Friends With Money

The NO on Proposition 93 campaign recently published who is financing YES on Prop 93... the list should simply read Friends of Fabian Nunez and Don Perata.

*****************************
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate Pro Tem Don Perata - have led the parade of incumbent legislators who have given campaign cash to extend their taxpayer-funded, yet unproductive, time inside the Capitol. The two have contributed $690,000 and $350,000 respectively to the Yes on 93 effort and have been joined by 16 of their fellow politicians to support the measure.

Below is the list of campaign contributions from committees and political organizations controlled by legislators to the two Yes on 93 committees directed by Perata and Nunez.

Politician & Party Committee Contributions to Yes on Prop 93 Committee Yes on Prop 93 (Nunez), Committee For Limits & Legislative Reform (#129608)

TORRICO FOR ASSEMBLY 2008 $45,000.00
BELIEVING IN A BETTER CALIFORNIA $25,000.00
BELIEVING IN A BETTER CALIFORNIA (Assemblymember De Leon)$35,000.00 COMMITTEE TO PROTECT CALIFORNIA'S FUTURE (Nunez) $390,000.00
COMMITTEE TO PROTECT CALIFORNIA'S FUTURE (Nunez)$300,000.00 1/15/2008COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT CURREN PRICE $25,000.00
DAVE JONES FOR ASSEMBLY 2008 $45,000.00
FRIENDS OF NOREEN EVANS FOR ASSEMBLY $5,000.00
HECTOR DE LA TORRE FOR STATE ASSEMBLY 2008 $25,000.00
HECTOR DE LA TORRE FOR STATE ASSEMBLY 2008 $20,000.00
JIM BEALL FOR ASSEMBLY 2008 $10,000.00
KAREN BASS FOR ASSEMBLY 2008 $50,000.00
KAREN BASS FOR ASSEMBLY 2008 $20,000.00
KEVIN DE LEON FOR ASSEMBLY 2008 $15,000.00
MIKE ENG FOR ASSEMBLY 2008 $45,000.00
MIKE FEUER FOR ASSEMBLY 2008 $25,000.00
PARRA FOR SENATE 2010 $25,000.00
PEDRO NAVA 2008 PAC $20,000.00
RE-ELECT FIONA MA $45,000.00
STRENGTHENING CALIFORNIA THROUGH LEADERSHIP (Asm Bass) $45,000.00 STRENGTHENING CALIFORNIA THROUGH LEADERSHIP (Assemblymember Bass) $40,000.00
TED LIEU FOR ASSEMBLY 2008 $50,000.00
Sub-Total for #1296108 $1,305,000.00

Yes on Prop 93 (Perata), Citizens for Accountability & Legislative Reform (#1299457)

FRIENDS OF TOM TORLAKSON 2008 $25,000.00
GLORIA ROMERO FOR CALIFORNIA 2010 $25,000.00
LEADERSHIP CALIFORNIA (Perata) $50,000.00
STEINBERG FOR SENATE 2006 $45,000.00
VOTER EDUCATION AND REGISTRATION FUND (Perata) $200,000.00
VOTER EDUCATION AND REGISTRATION FUND (Perata) $100,000.00
Sub-Total for #1299457 $445,000.00

Grand Total:$1,750,000.00
****************************
We have some pretty desperate Assembly and Senate persons - desperate to keep their jobs that is. Adnd from Sacramento I see Daryl Steinberg and Dave Jones - both former City Council members who promised they weren't using local office as a springboard into state politics. You can't believe anything that comes out of the mouths of politicians.

BLINK: State of The Union

During last night's Presidential State of the Union, how many blinks did you count?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi = 1002

Vice President Dick Cheney - 2

Too much plastic surgery prevents one from closing her eyes fully. Too much Botox makes one look, well, SURPRISED, all of the time.

In addition to sounding stupid during every interview, now Ms. Pelosi looks the role.

The Huffington Post: The buzz in the speaker's office Monday was not about Bush's address, but about Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy's fiery speech earlier endorsing Democrat Barack Obama.
"Did you ever see anything like that?" asked Pelosi. "Transferring the mantle from John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama. It was the most stunning thing. I mean, I couldn't take my eyes off it. And I didn't have any time to sit there and watch TV, you know - we had a whole schedule. I just was mesmerized by it."

Ugh.

Another great column from WorldNetDaily: The camera never blinks, Nancy

and this video of her less than stellar record: It was a bad year for San Fran Nan.

and for a non-political view: sisu: The definitive case against excessive cosmetic surgery

Election '08 - Get Out Of Jail FREE Card

I've been deliberately silent about the presidential election thus far, as the primary process still has quite a long way to go.

I prefer to listen when it's necessary, rather than just toss opinions out like candy.

And listening is exactly what I have been doing a lot of. Previously, when friends asked me who I would vote for, my smarty-pants answer was to say McRomniani... my way of saying keep watching.

Barack Obama's stupid campaign of "change" is well, stupid. Change is inevitable. The mere fact that President Bush is termed out and leaving office at the end of the year begs imminent change.

Obama is a good-looking guy and an excellent speaker. However, he never says anything. He might be easy on the eyes and ears, but what about the desire for message? Are his followers really the sheep they seem to be? And just because he is a "change?"

His campaign workers have even been instructed to never discuss issues, only their "feelings;" feelings about Obama. There's no change going on here - it's the same old condescending liberal politics as usual, devoid of substance and policy.

Hillary Clinton - rather Billary - is starting to implode. Finally. But they have been given a get-out-of-jail-card thus far and it's getting tiring listening to interviewers questions, and Hillary getting away with dodging them. It's not that she has any real skill in dodging questions - she's just never forced to answer the original question. Neither is Bill. He wags his finger in the face of the offending journalist, gets red in the face and is left alone. Or she/he acts indignant and complains about being attacked - tactics that wouldn't pass muster in an 8th grade debate class.

Hillary looks good while Bill looks as if his lifestyle has finally caught up with him, of some infectious disease. Her Botox'd face is more lovely than ever - if you like that frozen smile look. Adn Hillary does look younger than her 60-years... only her plastic surgeon knows. Bill could use some Botox - he is caught scowling too often these days.

And Hillary's lame-ass explanations about how Bill loves her so much is a pathetic attempt to rival the Romney marriage - two people who actually like each other. When Bill Clinton makes a "Jesse Jackson" reference to Obama, he is most definitely being a racist - not loving his wife a whole bunch. For moe evidence and analysis of this, read The Clintons' Possible Political Demise by David Limbaugh...excellent coverage of their overt race baiting. Some tolerance.

Guiliani can't seem to get any media coverage - positive or negative. The media fears him because he knows how to take no prisoners and does take names... lot's of names. And the media knows that independent voters would cast a Guiliani vote without having to hold their noses. Hold that thought. Guiliani refused to play by the media rules, and went straight to Florida to campaign. Hold that thought.

The media loves to hate Romney - he's handsome, white, rich, religious, successful - the guy to hate in America. And his flip-glops are baby-steps to Hillary's - she's doing high-dive flips depending on the audience. He was able to explain his flip-flop on abortion.

Edwards is only hanging in there for a cabinet appointment. He's just too prissy for most dems.

And McCain - I will never understand McCain/Fringold, the Amnesty legislation and his opposing the Bush tax cuts - shameful behavior. He doesn't deserve to be President with the sour-grapes behavior he has displayed toward President Bush the past eight years. But he's the liberal the media loves - read Frank Rich's column in the January 27th New York Times: The Billary Road to Republican Victory. When Frank Rich thinks McCain is the only guy who can beat Billary... well... just read his column. Then we'll talk.

Huckabee is just another lib Republican. 'Nuff said. Again, he and McCain have only made it this far because the liberal media is trying to throw another election. Can you say liberal judges and amnesty?

The will of the people is stronger than the nincompoop lib media realizes. We will prevail. meanwhile, keep your eye on Billary - they will stop at nothing to get what they want.

Just wait until after the conventions and Hillary has to finally answer questions, allegations and defend her "we are the President" record. "I've been for change for the past 35 years" is not a battle cry.

Bush Didn't Lie

This is an excellent column -it in fact, makes so much sense that I am not sure liberals will ever speak to you again if you explain things this way... nothing like the truth to shut people up.

by Dinesh D'Souza : Actually Bush Didn't Lie

More On Nunez/Perata and Prop 93

Here's another excellent analysis of what Prop 93 REALLY is:
********************

It's all about Nunez, Perata
By Tom Elias
01/27/2008

While much of America is watching the Feb. 5 California primary election to see who might emerge as favorites for the major party presidential nominations, voters here need to focus at least as much on Proposition 93, a ballot initiative billed as a reduction in term limits for state lawmakers.

For the fate of this measure is essentially a referendum on the effectiveness and morality of two of the top three leaders of California government.

If Proposition 93 passes, Democrat Fabian Nunez of East Los Angeles figures to get at least five and maybe six more years as Assembly speaker and fellow Democrat Don Perata of Oakland another four as leader of the state Senate.

The question nominally before voters is whether to cut the total time politicians can serve in the Legislature from 14 years to 12, but let them have all that time in one house or the other if they choose. But because Proposition 93 would apply its new 12-year limit to present as well as future legislators, Nunez would essentially get to serve six more years in his present seat, rather than being termed out at year's end. Perata would get four more years in the Senate, for a total of 18 in the Legislature.

So the real question voters will decide - if they understand the actual issue here - is whether Nunez and Perata deserve to have their power extended.

Both are ethically challenged, at best.

Perata, for one, has spent at least three years under the cloud of an FBI investigation into his dealings with campaign contributors. His home has been searched, his associates grilled as agents apparently tried determine whether donors to the accomplished fundraiser gained directly from his actions because of their contributions.

A federal grand jury has heard many hours of testimony, but no action has yet ensued.
Meanwhile, questions about the ethics of Nu ez have not reached the stage of a known investigation by any law enforcement agency. But newspapers have carried headlines reading "Campaign Cash Gives Nunez Rich Travel Style" and "Watchdog Questions Assembly Leader's Living Arrangements." The accompanying stories detailed how Nunez spent thousands of campaign dollars buying fine wines in a Bordeaux, France, store and purchased many thousands of dollars worth of Luis Vuitton luggage.

The stories also revealed that Nunez shares a plush downtown Los Angeles apartment (in his Assembly district) with Democratic fundraiser Dan Weitzman. He acknowledges spending one or two nights there during most weeks, living with his wife in a $1.2 million suburban Sacramento home most of the time.

Nunez says his lavish traveling style and his big spending on luxury items are needed because he's representing the state and must both give gifts and maintain at least a "middle-class" lifestyle.

These items, some commentators have charged, may be legal, but do not pass the "smell test."
More serious are conflict-of-interest questions about the role of Mrs. Nunez, who goes by her maiden name of Maria Robles, in drawing a six-figure salary from a nonprofit group called Californians for Patient Care. She got the job in January 2005, just a month after her husband introduced a bill aiming to provide "affordable, quality health care coverage" to everyone in California.

The California Nurses Association calls Robles' employer a front group for the hospital industry; in fact, it receives almost all its funding from the California Hospital Association.
While it's not illegal for Robles to hold that job while her husband leads a legislative effort that would heavily affect the industry that funds her job, this one also doesn't pass the smell test. Even though Robles denies ever discussing health care with her husband the speaker, how likely is it that any husband and wife can completely avoid talking about their jobs? Or that a husband wouldn't look out for the interests of his wife?

None of these questions, of course, is on the Feb. 5 ballot. But they should be very much on the minds of voters.

For in crafting Proposition 93, Nunez and Perata made certain their power would be secured for years to come if it passed. They say they were only interested in the well-being of the state, that allowing legislators to serve longer in one house would make for better lawmaking.

But anyone who can read between the lines will soon know this measure is about these two men more than anyone or anything else. That's why besides asking themselves who might make the best president, voters also now need to reflect on the fitness of California's most powerful legislative leaders.

Tom Elias is author of "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government's Campaign to Squelch It," now available in an updated third edition (e-mail: tdelias@aol.com).

Penetrating Liberal Thoughts on Billary

In order to understand the other side of politics, one must surf their musings.

Here's an interesting perspective from Frank Rich - The New York Times...

The Billary Road to Republican Victory
Any Democrat who seriously thinks that Bill Clinton will fade away if Hillary wins the party nomination is a Democrat who, as the man said, believes in fairy tales.

IN the wake of George W. Bush, even a miracle might not be enough for the Republicans to hold on to the White House in 2008. But what about two miracles? The new year’s twin resurrections of Bill Clinton and John McCain, should they not evaporate, at last give the G.O.P. a highly plausible route to victory.

Amazingly, neither party seems to fully recognize the contours of the road map. In the Democrats’ case, the full-throttle emergence of Billary, the joint Clinton candidacy, is measured mainly within the narrow confines of the short-term horse race: Do Bill Clinton’s red-faced eruptions and fact-challenged rants enhance or diminish his wife as a woman and a candidate?

January 27, 2008
(click on the title to read the rest)

Paper or Plastic?

Democrat California legislators are now proposing a new bill charging grocery shoppers .15 cents for every plastic bag they choose to use instead of a paper sack.

Aren't these the same liberal democrats who forced the plastic bags on grocery shoppers in the first place? Yes. the lib argument was that plastic is "recyclable," only they never forced people to recycle the bags. Instead the bags ended up in landfills and waterways and oceans. 

Did I already say that this was the bright idea of environmentalist libs? Uh huh. But now they won't breathe a word of responsibility. Not one of these idiots will admit that their stupid ideas are faulty. 

Trees are a renewable resource. 

So what about stores like Safeway and Albertsons? They switched to plastic-only bags a coupe of years ago. 

I'm a paper-only girl. I hate the plastic bags. Turns out I was right all along.

Clinton Lying Again...

Watch this:

VIDEO: Bill Clinton heated over Vegas voter lawsuit...

should make your blood boil

City Council Flunks Econ 1-A

from one of my columns in The Sacramento Union:

In recent weeks, The Sacramento Bee reported that the City of Sacramento will face a huge budget deficit, implying that it is solely because of the downturn in the housing market. It has been reported that the members of the City Council are “stunned.” However, as City Finance Director Russell Fehr said, “it was unclear how much Sacramento's deficit would be this year, but he knew it would be more than the $27 million estimated in May.” I’m not sure if I’d brag about that.

The question on the table is, did the City Council know a budget deficit was eminent, or not? Either way, it is reprehensible and screamingly irresponsible. And I have difficulty believing that anyone on the City Council could be “stunned;” that would suggest incompetence.

The Sacramento City Council has beautifully demonstrated once again that liberal Democrats do not understand or subscribe to basic economic principles. If they did, taxes would be lowered to stimulate the local economy. Instead, City officials are whining that “revenue growth” (liberal-speak for “taxes”) is not enough.

What are the city's major revenue streams? Property, sales and utility user taxes – all taxes! City officials complained that because we had a warm winter last year, we spent less on our utilities (utility user taxes), admitting that last winter the city finance gurus saw less money coming in.
Admitedly, City officials say that current staffing and service levels are not sustainable, given the current weakness in “revenue growth,” meaning that there are too many city employees and social programs for the current level of tax revenue. But instead of making cuts, they would rather face a deficit. To any other group of people who work together, this means that the company is going broke.
Even thought 66 % of the General Fund budget is the cost of labor (employees), City Finance Director Russell Fehr has ruled out layoffs. He said he expects necessary cuts can come from attrition, the hiring freeze and restricting some discretionary spending like travel."It's a long-standing city policy that you do everything you can to avoid laying off career employees," Fehr said. Russell Fehr’s brilliant cost-cutting measure is to wait for city employees to quit.
Every business owner in America knows that when faced with a looming budget deficit, labor must be cut… unless liberals are running the show. And the only liberals running anything work in government, and are not running successful private businesses.
Can you imagine if a private business owner made such an irrational and arrogant statement as Fehr did? He’s saying that even thought the city is going broke, we don’t cut jobs.
There is a reason that certain people gravitate to government jobs and others to private enterprise. That’s not to say that all people working for local government are arrogant boneheads – by no means. It just appears that those people in the top local positions are.
This recent deficit is because Sacramento does not have a well-rounded tax base. If a real estate housing downturn causes this much of a “deficit,” Houston, we have a problem! The City of Sacramento relies on various taxes for revenue. The housing boom increased revenue. Communities with static or declining tax bases typically have growing tax rates. A city with either too much retail, or housing, or government such as Sacramento, is vulnerable to rapid downturns.
And Sacramento is still building housing and cheesy strip malls. Councilman Rob Fong said the budget crisis presented an opportunity. "We can bemoan it or can use it as a time to re-examine where and how we do business." More consideration ought to be given, he said, to developing areas currently not slated for growth. Did he really say that? Does he really think more houses in a saturated market will be the answer?
As for “discretionary travel cuts,” Mayor Heather Fargo just returned from another Sister City trip abroad. And traveling with her were fifteen people, paid for by the City. Air fare expenses alone must have run $50,000, at a mimimum. But don’t tell Mayor Fargo, the eternal optimist, that Sacramento has a deficit. Her comment on the $50 million budget deficit? "We'll still be able to do about 90 percent of what we do; we're staying in business," Mayor Heather Fargo said after a council budget hearing. "We're going to get through this." I think Mayor Heather must have taken “new math” in school.
This is the same Mayor and City Council that wanted taxpayers to fund a new sports arena. In addition to building the tax-funded arena, the city council completely ignored the fact that sporting arenas nearly always run on a deficit. Wow! Just like our city! Budget deficits don’t matter when you’re trying to build a “world-class city,” Heather.
It is a simple equation: when revenues decrease so must expenses and costs of “doing business.” The City must cut labor, cut services, cut material costs, refinance loans where they can, renegotiate leases, and cut salaries – particularly at the top (as all good leaders do). Taxes should be cut as well, in order to allow city residents to turn around and spend their savings back into the local economy.
These are all realistic ways to reduce costs. But the City of Sacramento, City Council and Mayor Fargo don’t really care about cutting costs because it’s not cutting into their personal bottom line: i.e. it’s not coming out of their salaries. They are not going to feel the pinch they are asking you to live with. They will just raise taxes again and you will see it on your property tax bill, and fees, and licenses, and permits. The housing bubble has burst and the revenue bubble resulting from the housing boom is over. Did they salt any of that surprise revenue away? No. Now the city officials are moaning about the revenue decrease. Everyone but Heather Fargo and the City council will pay for their ineptitude, arrogance and apathy.
Do you care? Well, what are we going to do about it?

Hillary's Teary Moment

I am growing weary of all of the commentary about Hillary's tears last week. It comes down to this:

1) Either she cannot control her emotions in difficult situations and is not fit for the job, or

2) Grown women don't cry unless they are trying to manipulate. Children cry spontaneously - grown women do not.

So, is she incapable of handling the job, or is she just a manipulator?

Either way, she's not fit for command.

More Prop 93 Foes

California's newspapers are rejecting the initiative they call "self-serving" and a "scam."

15 major newspapers across the state - the San Diego Union-Tribune, San Jose Mercury News, Sacramento Bee, Riverside Press Enterprise, Orange County Register, Fresno Bee, Bakersfield Californian, Long Beach Press-Telegram, San Bernardino County Sun, Santa Cruz Sentinel, Torrance Daily Breeze, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Modesto Bee, the Woodland Daily Democrat and the Tracy Press have all now come out in opposition to Propostion 93.

The latest newspapers to oppose the misleading Proposition 93 are the Sacramento and Modesto Bees (finally!), the Santa Cruz Sentinel, and the Orange County Register.

The Santa Cruz Sentinel: As We See It: No on term-limit "reform"

Editorial, January 13, 2008

Would allowing state legislators to serve a total of 12 years in either the Assembly or Senate be in the public benefit?That's really the only question worth answering about Proposition 93, which voters will be asked to approve or deny Feb. 5.

Reluctantly, and after initially supporting this reform proposal, we say it would not.

Legislators themselves are to blame. Here's why.· Proposition 93 is backed by many politicians acting out of blatant self-interest, such as Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate President Don Perata, both of whom would be termed out after 2008, and both of whom have showed disregard for the public's tolerance for unwarranted spending.Nunez, if 93 passes, would be able to serve six more years; Perata four more. Some 28 senators would be able to serve for 18 years. The ballot argument in favor of 93, written by state Attorney General Jerry Brown, misstates the intent of the measure by trumpeting that it "reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state Legislature from 14 years to 12 years."

Link to article
*****************
Written by Jerry Brown... why isn't anyone talking about that?

Here's an email I received regarding my last blog post on The Clinton Act. Very interesting indeed... I received his permission to post this.
Whether or not it's from a competing campaign, it's still interesting.

******************

On Jan 12, 2008 8:27 PM, peter paul wrote:


I liked your blog. I thought you should better understand my efforts to expose the frauds that Hillary directed to win her Senate seat and the unprecedented obstructions of justice she directed to keep the seat and avoid accountability. In my civil fraud case of Paul v Clinton et al pending in LA Superior Court- discovery will begin in March with the entire Clinton family among the deponents that will be videotaped.

I am sending a fee link to the Documentary I collaborated on- Hillary!Uncensored below. Please make some noise with your blog about the Justice Department's refusal to force the FEC to obey its own laws and to refrain from aiding and abetting the violations of criminal laws as defined by DOJ prosecutors.


The gravamen of my new FEC complaint is that six months AFTER the May, 2005 trial of Hillary's Finance Director David Rosen for causing Hillary's campaign to file three false FEC reports that hid over $1.2 million in my contributions, along with my identity as the donor, the FEC allowed Hillary Clinton's campaign to file yet another false report that the DOJ Prosecutor described as a felony violation of "the people's right to know that Peter Paul personally gave more than $1.2 million to Hillary's national campaign." The FEC then used the final false and illegal report as the basis to settle my original FEC complaint and immunize Hillary and her campaign from further investigation!

Take a look at WWW.hillcap.org to see the complete public record on this matter that the media has hidden since the January 30, 2006 false FEC report regarding Event 39, Hillary's largest fundraising event, was filed by Hillary. That FEC report repeated exactly the offense that her finance director was indicted and tried for in May 2005 as a result of my civil complaint in Paul v Clinton. Nowhere in that FEC report, as in all the previous ones, is there a mention that Peter Paul personally gave any money, much less $1.2 million plus as stated by the DOJ and FBI in the Rosen trial ( see transcript)

Peter PaulAsheville


Hillary Clinton & FEC Charged With Complicity in Illegal 2006 Report and FEC Settlement
The Vanguard.org, counterpoint to Move On.org, Joins In Challenging FEC Complicity in Clinton Illegalities
Hillary!Uncensored

COMPLIMENTARY VIEWING OF "HILLARY! UNCENSORED"
ON YOUPERVIEW.COM: 1. Sign up and login on WWW.youperview.Com
2. Once logged in, replace the URL address field in the navigation bar with this address:
Http ://WWW.youperview.Com/video/freewatch
The first Documentary Film to chronicle Hillary Clinton's political life using exclusive home videos, photos, letters, legal filings and expert witnesses became a viral video Internet phenomenon when a 13 minute unedited roughcut trailer for the documentary posted on a private Google site was leaked to the world on super agent Lucianne Goldberg's political blog site Lucianne, on October 7, 2007.

The Clinton Act

I've never bought into the Clinton Act. In fact, instead of ever eliciting sympathy or empathy from me, both of them bring out an instinctive gut reaction from me - one that says "watch your back, protect your butt and don't take your eyes off of them."

Bill Clinton has never made me swoon. I never found him irresistible or charming, or wished he'd look into my green eyes with his blue eyes. I found him to be more like the most annoying car salesman, slick, insincere, cagey, shallow and a hick. I definitely did not buy the "good-ole-boy" routine. My husband and I were calling him trailer park trash long before the press did. By the time the press started with that name, I figured many others like me felt the same way about him.

Remember Bill at Ron Brown's funeral, laughing and chatting it up - until a camera caught him. He got real solemn, real fast, and even bit his lip - probably to make himself cry. It was pathetic.

Then came Hillary... she expects a coronation and will stop at nothing to receive her crown.

(unionleader.com) She wants you to believe her "record" of work within the White House, but the Clinton's won't release the records. "I was a member of the White House team that was involved with trying to make a lot of changes . . . I think that people who are running for President should lay out for Americans their record, their experiences, their qualifications, their vision, their plan, and their understanding of how to make it all happen, and that's what I'm doing."

Those records - 2,600 pages worth in the National Archives. The Clintons have claimed that the National Archives won't release the records, but the Archives official in charge says Bill Clinton has not authorized their release.

Among those records is Mrs. Clinton's schedule, which would help show just how involved she really was in her husband's administration.
Because she has made her "experience" her primary qualification for the presidency, the people deserve to see exactly what experience she really has. Which policies did she help shape? Which did she oppose? Did she serve as a de facto staff member or did her role primarily consist of whispering suggestions into her husband's ear? That history is blackened out, and she is keeping it that way. Why?
She has said that releasing the records is Bill's decision, not hers. But if she cannot convince her husband to release some White House documents for public scrutiny, how does she expect us to believe she will be able to convince Congress or foreign heads of state to follow her lead?

Unless Hillary can prove her "35 years of experience of change," she's just Bill's wife.

I can prove my working record, and I can produce evidence, and day planners, and even people who vouch for me. Hillary just can't seem to make this happen. And she deserves the Presidency? I fear the people who will blindly vote for her - they are more frightening in America than one ambitious, lying, desperate woman.

Prepare for a very ugly campaign. After reports of cars with license plates from New York and Massachusetts, cheating has already begun by the Clinton machine. It's going to get very dark - that's what desperation and greed does to a person's soul.

Sacramento Supervisor Tries To Look Busy

(cbs13.com) Sacramento County supervisors have ducked a vote on the Iraq war. Supervisors voted three to two yesterday to drop a resolution supporting a phased withdrawal of troops. Supervisor Susan Peters says the war is not an issue supervisors should be dealing with. But Supervisor Roger Dickinson says the decision to remove the resolution from the agenda without debate was unprecedented.

(sacbee.com) Supervisor Roger Dickinson, who offered the resolution is asking his colleagues to join him in calling for the "phased withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq." "It's past time we make a planned and orderly withdrawal," Dickinson said. He added that any characterization of this as anti-troops would be "completely without foundation."

Barbara O'Connor, a communications professor at California State University, Sacramento, is among those who ask: "What's the point?" "That is part of the reason why the public is not enamored with elected officials," O'Connor said. "The public's reaction to something like that is, 'Why aren't they dealing with things that affect Sacramento County?' "

"This board has not made a practice of getting involved in foreign affairs, and I really don't think it's our role to do that," MacGlashan said. "We have enough on our plate at the county level. I really don't see the point of it."

The resolution was greeted with cheers and jeers from those on either ends of the political spectrum.

"It's a waste of time for municipalities to weigh in on national politics where they neither have the facts or the expertise," said Sal Russo, a GOP operative and the chief strategist for Move America Forward, a group active in support of U.S. service members. "It's irresistible … to take pot shots when they don't know anything and nobody cares."

If Roger Dickinson wants to work on national policy, he should run for Congress. Meanwhile, he needs to focus himself and deal with Sacramento County issues and do his job. Meddling in National affairs is not what he was elected to do.

One sacbee.com reader left this comment: "With so many problems in the county why are resources wasted on this publicity stunt. Oh wait..too late, they've already got their press. What's next Roger Dickinson?...are you going to debate whaling by Japan?...the Chinese occupation of Tibet?...the fist fights of drunken scientist at the Antarctic? Your job is to deal with county issues, so do your job. At my job, if I'm goofing off I get fired....too bad we can't do the same with these county stupidvisors."

Priceless. And accurate.

Oh wait, maybe he is running for Congress. He won't be re-elected to his current Supervisor seat at the rate he is going. This guy needs to rethink his career. He can't get a thing done for his district so looks to national politics where he has no accountability... what a great scam.

An Oprah Nation of Feelings

American has turned into a nation of feelings, over reason.

Barack Hussein Obama is a living, breathing example of this. Obama is riding on a wave of feel-good, not substance.

Obama makes white liberals feel less guilt, as if voting for him will finally absolve America of the last vestiges of guilt over slavery. A vote for Obama makes them look truly progressive, part of the "in-crowd."

Because he has no substance. His claim of never having voted for the war is empty. His lengthy speeches say nothing. His promise of change is empty - he never promises specifics or details - just "hope" and "change."

Obama neglects to talk about the economy, education, and health care in concrete terms. Everything he has to say only appeals to making people feel special and part of something cool.

But since Hillary, John Edwards and Obama share the same liberal views on most topics, it is a popularity contest for who makes liberals feel better. A vote for Obama makes liberals part of the "cool" crowd.

How embarrassing for those who have "Obama" signs in their front lawns. They can't even tell you what his voting record is, or what specifically he stands for... other than change. Change is inevitable. The only appeal Obama offers is making the unpopular and socially awkward feel part of the cool kids clique.

Sac Bee is Conspicuously Absent

Five newspapers have come out in strong opposition to Proposition 93 in recent days. The Bakersfield Californian, Long Beach Press-Telegram, Torrance Daily Breeze, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, and San Bernardino County Sun have all editorialized against the measure to loosen term limits.

These newspapers join the San Jose Mercury News, San Diego Union-Tribune, Fresno Bee, Riverside Press-Enterprise and Woodland Daily Democrat in denouncing the scam initiative to loosen term limits sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez.

How about The Sacramento Bee? Conspicuously absent.

In Case You Missed It:

EDITORIAL: No on 93: Don't swallow this baloney

The Bakersfield Californian, January 6, 2008 J

an. 6--How stupid do legislators think California voters are? OK, maybe you shouldn't answer that. We have swallowed some pretty big political "whoppers" over the years.

But not this time. Proposition 93 is a clumsy political sleight of hand that lacks the finesse of even an amateur magician.

Here's the "scam." Proposition 93 is being peddled as a tightening of the term limits California voters imposed on legislators in 1990. (By the way, the limits were imposed because voters were disgusted by do-nothing and sometimes corrupt lifetime legislators who were sucking the system dry.)

Proposition 93, on the Feb. 5 ballot, proposes to reduce from 14 years to 12 years the time a politician can serve in the Legislature.

For those who favor term limits, so far so good.But University of Southern California political analyst Sherry Bebitch Jeffe is correct when she notes the "Legislature was just too cute by half" when lawmakers crafted this ballot "reform" measure.

The existing formula allows legislators to serve no more than six years in the Assembly and eight in the Senate for a total of 14 years.Proposition 93 would cap the years of service at 12, but allow all years to be served in one house.

Proposition 93 creates a special loophole that will benefit 42 incumbent politicians, including our very own Assemblywoman Nicole Parra, who are termed out. It will give them more time in office. Working the numbers right, some will be able to serve 20 years forget about the existing 14-year cap.

And that's why Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata are among those who are working so hard to get voters suckered into passing Proposition 93. The termed-out legislators would be able to serve an extra six years and four years in office, respectively. They want to hold on to their power.

If legislators had played it straight and not shaped this measure in such a self-serving way, voters might have gone along with it.After all, California's term limits are among the nation's tightest. And an argument can be made that existing limits have created a distracting system in which career politicians bounce from one post to another more interested in their next political step than in serving their constituents.

Institutional knowledge in Sacramento has dwindled with the churn. The power of lobbyists and special interests and the money they ply has grown. California has become nearly incapable of solving its increasing problems.But opponents are correct to denounce Proposition 93 as nothing more than an arrogant power grab by career politicians. That's exactly what it is. Voters should tell these "too cute by half" politicians that we aren't swallowing their baloney. Vote no.

Link to article

California Legislators Give Each Other A Merry Christmas

In Case You Missed It:

Contra Costa Times:

Lawmakers' pay raise

THE TIMING DOESN'T seem so great, but California legislative salaries have risen to $116,208. Keep in mind, these salaries were the highest in the country going in, we are facing a monster of a budget deficit next year and there has been a lack of any significant legislation lately. 

Amazingly, the salary increase received the blessing of an independent citizens commission in June, which must approve legislative salary increases thanks to Proposition 112 that passed in 1990. So much for public oversight. 

We commend the 13 legislators who have asked the state controller to keep their $3,110-a-year raise. Skeptically, however, we note that eight of those lawmakers are up for re-election; it's worth the sacrifice to keep constituents happy. The other 106 lawmakers, including 11 of 12 constitutional officers, will gladly pocket the extra cash, though. 

We suggest many of these lawmakers reconsider the raises. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, to his credit, doesn't take a salary, but he did sound the alarm recently when he saw many of his budget plans crumbling, thanks in part to the subprime mortgage crisis that is bleeding income tax revenue. With a projected $14 billion budget deficit, Schwarzenegger demanded a 10 percent cut across the board on state agencies. Yet lawmakers saw fit to take extra money despite many layoffs and the sacrifice of services on the horizon.
Link to article

**************

what can I possibly add to this? 

Welcome 2008! Defeat Hillary 2008!

I am back from Christmas, New Year's, and the flu.

I hope everyone has a Happy and prosperous 2008. And it will only be prosperous if Hillary Clinton is defeated. Otherwise, we will all know:

1) more taxes on the highest taxpayers

2) Government controlled health care (already failed once at the hands of Mrs. Clinton)

3) Enactment of the Fairness Doctrine

4) a total depletion of the military

5) More activist judges

6) Gay Marriage

7) The continued rise of China - thanks to the Clinton's the first time around

Does this sound like a first lady, or a president?

FIRST FIRST LADY to come under criminal investigation
FIRST FIRST LADY to almost be indicted according to one of the special prosecutors
NUMBER of Hillary Clinton fundraisers convicted of, or pleading no contest to, crime: 5
NUMBER OF TIMES that Hillary Clinton, providing testimony to Congress, said that she didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar: 250
NUMBER OF CLOSE BUSINESS partners of Hillary Clinton who ended up in prison: 3. The Clintons' two partners in Whitewater were convicted of 24 counts of fraud and conspiracy. Hillary Clinton's partner and mentor at the Rose law firm, Webster Hubbell, pleaded guilty to federal mail fraud and tax evasion charges, including defrauding former clients and former partners out of more than $480,000. Hillary Clinton was mentioned 35 times in the indictment.
IN THE 1980s, Hillary Clinton made a $44,000 profit on a $2,000 investment in a cellular phone franchise deal took advantage of the FCC's preference for locals, minorities and women. The franchise was almost immediately flipped to the cellular giant, McCaw.
HILLARY CLINTON AND HER HUSBAND set up a resort land scam known as Whitewater in which the unwitting bought third rate property 50 miles from the nearest grocery store and, thanks to the sleazy financing, about half the purchasers, many of them seniors, lost their property.
IN 1993 HILLARY CLINTON and David Watkins moved to oust the White House travel office in favor of World Wide Travel, Clinton's source of $1 million in fly-now-pay-later campaign trips that essentially financed the last stages of the campaign without the bother of reporting a de facto contribution. The White House fired seven long-term employees for alleged mismanagement and kickbacks. The director, Billy Dale, charged with embezzlement, was acquitted in less than two hours by the jury.
HRC'S 1994 HEALTH CARE PLAN, according to one account, included fines of up to $5,000 for refusing to join the government-mandated health plan, $5,000 for failing to pay premiums on time, 15 years to doctors who received "anything of value" in exchange for helping patients short-circuit the bureaucracy, $10,000 a day for faulty physician paperwork, $50,000 for unauthorized patient treatment, and $100,000 a day for drug companies that messed up federal filings.
TWO MONTHS after commencing the Whitewater scheme, Hillary Clinton invested $1,000 in cattle futures. Within a few days she had a $5,000 profit. Before bailing out she earns nearly $100,000 on her investment. Many years later, several economists will calculate that the chances of earning such returns legally were one in 250 million.
IN 1996, Hillary Clinton's Rose law firm billing records, sought for two years by congressional investigators and the special prosecutor were found in the back room of the personal residence at the White House. Clinton said she had no idea how they got there.
DRUG DEALER Jorge Cabrera gave enough to the Democrats to have his picture taken with both Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. . . Cabrera was arrested in January 1996 inside a cigar warehouse near in Dade County, where more than 500 pounds of cocaine had been hidden. He and several accomplices were charged with having smuggled 3,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States through the Keys
In 2000, Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign returned $22,000 in soft money to a businesswoman linked to a Democratic campaign contribution from a drug smuggler in Havana.
IN AUGUST 2000, Hillary Clinton held a huge Hollywood fundraiser for her Senate campaign. It was very successful. The only problem was that, by a long shot, she didn't report all the money contributed: $800K by the US government's ultimate count in a settlement and $2 million according to the key contributor and convicted con Peter Paul. This is, in election law, the moral equivalent of not reporting a similar amount on your income tax. It is a form of fraud. Hillary Clinton's defense is that she didn't know about it
HILLARY CLINTON'S participation in a Whitewater related land deal became suspicious enough to trigger an investigation by the Arkansas Supreme Court.
IN 2007, A Pakistani immigrant who hosted fundraisers for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton became a target of the FBI allegations that he funneled illegal contributions to Clinton's political action committee and to Sen. Barbara Boxer's 2004 re-election campaign. Authorities say Northridge, Calif., businessman Abdul Rehman Jinnah, 56, fled the country shortly after being indicted on charges of engineering more than $50,000 in illegal donations to the Democratic committees.

If you want a repeat of the Clinton administration, here's a refresher course:

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance

- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*

- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation

- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify

- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly

- First president sued for sexual harassment

- First president accused of rape. - First first lady to come under criminal investigation

- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case

- First president to establish a legal defense fund

- First president to be held in contempt of court

- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions

- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad

- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

And more from Bill and Hill:

OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED IN THE MEDIA
Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.

Forget the list of changes she will enact that hurt individual Americans, it's what she does in secret that should scare us more.

more to come...