Category Archives: California

The Anti-God Party

Posted on by

After the Islamic terrorist attack in San Bernardino, CA, yesterday, the dems called for more gun control—more gun control in the most gun, 2nd Amendment repressive state in the union. The GOP Presidential candidates, almost to a man, asked for prayers for the victims and their families.

The MSM, in particular the New York Daily News, mocked them for calling on God for intersession. I can’t say I’m surprised at the vileness coming from the liberals and their propaganda organs. However, as in everything, there are consequences to actions. Ones the dems reject.

WITHOUT CHRISTIAN VOTERS, DEMS DON’T HAVE A PRAYER
Back when Barack Obama could really deliver from the podium, one of his very best lines was about how “we worship an awesome God in the blue states.” The language was no accident. “Awesome God” is the name of one of the most popular evangelical worship songs of the last generation.

In 2004, when Obama gave that speech, it would have been impossible to imagine a sitting U.S. Senator chastising believers for their prayers in the wake of a mass murder. But one did on Tuesday.

Many on the left embraced the idea not that, as Obama has said before, “thoughts and prayers are not enough,” but that prayers were pointless or even damaging because they distracted from what most Democrats believe should be a move to advance extensive gun control.

Those on the right tend to put about as much faith in federal gun laws as atheists put in prayer. So why wouldn’t they pray? Or why wouldn’t believers in both God and gun control do both? Certainly at the scene of the slaughter, survivors didn’t seem to have qualms about prayer.

So what could possess members of a political party, including prominent elected officials, to denounce prayer – and to do so before the means and motives of the killers were still unknown? How does political stupidity of that magnitude come to seem like a good idea?

It turns out that in his famous 2004 speech about “awesome God,” Obama was talking about a dying breed when he spoke of Christian Democrats, especially evangelicals.

As the most recent Pew study on religion in public life tells us, Democrats went from 74 percent Christian in 2007 to 63 percent in 2014. The share of Christian Republicans dropped by 5 points to 82 percent, about the same as the population overall.

But the headline was that for the first time, the single largest group of Democrats on the spectrum of beliefs was “none.” Those professing no faith jumped 9 points in seven years – now 28 percent of Democrats.

As the sorting out of the electorate continues, it is easy to image those trends intensifying. Mitt Romney won 57 percent of the Protestant vote in 2012 (69 percent among white Protestants).

Those numbers will surely intensify in years to come if Democrats remain this hapless and condescending when talking to Christian voters. — FOX Newsletter, December 3rd, 2015

All the while, the MSM ignores the battleground of black-on-black crime in the warzone of Chicago. More people have been killed in Chicago last week, than in San Bernadino. Even as this piece is written, the MSM is calling the shooting in San Bernadino a “work-place” incident.

Facebook

Another of those days

Posted on by

I believe I mentioned in an earlier post that April was a busy month for me. Today is one of those busy days. I’ve two appointments this morning and another this afternoon.

Busy, busy, busy.

See y’all tomorrow.

If you thirst for news you won’t find on the MSM, check out this piece from California. Governor Moonbean’s water dictate is unconstitutional. Well, part of it. Let’s see if the libs are crazy enough to defy the courts.

California drought: Court rules tiered water rates violate state constitution

Staff and Wire reports
Posted:   04/20/2015 06:35:07 PM PDT929 Comments | Updated:   about 2 hours ago

In a ruling with major implications for California’s water conservation efforts during the historic drought, a state appeals court on Monday ruled that a tiered water rate structure used by the city of San Juan Capistrano to encourage saving was unconstitutional.

The Orange County city used a rate structure that charged customers who used small amounts of water a lower rate than customers who used larger amounts.

But the 4th District Court of Appeal struck down San Juan Capistrano’s fee plan, saying it violated voter-approved Proposition 218, which prohibits government agencies from charging more for a service than it costs to provide it.

The stakes are high because at least two-thirds of California water providers, including many in the Bay Area, use some form of the tiered rate system.

Gov. Jerry Brown immediately lashed out at the decision, saying it puts “a straitjacket on local government at a time when maximum flexibility is needed. My policy is and will continue to be: Employ every method possible to ensure water is conserved across California.”

Brown added state lawyers are now reviewing the decision.

The article continues at the Mercury-Press website. The court said you cannot discriminate based on water usage. It violates the California constitution.

Facebook

Slowing down

Posted on by

I’ve been writing this blog since October, 2008. That’s over six years. From time-to-time, I need to take off to recharge the batteries, so to speak. I’ve a number of activities in my retirement life. I’m busier now than when I worked for Sprint. As I sense burn-out approaching, I back away.

April is and will be a busy month at Casa Crucis. Every weekend this month is booked plus we’ve some out-of-town friends are coming to KC for a wedding and they’re staying at the Crucis B ‘n B.

If I miss a few days of blogging don’t be alarmed. I’ll be back to my 5-blogs a week schedule in a while.

***

The real story of Harry Reid’s ‘blow-flex’ accident is out. Reid’s brother, Larry, is the one who beat the crap out of Harry. Harry and Larry. To plagiarize another commentator, I wonder if there aren’t two more Reid brothers named Darryl?

From PJ Media…

Reid Family Values: Prime Suspect in Beatdown of Elderly Senator Arrested for Assault on Cop

The country really is in the best of hands.

by Michael Walsh, April 5, 2015 – 3:08 pm

Senator Harry Reid’s 73-year-old brother has been arrested and charged with driving drunk and hitting a police officer. Larry Reid was arrested for DUI about 12:40 p.m. between Boulder City and Searchlight in Nevada. Mr. Reid was also charged with battery of a police officer, driving across a median, resisting arrest, not wearing a seat belt and possession of a gun while under the influence of alcohol.A trooper saw Larry Reid’s Lexus SUV in the dirt median with the engine still running, Patrol spokesman Trooper Loy Hixson said.

The Nevada Senator’s office released a statement confirming that Larry Reid is the Democrat’s brother, saying only that it is ‘a private matter.’ Details of the arrest were not immediately available since the official complaint had not been filed with the court.

HarryReid

Harry Reid after his ‘bow-flex’ broke.

Larry Reid is now the prime suspect in the beatdown of his brother, according to Power Line’s John Hinderaker:

On Monday I got a phone call from a man named Easton Elliott. We talked briefly on Monday, and have had additional telephone conversations since then. Elliott* is a businessman who lives in the Las Vegas area, and he thinks he knows what really happened to Harry Reid. This is the story as he related it to me:

Elliott spent a portion of last New Year’s Eve at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in Henderson, Nevada. His AA group has meetings every hour on New Year’s Eve, along with a pot luck supper. There were approximately 20 people present at the meeting during the events described below.

Some time between 10:00 and 11:30 p.m., a man entered the meeting. His appearance was striking: there was blood on his clothing, beginning around his midsection. His left hand was swollen. He appeared to be somewhat intoxicated and was visibly agitated. He introduced himself as “Larry.”

In a group discussion that was heard by a number of people, Larry said that he had just had a fight with a family member. Larry said he had been at a family get-together, and he didn’t remember much about the fight because he had blacked out. When he came to, he was rolling on the ground, fighting with a family member, and his clothes were bloody. Now, he said, he was frightened that the Secret Service would come after him.

So Hillary assaulted Bubba during the Clinton presidency — something for which, by the way, anybody else would have gone to jail — and now Larry whales the stuffing out of Harry, causing the nation’s leading corruptocrat to abdicate his senate seat and endorse Sen. Snidely Whiplash — excuse me! I mean Chuck Schumer! — to replace him as minority leader.

The country really is in the best of hands.

***

California stinks! It’s not an opinion. Governor Moonbean Jerry Brown says the state will arrest and fine you if you take too long showers. The libs say they want government out of their bedrooms. I guess it’s fine for government to invade their bathrooms, however.

Attention America: Californians will shower less

BY ANDREW MALCOLM

Signing far-reaching executive orders seems to have become contagious in American government, at least among Democrats.

Gov. Jerry Brown went on national TV Sunday to explain his newly-announced mandatory water restrictions that will, among other things, require California residents to shower less. And if you’ve ever visited France, you know what that means.

Last week Brown, now in his fourth term as chief executive of the nation’s most populous state, said California has not properly prepared for the kind of long-term drought it appears to face now. Brown, who turns 77 Tuesday, did not blame George W. Bush, but instead global warming.

His wide-ranging 31-point plan, announced during a photo-op in a snow-free mountain field, imposes a 25% water reduction on California cities and towns, empowering water boards to encourage conservation with higher household rates and fines on individuals for liquid disobedience.

It also prohibits new residential construction from using potable water for traditional landscape irrigation, bans watering much public property and curbs water use by campuses, golf courses and cemeteries.

Additionally, the governor warned private property owners of the kinds of broad behavioral changes he expects from his unprecedented order. “The idea of your nice little green grass getting water every day,” Brown vowed sarcastically, “that’s going to be a thing of the past.”

Of course, Democrat Brown’s plan also involves — wait for it! — increased and expedited government spending. Last month the governor signed “emergency legislation” involving $1 billion in projects, including food aid, wildlife tracking and flood prevention, which might not seem an urgent spending concern in a four-year drought.

Not only will Governor Moonbeam not allow you those long showers, he’s going to make you pay for not taking those long showers. I wonder if that means the Hollywood types will be required to fill their pools with non-potable water? No! That could lead to spreading disease! Drain their pools? Somehow I doubt it. The liberal elite are never affected by their own edicts.

I wonder if Governor Moonbeam can add to his coffers by selling indulgences? That is selling waivers to you who were educated in the public school system…waivers like those issued by Obama to selected groups to delay the negative impact of Obamacare.

Facebook

The Weekend Review

Posted on by

Do you know this man?http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2012/11/06/20121106-195938-pic-910164513_mugshot_four_by_three_s267x200.jpg?ec8f261d4936ae3433a61cef779c1dbc8a3728fb

No, it’s not a TV commercial. Richard Viguerie is a long-time conservative who has helped the campaigns of a number of conservatives. He is not among those who believe the GOP establishment should lead the GOP.

Viguerie has just released a book, titled, Takeover: The 100-Year War for the Soul of the GOP and How Conservatives Can Finally Win It, In it, he writes about the civil war that is taking place within the GOP. (Where have you heard that before, readers?)

The Daily Caller reviewed his book. According to the Daily Caller,  Viguerie said:

“Our true opponents are Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Karl Rove, and George Bush. They’re the ones who have been engaged in a massive expansion of government and the American voters don’t like them,” “Whenever they are the face of the opposition to the Democrats, the Republicans almost always lose on the national level. It is the most important political battle in America and it’s not between Republicans and Democrats — it’s inside the Republican Party. And for the most part, conservatives have been losing.” — The Daily Caller.

You can read the column by following the link above. One statement Viguerie makes is that the ‘new’ conservatives, new to the political scene like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul, are loosely tethered to the GOP and more strongly to conservative principles. Viguerie views that as a positive trend within the GOP.

***

Have you heard about this? It wasn’t a recent report, although the lawsuit is. It’s another example of unrestrained police abuse. I have to wonder why the majority of these cases occur in the larger metropolitan areas dominated by liberals?

The short report is that some ABC agents in Virginia terrorized two colleges students for buying—a case of water and some cookie ingredients.

UVA student was victim of malicious, spiteful cops, $40 million lawsuit claims

Robby Soave, Reporter, 12:11 AM 03/31/2014

A University of Virginia student is suing the Commonwealth of Virginia for $40 million after her harrowing run-in with the state police, who–acting out of “anger and personal spite”–drew their guns and arrested her on obviously false charges, according to the lawsuit.

The incident happened last June, after 20-year-old Elizabeth Daly and two of her friends purchased a case of water bottles and cookie-baking supplies at a local Harris Teeter.

Officers with Virginia’s Alcohol Beverage Control agency were staking out the grocery store, on the hunt for lawbreakers. Mistaking Daly’s water bottles for beer, they thought they had found one.

Three officers followed the students to Daly’s car. After Daly and her friends had already climbed inside, the officers began banging on their windows. They were wearing their badges around their necks, but Daly couldn’t see them clearly and were unsure whether they were actual cops, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Daly was instructed to roll down her window, but she couldn’t do so without turning the car on, which angered the officers. One drew a gun and attempted to bash in the window.

Daly called 911 and tried to drive to a police station. The emergency operator then told her that the assailants were indeed police officers, so she pulled over. Police then arrested her for assaulting two different officers and failing to stop when ordered. She spent a night in jail. (RELATED: UPDATED: UVA student jailed for possession of bottled water, ice cream)

The charges were eventually dropped, after ABC determined that the officers’s heavy-handed tactics violated official policy.

The ordeal terrified Daly and left her in a nervous state. Her lawsuit alleges that the officers “acted with actual malice, out of embarrassment and disgrace for their own intentional and grossly negligent acts and charged (Daly) with three felonies and did so out of anger and personal spite.”

According to the lawsuit, Daly, “does not and never has consumed alcohol or abused drugs, and/or her parents, on her behalf, have incurred significant legal, medical and other costs, and will continue to do so in the future due to the malicious, intentional, and/or grossly negligent actions of the (d)efendants.”

The lawsuit asks for $40 million in damages.

While that may seem like a lot of money, The Washington Post’s Radley Balko wrote that it “may be just what Virginia policymakers need to start taking these issues seriously. The militarization of regulatory agencies such as the ABC is a disturbing trend,” he wrote.

It is interesting that even the uber-liberal Washington Post viewed the actions of the ABC agents as, “disturbing.”

***

In closing for today, here is another example of democrat deceit. Folks, never forget who are our real enemies.

Obamacare voter form pre-marked for Dems – Daily Caller: “A couple in La Mesa, California received a voter registration card from California’s Obamacare exchange already pre-marked for the Democratic Party… ‘I’m an old guy and I never would have noticed it, except I have an accountant that notices every dot and dash on a piece of paper as a wife,’ the man who received the card said… Covered California is in the midst of sending out voter registration cards to all of its sign-ups, due to pressure from left-wing groups threatening legal action if they don’t comply… Covered California denied responsibility for the violation.”

Facebook

Monday Morning Review

Posted on by

The US Supreme Court, by refusing to review two cases, removed the 2nd Amendment rights for adults between the ages of 18 through 20. One case was against Fed statute, case 13-137, and the other was an appeal against Texas law, case 13-390, Both cases, “restrict access to handguns for young adults eighteen, nineteen, and twenty years old.”

Both of the new cases deal with laws — a federal law in 13-137, a Texas law in 13-390 — that restrict access to handguns for young adults eighteen, nineteen, and twenty years old.   In separate rulings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld both laws at issue, and in the process raised serious doubts about whether the Second Amendment even applies to gun rights claims of those who are under the age of twenty-one but still regarded as adults.  But the two NRA petitions take different approaches to the issue of gun rights in public places.

The petition in the federal case is a sweeping claim that lower federal courts have been engaging in “massive resistance” to the Court’s landmark decisions on Second Amendment rights.  As one example of that resistance, the petition contends that lower courts are stubbornly resisting efforts to view the personal right to have a gun as something so important that it must extend outside the home as well as within.

The petition makes that point in urging the Court to make it clear to lower courts that its 2008 decision recognized a fundamental right, one that can be curbed only for the most compelling government reasons. The government has countered that the beyond-the-home question is not even at issue in that case, because the federal law involved is a narrowly focused issue on minors’ desire to buy guns from licensed federal dealers.

The petition in the state case, however, is a straightforward plea to extend the Second Amendment beyond the home, because it involves a state law that bars almost all youths ages eighteen through twenty from carrying a handgun in public.  Texas requires a license to carry a gun in public, but those in that age group are not eligible to get such a license.  The petition in that case said that the Supreme Court in 2008 settled that the “right to keep arms” applies within the home, so now, it argued, it is time for the Court to decide whether the “right to bear arms” means the right to carry them when one leaves home. — SCOTUSBlog.

Another case, Lane v. Holder, case 12-1401, “which is a test of whether gun purchasers have a right to sue to challenge federal gun laws that restrict their option of buying guns from dealers in a different state,”is still pending.

While these two cases are setbacks, they are not the prime show—whether citizens have the right to carry outside their homes. Heller and MacDonald affirmed the right of gun ownership and that of self-defense…inside the home. But what about outside? There are several cases about this right of self defense percolating through the federal judiciary.

On the plus side, San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore announced that he would not appeal the decision in Peruta vs. County of San Diego. That case, a challenge against the San Diego Sheriff’s restrictive policies for the issuance of Concealed Carry permits, effectively changed California CCW permits from “may issue,” giving state and local authorities wide discretion on whom would be issued a permit, to “shall issue,” requiring the issuance of a CCW permit to anyone, provided the applicant meets the statutory requirements.

Supposedly, some California areas, such as San Francisco, have said they will refuse to implement the change in their issuing policies. Orange County, however, has agreed to honor the 9th Circuit’s ruling.

 

 

Facebook

SCOTUS Speaks

Posted on by

And they’ve upset everyone on one thing or another.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton need to watch their blood pressure after SCOTUS annouced their decision on the VRA suit as do all the DOMA supporters. Frankly, I’m not surprised DOMA went down, it was flawed from the beginning and a violation of the 10th Amendment. Many conservatives have overlooked that. What really bothers me is how inconsistent SCOTUS is in determining 10th Amendment violations.

Let’s take a look at three of the cases this week: VRA, DOMA and California’s Ban on same-sex marriage.

A Mississippi county brought suit on the last renewal of VRA. Note, they didn’t sue the original act, just this last renewal. A renewal that was, in effect, a rubber-stamp of the original act. It lost, the DoJ oversight of voting laws for segments of the country, because today’s issues are not the same as was the issues in 1965—nor have they been for 40 years. The criteria used to justify the oversight no longer exist because Congress, in their laziness, used outdated information.

The 5-4 ruling on Tuesday addressed a 1960s-era provision that largely singled out states and districts in the South — those with a history of discrimination — and required them to seek federal permission to change their voting laws.

The court ruled that the formula determining which states are affected was unconstitutional.

In doing so, the court potentially opened the door for certain states to proceed with voter ID laws and other efforts that to date had been held up because of the Voting Rights Act. Prominent among those are voter identification laws in Alabama and Mississippi.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott also put out a lengthy statement vowing to proceed with both a voter ID law and potentially a new set of redistricting maps without federal oversight.

“Today’s ruling ensures that Texas is no longer one of just a few states that must seek approval from the federal government before its election laws can take effect,” he said. “With today’s decision, the state’s voter ID law will take effect immediately. Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.” — The Hayride.

That does not mean VRA went down, only the oversight by the DoJ. Jesse and Al, obviously, disregard that. It also ends a revenue stream for them. They can no longer sue and extort money from states and municipalities using that part of VRA as an excuse.

The Texas Voter ID law was being held in limbo by the DoJ. It was nearly identical to the Indiana law that passed SCOTUS review. With the DoJ blockage removed, the Texas AG, rightly in my opinion, moved to enforce the Texas law.

He’s making hay, so to speak, while the sun shines. Why? Because the dems in Congress with immediately attempt to address the 2006 VRA flaw—outmoded data in the 2006 renewal, that was thrown out. There will be massive pressure on ‘Pubs to rollover on it and renew VRA using valid data…just to reinstate federal control over those specific states and counties to correct a situation the democrats created in the years before 1965. The Hayride notes this bit of irony.

Which gives rise to the following thought.

Namely, that the federal government found the management of the electoral system and the protection of voting rights to be so noxious and incompetent in the South in the 1960′s that Congress had to pass, and the courts to enforce, a remedial and corrective regime largely putting that system and protection under the supervision of the federal government.

That was when the South was exclusively run by Democrats.

The South is now more or less exclusively run by Republicans, and the Supreme Court has found there is no discernible reason to continue that supervision because the electoral system and the protection of voting rights in the South are no longer noxious or incompetent.

This is somehow proof that Republicans are racists as accused by the Democrat Party. You’re welcome to explain that one however you like. — The Hayride.

Looking at the SCOTUS decision on DOMA and the California ban on homosexual Marriage, both were decided on 10th Amendment basis. If you read between the lines, SCOTUS said DOMA was inappropriate use of federal power because it treated one segment of the population, those in heterosexual marriages, differently that those who weren’t married and wanted to be, i.e., homosexual marriage. It was an area the FedGov should not be in but since they were, they couldn’t discriminate. Hence, the court said homosexuals had to be treated the same as non-homosexuals.

As much as I don’t like the decision, I can understand it. If you combine that decision to the one concerning the California ban on homosexual marriage, you’ll notice the Court is saying that the definition of marriage is a state issue, not that of the FedGov.

The California ban was a Prop 8 issue. The state government refused to support their citizens in supporting the popular vote. In fact, the California state government actively opposed the Prop 8 vote. Gay advocates sued and the State courts agreed, that the Prop 8 vote was illegal. The Prop 8 supporters sued in Federal Court to overthrow the state court decision. When the state failed to support the ban, other outside agents stepped in to fill the gap—out-of-state agents. SCOTUS said those agents had no standing since they were not California agent. Therefore the Appellate decision overturning the ban was upheld.

The state government did not support the Prop 8 decision and it was the state’s position the ban was illegal so said the California Supreme Court. The proponents of the Prop 8 ban sued in Federal Court. The Appellate court affirmed the state decision. That was appealed to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS said that the FedGov and Federal courts had no business deciding purely state issues. In this case, it was homosexual marriage. Since the state failed to support the suit of the Prop 8 backers, the federal courts had no jurisdiction. Again supporting California’s 10th Amendment rights.

I strongly suspect if the opponents of the ban were California based, and if the state had supported the Prop 8 vote, the ban via the Prop 8 vote. So SCOTUS left the ban in place. That didn’t happen.

One limitation of the SCOTUS decision is that California homosexual marriages are ONLY valid inside California. Other states have no obligation to accept those marriages.

The Court rules that the petitioners did not have standing – the Circuit Court  should not have been able to hear the appeal, because the state of California had declined to pursue it.  This clears the way for gay marriages to resume in California, but it does not affect the other 49 states. From the opinion: “We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.” — WNYC.

Now, each state can make their own definition of marriage, but that definition is valid only within the boundaries of the state. In a sense, the suits against DOMA and California was a win for State’s Rights, State Sovereignty, and the 10th Amendment. However, I suspect many of my conservative and libertarian readers will not see the SCOTUS decision in that same light.

Facebook

Words fail me

Posted on by

I’m sitting here cruising for a blog topic and what do I find? This.

Calif. bill would let non-citizens serve on juries

By JUDY LIN, Associated Press, Apr 25, 8:09 PM EDT

SACRAMENTO, California (AP) — The California Assembly passed a bill on Thursday that would make the state the first in the nation to allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve on jury duty.

Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, said his bill, AB1401, would help California widen the pool of prospective jurors and help integrate immigrants into the community.

It does not change other criteria for being eligible to serve on a jury, such as being at least 18, living in the county that is making the summons, and being proficient in English.

The bill passed 45-25 largely on a party-line vote in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and will move on to the Senate. One Democrat – Assemblyman Adam Gray, of Merced – voted no, while some other Democrats did not vote.

Democratic lawmakers who voted for the bill said there is no correlation between being a citizen and a juror, and they noted that there is no citizenship requirement to be an attorney or a judge. Republican lawmakers who opposed Wieckowski’s bill called it misguided and premature.

Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, said there is no shortage of jurors.

What this bill does is to make citizenship worthless and irrelevant. Citizenship grants an individual certain privileges, rights and duties. Paying taxes, voting, serving on juries are a few of those duties. Apparently, in California, illegal aliens can now do the same. Therefore, what is the worth of actual citizenship? In California, nothing.

 

Facebook