Thursday, November 23, 2006

"IF I DID IT..."

(courtesy of Tim LeFever, Capital Resource Institute)

"I was only half listening to the radio when I first heard that a notorious criminal was finally going to come clean. Sort of.

Once idolized by so many throughout the world, he was now labeled a horrible butcher. I remembered how we all focused on the chase and the anti-climatic conclusion as he was taken into custody.

My mind wandered as I thought about the division in our country. At one point we had all been so sure, and then the doubts crept in. All of the evidence pointed to only one conclusion. Reputations were staked on proving their case. But, then the issue became political and the government was accused of lying, even manufacturing evidence.

Whatever the man’s other sins, much of the population was sure he was innocent of this current accusation. And now, a bit of a crack in the fa├žade. We were going to get a glimpse of how such a secret could be kept for so long. We would know, from his own mouth what horror he was capable of.

It was unclear how a divided population would react to conclusive evidence of the evil. After all, so many were invested in the rightness of their arguments.

Then somehow the storyline changed. In fact, I was not going to get a glimpse behind the curtain. All doubts were not going to be resolved. But, not because Murdoch was pulling the story.

My mistake. I thought Saddam Hussein was going to confess to moving or hiding the WMD.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Minority Leadership: Republicans STILL don't get it...

Columnist Jeff Jacoby astutely observes that of all people, the person who best understands the recent Republican congressional losses is....Bill Clinton!

The reason we are at this moment," former president Bill Clinton told a group of Democratic donors on Nov. 1, "is that they do not represent faithfully the Republicans and the more conservative independents in the country. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here tonight. This is a sweeping, deep, big thing."

According to the nation's most popular Democrat, in other words, Republicans were about to be punished for having abandoned their Republican principles. Voters were going to demote the GOP not because its agenda had grown too conservative — but because it hadn't been conservative enough.
Note that the new House and Senate Democrats who have won election are, or are at least pretending to be, "Blue Dog" or "Boll Weevil" Democrats, not Demunist Dhimmicrat Commiecrats. That ought to tell us something right there.

But who are the Republicans picking as minority leadership? The same old, same old, who let this mess happen. They just don't get it....

For House Minority Leader, the business-as-usual Rep. John Boehner of Ohio defeated true conservative Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana in a closed-door election among colleagues. The vote tally was 168-27 with one vote for Texas Rep. Joe Barton.

The business-as-usual Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., won minority whip, despite heavy sentiment for true conservative Rep. John Shadegg, R-Az.

And the Senate Minority Leader now? The pork-barrelling Trent Lott!

No I don't care about the Left's bogus cries of "racism" trap. Lott's remarks at a dying old senator's 100th birthday party were in retrospect harmless, just as that now deceased senator turned out to be.

The real problem with Trent Lott is that his attitude towards pork, and especially his attitude about the people who oppose pork spending, perfectly encapsulates why voters have grown disgusted with Congress and the Republican majority.

One of the major legislative reforms that came out of the last session of Congress was the bipartisan Tom Coburn - Barack Obama spending database. Bill Frist managed to expertly get that through in the last days of the legislative calendar. However, that dexterous performance only became necessary because Lott used an arcane Senate rule to kill the database back in March. Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., offered the database in an amendment to a lobbying reform bill under consideration, and Trent Lott invoked Rule 22, which stripped the amendment from the bill for its supposed irrelevance to lobbying reform.

This naturally inspired a lot of criticism from the Blogosphere, which has focused on earmarks (especially secret earmarks) as a point of entry for corruption in Congress. In response to this criticism, Lott told an AP reporter that “I’ll just say this about the so-called Porkbusters. I’m getting damn tired of hearing from them.”

In other words, Lott is a pathetic and lame politician who belongs to a generation of politicians that believe that they are above the criticism of their constituents, and that we should just shut up and let our betters decide what to do with us. I expect that from the Politboro of Demunist Commiecrats, but not from Republicans.

If the Republicans in Congress think people like Lott represent what the GOP learned from being stripped of their majority, then Republicans should prepare to spend more than a few years in the wilderness.

Perhaps we can count on the Moonbat Marxists and Demunist Dhimmicrat Commiecrats to do something really stupid, like John Conyers pushing for impeachment hearings, to save us. Or perhaps the newbie Boll Weevils and Blue Dogs will balk at how the senior Demunist Dhimmicrat Commiecrats tell them to vote. Pelosi's push for John Murtha rather than Stenny Hoyer to be House Majority Leader was a good sign, although that apparently has more to do with a personal vendetta between the Pelosi and Hoyer political families rather than ideology. Before San Fran Nan was San Fran Nan, she lived in Maryland, and her political family clashed with the Hoyers.

But I'd rather have proactive Republicans who actually understand what went wrong, rather than just rely on moonbats to be moonbats!

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

A sad farewell to Uncle Miltie

This guy rocked (the world of economics).

If it hadn't been for guys like Milt, would the current day USA economically look much more like current day Germany, France, Sweden or Italy (that is, stagnating and decaying)? That's certainly where the leftists antagonists of Harvard, MIT and the other "salt-water" institutions wanted to take our country back in the '70s. And for a while they did just that ("We are all Keynesians now...")

Note that Milt wasn't totally libertarian or anarcho-capitalist; he still advocated a central bank governmental manipulation of the money supply. Still, that's a LOT less of an intrusion into the economy than social(ist) programs, or wage and price manipulations.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Too many statists? Is California doomed?

At first I thought the reckless bond initiative wins and the parental notification and eminent domain initiative losses were due to Ah-nold's withholding of support. But as Lt. Col. Gil Ferguson, USMC Retired and former Assemblyman, posted to "Steven Frank's California Political News And Views", is the problem really with too many people in California too?

The winning votes for all the bonds on the ballot in California and the votes against requiring parental notification of their daughter’s abortion and the unbelievable failure of the initiative prohibiting government from taking your home and giving it to a developer, all say more about America today than we would like to believe. There are so many people working for the government and so many people dependent on the government and so many newly arrived immigrants, ignorant of America and so many workers committed to unions,--- that together, they are an overwhelming voting block. And it is a social segment, based on their income and loyalty to class and minority status, that is easy to alarm and turn out at the polls. How else can you explain the fact that Californians willingly indebted themselves to the tune of nearly $100 Billion Dollars. It was obvious from the pro side advertisements, that a majority of voters believed voting for bonds was a way of buying things for free. Prop 90 , limiting the government’s right to take your home failed because the police, teachers, fire fighters and other public employee unions and those who benefit from government programs were asked to vote against their own self interest as homeowners and vote for their interests as a beneficiary of government. If the government must pay you for diminishing the value of your property, there will be less money for your pay and perks and social programs. Its as simple as that; those in the wagon now outnumber or at least out vote those pulling it. Those demographics, a selfish Governor, plus a failure of leadership at the state GOP, resulted in the landslide against us!

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Cali Election Results: Thanks for nothing, Ah-nold

Well, it's been over a week since the last elections, and it is time to stop mourning.

Actually, on a national / federal government level, I really DIDN'T mourn. I fully accepted the fact that some of the "conservatives" we sent to Congress in 1994 became bloated, corrupt, earmarking, tone-deaf toads by 2006. They thought they could do whatever they wanted, regardless of what their constituents think, and now they have been reminded of just who is working for whom.

Moreover, the Presidential leadership didn't help, and in fact made matters worse. It is appalling how out of touch Karl Rove and Mr. Bush have been on such issues as immigration and the expansion of entitlement programs (what kind of "conservative" president gives us a further entrenchment of the federalized education mess?)

As for the War in Iraq, I stand with the President, but he hasn't articulated to the nation why we must carry on, even though anyone with half a brain on the matter knows we must.

On the state level, however, I do despair. Tom McClintock, perhaps the Last Totally Honest Politician, has failed, albeit narrowly. Stick a fork in California and turn it over, we're done for....

How did Tom fail? I fear we Republican patriots have been had. We were conned by Governator Ah-nold, who we thought would save our party. Alas, Ah-nold easily sells us out. Ah-nold is only out for Ah-nold. And yes, given that the California Republican Party went all out for Ah-nold in 2003, he owed the party some payback, big time.

Democrat operatives feared that Ah-nold would have a "coat-tails" effect, helping out other Republican candidates who would bask in the glow of his popularity. They need not have worried; Ah-nold tucked in his coattails and hogged the limelight.

The RINOs of the party, and even a good many conservative stalwarts like Hugh Hewitt, sold us on the idea of what a "Fiscal Conservative, Social Liberal" Ah-nold was back in 2003.

Well, what a fraud that has proven to be. Ah-nold campaigned hard for the bonds, even utterly reckless and stupid bond propositions like 1C, 1D, and 84. All of them passed, even the "bait and switch" Prop. 84 that gives the Legislature the right to spend on anything as long as they say it is "water supply related", even though it is really about more parks and wildlife area acquisition.

Ah-nold was also very disappointing when it came to two other ballot initiatives. It is very sad to see parents giving up their rights to the government in California (Proposition 85). This wasn’t about abortion; the ballot initiative was written to avoid any pro-life construction. It was about parents having the right to raise their children. Gee, how about voting for a Prop. that allows minors to use medical marijuana without parents knowing? Ah-nold also worked to stop the passage of Prop. 90, which would have stopped the uncontrolled abuse of eminent domain.

Ah-nold wouldn't help embattled Republican congresscritters in California either. While in Stockton a week before Election Day, Ah-nold was asked if he supported Congressman Richard Pombo for re-election, and he said "that is a Federal issue" and "I am only concentrating on State issues." Pombo lost narrowly. With his loss, the effort to return the Endangered Species Act to common sense has ended. Pombo was defeated by the national "environmental" (i.e., property seizure) community which poured money and people-power into his Stockton area district. Then again, these are the same eco-fiend people that cheered the Governor for his leadership in the passage of AB 32, the utterly bogus "global warming" bill.

But worst of all, Ah-nold was no help at the state level! In the past, GOP candidates for Governor have nearly always campaigned with the statewide ticket and openly for fellow state-level Republican legislative candidates. Yet, Ah-nold did not make a single TV or radio ad for any of his fellow Republicans, nor did he have rallies and public appearances with the rest of the California Republican slate as media events. Sadly, McClintock, Poochigian, Parrish and Strickland lost, McClintock quite narrowly. Even the man he appointed as Secretary of State, Bruce McPherson, narrowly lost— to a complete nobody like Debra Bowen. None of the five losing Republicans were allowed any public connection to the Schwarzenegger for Governor effort. Given the Governator's popularity, the narrow Republican losses of McClintock and McPherson, and Phil Angelides' weasely attitude, all it would have taken would have been a public arm around the shoulder on a TV ad to have helped!

Then we had the Schwarzenegger statement that Senator McClintock was "totally wrong" on the bonds, and that Tom "would not support the rebuilding of California." Coming as it did in the last days of the race, as we now see, the statement stopped McClintock's momentum and gave opponent John Garamendi something to say. The last weekend of the race, Garamendi had recorded message phone calls all over the state. A lady gave the pitch claiming to be a lifelong Republican and then quoted the Governor and said, even though she is a Republican, she would vote for Garamendi.

I was very disappointed in the Governator not backing Mc Clintock; he could have said we have a difference of opinion on the bonds, but we’ll let the people decide and then we look forward to working together whatever the result.

If Schwazenegger’s attack on McClintock influenced only 5% of the voters in the 6 counties in which the MediaNews Group has influence, that translates to about 50% of McClintock’s margin of loss. Until Schwarzenegger attacked, McClintock had a documented lead (albeit within the margin of error). After the Governator’s attack was published, the bottom fell out.

The usually mild mannered Board of Equalization Member Bill Leonard got upset about this and wrote in his online newsletter the following:

As much as I want Governor Schwarzenegger to win the election, I have been hoping that he would not say something damaging in the closing days before the election. My hopes are dashed. He has attacked Senator Tom McClintock as "totally wrong" on the bonds, saying that if Tom got his way California would never be rebuilt. The Governor is the one who is wrong and on several counts.

First, it is not politically smart to attack your own running mate (at least before the election). Whatever political pain McClintock might inflict on the Governor with his principled positions will be trumped by the crassly partisan slashes that a Garamendi would do if he is elected.

Second, McClintock actually supported one of the bonds (Proposition 1F, on the grounds that Delta Levees affect the whole State Water Project and not just the local
farmers) and agrees with the Governor on setting aside highway tax dollars for highway construction and maintenance (Proposition 1A). The Governor should be thanking Tom for this support because a lot of the rest of us conservatives see the whole bond package as a fiscal disaster as inevitable as the next flood in Sacramento.

In the 30th Assembly District (Bakersfield area), Republican nominee Dan Gilmore lost to the incumbent Nicole Parra by 23,839 to 22,281. Do you think that a visit by the Governator or a radio or television ad from the Governator, or even signs with the names Schwarzenegger and Gilmore together would have helped? FYI, Arnold won Kern County by a three to one margin. And there were a few other narrow Republican State Senate or State Assembly losses where the Governator's star power would have made the difference.

Ah-nold had his re-election in the bag, why not help out the rest of his party, who went all-out for him back in 2003?

I think this is why not: Arnold has a pathetic need to be liked, and he would not risk one point of his ego boosting landslide by publicly supporting his Republican ticketmates.

He deserves all the grief he will get from the newly elected Democratic statewide officers. Of course, he can prevent this grief by governing 75 percent as a Democrat instead of 35 percent. And I fear this is where we in "Gollivornia" are heading....

Funny how we always hear from the RINOs that the "intolerant" social conservatives drive the "moderates" out. But in this election, RINO Ah-nold shunned the social conservatives, who said nothing but positive comments about him. Who really are not the team players here?

This year, with a strong Arnold and a weak, unattractive opponent like Phil Angelides, was a great opportunity to carry a conservative message to the public. The people would have been willing to elect serious conservatives (like McClintock, McPherson, Parrish and Strickland, McClintock and McPherson lost quite narrowly) because they knew Arnold was behind them. Arnold could have been the bridge between the (real) Republican party and the muddleheaded centrist voters. Instead, Ah-nold chose to avoid the slightest effort to persuade them of the value of the Republican party and its principles. His victory speech last night was a disgrace — no concern whatsoever for the GOP base, who went to bat for him back in 2003.

There are two Republican parties in CA. There is the genuine, California Republican Assembly / Tom McClintock party, which is not viable because it can’t get on the air because it doesn’t have any money. And then there is "Arnold Incorporated". I don’t see how any serious conservative can work for Arnold Incorporated, or care much about what’s coming next from these people.

This was not the CaGOP’s finest hour. A critical review of Duf Sundheim’s stewardship is in order, along with every other Republican Party leader who was seduced by Ah-nold's star power.

Friday, November 17, 2006

Linda Chavez, you ignorant slut...

A tale of two columnists:

Linda Chavez, a woman who I normally admire, just doesn't get it.

Will the greedheads and the immigration romantics ever wise up? Linda Chavez does nothing but recite anecdotes, and ignores the fact that the losing Republicans she profiles lost DESPITE their stances on immigration, not because of them.

And she continues to push the "comprehensive immigration reform" lie. Without a solid border wall / fence, and without a beefed up Border Patrol and INS enforcement, "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" is simply the 1986 fiasco all over again.

But Linda gets worse:

Americans also want to make sure illegal aliens don't exploit social services and aren't given special preferences. Most importantly, they want to ensure that all immigrants learn English and that government function in English, as Arizona voters demonstrated by supporting initiatives dealing with those specific issues on Tuesday.

Oh really? Yet when we in California and some other states tried ballot initiatives to do just that, you joined the leftist scum with the usual false charges of "racism". We remember that, Linda.

Linda, go back to writing about labor union abuses; you were good at that.

Meanwhile, Pat Buchanan, a man who lately has disgusted me, DOES get it:

Bush and Karl Rove still have not gotten the message, and probably never will. They have swallowed the Wall Street Journal and Weekly Standard line that the party's tough stance against illegal immigration hurts with Hispanics, and only a "comprehensive" immigration bill can heal the wounds. "Comprehensive" is the code word for amnesty.

But Bush and Rove are misreading the returns as badly as they misread the country when they predicted the GOP would hold onto both chambers. Let's have another look at those returns.

According to NumbersUSA, while Republicans lost 11.5 percent of their House seats, or one in nine, the Immigration Caucus of Tom Tancredo, the House hawks, lost 6.7 percent of its complement, only one in 16. Among Republicans given an "F" by immigration hawks, however, fully 25 percent lost their re-election bids, a bloodbath among the open-borders-and-amnesty-now crowd.

Imitation, it is said, is the sincerest form of flattery. Thus it is a testament to the popular appeal of the stop-the-invasion stand that Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton voted for 700 miles of security fence.

Mind you, when it comes to the Middle East, Pat Buchanan has gone into what can be called pigheaded isolationism at best, and subtle anti-Semitism at worst.

But he gets the immigration problem, and Linda Chavez doesn't. Nor do the greedheads and immigration romantics at the Wall Street Journal.

Indulging in their favorite pastime, cherry-picking evidence, the immigration romantics claim that the losses in Arizona by Rep. J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, both hardliners, prove that Arizona and America reject a law-and-order approach to illegal immigration.

Yet Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, a hardliner, won re-election easily.

Why did Graf and Hayworth lose? Jim Kolbe, the GOP congressman whom Graf chased out of the race, refused to endorse them, and Mehlman's RNC gutted them in the primary, that's why.

Pat Buchanan also demolishes the nonsense about how Republicans lost 8 points of the Latino vote because of their stances on immigration. In reality, Republicans lost 7-8 points among just about ALL voting groups, across the board. The immigration romantics and greedheads:

"also point to the fall-off in the Hispanic vote for the GOP, from 38 percent in 2002 to 30 percent in 2006, and attribute the drop-off to calls for a border fence. Yet far more serious was the fall-off among white voters, whose support....fell from 58 percent in 2002 to 51 percent.

The relevant truth: The GOP vote fell 7 or 8 percent among all voters."

One doesn't have to like a guy like Buchanan to know when he is telling the truth, and Linda Chavez and her ilk are living in delusion:

It is the defection of its white vote that is killing the GOP. The Reagan Democrats are going home.

If Bush and Rove think they can win them back with amnesty and a guest-worker program that out-sources immigration policy to K Street, they will end up doing for the national party what Gov. George Pataki did for it in New York.

Sigh. Will sensible Republicans ever wise up?

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Peter Brimelow sums up the elections

He's not right on everything he asserts, but for the most part he is spot-on:

Instead, the full measure of the disaster is that the conservative movement has essentially nothing to show for its moment in the sun. The discontents of the Religious Right are well-known. Economic conservatives are confronted with relentlessly increasing federal government spending. To mention one of my pet interests, far from being willing to break the power of the teacher unions and introduce market forces into public education, the Bush Administration has done exactly the opposite: moving to federalize the K-12 system in a way that is certain to be captured by the education Establishment. And, of course, Bush turned out to be bent on actually increasing immigration, already running at record nation- (and party-) breaking levels.
The alternative strategy is obvious even in this election. In Arizona, Colorado and Michigan, grass-roots initiatives aimed at combating illegal immigration and affirmative action quotas (a species of National Question issue, because quotas directly attack the American majority) won in the teeth of media and elite opposition. In Michigan, combining lack of principle with its normal stupidity, the Republican leadership ran away from Ward Connerly's Michigan Civil Rights Initiative and the party was utterly routed at every level of state government.
However, we know from earlier experience with California's Proposition 187 in 1994, and for that matter Arizona's Proposition 200 in 2004, that just because the immigration issue walks up and bangs on the Republican Party's door, it is not necessarily welcomed--indeed, it can be rebuffed....

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Exit polls???

Many thanks to "Wild Thing". That was too good. And for her age, she looks really good.

It's 4 PM here, so when do we hear the East Coast exit polls?

If the exit polls really show a Demunist sweep, they will be released immediately.

If the exit polls show modest Demuninst gains, they will be delayed a bit.

If the exit polls show Republicans holding on, they get buried.

Count on it.

Monday, November 06, 2006

"Save The GOP, Save The World"

The polls are trying to convince us that it's a Republican Waterloo.

But it's really a Republican Bastogne.

Consider the parallels. The Republican leadership, and some Republican congresscritters, have really botched it lately. Just like from D-Day to Bastogne. Think Operation Market Garden, or the disasters at Anzio and Monte Cassino. To say nothing of being caught napping by the initial Bulge.

Why are the Demunists so intense? Because this really is their last stand. If they make no gains, or paltry gains, after all this effort, then they really have nothing of any substance left. And 2008 will be "Four More Years", just as 1988 was initially.

Tonight, "Heroes" is on the Boob Tube. So tomorrow morning, "Save the Republicans, save the world..."

And tomorrow, we can be heroes, just for one day....

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Mountjoy for Senate

He can’t win; Dianne Feinstein has this wrapped up. Still, I like him because he isn’t afraid to stand for what he believes.

For the last decade and a half, the Republicans have made three choices in taking on the Boxer - Feinstein Axis (in fairness, Dianne Feinstein is not shrill like Boxer is):

1. Serious principled conservative (so-called "extremist") Republican candidate, who campaigns on a moderate budget and who loses VERY narrowly (Bruce Herschensohn 1992).

2. Pathetic "moderate" Republican candidate who has backing of party establishment, is afraid to raise hard questions, and gets utterly trounced (Matt Fong 1998, Tom Campbell 2000, Bill Jones 2004). Are we learning anything here?

3. Vacuous and vapid airhead Republican candidate who also has backing of party establishment, throws his fortune into the race, and still loses, albeit very narrowly (Mike Huffington 1994)

I know which path Mr. Mountjoy is on, and I know what path I am on. Taking into consideration the fact that he is spending next to nothing in his campaign and never had a chance anyway, Mr. Mountjoy is actually doing remarkably well in the polls. Will the GOP learn anything from this? We can only hope.

Parrish for Treasurer, Lockyer is a Jackass

Unfortunately, current Attorney General Bill Lockyer is the favorite, and he is such a jackass. Why is he a jackass? Read on:

(at this point, you might want to play “Corona” (The “Jackass” TV show theme song) by The Minutemen, some of you can probably hum it in your head)

Two months ago, now Attorney General Bill Lockyer announced that he was going to sue automakers in order to get them to pay for the damage caused by global warming.

Here is the line of his argument: Cars emit carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases cause global warming, global warming will turn the entire California coast, from Coronado to Crescent City, into an underwater community, so therefore, the automakers should pay the California government money. He called automobiles “a public nuisance” because people drive them to work to feed their families, and because people drive them from all over the United States to vacation at Disneyland or Sea World, and because, while all these people are doing all of these heinous things, the world is allegedly getting warmer.

Let’s leave the debate over whether global warming is actually occurring aside. We won’t even discuss the idea that, even if it is occurring, it may not be occurring because of human activity. (You remember the dinosaurs. The whole world was pretty warm then, and there wasn’t one single automobile, airplane, or politician spewing hot air anywhere).

Speaking of the 1970’s again: do you all remember back then when the “climatologists” were claiming that we would experience “global cooling” and “a new ice age” caused by fossil fuel burning that would put too many sunlight blocking particles and cool water vapor into the atmosphere? If I remember my Chemistry formulas right, Burn 4 parts gasoline or kerosene jet fuel and you get about 5 parts water vapor along with your exhaust. Look at the pretty cloud trails the jet planes leave behind.

Now why was Lockyer the jackass doing this? Not too long ago, the Public Policy Institute issued a poll which showed that somewhere around 60% of the people in California think that global warming is actually occurring. This poll was done in July, one of the hottest months on record, and released in August, one of the coolest (relative to August) months ever. This summer proves that you can never count on the weather to prove or disprove political positions.

Due to the hot weather in July, the Capitol building in Sacramento was treated to the emission of tons of greenhouses gases in August, as politicians spewed out their tripe about the importance of doing something about global warming. Governor Schwarzenegger got into the act, and ultimately signed AB 32, which will usher in one huge new “carbon dioxide” bureaucracy.

I adamantly disagree with the Governor on the issue, but I cannot fault his process. He followed the constitutionally mandated way of dealing with the issue, and, as flawed as the legislation is, it at least followed the appropriate procedure as it passed through the Legislature. I suppose that the real remedy for the passage of AB 32 would be to get a new Legislature.

What Attorney General Lockyer did, however, was a pure publicity stunt. He read the poll, and, not to be outdone by the Governor, decided to get in on the political action. He drafts up this questionable lawsuit, spends your tax dollars on the lawyers to go after the automakers, holds a big press conference to show that he is “fighting” global warming, and hopes that you will vote for him for State Treasurer. He claims that the “public nuisance” law allows him to do this (it doesn’t, but hey, it’s worth a try), but he is really making a mockery of the law, the state, and the judicial system by filing this lawsuit.

To use our legal system and our tax dollars to claim otherwise is simply an abuse of our legal processes, and a publicity stunt that deserves condemnation. Attorney General Lockyer should have been busy catching bad guys and putting them in jail. And this jackass now wants to be Treasurer? Nope, time to send the thankfully term limited jackass back to his law practice, and out of state office.

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Edward C. Noonan for Governor

Ah-nold has this locked up, so why not protest vote for the American Independent candidate? Pick a REAL conservative over a RINO.

I choose Mr. Noonan to “send a message” to Ah-nold: Don’t get complacent, just because your opponent is such a weasel who is easy to defeat. Normally, 3rd parties are a joke, but here, I find use for them.

And yes, Phil Angelides is a weasel. From the beginning of his time in government, Phil Angelides has never met a government program he didn’t like, or tax that he thought was too high. During the budget crisis, his contribution to the spending problem was to renegotiate state bonds to obtain a payment holiday. In other words, for two years we did not pay off any of the principal while interest accrued. That is Phil Angelides way of “saving” the state money. In the end, state taxpayers ended up spending more money, and getting no relief, as Angelides tried to paper over the state’s deficit. You and I are still paying for his ill-considered solution to the deficit.

During his campaign against Steve Westly, he proposed tax increases to close the deficit he worked so hard to create and perpetuate. He claimed that the state could not cut any government programs, and that the only way to solve the state’s continuing fiscal crises was to raise taxes on you and me. Even though state spending was $57 billion just seven years ago, and $79 billion just two years ago, State Treasurer Angelides believes our present $101 billion general fund budget is not adequate enough to deal with the state’s problems.

In 1992, the state spent approximately $6,000 per student in 2006 inflation adjusted dollars to educate our children. This year, we are spending well over $10,000 per student, over 70% increase in spending per student in the last 14 years. Angelides believes that 70% more is not enough.

Angelides said he only wants to tax “the rich” (meaning the high income, regardless of expense overhead or actual asset wealth), not the middle class, but most people are smarter than that. You should know by now that if a politician is eager to raise taxes on one group of people, it is only matter of time your their taxes will go up as well.

Moreover, if the state increases taxes on the high income, they move to Florida or Texas, or some other state where they DON’T tax income. Since these high-income people that Phil wants to tax now pay over 30% of our taxes, government revenue will go down when these high-income folks move to another state. Their employees pay income taxes and they pay thousands in sales taxes that are not directly attributable to them. In addition, most of these people own businesses that have employees who pay income taxes.

If these people start moving out of California, and taking their money and their businesses with them, the state will then tax the rest of us to the max. The Angelides budget will look an awful lot like the Davis budget; lots of red ink and a fiscal crisis of epic proportion.

Friday, November 03, 2006

Don't bring back the '70's, part 2

In the spirit of the last post, I found this: A JC Penney catalog from 1977. If THIS doesn't persuade you not to continue or reintroduce Jimmy Carter liberal policies, then nothing will.

It's not often blog fodder just falls in my lap, but holy hell this was two solid inches of it, right there for the taking.

In the spirit of Jimmy Carter's "malaise" and Former Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown's "era of limits", I thumbed through it quickly and found a recycled dining room set, which is apparently made by adding upholstery to old barrels:

And the government who wants us to "think Green" probably would insist that we get this for our bathrooms:

There's plenty more home furnishings where those came from, however I'm not going to go on and on about that. Instead, I'm going to go on and on about something else. The clothes. The clothes are fantastic:

Just look at that belt. It's like a boob-job for your pants. He probably needed help just to lift it into place. The belt loops have to be three inches long. What were fashion designers and parents thinking in those days? Well, it was the same mentality that brought us wage and price controls, synfuels, hyperinflation, rising unemployment, and rationing, make no mistake about it. No wonder this kid probably "needed" Ritalin.

This kid looks like he's pretending to be David Soul, who is pretending to be a cop who is pretending to be a pimp that everyone knows is really an undercover cop. Who is pretending to be 15.

This "all purpose jumpsuit" is, according to the description, equally appropriate for playing golf or simply relaxing around the house. Personally, I can't see wearing this unless you happen to be relaxing around your cell in D-block. Even then, the only reason you should put this thing on is because the warden made you, and as a one-piece, it's slightly more effective as a deterrent.
And let's not forget that the "gay" agenda began in the 1970's too. If you look at the picture above, you can see why. It looks like a proto -Bob Saget without pants has his hand in the other guy's pocket. In this case, he doesn't, although you can tell just by looking at them that it's happened - or if it hasn't happened it will. Oh yes. It will. As soon as he puts down his matching coffee cup.

He looks like he's reaching for a gun, which, given the rising crime of the 1970's, would be awesome, but you know it's probably just a bottle of suntan lotion in a holster.

If you wear this suit and don't sell used cars for a living, I believe you can be fined and face serious repercussions, up to and including termination. Or imprisonment, in which case you'd be forced to wear that orange jumpsuit. Unfortunately, some of the GOP establishment still dress like this! This explains their immigration policies. I mean, you just can't mow your own lawn or prune your own hedges if you look like that.

Dear god in heaven, I don't believe that color exists in nature. There is NO excuse for wearing either of these ensembles unless you're working as a body guard for the Lucky Charms leprechaun, or perhaps Jerry Brown in his heyday.

In this next one, Your Search For VALUE Ends at Penneys: does your search for chest hair. Maybe the metrosexuals who get their chest hair shaved or even removed have a point.

And this -- Seriously. No words.

Oh wait, it turns out that there are words after all. Those words are What... The... Fuck... I'm guessing the snap front gives you quick access to the chest hair. The little tie must be the pull tab.

Also, judging by the sheer amount of matching his/hers outfits, I'm guessing that in 1977 it was considered pretty stylish for couples to dress alike. It was all that unisex feminism NOW was pushing. These couples look happy, don't they?

I am especially fond of this one, which I have entitled "Cowboy Chachi Loves You Best."

And nothing showcases your everlasting love more than the commitment of matching bathing suits. That, and a blonde wife or girlfriend with a look on her face that says "I love the way your cock fits against that fabric."

Then, after the lovin', you can relax in your one-piece matching terry cloth jumpsuits:

I repeat. If you vote for bad liberal policies reminiscient of the 1970's, we could look like THIS again, without the restored youth and vigor:

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Election Time: Don't Bring Back the 1970's

At first I felt like stating: “Vote Republican, in spite of all their MANY disappointments, because if you don’t, the Dhimmicrats will surrender the country." Which in the short run is not true, although in the very long run it definitely is.

But then I thought about it some more and I figured I could sum up this election in one sentence: “Don’t bring back the 1970’s.” Seriously, they were a bad time for the nation in general (and even to some extent the family in particular). And sadly, there are serious movements afoot to bring us back there.

On the national level, we have an entire political party that has decided that the USA should cut off aid to the new regime in Iraq, give up on making a better government there, and let Baghdad and Basra 2007 turn into Saigon and Da Nang 1975. You might want to seek out some of the ethnic people who fled for their lives and moved into California in the 1970’s, and ask them just how well THAT went. This political party even threw a dyed in the wool liberal like Joe Lieberman off its bandwagon and under its wheels because he didn’t want to surrender like that.

On the state level:
--we have a retired “Moonbeam” politician from the 1970’s trying to rise out of his political coffin in Oakland.
--we have a ballot initiative that thinks that punishing energy producers will improve our energy supplies, just like the 1970’s (Proposition 87)
--we have other ballot initiatives that resurrect, amplify, or perpetuate bad policies that date from the 1970’s (Propositions 1C, 86, 88, and 89)

We do have one important difference: in the 1970’s, we were all supposed to be scared into lowering our standard of living by “global cooling”, which rested upon dubious science. Now, they want to scare us into lowering our standard of living by “global warming”, which rests upon no less and perhaps even more dubious science.

Seriously, folks, a few bad votes and we could end up looking like THIS again, WITHOUT the recaptured youth:

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Tom McClintock: The California Lion

You have to read this essay.

The Introductory quote --and parallel--from William Manchester's "The Last Lion" says it all.