The police in Costa Mesa, California, have taken an irrevocable step, and I hope that the City Council will address it forthwith.
For those who won't click over (shame on you), the Police Union in Costa Mesa hired a law firm known for its mob-like tactics in handling "negotiations" with City Councils which were considering putting fiscal sanity before Police protection money. Surprising precisely no one with a brain, this law firm then hired a PI who attempted to set up a City Council member for blackmail and extortion. That attempt failed, and the Police Union and law firm are quickly back-tracking and attempting to throw the PI under the bus. Read the whole thing for more details.
Once again I'm drawn to point that these are the logical consequences of a growing police state. When the Police are seen more as revenue generators than as peace keepers and law enforcement, it only stands to reason that they will begin to see themselves as mercenaries and demand ever increasing payments.
Gone are the days when police were encouraged to "walk the beat" and be part of the communities they patrolled. Now they are apart and aloof, overseers and enforcers for the Government. But, like any hired army, when you try to explain that they're too expensive, they don't consider your needs, only their own situation. Thus activities like those in Costa Mesa can hardly come as a surprise.
Certainly this specific situation needs to be handled forthwith. The police chief and all the upper command structure must be fired, and new officers brought in to help combat the obvious corruption of the police in Costa Mesa. To do any less is to send the signal that these mob-like tactics will be tolerated, if not fully accepted.
But there is a larger problem here. It is one that we, as a nation, need to address. That is the problem of the ever growing police state. From local governments banning smoking in restaurants, to proposed State-wide bans on using cellular phones while driving, to the Federal Government giving the department of Education a SWAT team, the state has gone from a posture of protecting Liberty to one of protecting its privilege. This must be combated soon. It is the neo-feudal system, where the government is made up of vassalage and fiefdoms, and those not in a position of power are, at best, second class citizens, and at worst slaves of the state.
Which, it turns out, is how Democrats view us anyway.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Let The Vetting Begin
Democrats are pushing San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro as "the next Barack Obama." If that's going to be the case, then I believe he deserves a much more thorough vetting than the current Barack Obama. (Side note: if you're the leader of your party, and the party is already talking about the next you, you have a problem.)
Luckily for us, the great team over at Breitbart.com is already getting started, and boy is their first entry a doozy. It turns out that Julian Castro is the next Barack Obama- an America hating, pro-socialist demagogue who learned radicalism from a young age and, it seems, has never once considered the logical flaws in his ideology.
You see, Julian Castro is as much a beneficiary of the affirmative action state as Barack Obama. His article which is quoted extensively by Mr. Johnson, was written at Stanford. Despite the fact that, as an Ivy League school, any evidence of some "majority oppression" would have been highly evident there, Mr. Castro was accepted and (unlike Barack Obama) apparently actually published something. The very idea, however, that any "majority oppression" was overstated, if not imaginary, never seems to cross his mind.
Most of that is due to his upbringing. It turns out his mother was one of the founders of the group now known as La Raza, and a firm believer in the Reconquista movement. The author at Breitbart doesn't get too much into Reconquista, so let me explain it in broad terms.
Mexico once controlled most of the United States Southwest. From holdings in Louisiana, through Texas, up to Colorado, and over to California, most of what we now call the Southwest was formerly Mexican territory. The first of that to change was Louisiana, when Spain ceded all its territory there to the French. Next to go was Texas; when the combined White settlers and Mexican nationals (collectively called Texicans) rebelled against the nation of Mexico and won our independence. After that it was a slow but inexorable slide to the current boundaries.
Those who believe in Reconquista conveniently forget that a good half of the Texan Patriots were Mexican nationals. They forget that "Free Mexico" never was. And they believe that the Southwest, from Texas to Colorado, to California is "rightfully" theirs, and that they should take it back. This is La Raza's goal, the idea which lead to their creation. They call the Southwest "Aztlan," which is really funny, since it was the Mexican government, still beholden to Spain, which mostly wiped out the rather barbaric Aztec culture.
That San Antonio, home of Texas's most vivid symbol of resistance and determination, could have elected someone who supports Reconquista boggles my mind. In the home of the sacrifice of so many of our relatives (yes, I had an ancestor who died at the Alamo), you would think the people would be more skeptical of La Raza and what it really stands for.
As for Mr. Castro and his Reconquista brothers and sisters: in the words of those Texans so long ago, "Come and Take it."
Luckily for us, the great team over at Breitbart.com is already getting started, and boy is their first entry a doozy. It turns out that Julian Castro is the next Barack Obama- an America hating, pro-socialist demagogue who learned radicalism from a young age and, it seems, has never once considered the logical flaws in his ideology.
You see, Julian Castro is as much a beneficiary of the affirmative action state as Barack Obama. His article which is quoted extensively by Mr. Johnson, was written at Stanford. Despite the fact that, as an Ivy League school, any evidence of some "majority oppression" would have been highly evident there, Mr. Castro was accepted and (unlike Barack Obama) apparently actually published something. The very idea, however, that any "majority oppression" was overstated, if not imaginary, never seems to cross his mind.
Most of that is due to his upbringing. It turns out his mother was one of the founders of the group now known as La Raza, and a firm believer in the Reconquista movement. The author at Breitbart doesn't get too much into Reconquista, so let me explain it in broad terms.
Mexico once controlled most of the United States Southwest. From holdings in Louisiana, through Texas, up to Colorado, and over to California, most of what we now call the Southwest was formerly Mexican territory. The first of that to change was Louisiana, when Spain ceded all its territory there to the French. Next to go was Texas; when the combined White settlers and Mexican nationals (collectively called Texicans) rebelled against the nation of Mexico and won our independence. After that it was a slow but inexorable slide to the current boundaries.
Those who believe in Reconquista conveniently forget that a good half of the Texan Patriots were Mexican nationals. They forget that "Free Mexico" never was. And they believe that the Southwest, from Texas to Colorado, to California is "rightfully" theirs, and that they should take it back. This is La Raza's goal, the idea which lead to their creation. They call the Southwest "Aztlan," which is really funny, since it was the Mexican government, still beholden to Spain, which mostly wiped out the rather barbaric Aztec culture.
That San Antonio, home of Texas's most vivid symbol of resistance and determination, could have elected someone who supports Reconquista boggles my mind. In the home of the sacrifice of so many of our relatives (yes, I had an ancestor who died at the Alamo), you would think the people would be more skeptical of La Raza and what it really stands for.
As for Mr. Castro and his Reconquista brothers and sisters: in the words of those Texans so long ago, "Come and Take it."
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Democrat = Evil
If you are a Democrat, you either implicitly or explicitly agree with this:
See that? To her, a Democrat, the "right thing" was to suppress her own husband's vote. Democrat ideology is such that it can bear no competition.
When I was younger, I believed that Democrats were simply misguided, or were allowing their emotions to overrule their logic. I no longer believe that is true, in the main. I believe that most Democrats see me and my views as sub-human, and not worthy of a voice.
Consider:
For decades, West Virginia Democrats elected Robert Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan member who never rejected that order's ideals, as their Congressman.
For decades, Massachusetts Democrats elected Ted Kennedy, known womanizer and likely murderer (Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment), as their Congressman.
Democrats- grassroots democrats- support Planned Parenthood to the point that any discussion of cutting their federal funding is likened to rape. That would be the same Planned Parenthood which was founded by noted Racist, Eugenicist, and aspiring Genocide Margaret Sanger.
Repeatedly states run by Democrat Majorities make changes to voting procedure which are, I'm convinced, expressly designed to make it more difficult for military ballots to be counted.
The list is too long to continue, but I'm sure you get the point.
Now, let's say you were a liberal who really believed in the kinds of things Democrats say they believe. Let's say you really believed in open expression of ideas. Let's say you really believe that "everyone deserves a shot." Could you, in good conscience, support these things? Could you support a man who once lead, and never rejected, his chapter of the KKK? Could you support a man who was known to engage in "waitress sandwiches" and left a young woman to die? Could you support a group founded on the idea that "defectives" (to include Blacks, Hispanics, and those with birth defects) should be aborted or euthanized? Could you support a group that routinely attempts to disenfranchise the very men and women who are defending your right to vote?
Because if you're a Democrat, you do.
Bonnie Pollak, a Democrat, weighed her options. Should she be loyal to her spouse, respect his legal right and mail the ballot? Or remain faithful to her deeply held beliefs and suppress his vote?
"It was a real dilemma," says Ms. Pollak, 58 years old, a student in a doctoral program in social welfare who lives in Manhattan. "I decided to do the right thing."
Ms. Pollak threw the ballot away.
See that? To her, a Democrat, the "right thing" was to suppress her own husband's vote. Democrat ideology is such that it can bear no competition.
When I was younger, I believed that Democrats were simply misguided, or were allowing their emotions to overrule their logic. I no longer believe that is true, in the main. I believe that most Democrats see me and my views as sub-human, and not worthy of a voice.
Consider:
For decades, West Virginia Democrats elected Robert Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan member who never rejected that order's ideals, as their Congressman.
For decades, Massachusetts Democrats elected Ted Kennedy, known womanizer and likely murderer (Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment), as their Congressman.
Democrats- grassroots democrats- support Planned Parenthood to the point that any discussion of cutting their federal funding is likened to rape. That would be the same Planned Parenthood which was founded by noted Racist, Eugenicist, and aspiring Genocide Margaret Sanger.
Repeatedly states run by Democrat Majorities make changes to voting procedure which are, I'm convinced, expressly designed to make it more difficult for military ballots to be counted.
The list is too long to continue, but I'm sure you get the point.
Now, let's say you were a liberal who really believed in the kinds of things Democrats say they believe. Let's say you really believed in open expression of ideas. Let's say you really believe that "everyone deserves a shot." Could you, in good conscience, support these things? Could you support a man who once lead, and never rejected, his chapter of the KKK? Could you support a man who was known to engage in "waitress sandwiches" and left a young woman to die? Could you support a group founded on the idea that "defectives" (to include Blacks, Hispanics, and those with birth defects) should be aborted or euthanized? Could you support a group that routinely attempts to disenfranchise the very men and women who are defending your right to vote?
Because if you're a Democrat, you do.
But Remember: His Plan Worked, and You ARE Better Off
Record High Labor Day gas prices? Yep, his policies worked, alright.
The Democrat's current line, which will be on full display at the Democrat National Convention, is that Obama's policies worked and that you are better off today than you were 4 years ago.
National Gas (Unleaded Regular) Average Price Per Gallon in January 2009: $1.95 (per the article)
National Gas (Unleaded Regular) Average Price Per Gallon on Labor Day: $3.83 (per the article)
96.4% Gas price increase in less than 4 years? Yes, they did.
The Democrat's current line, which will be on full display at the Democrat National Convention, is that Obama's policies worked and that you are better off today than you were 4 years ago.
National Gas (Unleaded Regular) Average Price Per Gallon in January 2009: $1.95 (per the article)
National Gas (Unleaded Regular) Average Price Per Gallon on Labor Day: $3.83 (per the article)
96.4% Gas price increase in less than 4 years? Yes, they did.
At Least He Admits It
Does Barack Obama even know anything about American culture? Granted that lots of people play golf, it's hardly an American phenomenon, and we've seen how well he doesn't throw a baseball. Now he obviously doesn't understand how grades are given out.
In a TV interview, the SCOAMT was again given the "grade" question. You'd think he would have learned by now that the President doesn't answer that kind of question. But, no, the Smartest Man in the Room is just too smart to learn that lesson, so he takes another swing at a question that has no right answer, and lots of wrong ones.
Incomplete? He gives himself an incomplete? Maybe his handlers need to duct tape him to his chair and force him to listen. For those of you who have no experience with an incomplete ("I") grade (mine only comes second hand), Incomplete is the grade you are given when you've been absent too much for the teacher to evaluate your work one way or the other. You didn't fail, nor did you pass. You simply didn't show up.
Which, I suppose, is refreshingly honest from King Putt, Lord of the eighteen handicap.
In a TV interview, the SCOAMT was again given the "grade" question. You'd think he would have learned by now that the President doesn't answer that kind of question. But, no, the Smartest Man in the Room is just too smart to learn that lesson, so he takes another swing at a question that has no right answer, and lots of wrong ones.
Incomplete? He gives himself an incomplete? Maybe his handlers need to duct tape him to his chair and force him to listen. For those of you who have no experience with an incomplete ("I") grade (mine only comes second hand), Incomplete is the grade you are given when you've been absent too much for the teacher to evaluate your work one way or the other. You didn't fail, nor did you pass. You simply didn't show up.
Which, I suppose, is refreshingly honest from King Putt, Lord of the eighteen handicap.
Way To Steward Taxpayer Money, Fort Worth
And this is with the former Tax-Assessor Collector as Mayor? Just great.
The City of Fort Worth is looking to finish spending money it took in as early as 2004 so that it can have a $2.3 billion dollar bond election as early as November. They currently have about $185 million, of which $165 million is already set aside for street improvements. And, believe me, the City of Fort Worth can spend at least that much on street improvements.
But then they have a "wish list" of other things on which they wish to spend about $20 million of taxpayer money.
Among these:
Not to mention about $200 million for a move from the current city hall to an old Post Office.
Now, much of their wish list is quite reasonable. Road improvements, improvements for sidewalks, intersections, and traffic lights, all of these things are proper expenditures of tax payer money. I do not understand why parks have to be publicly funded. As I said previously, if someone can make the Dallas Zoo profitable as a private enterprise, there's no reason the same couldn't be repeated elsewhere.
And then the people who actually use the park would be the ones to bear it cost.
But Fort Worth doesn't even necessarily have to make that choice. There are plenty of rich people in Fort Worth who make a fairly large show of their philanthropy. Why don't they aim that at home and pay for those parks. Now, in fairness, they often do donate to the city and assist with area renovations and such, my point is not that "they should do more" or to shame them. My point isn't about them at all, it's about the city.
When you're still trying to spend money from eight years ago, and you're accelerating your expenditures in the hopes that you can have a new bond election (read: take more money from taxpayers) in three months, you've already shown that you're not being the proper stewards of taxpayer money that would make you worthy of having that bond election pass.
To my readers in Fort Worth (who says I'm not an optimist?), remember this when the next bond election comes around. Heck, remember this when the next city-wide elections come around. Are these the people with whom you wish to entrust $2.3 billion?
The City of Fort Worth is looking to finish spending money it took in as early as 2004 so that it can have a $2.3 billion dollar bond election as early as November. They currently have about $185 million, of which $165 million is already set aside for street improvements. And, believe me, the City of Fort Worth can spend at least that much on street improvements.
But then they have a "wish list" of other things on which they wish to spend about $20 million of taxpayer money.
Among these:
- Four million dollars each on "aquatics centers."
- Five million dollars on Z Boaz Park
- Four million dollars on Chisholm Trail park
Not to mention about $200 million for a move from the current city hall to an old Post Office.
Now, much of their wish list is quite reasonable. Road improvements, improvements for sidewalks, intersections, and traffic lights, all of these things are proper expenditures of tax payer money. I do not understand why parks have to be publicly funded. As I said previously, if someone can make the Dallas Zoo profitable as a private enterprise, there's no reason the same couldn't be repeated elsewhere.
And then the people who actually use the park would be the ones to bear it cost.
But Fort Worth doesn't even necessarily have to make that choice. There are plenty of rich people in Fort Worth who make a fairly large show of their philanthropy. Why don't they aim that at home and pay for those parks. Now, in fairness, they often do donate to the city and assist with area renovations and such, my point is not that "they should do more" or to shame them. My point isn't about them at all, it's about the city.
When you're still trying to spend money from eight years ago, and you're accelerating your expenditures in the hopes that you can have a new bond election (read: take more money from taxpayers) in three months, you've already shown that you're not being the proper stewards of taxpayer money that would make you worthy of having that bond election pass.
To my readers in Fort Worth (who says I'm not an optimist?), remember this when the next bond election comes around. Heck, remember this when the next city-wide elections come around. Are these the people with whom you wish to entrust $2.3 billion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)