Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts

Footloose: California Tries To Ban Raves



Just as it's a myth that Republicans are the "party of Wall Street," it's also a myth that every GOP politician is a prissy-faced blue stocking who wants to "ban" things like rock'n'roll and raves. It was Tipper Gore who founded the notorious PMRC back in the Reagan-Bush era. And it's Democrats Fiona Ma and Jerry Brown who are trying to ban raves in California. Amazing stuff:    

Can you ban a style of music? California Assemblywoman Fiona Ma learned the hard way that doing so might not be so easy when she tried to ban electronic rave music.
"We found out later on that, Constitutionally, you can not ban a type of music," said Ma. "Plus, I, like my opponents said, I didn't really know what was going on."
Despite the inability to ban rave music outright, Ma was able to squelch aspects of rave culture like LED gloves and pacifiers by keeping the pressure on event organizers with Assembly Bill 74 (formerly the "Anti-Raves Act" ), which became law on Oct. 9, 2011 when CA Governor Jerry Brown signed it.
The Assemblywoman first became concerned with raves when a 15-year-old girl named Sasha Rodriguez died at the popular Los Angeles rave, The Electric Daisy Carnival (EDC).

Ma's bill only bans some of the accoutrements of raves, although it's hard for me to see how you can "ban" pacifiers. As she discovered to her barely suppressed regret, Ma could not ban music or mass dancing because of the  First Amendment. Hmmm. Sounds like some Constitution shredding, not that you'd ever hear about it when speech is suppressed by people with a "D" after their name.  


Ma, btw, represents a neighborhood in the supposed hipster haven San Francisco, not that this will do anything to hurt her career. As long as she voted the progressive line, she can legislate in the manner of a "movie Republican" without bearing the consequences that would be visited on a real life Republican who tried to legislate this sort of nonsense.


The Lone Voice: Tom McClintock's Warning To America



Hard as it may be to believe, there are conservative Republicans in California. A few of them have even managed to win elections here and there. One of the best is Congressman Tom McClintock who gave a speech recently that was essentially a warning: if you re-elect Obama, America, your future will look like California's present:  

Bad policies. Bad process. Bad politics. Those are the three acts in a Greek tragedy that tell the tale of how, in the span of a single generation, the most prosperous and golden state in the nation became an economic basket case.
When my parents came to California in the 1960’s looking for a better future, they found it here. The state government consumed about half of what it does today after adjusting for both inflation and population. HALF. We had the finest highway system in the world and the finest public school system in the country. California offered a FREE university education to every Californian who wanted one. We produced water and electricity so cheaply that some communities didn’t bother to meter the stuff. Our unemployment rate consistently ran well below the national rate and our diversified economy was nearly recession-proof.
One thing – and one thing only – changed in those years: public policy. The political Left gradually gained dominance over California’s government and has imposed a disastrous agenda of radical and retrograde policies that have destroyed the quality of life that Californians once took for granted.

That's just an excerpt from a very long piece. You really should read the whole thing. It's a sharp attack on the state's Can't Do society, which is no longer able to build dams, roads, prisons, or schools, but never fails to send out welfare checks to illegal immigrants. 


While McClintock's unsparing in blaming liberals and liberalism for California's dysfunctions, he also has some choice words for those Republicans who dealt with the state's liberals by presenting a moderate "me, too" facade:     

(Nationally) Republicans rediscovered why we were Republicans, and Republican leaders rediscovered Reagan’s advice to paint our positions in bold colors and not hide them in pale pastels.
The result was one of the most dramatic watershed elections in American history.
California Republicans did exactly the opposite, and ended up replaying the disaster of 2008 while the rest of the country was enjoying one of the greatest Republican landslides ever recorded.
In California, the Democrats attacked Republicans for imposing the biggest state tax increase in American history. The Democrats attacked Republicans for obstructing pension reform to protect the prison guards union. These attacks had the unfortunate element of being true.
Meanwhile, the Republican ticket attacked Arizona’s immigration law. Republicans attacked the Proposition that would have stopped AB 32 – California’s version of Cap and Trade.
The sad truth is that we were more like the Democrats than the Democrats.
A few days after the election, a Republican leader whose mission in life has been to redefine the Republican Party in the image of Arnold Schwarzenegger said he just couldn’t explain the results.
I can. We didn’t need to redefine our principles. We needed to return to them. House Republicans did. California Republicans did not. Any questions?

It's often forgotten that McClintock ran in the recall campaign that resulted in the election of the Governator. As I recall he managed to attain about 20% of the vote. Sadly, I was not one of those 20%. I actually believed that electing Arnold Schwarzenegger would be a boon to GOP fortunes. I admired McClintock's principles, but thought Ah-nuld had enough pizzazz to sell conservatism to reluctant Golden Staters. How wrong I, along with many others, was. 


Today, Jerry Brown - a decent, intelligent, but profoundly misguided man - signed into law some classic "only in California" legislation. We are banning the sale of shark fins. We are limiting state initiatives to the November ballot, a sop to unions, who only want to have to do one GOTV effort per year. We are requiring public utilities to put "safety over profits." (are we legislating slogans now?) 


And, of course, we are going to be paying public money to illegal immigrants so they can receive grants to go to college. We are closing state parks and releasing thousands of prisoners for lack of funds, but it's roll out the red carpet for people who flout the law. 


McClintock has a message that's easy to articulate, and undeniably true. Yet there are very few Republicans, either in-state or nationally, who are up to the challenge of repeating it. And, that's too damn bad. 




Hands In Pocket: CA Dems Betrayed By Embezzler


I kind of slept on this story when it broke in the local papers, but the Wall Street Journal has made a national story out of a Californian woman who has served as treasurer for dozens of California Democratic campaigns, and who (it turns out) was embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars from her clients.

Kinde Durkee was arrested Sept. 2 and accused by federal authorities of stealing campaign funds and using the money to pay for an array of personal expenses, including mortgage payments, cosmetics and nursing-home care for her mother. Based in Burbank, Calif., the 58-year-old had long managed money for scores of Democratic campaigns.

According to the federal criminal complaint, Ms. Durkee "misappropriated money from her clients' bank accounts and filed false disclosure reports to hide the misappropriations." Ms. Durkee "admitted that she had been misappropriating her clients' money for years," according to court documents.

Her lawyer didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

The complaint against Ms. Durkee focused solely on her alleged misappropriation of more than $600,000 from the campaign accounts of state Assemblyman Jose Solorio's campaign accounts. But prosecutors said the case is set to widen as evidence surfaces that more politicians were alleged victims and millions of dollars in campaign donations may be missing.

The best part is that her current clients have no idea how much money they may or may not have in their campaign coffers. Some of them even claim to be locked out of their accounts! Hilarious!

What's not so funny: no one among her clients seems worried that they might have some exposure to campaign finance violations. But, Durkee was able to get away with her crimes by, at least in part, by commingling federal and state campaign donations, and then mixing up those accounts with her own as well as those of other clients. Don't candidates have some responsibility for where their campaign donations go? Didn't Tom DeLay get a prison sentence for what was essentially depositing the wrong funds into the wrong account? Durkee, for her part, had previously been flagged for major violations, but these never seemed to affect her career, or redound against her liberal clients.

While some California political figures expressed shock at the allegations against Ms. Durkee, there are growing indications that there were potentially serious problems in her operation for years.

"There definitely had been red flags that have gone off in the last few years," said Stephen Kaufman, a campaign attorney who worked for clients of Ms. Durkee's. Mr. Kaufman said he was working with a number of clients to find out the status of the bank accounts that Ms. Durkee had controlled.

Ms. Durkee was cited for financial reporting misdeeds 11 times by the state agency that oversees campaign finances, starting in 2002. The fines totaled $190,000.

Compared to other campaign treasurers, the number of citations stood at "an extreme level," said Ann Ravel, chairwoman of the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state oversight agency. Ms. Durkee was "the subject of quite a few major violations."

One of the investigations found unusual fluctuations in the campaign accounts of a statewide regulatory board candidate. Investigators noticed similar irregularities in the accounts of other clients of Ms. Durkee, including one official for a federal office, prompting the state agency to contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Ms. Ravel said.

A "statewide regulatory candidate," huh? Names, please. Like I say. Why didn't these violations redound against her clients? If there were "unusual fluctuations" in campaign accounts, doesn't that deserve a little more scrutiny of the candidate?

Also, note that the guy who seems to be her biggest victim was State Assemblyman Jose Solorio, who lost $600,000 to his rogue treasurer. California's government is too big, and its legislators too powerful, when a mere state assemblyman can have a campaign account so large that it takes a while for him (or whomever) to realize it was $600K short.

Durkee was motivated, in part, by greed - she clearly wanted to live a larger lifestyle than that which a political bookkeeper could afford. But she was also paying for her mother's rest home bills. Looks like Utopia wasn't coming quickly enough for Durkee.

There's a lot of talk in the article from people like Diane Feinstein bemoaning the betrayal of trust. Personally I would never trust a liberal, but I certainly would never trust someone who looks like this:

DURKEE

Geeesh! My eyes! When conservatives talk about fighting Leviathan, they aren't kidding.



The Death of the West: CA's Latest Poverty Numbers


Recently released census data indicates that 6 million Californians live below the national poverty line, and one in five are without health insurance (what about Obamacare? Where's my Utopia?!) Cue the one millionth "California Nightmare" headline.
Poverty levels increased for a fourth straight year in California, according to census data released Tuesday.

Nearly six million California residents fell below the national poverty threshold of $22,113 for a family of four in 2010, while one in five lacked health insurance.

The numbers represent a negative trend sweeping the nation as close to 46.2 million Americans reported living in poverty last year -- the fourth year in a row the country has seen an increase in poverty.
Unmentioned in the linked article: in addition to the lousy business/economic climate, California has spent the last decade importing a lot of poverty. Something like 30% of the welfare recipients in the United States live here because the state never really adopted Gingrich-era welfare reform. Then there are the folks who come here from, ah, down there. We are assured that these are all hard working salt of the earth types who do the jobs Americans won't do, but, as VDH has documented, a lot of California's rural poverty now comes with some Spanish lingo thrown in.

Around here, it's enough for people to say "It's Bush's Fault!" But, how true can that be? California has been a left-liberal state since at least the mid-Nineties with the bloated state payroll, unsustainable entitlements, crushing regulatory environment, dimwitted global warming laws, scummy lifestyle crimes, and high speed rail boondoggles to prove it. Sure, we have had a Republican governor for most of the last decade, but he wasn't able to move an ostensibly Republican agenda since 2005, and basically governed as a liberal for the latter half of his time in office. The state legislature hasn't had a Republican majority for as long as I can remember. San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, and Los Angeles have been one-party (guess which one) political jurisdictions for years, if not decades. And, millions of Californians hopped, skipped and jumped to the polls in November 2008 to elect Barack Obama president. Then they compounded their error by returning Jerry Brown - the one guy in state politics who wasn't term limited out of the governor's office despite already having served two terms - to the governor's mansion. A sort of lazy "save the whales" brand of gentry liberalism has been the state's default political setting since the days of the (first) Jerry Brown administration. So, yeah, it's Bush's fault.

No one has been louder in "fighting" poverty than California Democrats. But the result of all their efforts has been (drumroll) more poverty. Did the Evil Rich do this? Did stoopid conservatives? No, we fought against it. Liberals won! And look where we are.

They can blame Bush all they want, but Texas bore the Bush millstone, too, yet it's thriving. That could have happened in California, as well. Sadly, people here chose to rely on government, rather than on themselves.



Presidential Courage


Former George W Bush speech-writer Bill McGurn writes that he is constantly asked whether his former boss was "smart" (Answer: of course, he is). McGurn says the more important question was whether W was courageous. Do you really need to wonder about the answer?

I saw another version of courage in President Bush. My time in the White House coincided with the worst times of the Iraq War. Each day seemed to bring news of good Americans dying for no appreciable gain, of Baghdad descending into hell, of some congressman or senator who had supported the effort in easier times now calling for America to cut and run.

More than once President Bush told me, "We are not going to lose our nerve and abandon the people of Iraq the way we did the people of Vietnam, from an embassy rooftop." It made for a lonely presidency. Rather than accept defeat, he ordered a surge that almost no one—including some around him—wanted: not the Pentagon, not a weary American public, certainly not Republicans or Democrats in Congress.

The night he gave that speech, Jan. 10, 2007, did not go well. The network gummed up the news feed. The president looked stiff and uncomfortable. Scarcely before he'd finished, the glib and gifted were on television declaring it a flop. The president expected as much. He did what he had to do anyway.

So successful was the surge that today we take it for granted. The progress we see in Iraq, and even the progress President Obama has made in Afghanistan, would not have been possible but for that surge. That surge would not have happened but for President Bush's will

Why bring this up now? Well, we've been hearing a lot of talk from today's White House about a different kind of courage; that "we" must all work together to share the sacrifice in raising taxes to fund a grossly swollen federal government. The overhanging threat is that of default, loss of our AAA credit rating, and a ruined economy. Better to deal rather than face that, right? But, the White House is telling a different story to the banks. There's not going to be any default on August 2:

While officials from the Obama Administration raised their rhetoric over the weekend about the possibility of a debt default if the debt ceiling isn't raised, they privately have been telling top executives at major U.S. banks that such an event won’t happen, FOX Business has learned.


In a series of phone calls, administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen even if the debt cap isn't raised by the August 2 date Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says the government will run out of money to pay all its bills, including obligations to bond holders. Geithner made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows saying a default is imminent if the debt ceiling isn't raised, and President Obama issued a similar warning during a Friday press conference after budget negotiations with House Republicans broke down.

If you are a Democrat, courage is threatening a market collapse through a strategic default, all the while assuring Wall Street that all the apocalyptic talk is just to scare the rubes and hicks who dared to send conservatives to Congress.

Courage is threatening to refuse to send checks to seniors and the military, while making sure that the Planned Parenthoods and ACORN's of the world get their gov't $$ on time and without interruption.

Courage is demanding your opposition compromise while you present nothing but "non-negotiables."

Courage is making bad faith arguments about "millionaires & billionaires" and corporate jet owners while being the number-one recipient of donations from these targets.

And courage is making all manner of demagogic attacks while hiding behind the poodle skirts of a news media you know will present everything you do in the best possible light, all the while frowning and fussing that Republicans will be "blamed" for every ill that might flow from a default even as you are the one who is actively seeking to bring it about.

Democrats obviously think they are arguing from a position of strength. But they are hardly fighting this fight in a courageous manner.


The Truth, Inadvertently


People have been slowly catching on to the fact that Obama's threat to withhold Social Security checks contains an unexpected admission against Democrat interests: if there isn't enough money to write SS checks, doesn't that mean the sacrosanct "trust fund" is empty? Verum Serum picked up on it first (actually, they credit Say Anything with being earlier). Now Investors Business Daily and Forbes are bringing the story closer to the mainstream.

Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that Social Security is fully funded—for the next 25 years, or 2036. So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks?

The answer is that the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it, exactly as Krauthammer asserted. And the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling.

Thus, the answer to my initial question is that the president is telling the truth now in the sense that he is conceding there’s no money in the trust fund to pay benefits; but he and other Social Security status-quo defenders have been deceiving the public for decades.

And here’s the real irony: Anytime someone has proposed personal Social Security retirement accounts as a way to ensure that people have real assets in their own account without bankrupting the government or future generations, defenders of the status quo would pounce, calling such a reform, in Al Gore’s words, a “risky scheme.” They have vociferously claimed that those trust fund assets are real and that only by having the government manage and control the accounts would seniors be guaranteed to get their retirement checks.

Well, we have the status quo and seniors may not get their checks.

The crazy thing is that it's really not that unusual for Social Security checks to be threatened during times when serious budget cuts are under discussion. Yet, everyone has so totally bought into the idea of a Social Security "lock box" on the one hand, and the "Republicans want to kill Grandma" on the other, that the president can go on television and make these sort of reality-challenged claims without anyone batting an eye. Scott Pelley, who was interviewing Obama when he threatened the elderly - talk about throwing Grandma off a cliff! - didn't say a word, of course. But even Republicans can be slow on the uptake on this sort of thing.

Democrats will say this is no problem because it's "just politics." But, politics is the only reason we have Social Security and a million other drains on the federal coffers. Moreover, the MSM is always happy to provide Democrats with friendly coverage that elides the basic contradictions in their rhetoric. No Republican is allowed to get away with the sort of facile double talk with which Democrats "protect" The Elderly, The Poor, The Children, The Workers, and Anyone Else you could name. That's why serious reform is virtually impossible until liberals can't rely on predictable MSM narratives about brave liberals "holding the line" against "intransigent Republicans."


No Gratitude: Liberals To CA Business - Love It Or Leave It


You may have heard about the latest plan to split CA into two states. Such proposals are hardy perennials among back bencher types in state politics. This time, a Riverside Republican has proposed splitting off CA's 13 most conservative counties, and let the rest of us drown in welfare checks, crack vials, and gay wedding detritus.

Frankly, proposals like this are little more than an excuse for a press release and a goofy story in the newspaper, but someone from the obliging LA Times actually contacted the governor's office to find out what the Zen Master thinks of this GOP plot to escape the land of fruits and nuts. Here is his spokesman's priceless response (h/t Baseball Crank)

"If you want to live in a Republican state with very conservative right-wing laws, then there's a place called Arizona," Brown spokesman Gil Duran said.

Honestly, you can practically hear Duran's prissy exasperation. ("Prissy exasperation" being the default vocal tone for CA liberals). Don't you think there are already a lot of Californians who have left for Arizona? And Oregon? And Nevada? And Colorado? And 45 other states besides? Not only that, they seem to have taken all the jobs with them and replaced them with an underclass that receives over 30% of the welfare paid out in the United States. That's not what most of us consider to be a fair trade.

Duran is also known for calling GOP legislators "basically moronic" during the last round of budget negotiations. Oddly enough, Republicans decided they didn't need to play along with progressive demands for more taxes and debt as the "solution" to our problems. In the classic way of these things, Duran finds praise for "just calling it like he sees it." Too bad a GOP spokesman who dared to be so forthright about perfidious Democrats would be hounded as a hot-headed radical who wants to kill Grandma.

Duran is not a loose cannon, of course. He's the governor's official spokesman. So his crass insults can only reflect his boss's attitude. It's almost as if all that New Civility talk of earlier this was a bunch of hooey.


One Man's Ceiling Is Another Man's Floor


I woke up this morning wondering breathlessly: "Is there a debt ceiling deal? Is there a debt ceiling deal? For God's sake, somebody tell me, Is there a debt ceiling deal???"

The answer, it seems, is "No" with the dread John Boehner being blamed for refusing to go along with a tax increase and insisting on spending cuts on the backs of seniors, The Children and the poor. Wow, that's a spin I couldn't have predicted.
Citing differences over tax revenues, House Speaker John A. Boehner said on Saturday night that he would pull back from joint efforts with President Obama to reach a sweeping $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan tied to a proposal to increase the federaldebt limit.

On the eve of a second round of high-level bipartisan talks set for Sunday, Mr. Boehner issued a statement saying he would now urge negotiators to instead focus on crafting a smaller package more in line with the $2 trillion to $3 trillion in spending cuts and revenue increases negotiated earlier by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

“Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes,” Mr. Boehner said. “I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase.”

The decision was a major reversal for Mr. Boehner, a veteran Congressional deal-maker who along with Mr. Obama had been the major advocate for seeking a far-reaching deal that would have combined a debt limit increase with substantial spending cuts, significant changes in social programs like Medicare, Medicaid and perhaps Social Security, and as much as $1 trillion in new revenues. Following a secret meeting between the two last weekend, Mr. Obama went public with his own call for a broad package.

The White House, in its own statement, followed Mr. Boehner’s announcement with the suggestion that the president would try to change Mr. Boehner’s mind in their Sunday session.

Blah Blah. We've been through this charade in California several times over the last few years. Here, the left held the whip hand at all times, which meant tax increases and pretend spending cuts, all of which left us in our present state of 12% unemployment, permanent deficits and a ruined economy. Luckily for the rest of you, the United States is not California. Republicans in the House can sit with the President as equals, rather than as a despised minority whose power depends on a super-majority requirement for tax increases. Plus, John Boehner is probably a bit more steelier than our former "Republican" governor who always knew in the back of his mind that he was one newscycle away from a "Governator's Love Child" tabloid scandal.

More important, there's no political logic that says Republicans have to go along with Democrat attempts to raise the debt ceiling. Such efforts are opposed by wide majorities of the public. As with the TARP vote, anyone who votes against the debt ceiling will be a hero, not a goat. And if there is a debt problem, it's due entirely to the efforts of Democrats who have spent an ungodly amount of money in the last 30 months, mostly on the failed stimulus and the increasingly unpopular Obamacare, not to mention the Fed's QE2 efforts, which further devalued the dollar and weakened the economy.

Republicans did not do any of that. Indeed, we were virtually united in opposing the Democrats during their historic binge. Now we're, supposed to help bail them out??? Sorry I don't see the logic, not to mention the justice, of doing that.


And When She Went To The Cupboard...

Thomas Sowell on the endless tug-of-war over "reforming" the American welfare state (h/t the Free Will brother):
One of my earliest memories of revulsion against war came from seeing a photograph from the First World War when I was a teenager. It was nothing gory. Just a picture of a military officer, in an impressive uniform, talking to a puzzled and forlorn-looking old peasant woman with a cloth wrapped around her head.

He said simply: "Don't you understand, madam? The village is not there any more."

To many such people of that era, the village was the only world they knew. And to say that it had been destroyed in the carnage of war was to say that there was no way for them to go back home, that their whole world was gone.

Recently that image came back, in a wholly different context, while seeing pictures of American seniors carrying signs that read "Hands off my Social Security" and "Hands off my Medicare."

They want their Social Security and their Medicare to stay the way they are -- and their anger is directed against those who want to change the financial arrangements that pay for these benefits.

Their anger should be directed instead against those politicians who were irresponsible enough to set up these costly programs without putting aside enough money to pay for the promises that were made -- promises that now cannot be kept, regardless of which political party controls the government.

Someone needs to say to those who want Social Security and Medicare to continue on unchanged: "Don't you understand? The money is not there any more.

The amazing thing is that the "respectable" position continues to be that of the Democrats who speak of lock-boxes, and Social Security Trusts, and the promises made to the elderly; as if there was a big pot of money sitting around waiting to be disbursed to retirees. Yet these same Democrats - often the same people! - have also arranged to spend this money to fund current expenditures. And, all along, the "disreputable" position has been to point out that the system is unsustainable, that it needs to be restructured, and that providing for retirement need not be done through the mediating hand of the government.

Making things worse: the public debate does not focus on pointing out the essentially criminal fraud of the "respectable" position because the MSM that has arrogated to itself the position of the nation's public forum will inevitably focus on the "throw Grandma off the cliff" aspects of the debate, even when reformers go out of their way to exclude the over-55 set from their proposed reforms.

We are walking quickly towards disaster, but the best educated (hah!) among us are actively working to stay the course.
Interesting times &c.


Set Up Man: Throwing Anthony Weiner Out of Congress


With Anthony Weiner's resignation in hand, the Weiner-gate saga (if you can call it that) is almost over. Weiner was doomed once the MSM picked up on the story after right-wing bloggers covered the story over the Memorial Day weekend (was it that long ago?). It was an incredibly quick fall for someone who was one of the most prominent Democrats in Congress and certainly one of the most vocal proponents of progressive politics. Make no mistake, the loss of Weiner is a real blow, as compared to the sort of back-benchers like Chris Lee and Mark Foley who are typical of GOP scandals.

Lee Strahan notes, however, that there are still gaps in our knowledge, not just about what Weiner was up to, but also where lies the genesis of the tweet that shook the world. Specifically, two of the teen-agers whom Weiner sexted up have disappeared from the scene. Not only that, there remains an aura of mystery about the guy who originally re-tweeted the d**k-pic.

One of the strangest aspects of the #Weinergate story is that they are three people that are fairly central to the story that nobody seems to be able to locate. Neither the prescient Weiner-obsessed whistleblower PatriotUSA76, nor the two high school girls named “Betty and Veronica” in Tommy Christopher’s original piece reporting on the two.

I’ve discussed the situation with Patriot a number of times, so the update is – still, nobody seems to have ever spoken to them on the phone. Nobody knows who they are and there are contradictions in their story.

I had reporters calling me all weekend to try and find Betty and Veronica. These are people from major press organizations with big resources behind them. No sign of Betty or Veronica. Tommy Christopher says he spoke to Betty’s Mom on the phone and did other things to confirm their identities and it would be a fatal career move to just lie about that, so it’s hard to believe that that’s what happened. On the other hand, nobody else has seen this proof as far as I know (perhaps Colby Hall, the managing editor?) and Tommy has been very belligerently defensive about his reporting. And again, reporters have put dozens of hours into searching records and knocking on door with no trace.

Significantly, Betty seems to be connected at least four people central to Weinergate – Weiner followed her, she talked on Twitter with stripper @GingerLee, Betty contacted the 17 year old girl in Delaware, and she had some interactions with PatriotUSA76. It also seems like @GennetteC knew about her.

It’s weird and it’s weird in a way that’s not normal, either. When else has this happened? I can’t remember another story with 3 (or more, really) phantom people. The fact that Weiner is guilty of doing what Patriot long suspected him of doing makes it more weird, not less weird.

I'm not going to say there was a vast right-wing conspiracy to bring down Anthony Weiner. He brought himself down. But, I will say that he got a push, and a mighty big one at that. I can guarantee right now that there are people on Capitol Hill who were not surprised to find out that Weiner had been caught texting his penis to college girls. Maybe they didn't specifically know about his Twitter habits, but I'll bet the gossip on Weiner was (1) horn dog (2) likes to talk dirty (3) vainglorious. You all saw those photos he took in the gym. You're telling me no one knew about that?

Anyway, Weiner's colleagues - at least some - had to know. People in the media - at least some - had to know. But, as with John Edwards, progressive omerta protected him. And, just as with Edwards, it's no longer possible to suppress this sort of news. All you can do is keep it off cable, the networks, and the newspapers. But progressives' thin blue line can only take you so far. At some point, word must have gotten around to people on the right, whether on Capitol Hill or elsewhere, that something was up with Anthony Weiner. After that, it was a short journey to Andrew Breitbart and all the rest. That's where Mickey Kaus's concept of the undernews - where there is a story that the Establishment pretends doesn't exist so long it is not in the "major" media - captures how information travels in the 21st century.

In this case, the two most important people who brought information to light were "Dan Wolfe" and Megan Broussard. Wolfe was the guy who was monitoring Weiner's twitter feed, ostensibly to protect vulnerable young women from a predatory congressman. Broussard was the woman who seems to have been the source of many of the most embarrassing photos of the congressman, the photos that Breitbart began releasing one by one after Weiner and his enablers in the media had spent a solid week rationalizing what he had done. Pretty nice that "Wolfe" and Broussard were able to become privy to Weiner's secret life as an exhibitionist. Also pretty nice that they were able to forward that information to the one guy they could count on to use their material to maximum effect.

This is not a complaint, btw. The left does this all the time. (if you read Robert Novak's version of the Plamegate story, you realize that - initially, at least - it was ginned up by Joe Wilson and David Corn). But, it looks like conservatives have developed their own cadre of guerilla journalists and activists who have targeted the left's heroes.

UPDATE: Wow. The NY Times now has a story reporting that the two high school girls ("Betty and Veronica") likely don't exist. Not that this proves any conspiracy. These two were among the few as Weiner defenders who came forward during the time when the left and the media were trying to exonerate Weiner as the victim of a Breitbart smear.


The Doctor Is Out: CA Faces Doctor Shortage


In yet another metric of decline, CA is facing a shortage of primary care doctors as MD's flee a once-lucrative and prestigious profession:

Retiring doctors, low Medi-Cal reimbursement rates, and the federal health care reform law are exacerbating California's shortage of primary care physicians, Bay Area health care providers and medical associations say.

Already, only a quarter of California's counties meet the recommended ratio of 60 to 80 primary care doctors for every 100,000 residents, according to the California Medical Association. (In the Bay Area, there are 78 primary care physicians for every 100,000 residents.)

“We are very much worried about the shortage in general,” said Callie Langton, health care workforce policy expert at the California Academy of Family Physicians. “Twenty years ago, a lot more physicians were going into primary care, and the replacement rate is not high.”

Nearly a third of doctors are 60 or older and are close to retirement, but only 42 percent of medical students are going into primary care. According to the California Medical Association and the California Healthcare Foundation, the number of young doctors pursuing primary care decreased over the past decade because the it's one of the lowest paid medical specialties.

Family practitioners earn an average of $143,000, while anesthesiologists and surgeons can earn well over $200,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Amazingly, we seem to know why no one dreams of being a doctor any more. Obamacare and the low reimbursement rates from government medical programs that are supposed to "guarantee" health care for all.

While the number of primary care doctors is shrinking, the demand for the care they provide is about to soar, thanks to the federal health care reform law.

Under the law, known as the Affordable Care Act, as many as 6 million more Californians will be able to obtain health insurance coverage, with nearly half eligible for coverage under Medi-Cal. Many of the newly insured will try to seek treatment from primary care physicians and family practice doctors, who provide the kind of cradle-to-grave, coordinated care that emphasizes preventive medicine, which can help reduce health care costs.

But fewer physicians than ever — just 57 percent — say they are now willing to accept new Medi-Cal patients, according to the California Healthcare Foundation. Many doctors say the reimbursement rate — that is, the amount of money the state pays them for treating patients — is too low. California sets the rate, which is the fourth lowest among all 50 states, according to the California Medical Association.

Great. So the government promises health care for all, but then makes it so miserable on the doctors that the health care available is greatly reduced. If Republicans propose any sort of change in this perverse system, we are accused of wanting to kill Grandma. But liberals have no problem reducing payments to doctors (and congratulate one another on their green eye-shade act) which effectively leads to the same result.

We've had to spend a little too much time focusing on the Anthony Weiner scandal. While I agree that it's scandalous that one of the Democratic Party's stars was carrying on sexting relationships with young women, the real scandal is his (and every other Dems') liberalism. Health care reform is slowly destroying America's health care system, and liberals are ready to defend the destruction they have wrought. No doubt the coming doctor shortage will inspire another round of tinkering, accompanied by the usual "passionate" advocacy by the Left.



Mellon Head: The NY Times Covers the John Edwards-Bunnie Mellon Story


The NY Times had a (not very big) story in today's paper about "Bunnie" Mellon, the billionaire dowager who gave John Edwards millions of dollars to hide his pregnant mistress during the 2008 campaign. As the story describes events that occurred 3-4 years ago, and comes 3 years after the National Enquirer ran Edwards to ground (after a solid year of being the sole media outlet outside of Kausfiles to cover the Edwards story at all), 18 months after Andrew Young's The Politician described the events in detail, and one year after I blogged about "Bunnie Money"...I'd say the Times is late to this story.
Mrs. Mellon, a Democrat in a world of Republicans, first met Mr. Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, through Mr. Huffman five years ago. She expressed an interest in Mr. Edwards because he reminded her of President John F. Kennedy, she told the decorator. And he arranged a first meeting, over tea, at her estate, Oak Spring Farms, in Upperville, Va.

Mr. Edwards ingratiated himself with Mrs. Mellon to the point where she gave him millions of dollars as well as a gold necklace as a good-luck charm for the campaign trail, according to a tell-all memoir by Andrew Young, Mr. Edwards’s former aide, who is also an unindicted co-conspirator in the case.

In May 2007, when Mr. Edwards’s mistress, Rielle Hunter, told Mr. Edwards she was pregnant, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Young began looking for people who could give them money to help conceal the affair, the indictment said.

About the same time, it said, Mrs. Mellon wrote a note to Mr. Young, saying: “I was sitting alone in a grim mood — furious that the press attacked Senator Edwards on the price of a haircut. But it inspired me — from now on, all haircuts, etc. that are necessary and important for his campaign — please send the bills to me. ... It is a way to help our friend without government restrictions.”

At that point, the indictment said, Mrs. Mellon had already contributed the maximum permitted by law — $2,300 — to Mr. Edwards’s campaign.

Over the next eight months, the indictment said, Mrs. Mellon sent checks for Mr. Edwards through Mr. Huffman totaling $725,000, “falsely” referring in memo lines to things like “chairs,” “antique Charleston table” and “bookcase.” (Mr. Huffman refused to discuss this aspect of the case.)

Forget campaign finance violations, when is the trustee of the Mellon Trust going to sue Edwards for elder abuse?

In the wake of Edwards's indictment, John at Powerline and Steven Hayward have written that prosecuting Edwards was prosecutorial overkill, and not supported by federal election law. There's nothing illegal about a one party giving another $6 million to hide their mistress, goes the reasoning. All I can say is, read The Politician. Mellon was giving Edwards millions of dollars for his campaign, not for his mistress. (I doubt she had any idea Rhielle Hunter existed). Her money was being laundered through Edwards's campaign, either by Young or the late Fred Baron. At some point reading The Politician you start to wonder, hey, how is that people like Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell have to justify really penny-ante "violations" like whether the right RNC office saved the right Neiman Marcus receipts, while John Edwards can use hundreds of thousands of dollars from a single source to hide his pregnant mistress from the media? Well, Mellon's money was a gift! Of course! Why hasn't anyone else thought of this before? Well, no one's thought of it before because that would eviscerate the campaign finance laws.

I'll join with anyone out there who says the present system for financing elections is an incumbent protection racket that has done nothing to keep $$ out of politics. But, the laws are on the books and Edwards is subject to them, same as evil Republicans (whose campaign "violations" are usually reported on the weekend before elections, rather than years after the fact).



General Zero: Ricardo Sanchez To Run For Senate...As A Democrat?


It's hard to believe there can be any more fresh examples of the Left's "Oceana Has Never Been At War With East Asia" dynamic in dealing with the Iraq War, but this actually made me laugh: General Ricardo Sanchez is planning to run for Senate in Texas...as a Democrat. As the last time Sanchez was on the mind of your typical progressive was during the Abu Ghraib scandal, this is quite a turn-around:

Democrats appear to have recruited retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez to run for the U.S. Senate in Texas, setting the stage for the party to field a well-known candidate in the 2012 race to replace retiring Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.


Former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, a Democrat, confirmed that Democratic Senate campaign chief Patty Murray, D-Wash., was referring to Sanchez on Thursday when she said Democrats were close to announcing a candidate in Texas.


Sanchez, reached by phone at his San Antonio home, asked where the reports of a Senate run came from and then said, "I can neither confirm nor deny."


Sanchez, the former top military commander in Iraq who was left under a cloud from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, would not discuss the Senate race. But he did respond to questions about his career and political philosophy.


"I would describe myself as during my military career as supporting the president and the Constitution," Sanchez said. "After the military, I decided that socially, I'm a progressive, a fiscal conservative and a strong supporter, obviously, of national defense."


Sanchez, a Rio Grande City native, said he was shaped by his upbringing. "It's my views and my history, having grown up in South Texas, depending on social programs and assistance, that America has a responsibility to its people," he said.

The idea, of course, is that the only way you could hope to elect a Democrat in Texas is if you can distract voters with Sanchez's shiny medals. Guess that can work for nitwit Dems, but I don't see your typical pro-military voter being impressed with Sanchez. Granted the Abu Ghraib scandal was overblown, but that wasn't the only thing that went wrong during Sanchez's years in Iraq. The fact is that Sanchez, along with his successor George Casey, presided over a near-defeat in Iraq. There were a lot of factors at work in Iraq, not least was the political back-stabbing back on the home front, but Sanchez's weak willed leadership, and inability to get a handle on the insurgency, was a major factor in turning the tide against the US after our victorious three-week ground war.

And, Sanchez remains clueless, saying he's "socially progressive and fiscally conservative." Sorry, but those two pronouncements are mutually exclusive. Politically inspired social progress is the most expensive thing in the world and a certain budget buster, something every adult should know by now. There's no such thing as a penny pinching progressive. Sanchez would be little more than a mindless sixtieth vote for cloture for the next bit of "comprehensive" reform. I wouldn't vote for the man as a Republican, never mind as a Democrat.

The (D) Is For "Different"


The hype around Jerry Brown's proposed plan to save California from recurring fiscal emergencies is that he is "doing things differently" by refraining from the sort of "gimmicks," "tricks" and "smoke and mirrors" that are the hallmark of any American budgeting process. That may be, but he's also relying some tried and true solutions from budget crises past

First of all Brown wants to raise taxes. (You don't say!) Actually what he wants to do is "extend" some temporary (hah!) taxes that were set to expire. I don't know why people bother to believe politicians who say this or that tax is "temporary." 'Taint no such thing.

Last month, Gov.-elect Jerry Brown argued that Californians were "in no mood" for new taxes. But on Monday, the new governor shifted gears and unveiled an austerity budget that proposed five-year extensions of increased rates in sales, income and some corporate taxes.

Brown's plan includes $12.5 billion in cuts, which would address what he called years of "gimmicks, tricks and unrealistic expectations," and the legislative analyst said the tax extensions could reap as much as $12 billion for a state awash in $25.4 billion of red ink over the next 18 months.

Those moves, and his calls to get the budget plan to the legislative floor by March 1, have been called bold by pundits of all political stripes.

But with some Republicans already lambasting what they call "the largest tax increases in California history," the penny-pinching governor now faces a formidable political test: fashioning a bipartisan truce to push it forward

More important, those of you who followed the campaign will remember that Brown repeatedly promised not to raise taxes without consulting the voters. His tax hikes will thus have to go before the voters as part of (yet another) proposition. As we just voted on - and rejected handily - a "let's raise taxes to balance the budget" proposition back in 2009, this would seem to be a tall order. Brown says that, as long as people believe there is a realistic plan, they will back him up. We'll see. People were all set to back up the Governator's plan to shrink state government, but when he proposed even the most penny-ante budget cuts, all those fiscal conservative voters vanished, replaced by aggressive public unions and self-proclaimed "moderates" quailing about partisanship.

And that brings us to the other "solution" from past budget crises: the search for bipartisanship. Brown is casting about for some Republican votes who can sign on to his tax increases. This brings to mind the budget negotiations in the spring of 2009 when the Governator and Sacramento Democrats spent their time chasing moderate Republicans, looking for the magic "third GOP vote," rather than, say, trying to cut more fat from the budget, passing pension reform or (God forbid) eliminating some public sector jobs. Profound questions of the size and scope of state government are tossed aside in favor of horse-race analysis about "recalcitrant" (and, of course, "extreme") right wingers.

All very flattering, but the fact is that Republicans had little to do with creating California's budget problems, and thus ought not feel compelled to "help" Democrats to save themselves and their political allies. I'd much rather sit in the back of the bus sipping a Slurpee, or whatever, instead of helping liberals to continue to tax and spend California to death.


The Year of the Constitution


Great essay from Kyle-Ann Shriver - 2010: The Year They Came For the Constitution
As 2010 fades into history, no living, sentient American will remember the year as anything other than the year when progressives came for the Constitution. And the same year in which the same Constitution provided for elections in the 50 states. The people exercised their constitutional right to vote many of the would-be tyrants out on their disgusting derrieres.
I have a shocking confession to make. While I have been voting Republican since I was 22 years old (don't ask me about my misbegotten votes for Dukakis and Ted Kennedy back when I lived in Boston in 1988, please), up until this year, I had been registered as a Democrat. The reason was so I could vote in the City's primaries, the only way I could have my voice heard in local politics. I've always been a little embarrassed by this, but took heart from the fact that the Prince of Darkness himself, Bob Novak, registered as a Dem for the same reason when he moved to DC after his kids had left home.

Anyway, after Obamacare passed, I re-registered as a Republican the next day. So disgusted was I, not only by the lying and cheating of Obamacare's proponent, but also by the near-coordination by the White House, the Congress, the media, and the academy in arguing for its passage, that I decided even voting in a local primary for state assemblyman was too much; that the corrupt Big Government stink would rub off even then.

The fact is, after this year, there is no way I would vote for or support a Democrat for office at any level, in any capacity, at any time, under any circumstance. Henceforth, I will vote for dead people, felons, and Oliver North before I will ever think of voting for a Democrat. Call it epistemic closure, if you want. I don't care. Democrats have definitively shown themselves to be more concerned with centralized government more so than with the Constitution or the free market, not to mention the consequences of their own legislative actions. I'll have nothing to do with them.


Dumb Like A Fox: When Is Intellect A Disqualifier for Higher Office?


There are a lot of Republican Wise Men (and women) out there who reflexively disparage Sarah Palin's prospects as a presidential candidate because they consider her to be dumb. Leaving aside the fact that these folks almost never comment on the intellect of Democrats like the estimable Maxine Waters or Nancy Pelosi, Jeffrey Lord also reminds them of a recurring theme in American politics: whoever is at the top of the Republican presidential ticket is always too dumb to be president.
Barry Goldwater, the first modern conservative to win a GOP presidential nomination in 1964, would have been lucky to be tagged as being merely too dumb to be president. He was also said to be, according to Time magazine, "psychologically unfit to be president," "emotionally unstable," "immature," "cowardly," "grossly psychotic," "paranoid," a "mass murderer," "amoral and immoral," a "chronic schizophrenic" and "dangerous lunatic." One psychiatrist breezily announced Goldwater had a "strong identification with the authoritarianism of Hitler, if not identification with Hitler himself."
...

Reagan, also pegged as a war-monger, was called an "extremist" at the beginning of his political career and an "amiable dunce" just after his election to the presidency. They were a mere blip in the cascade of insults about his intelligence hurled in Reagan's direction over almost a quarter century as a serious American politician. This particular man who was "too dumb to be president" won the Cold War without, as Margaret Thatcher said, firing a shot. Not to mention launching the American economy on a path to creating some 50 million jobs over the next three decades.

...

George Romney was a liberal Republican, a spectacularly successful business executive as the chairman of American Motors. On the strength of his dazzling business career he was elected Governor of Michigan, where he became a popular political figure with both voters and the national press.

Then a funny thing happened to George Romney. In 1967 he began running for the 1968 GOP presidential nomination. The polls showed he was the man-to-beat for the nomination, the one man in the Republican Party who could take on and beat LBJ, the same LBJ who beat Goldwater in 1964 by a landslide. Then, returning from a fact-finding trip to Vietnam, Romney incautiously allowed as to how he had been "brain-washed" by the Johnson administration on Vietnam. And…. bam.

Within a media cycle the brilliant business executive and innovative Governor of Michigan had become -- you guessed it -- an idiot too dumb to be president. The dumb-as-a-post tag hung around his neck by a media concerned that old George was making just a little bit too much progress and that Tricky Dick, as they called Richard Nixon, would be easier to beat. Romney was finished. His last stint in government was not the White House but the Department of Housing and Urban Development, in Nixon days the equivalent of political Siberia.

...

Perhaps the most instructive case of "too dumb to be president" is that of Gerald Ford. Elected to Congress in 1948, a man with a ready smile and outgoing personality, Ford had won rave reviews from the liberal press when he challenged the House Republican Old Guard following Goldwater's defeat, becoming Minority Leader. All the way through his House career, and on into his surprise accession-by-appointment to the vice presidency following the resignation of liberal bĂȘte noire Spiro Agnew, the moderate Republican Ford was pictured as good-ole smiling Jerry, the steady, smart House leader who had not an enemy in the world. He played golf with his old pal House Democratic leader Tip O'Neill. Just a nice, smart, swell guy, said the press.

Then a funny thing happened to good old Jerry Ford. In the wake of Watergate he became president with Nixon's resignation. Within a month he pardoned his predecessor, believing (correctly) that until the nation had rid itself of the Watergate/Nixon obsession he, Ford, would have an impossible time getting things done as president. Nothing dumb there. Ford had no sooner announced the pardon and disappeared from the television air waves than the re-positioning of Ford by the liberal media had begun. The man who had graduated from Yale Law School and been the epitome of openness and hard work was, in the blink of an eye, dumb as a post and a conniving liar to boot. Up from the mists came a Lyndon Johnson quote saying that Ford the college grid star had played too much football without a helmet. An on-camera tumble on the slippery steps leading down from the door of Air Force One led to the depiction of the most athletic president since Teddy Roosevelt as a bumbling fool. On a new program called Saturday Night Live, an unknown writer/actor named Chevy Chase rocketed to fame portraying Ford as dumbly prone to hilarious stumbles and dramatic falls over all manner of furniture. Chase anticipated the Tina Fey as empty-headed Sarah Palin routine by decades.

Much more at the link. The point, of course, is that whoever dares to run against Obama in 2012 will be declared to be too dumb to replace man who has added trillions of dollars of debt, has presided over trillion dollar deficits, passed a trillion dollar stimulus that failed, passed a health care "reform" law that was opposed by a majority of the country and which has thrown the health care system into chaos, has socialized the banking and auto industries, has failed to stop nuclear proliferation in Iran, has lost control of millions of pages of formerly top secret military and diplomatic documents, and so on. Yes, we don't want to get in the way of the Express Train of Intellect & Accomplishment!

We don't know which GOP presidential hopeful will be declared dumb if Palin doesn't run. But it's coming. Maybe Tim Pawlenty's (leaked) college transcripts will be filled with C's. Maybe Bobby Jindal will momentarily falter when asked about SB9353, the pending legislation related to the federalizing of the avocado crop. Maybe Chris Christie will be caught in an open mike referring to the teachers union as a bunch of broads. Maybe Mike Huckabee will fail to display an appropriate reverence for Charles Darwin. Maybe Mitt Romney will fall of a stage. If you've been following politics for any amount of time, you know the sort of "gaffes" that Republicans can be subject to, and which can be put on an endless media loop should it strike the MSM's fancy.

Meanwhile, Democrats are constantly doing dumb things while in office without much public comment, at least in the MSM which still regards itself as the nation's official debating forum. Just yesterday, the lame duck Senate passed a food safety bill that contained a tax provision that properly should have originated in the House bill, rather than the Senate's. (Not that I care, the food safety bill is yet another Big Government disaster). But still, we're talking about a bill that was drafted by human beings who had done this sort of work before. And this is the same crowd that splits their sides over Sarah Palin?

The fact is that it is a rare moment when any Republican of note is portrayed in the media as having a brain. For many casual viewers, the wonder of the Health Care Summit from earlier this year was how the GOP attendees put forward calm rational arguments, while it was the Democrats - exemplified by Louise Slaughter's crazy story about a constituent wearing her dead sister's dentures - who were emotional and dismissive of such concepts as math and reality. (as in, this bill is too expensive and will not accomplish its stated goals). But, some GOP back bencher puts on a prissy face about an ant-covered Jesus at the Smithsonian, and suddenly it's all-hands-on-deck.

When John McCain first nominated Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate, there was a scramble to put any information about Palin on the air. CNBC ran an endless loop of an interview that Palin did with Maria Bartiromo on the topic of energy. Have you ever seen it? I'll bet not, and if you see it, you'll know why. Palin is very impressive, speaking passionately and knowledgeably on energy policy that would impress anyone not on the left side of American politics. Some of her verbal tics are present, of course - I remember chuckling at the time over her repeated use of the phrase "America's hungry markets"- but she goes toe to toe with the Queen of Wall Street, laying out the case for a free market, domestically based solution to America's energy problems - throwing in some criticism of the Bush Administration along the way. Here's an excerpt if you don't believe me:


Number of views on Youtube? 2,665. See what I mean? Her intellect has been hiding in plain sight, but no one can see it.

Sarah Palin isn't too dumb to be president. But, it may be that her own party is too dumb to recognize that they believe a chariacature created by their political enemies.





Best Retirement Invesments Auto Search