Finally, California shows some sense. Lawmakers trashed an onerous, ill-timed, empty-gesture plastic bag ban pushed by radical greens this week:
California lawmakers have rejected a bill seeking to ban plastic shopping bags after a contentious debate over whether the state was going too far in trying to regulate personal choice.
The Democratic bill, which failed late Tuesday, would have been the first statewide ban, although a few California cities already prohibit their use.
…The bill, AB1998, called for the ban to take effect in supermarkets and large retail stores in 2012. It would have applied to smaller stores in 2013.
Republicans and some Democrats opposed it, saying it would add an extra burden on consumers and businesses at a time when many already are struggling financially.
…The Senate took final action at the very end of the legislative session, reflecting how difficult it had been to muster support. The bill received just 14 votes in the Senate, seven short of the majority it needed.
The inconvenient truth is that the eco-propaganda about plastic bag perils is so much hype. Don’t take it from me. Take it from environmental scientists themselves:
“The Government is irresponsible to jump on a bandwagon that has no base in scientific evidence,” said Lord Taverne, the chairman of Sense about Science. “This is one of many examples where you get bad science leading to bad decisions which are counter-productive. Attacking plastic bags makes people feel good but it doesn’t achieve anything.”
Campaigners say that plastic bags pollute coastlines and waterways, killing or injuring birds and livestock on land and, in the oceans, destroying vast numbers of seabirds, seals, turtles and whales. However, the Times has established that there is no scientific evidence to show that the bags pose any direct threat to marine mammals.
In referring to our form of government, Alexander Hamilton once said, “Here sir, the people govern”. But given the actions of some of the more arrogant members of our judiciary, there seems to be room for doubt.
In 2000, the people of California approved a statewide referendum defining marriage in that state as the union of one man and one woman, but in 2008 their state supreme court threw out that law (by a four to three vote of the court). So in November, 2008 voters approved a state constitutional amendment to overturn their supreme court’s decision and again take control of the definition of marriage in their state, just as voters in over thirty states have done.
It has been a mass expression of sovereign will on a single subject unlike few (if any) others in our nation’s history – and one at which activists judges continue to thumb their noses.
A few weeks ago, federal district Judge Vaughan Walker gave us the latest example of contempt for popular sovereignty by overturning California’s state constitutional amendment. It’s only the latest round of what has been an ongoing battle with activist judges.
The problem is that we have too few real judges in our country, and far too many would-be judicial oligarchs who see themselves as the “supreme” branch of our government, rather than just one of three. It’s the product of a philosophy that sees our constitutional structure as an eighteenth century anachronism, rather than the law of the land.
Jefferson once noted, the Constitution “is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” And so they have.
Their excuse is that the Constitution compels them to do so, which is rather strange given that those who wrote and ratified the Constitution or any of its amendments made no such pronouncements. So we’re left to assume that it’s taken a few hundred years of study in constitutional law for our betters in black robes to discover what was there all along? Whatever.
As I sit here, I have no idea how things will play out for Charles Rangel and Maxine Waters, although I find it highly unlikely that either of them will end up in a congressional trial, no matter how much the defendants claim they wish to have the air cleared. When Nancy Pelosi insisted that under the Democrats, the swamp that is Capitol Hill would be drained, she should have kept in mind that after such a draining it’s not treasure chests and fields of four-leaf clovers that are uncovered, but creepy, crawly things.
Although I have no use for either of the two Democrats being investigated, I have a special loathing for Rep. Waters. For one thing, even after a story in the San Jose Mercury was shown to be a hoax, she persisted in claiming it was the C.I.A. that had introduced crack cocaine into black communities. She also championed the teaching of Ebonics in California schools. So it figured that as soon as the Congressional Ethics Committee targeted her, she would insist it was all the fault of political racists, even though half the members of the committee are liberals. On the other hand, back in the 90s, when it was Newt Gingrich who was charged with ethics violations, Rep. Waters couldn’t contain her glee, as she happily announced, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” And vice versa, Rep. Waters.
Still, I find it odd that neither she nor Mr. Rangel, nor the mainstream media for that matter, see anything even slightly racist about belonging to the Black Congressional Caucus, a group that denied membership to Rep. Stephen Cohen, a Democrat from Tennessee, simply because he’s white even though his district is 60% black!
For my part, I can’t figure out how the Ethics Committee determines whom to target. The way I see it, they could probably go after every single member of the House, including themselves, with the expectation of striking gold. Or perhaps I should say striking dirt. I’m reminded of the NCAA. Every once in a while, they decide to penalize a college for infractions involving bribes and other perks bestowed by over-zealous alumni associations on student athletes. The truth is, no matter how good the football or basketball player is, he is going to join the professional ranks in a few years. Thus, the only way to ensure that a college team is going to remain a national power year after year, decade after decade, is to entice the best high school players in the country. Although the colleges aren’t above using attractive, obliging coeds as lures, nothing beats cash on the barrelhead. Back when I was a kid, I would hear the wise guys say that one All American jock after another had to take a cut in pay when he left college and turned pro. Such, alas, is not the case when it comes to professional politicians.
Something I’ve never understood is how permissive America is when it comes to acts of treason. For the life of me, I don’t understand why PFC Bradley Manning and Wikileaks chief honcho, Julian Assange, aren’t on trial for their lives. However these two punks feel about the war in Afghanistan, there can be no justification for letting the Taliban know which Afghan citizens have cooperated with the U.S. military. What makes their activities all the more reprehensible is that they believe they command the moral high ground. It is a delusion shared by those who oppose all wars, those who oppose capital punishment and, of course, by Jane Fonda.
Whenever I see career politicians, I feel my gorge rising. The fact that these sloths, whose main activity is deciding how to waste other people’s money, insist on calling themselves public servants and get to hold fund-raising testimonials on their own behalf is all the more galling. I have been to a few of those events and it’s a good thing that the food is so unappetizing because, otherwise, it would be impossible to keep one’s dinner down. Even if you skip the over-cooked chicken, you’d have to have a cast-iron constitution to stomach the blatant hypocrisy as you listen to cronies and flunkies enumerate the politician’s alleged virtues in a way denied everyone who hasn’t first had the decency to die.
Here in California, we have more rotten politicians per capita than any other state in the nation. One of the worst has been Jerry Brown. He is presently running for governor, a job he has held in the distant past. This creep has been recycled more often than a plastic bottle. Even though he’s 72 years old, he has never held an actual job in his entire life. He began his current campaign by announcing that his opponent, Meg Whitman, had a great deal in common with Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. His reason was that she had a lot of her own money to spend on her campaign. It seems to me that’s like comparing Charlie Chaplin’s Little Tramp persona to Adolf Hitler because they both had tiny moustaches. But that’s par for the liberal course.
The push for a new constitution for America has begun.
We have all heard the expression: “A Living Constitution.” It means the constitution our Founding Fathers gave us is a document that should be interpreted by taking into consideration that we Americans live, today, in a different time, a different world, than did our forefathers of the 18th century. We live in the 21st century.
Those who believe this – and there is a frighteningly large number of them – are in high places of power, including judicial power, as well as everyday working class Americans. They are flat-out WRONG.
Before I go on, allow me to assure you that I am not among those who advocate a “living constitution.” I am of the opinion the original constitution says what it means and means what it says. That makes me what is referred to today as an “originalist.” That is fine by me.
See, I believe the original constitution has made this country unique—and great in its uniqueness. It has made Americans the freest people on the face of the planet. It has allowed Americans to become the most prosperous people in history. Even our poor are light years better off than the poor of other nations.
The constitution placed restraints on the government of America allowing the American citizen to be all they could and can be – and then some. As a result, we became one of the most creative nations ever in the history of civilization.
For many decades, there has been a portion of Americans who have sought to crush America’s liberty, America’s freedom, and create a New America. They seek to create a collectivist society in America. We call it socialism.
For many decades these people have pulled the strings of their marionettes from the shadows. Now THEY are in positions of ultimate power in the US Government.
Their intentions are to kill off the America we know and replace it with a government not shackled by the democratic process and free of the burden of acting as a representative of the people. Ultimately, they will replace the constitutional republican form of government America has enjoyed since her founding. They envision themselves taking the reins off the government, which is simply another way of saying—they intend to by-pass the restraints on the government enforced by the original constitution.
Most Americans know that today’s America is not the America of 50 or 60 years ago. Slowly and quietly, those who seek to change America have been maneuvering a judicial form of government into place. Today, the federal judiciary, not the Congress, is making more and more of the nation’s laws. In many cases, judges, legislating from the bench, have been appointed to those positions for life. They have little to fear from the electorate. You see, they have never been elected. They are, in effect, un-elected legislators.
While the form of our government remains the same, the making of America’s laws has slowly shifted from the national legislature, the Congress, to the federal judiciary, the federal judges.
For evidence we have only to look to California. The people of that state went to the polls and decided that the marriage of two adult homosexuals, of the same gender, would not be allowed in their state. The voice of the people of California had spoken. That was that.
But wait! A judge has now ruled that the people of California were wrong. Just because they spoke through the ballot box (in accordance with the laws of their state) against gay marriage in the state of California, did not make it legal, in the opinion of that judge, and he simply ruled the law—the people of the state had just agreed to—out of existence, forcing them to accept a way of life they do not want in their state. One man over-ruled the votes of the citizens of state of California. One man did that. It is a clear case of “Rule by Judges.” It is also known as oligarchy, which means the rule of a few over the many.
Recently, we replaced a liberal Supreme Court Justice with another liberal Supreme Court Justice. So – we are even, right? Not so, in my opinion.
The new Justice is much younger and I am afraid we are going to learn she is far more likely to view the constitution as a “living document” and far more likely to consider outside opinions. That is to say—we feel she will consider the rulings of judges in other lands, lands quite unlike America, in forming her own opinions on similar cases before the US Supreme Court.
She was appointed for life, so she has nothing to fear from American citizens who may disagree with her opinions and/or decisions.
I am of the opinion that America stands at a crossroads today. The direction we choose will determine the life or death of that once “Shining City on a Hill.”
Every generation of Americans has faced their own threats to the nation’s survival. They not only faced the threat, they summoned up the will, and they took the action necessary to overcome the threat – thus preserving America for the next generation.
This generation, in my opinion, is NOT demonstrating the depth of will their predecessors did, however. And it is worrisome because it is they who will either save America, this time, or allow it to crumble and fall and, eventually, wind up on the ash heap of history, as did the great Roman Empire.
On November 3rd, of this year, we will have a better understanding of this generation’s will to live free. Will they save America? We will know their intentions on the morning of Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010.
When you think of California , what comes to mind?
Beautiful beaches, San Francisco , Disneyland and Hollywood are the Golden State’s trademarks. Yet the huge land mass between San Francisco and Hollywood – that region known as the San Joaquin Valley – comprises one of the world’s most fertile, and most productive agricultural regions.
And the residents of this agricultural region believe that Barack Obama and his policies have hurt them pretty badly.
It’s a vast, expansive territory that stretches from the northern tip of Los Angeles County , through the center of the state and up to and beyond the state’s capitol city of Sacramento . And today, if you were to travel north or south through this region, on either “Interstate 5” or state route “99,” you’d see the influence of bad politics in Washington , and expressions of outrage that Central Californians feel towards their federal government.
Despite the fertile soil of the San Joaquin Valley , the region would essentially be a desert if it wasn’t adequately irrigated. This means that in order for it to remain a top agricultural producer year after year, it needs a lot of water – and this is where Washington has damaged Central California .
Much of the water that would normally be available to these California farmers has been denied them, because of actions taken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In issuing what is known as a “biological opinion,” this government agency utilized the power of the Endangered Species Act to shut-off water supplies to farmers in order to help save the “delta smelt” – a small fish that the bureaucrats believe is endangered because of too much water in rivers and streams.
Thus, tens of billions of gallons of fresh water from the California mountain regions have been diverted away from the valley farmers, and redirected into the Pacific Ocean, all at the hands of Washington bureaucrats and all for the sake of allegedly saving the smelt. It is a classic and tragic case of radical, out of control environmentalism, and real people and families are having their livelihoods damaged because of it.
This is the big one, boiling along just under the surface, aside from having to deal with a failed economy that is further bedeviled by a bunch of academic Keynesian dilettantes, whose Marxist zeal for redistributive policies are the reason for the problems we’re slogging through as a nation now.
Harry Reid addresses Hispanic voters in Las Vegas
You think this is a dismal place, this economy? If they (the left) had their way, it would rapidly become a dark place devoid of joy or hope. Our Republic is being assaulted on so many fronts, it’s practically a full time job just keeping track of it all. Second only to the economy is the illegal immigration issue. There’s scarcely a state in the union that hasn’t been affected by the influx of illegal aliens, primarily from across our southern border which is some 2,000 miles of shared border with Mexico and, for all practical purposes, undefended.
While Barack Hussein Obama is making great noise about a ‘border appropriation’ of some 800 million dollars, he has done nothing about restoring some 500 border patrol agents he stripped from service and reassigned in the last two years. Our international border stands virtually undefended and indefensible, at least while Obama holds sway.
America is really peed about this one too, Harry. Despite the alternate universe you reside in, Mr Reid, most Americans of Mexican descent are strongly against illegal immigration. Another thing Harry… these Mexican Americans whom you treated so flippantly and whom you dismissed so lightly will make their weight felt in the upcoming election. You see, Harry, these are family people. They are hardworking and successful Americans who, until recently, had been reluctant to come forward in the face of criticism from the left. Many of these folks have been at town hall meetings and tea parties all over the country. They are your neighbors and friends. They are my neighbors and friends. They are Americans.
California is flat broke and can’t copy big brother in the beltway by printing new bucks and distributing riches at the discretion of a few partisan power brokers. The insane practice of harboring illegal aliens in sanctuary cities, while tying the hands of our law enforcement to prevent them enforcing laws regarding illegal entrance into this country that already exist, is nuts to the max, especially in the face of the growing gang threat out there.
There are two topics I generally try to avoid discussing. Number one on the list is homosexuality. Number two is most things having to do with religion, although it is impossible to ignore it in a world where a militant Islam is causing so much conflict.
I would avoid examining gay “marriage” if I could, but the gay and lesbian community will not let me.
With seven decades of life under my belt, I have had plenty of time to learn about homosexuality, know homosexuals, and to have arrived at some conclusions about it. My basic conclusion is that homosexuality is hard-wired into an individual at birth. It is not, in my opinion, a lifestyle option one learns about and decides to choose.
Those who discover their homosexuality, early or late, know well that it positions them outside the acceptance of our society and those worldwide. As such, it is a cause of much abuse and, to varying degrees, self-hatred.
The three monotheistic religions made it clear in their sacred texts that homosexuality is a sin, but that is a matter of belief. On a strictly physiological basis, nature ordains that there are two sexes, male and female, and they exist for the propagation of the species. That’s why marriage is regarded as essential to any society.
Since homosexuals must function within our society, one might reasonably assume they would accept society’s need to maintain marriage as between a man and a woman, but among militant homosexuals, there has been a growing movement to require a redefinition of this ancient model.
This brings us to the decision by a federal judge to overturn California’s Proposition 8, calling for a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. Proposition 8 was approved by voters by a margin of 52 percent in favor versus 48 percent who opposed it. The majority of U.S. States have laws recognizing marriage as between members of the opposite sex.
One of the great evils from America’s past was the use of poll taxes, literacy tests, and other chicanery designed to deny the vote to minorities.
For the most part, those evils have been eliminated, which is generally a good thing, although there are exceptions.
Unfortunately, America’s judiciary is employing an even more sinister method to nullify the wishes of voters and their representatives , with mainstream Americans targeted as the victims.
The new “Poll Tax” works like this: Rather than trying to prevent anyone from voting, everyone is allowed to vote and, when the results are not favorable to “Progressive” elitists, an appeal is filed.
An activist judge will then toss out the initiative, proposition, or whatever the offending vote is called, and do so by declaring the whole mess “unconstitutional.”
An excellent example of the abuse of judicial power is playing out with regard to Proposition 8 passed in 2008 by California voters and which consists of the following 14 words:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
As the first of the 80 million Baby Boomers have begun to retire, it has become increasingly apparent that the United States is facing a pension crisis of unprecedented magnitude. State and local government pension plans are woefully underfunded, dozens of large corporate pension plans either have collapsed or are on the verge of collapsing, Social Security is a complete and total financial disaster and about half of all Americans essentially have nothing saved up for retirement. So yes, to say that we are facing a retirement crisis would be a tremendous understatement. There is simply no way that we can keep all of the financial promises that we have made to the Baby Boomer generation. Unfortunately, the crumbling U.S. economy simply cannot support the comfortable retirement of tens of millions of elderly Americans any longer. The truth is that we are all going to have to start fundamentally changing the way that we think about our golden years.
Once upon a time, you could count on getting a big, fat pension if you put 30 years into a job. But now pension plans everywhere are failing. State and local governments are cutting back and are raising retirement ages. A majority of Americans have even lost faith in the Social Security system, which was supposed to be the most secure of them all.
The reality is that we are moving into a time when there is not going to be such a thing as “financial security” as we have known it in the past. Things have fundamentally changed, and we are all going to have to struggle to stay above water in the economic nightmare that is coming.
Part of the reason we have such a gigantic economic mess on the way is because we have promised vastly more than we can deliver to future retirees. When you closely examine the numbers, it quickly becomes clear that a financial tsunami is about to hit us that is going to be so devastating that it will change everything that we know about retirement.
The following are 22 statistics about America’s coming pension crisis that will make you lose sleep at night….
Private Pension Plans And Retirement Funds
1 - One recent study found that America’s 100 largest corporate pension plans were underfunded by $217 billion at the end of 2008.
2 – Approximately half of all workers in the United States� have less than $2000 saved up for retirement.
Meg Whitman was on America’s Morning News today. After listening to her talk, I had the distinct impression that what we’re getting is another big government liberal. When queried about the illegal alien subject she danced all over the issue, saying that “Arizona’s anti-illegal alien law was not for California”. It made me wonder if she had ever read California’s statutes, like 634-b of the criminal code. Maybe someone should tell her that we have had the same laws on our books for decades.
Successive liberal state governments (like Jerry ‘Moonbeam’ Brown’s) have tied law enforcements’ hands, preventing them from arresting illegals for anything except violent crime, and turning them over to ICE agents and deporting them. These laws have been in existence for thirty years or more.
Whitman then moved on to say that she would ‘seal’ the border. Um, has anybody bothered to tell Megs that the Feds control the border? Sounds just like an Arizona problem doesn’t it? Maybe Whitman should talk to some of the ranchers in the Jacumba, Davies Station or Campo Station areas of the state she wishes to govern, who have to go around armed and in fear for their families.
She further said she would ensure that employers were severely punished for hiring illegal aliens and see to it that so-called ‘sanctuary cities’ would be punished and prevented from sheltering illegal aliens, such as the convicted felon who slaughtered Tony Bologna and two of his sons in that great outdoor sewer and illegal alien paradise, San Francisco.
Sounds pretty good in a general way, doesn’t it? Until you find out that she is broadcasting the diametric opposite message in Spanish on Latino language radio stations and on at least one billboard, which had been spotted and reported by a Tea Party patriot, saying “No on 187 and No on the Arizona immigration law“. In Spanish that would be called “hablar dando una de cal y otra de arena”. Speaking from both sides of your mouth.
It has been a mass expression of sovereign will on a single subject unlike few (if any) others in our nation’s history – and one at which activists judges continue to thumb their noses.
Although I have no use for either of the two Democrats being investigated, I have a special loathing for Rep. Waters. For one thing, even after a story in the San Jose Mercury was shown to be a hoax, she persisted in claiming it was the 
Before I go on, allow me to assure you that I am not among those who advocate a “living constitution.” I am of the opinion the original constitution says what it means and means what it says. That makes me what is referred to today as an “originalist.” That is fine by me.
When you think of California , what comes to mind?
There are two topics I generally try to avoid discussing. Number one on the list is homosexuality. Number two is most things having to do with religion, although it is impossible to ignore it in a world where a militant Islam is causing so much conflict.
As the first of the 80 million Baby Boomers have begun to retire, it has become increasingly apparent that the United States is facing a pension crisis of unprecedented magnitude. State and local government pension plans are woefully underfunded, dozens of large corporate pension plans either have collapsed or are on the verge of collapsing, Social Security is a complete and total financial disaster and about half of all Americans essentially have nothing saved up for retirement. So yes, to say that we are facing a retirement crisis would be a tremendous understatement. There is simply no way that we can keep all of the financial promises that we have made to the Baby Boomer generation. Unfortunately, the crumbling U.S. economy simply cannot support the comfortable retirement of tens of millions of elderly Americans any longer. The truth is that we are all going to have to start fundamentally changing the way that we think about our golden years. 
