, I’m supporting the other guy in the race who is the only actual conservative running, Chuck DeVore for Senate.

Thus in this political brawl between Carly Fiorina and Tom Campbell – I’m “rooting for injuries”.

And Chuck did make a campaign promise that I trust he will keep, which you can find at the headquarters of the newly formed S.T.E.O.D.S.F.O.P.D., the Society for the Eradication of Demon Sheep from our Political Discourse:

You go, Chuck!

I heard this wonderful little snippet that I had to rewind and hear about twenty times just to make sure I heard it come out of the President’s speech tonight:

A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play. And an acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

This has always been the history of our progress.

In 1935, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it.

In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down.

I will agree with the statement that hard work and responsibility SHOULD be rewarded with “some measure of security and fair play” in that if you work an honest days work, you should find yourself better off. SHOULD. There is no guarantee, never has been. Living is risk. Doing anything carries risk. You can work your butt off and circumstances could pop up and “BAM”, everything you worked for is gone. OR things go really, really well, and you are comfortable and wealthy beyond one’s wildest imagination. That is our history.

Not the GOVERNMENT having to come in to “help deliver on that promise”, though I’m not sure what the “promise” was.

And THEN he has the guts to come out and say that this is the way our “progress” has always been, using FDR’s New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society as examples of “always”. Yeah. Don’t go back to the Founders, but just back into the progressive era of this country where the foundations of socialism were set, where the soft tyranny could begin, complete with the nanny state we will all enjoy. This is a slow creep. Though it seems that the snowball has picked up momentum in the last few years or so…

We have gone from equality of opportunity to equality of results. We must now guarantee a certain level for each citizen to enjoy, regardless of effort or circumstance. And we must take away from others in order to do this. Once again, our Founders did not intend this.

Bah. I fundamentally differ with this man, and the majority of his party and supporters. They believe in “leveling” the playing field, implying that adversity, and overcoming it, are their jobs and not each individual citizens.

Before some lefty troll jumps in and starts sqwaking that I am talking all crazy anarachist here, let me say that the government, local, state and federal all have their roles, with the federals the weakest as far as what it should be meddling in. That being said, if laws are being broke to the detriment of one, then ofcourse the government steps in to the fray to correct it.

And how the U.S. Constitution is being violated here requiring the use of federal power to correct a violation of a right is lost on me, and is just ignored as a non-issue. Because only those crazy Ron Paulians or nutty libertarians give a rats arse about that withered old parchment anymore. Shoot, there is a NEEEEEEEED. People are HUUUURRRRTTTING! Going BAAAAANKRUPT! Blah. Blah. Blah. I don’t say this to be harsh or cold, but the people spewing these sob stories are doing so not because they want me to help them, but so that I will let the government step in and help them, by taking away my choice and freedoms, confiscating more of my wealth and property, all to further their agendas that they can’t pay for. Yeah, that was a run-on sentence, I’m pretty sure, but I’m on a roll, so screw it.

On Fox, they’re discussing the cost, and how the President is pretty much got 10 pounds of crap stuffed into a 5 pound bag with his figures on how to pay for it. Not just the evil Repubs, but even Obama supporters are saying that he’s off. On CNN, they’re stuck on lamenting the “LIE” outcry during his speech that got Pelosi’s eyes bugged out and her hot under the collar, and anything else but the costs. I won’t even turn over to MSNBC where Matthew’s leg is quivering, Olbermann is frothing at the mouth, and Maddow, well, I can’t even look at her much listen to her smug Adam’s apple.

The question I have is, how are we going to fight this when it passes. And it will pass, in some form. Public option or not, the government will show its tentacles in the bathing suit areas of our liberties. Will the states say enough! We reassert our rights under that dusty and ill-used 10th Amendment, and since this has nothing to do with interstate commerce, you can go pound sand D.C. Or will individuals say that they’re rights are being violated because the federal government has come and ORDERED them, under penalty of law, to purchase a product. And this is NOT like auto insurance. IF I don’t own a car, I don’t have to purchase auto insurance. When this happens, and our freedoms continue to be whittled away for our own good, when is enough enough? And where do WE go to find freedom again?

Bah. I’m going to bed…

absolutely nothing…

The union leaders say they are appalled that Democratic leaders are talking openly now about decimating government programs without first making a stand for bigger, broader tax hikes that could substantially offset budget cuts.

“Democrats came to Sacramento to help people,” said Marty Hittleman, president of the California Federation of Teachers. “I know they did not go there to destroy government. For some reason, they are unwilling to stand up and say ‘This is not what I was elected for.’ ”

But even some of the most liberal Democrats say some union leaders are ignoring the reality of an angry public, a sour economy and a state government approaching insolvency.

Ignoring reality? I’m surprised the Democrats in California are even bothering to ACKNOWLEDGE reality, as it has never reared its ugly head at them to the point where they’ve noticed before. I’m not surprised by the unions not caring about the fact that the entire house of cards is about to come down, they’re only concerned with getting that Queen of Hearts and a Suicide King in their pockets, even though both cards are at the bottom and supporting the rest….

H/t Gabe at Ace’s.

who moves into a “red” state.

Seriously.

I know Raven would agree as we watch New Hampshire be invaded by those fleeing the People’s Democratic Republic of Taxachusetts and New York…

Cranky @ Six Meat Buffet is DA MAN for thinking of this…. we should have it incorporated into federal law…

Because a national sales tax is being discussed to pay for all of the wonderful “Hope and Change” that we were promised by Obama and Co.

And by national sales tax, I don’t mean the “Fair Tax”, but a Value-Added Tax ON TOP of all of the other taxes we already enjoy. Somebody has got to pay for the Rainbow Farting Unicorns™ and Angelic Choirs Singing The One’s Praises™…

At a White House conference earlier this year on the government’s budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama’s policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.

“There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform,” Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. “I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table.”

A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American — a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.

Liberals dispute that notion. “You could pay for it regressively and have people at the bottom come out better off — maybe. Or you could pay for it progressively and they’d come out a lot better off,” said Bob McIntyre, director of the nonprofit Citizens for Tax Justice, which has a health financing plan that targets corporations and the rich.

(Emphasis Mine)

And remember, this is on top of all of the other taxes you get to pay. Whereas the Fair Tax would REPLACE our current “tax everything that makes money” system. Ofcourse, the Fair Tax would not allow the Federal Government to continue to grow into the Nanny State that our betters at the Versailles on the Potomac have wet dreams about… Sure Obama is projecting deficit spending for as far as the eye can see…. at our current rate of taxation. But, just like California politicians, our elected “representatives” in Washington D.C. can’t fathom actually CUTTING non-Constitutionally mandated programs (welfare programs, studies on pig flatulence affecting the north eastern buttwidget, a bridge to nowhere, etc.) in order to balance the budget. Oh no! Just raise the taxes!!!

Seriously. Do these people not understand that they’re pushing a large portion of the non-sheeple population to the brink???

Meet Michael Ramirez, whose cartoons can be found at IBDeditorials.com. My favorite one from his recent listings was this:

A single image that perfectly describes the media’s relationship with President Obama.

*********************************

This cartoon on California was great too, but struck just a bit too close to home.

A picture is worth a thousand words…

(H/T)

Oopsies…

In the first public indications of the line of defense that former BART police officer Johannes Mehserle is planning to make against 2nd-degree murder charges in his shooting and killing of an unarmed suspect without evident provcation, the above argument slipped out at Mehserle’s bail hearing on Friday before the judge sealed the proceedings.

Mehserle’s lawyer explained that the officer “intended to fire a Taser at Grant [the suspect] when he instead pulled his service pistol” and thought he was firing a Taser instead of his gun.

This is the shooting case here on New Year’s Day that caught national attention when a protest demonstration turned into a looting spree in downtown Oakland for several hours, following distribution of a cell phone video that tracked the shooting and appeared to demonstrate that the suspect was under control by another officer, face down on the pavement, when Mehserle fired the fatal shot. He subsequently quit his position rather than agree to routine questioning, and otherwise refused to cooperate in the investigation before he was arrested in Nevada on a murder warrant.

I have been reserving judgment on the case to await the wheels of justice to establish what took place, especially given the hysteria that has sprung up. Nonetheless, this statement left me agog. My initial take:

That’s an impressive defense you’ve got going, Mr. Raines. I think that even Dallas Academy is able to play better defense that that.

Class, imagine how this defense would play out in court:

Your honor, after Officer James pulled me over, I really intended to pull out my wallet to show him my identification. It was totally unintentional that instead my Glock ended up in my hand and that somehow it went off and fatally struck Officer James in the chest and head.

Why do I see the same hands up again?

The judge at the bail hearing evidently was not too impressed either. He set bail at $3 million, as the news story relates:

Rains said Mehserle made a mistake Jan. 1, believing he was firing a Taser, not his handgun, at Grant. Rains said some witnesses described hearing Mehserle tell other officers, “Get back, I am going to take him.”

But other statements from witnesses and officers suggest Mehserle told fellow officers after the shooting that he thought Grant had a gun, court documents state.

Jacobson said the two versions of the story make Mehserle’s defense “inconsistent.” If the officer believed Grant had a gun, he wouldn’t have used a Taser to defend himself, he would have used a gun, Jacobson said. Therefore, the fact that Mehserle first announced he was going to “take” Grant — but later told others he thought Grant had a gun — makes his story unbelievable, the judge said.

“There appears to be a change in the story,” the judge said. “His willingness to change his story appears to me that he would be willing to do so to avoid the consequences.” That change, coupled with the fact that Grant’s death occurred “under the color of authority,” made Mehserle a danger to society, the judge said.

Jacobson also said Mehserle’s decision to travel to Nevada after the shooting and the fact that he is unmarried contributed to the decision to declare him a flight risk. “When he felt under pressure he didn’t run to his parent’s house in Napa, he ran to Nevada,” the judge said.

From my vantage point in the stands, unless something picks up on the defense, Mr. Mehserle should be planning for a long, long vacation in the Big House.

This isn’t an overworked public defender, in charge; Mr. Raines is prominent local defense lawyer.

By hiring Michael Rains and his Pleasant Hill law firm, Mehserle turned to one of the best-known defenders of Bay Area police officers suspected of misconduct. Rains is frequently quoted as a legal expert by media outlets, including The Chronicle, and provided commentary on Mehserle’s case until he was hired.

Yet, it’s hard to see how this initial defense strategy even gets past the giggle test. Am I missing something here?

I just couldn’t put my finger on exactly what it was, but Iowahawk has the latest demands from our new overlords…

Special Guest Commentary
by Waxulon-6, Lord High Admiral of the Kremulakian Earth Invaders
The Being Formerly Known as Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA)

Attention Hu-Mans:

Mark your time! Behold the current heat readings of your atmosphere, which have now reached less than negative 40 in your Earth-degrees. Phase I of the Kremulakian conquest of your filthy pitiful orb is complete!

Foolish Hu-Mans, did you not suspect? It is now far too late for resistance. The planetary reign of the invincible Ice Beings of Kremulak can not be stopped, and thus I can now reveal all. And taunt your Earth-foolishness with delicious impunity! Ha ha ha!

When our scientist first discovered your planet 6.3 Kremulakian moon-orbits ago, I argued before the High Admiralty that it would be a suitable world for conquest and colonization. The Inner Council accused me of madness! They said we Kremulaks could never survive in your stupid planet’s hostile hot temperatures. They said our nostrils would mutate and explode under your intense atmospheric pressures. They said that Hu-mans would never vote us into their control councils.

Go read the rest…

Come on.. you’re telling me you don’t see it?!?!

Some of those who have been following the Proposition 8 drama (including my co-bloggers at ARS) may be puzzled as to why the California Supreme Court is reviewing the legitimacy of a constitutional amendment or what grounds that may have to do so.

First, by taking this case now, the California Supreme Court avoids months or years of uncertainty as cases challenging Proposition 8 wend their way through the lower courts, since whatever they do, the matter is going to get appealed to the highest state court.

Also, since they created this mess, they need to clean it up (also known as the Pottery Barn rule).

Read the rest of this entry »

Now, I know I am not a lawyer and don’t contemplate the definition of “is” quite like our 42nd President, but this Proposition 8 issue in California is starting to blow my lil mind.

Propostition 8 got a thumbs up from 52% of Californians vs. 48%, a percentage difference that I believe The Messiah won the popular vote for the Executive. Proposition 8 amended the Californian state constitution in order to define a marriage as being solely between a man and a woman in response to the California Supreme Court making/creating “civil rights” out of whole cloth based on said constitution.

So now the California Supreme court, who decides cases based on their governing document, the State Constitution of California, is deciding whether or not the amendment itself is constitutional?

“The California Supreme Court today denied requests to stay the enforcement or implementation of Proposition 8, and at the same time agreed to decide several issues arising out of the passage of Proposition 8.

“The court’s order, issued in the first three cases that had been filed directly in the state’s highest court challenging the validity of Proposition 8, directed the parties to brief and argue three issues:

(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?

(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?”

Well isn’t that convenient.

Here is the definition of revised via Merriam-Websters:

1 a: to look over again in order to correct or improve bBritish : to study again : review2 a: to make a new, amended, improved, or up-to-date version of b: to provide with a new taxonomic arrangement

And here is the definition of amend via the same:

1: to put right ; especially : to make emendations in (as a text)2 a: to change or modify for the better : improve b: to alter especially in phraseology ; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition

Maybe I am not seeing it. I guess if they say it was a “revision” instead of an “amendment”, and since the Constitution can only be “amended” and not “revised”, then Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Semantics people. Like “fetus” vs “baby”. A rose by another other name and all.

The irony is that, from what I can tell, Proposition 8 was properly created and voted on as to amend the State Constitution in accordance with the Constitution’s amendment rules. If that is so, and the California Supreme Court uses the State Constitution in order to decide cases, and the Constitution has been amended, how can they decide AGAINST a lawful amendment. Would that not make the amendment process pretty much a moot point since those who are bound by it can simply nullify the end product?

Seems like to me the maniacs lunatics are in charge of the asylum at this point?

Hat-tip to Wizbang.