It was discovered yesterday that California taxpayer dollars will be funneled into the pockets of ex-US Attorney General Eric Holder and his firm, Covington & Burling, in order to fight the Trump administration on behalf of the State of California. For background, please see this.
SHR Media, of which I am a part, discussed the issue Wednesday night on the Sack Heads Radio show. Before the show, however, I attempted to acquire a response from the California Attorney General’s office but was unsuccessful.
I next contacted the office of my former 4th District representative, Tom McClintock, firstspeaking to Bill George in Rocklin, and followed with an email in order to see if I could solicit Rep McClintock’s opinion on the hiring of former AG Eric Holder.
Representative McClintock was kind enough to respond the very next day, and had this to say:
1.This is a huge vote of no confidence in Xavier Becerra, who as incoming Attorney General would otherwise be responsible for representing the state government’s perspective in the courts. Implicitly, legislative leaders are saying they don’t trust Becerra’s competence and need to bring in outside counsel. I don’t disagree with them in this assessment. Normally, the Attorney General would decide whether he needed additional legal counsel for a specific case – it looks like legislative leaders have made this decision for him.
2.Since the administration has not taken office and therefore has not yet taken any official actions, it is hard to see specifically what Holder et al are being hired to contest. Placing them on general retainer once again voices no confidence in Becerra and, given the partisan political connections involved, has the appearance of a political payoff. Holder is also a curious choice as the only Attorney General to be held in contempt of Congress.
3. An essential component of federalism is the ability of a state to assert its constitutional powers and prerogatives and to challenge federal authority through our legal system. If they have no confidence in Becerra, they have every reason to hire outside counsel and every right to challenge federal actions. Although I obviously strongly disagree with them on policy, I think state legal challenges to federal action are healthy. This is certainly preferable to recent Democratic attempts to nullify federal law by refusing to obey or enforce it. Democrats started the discredited and defeated doctrine of nullification in the antebellum era and have revived it with “sanctuary” and non-enforcement policies in recent years.
I wholeheartedly concur with Rep McClintock’s assessment of incoming AG Becerra. It’s, to me, something of a resounding slap in the face. Particularly in light, as Rep McClintock aptly points out, of the fact that Holder was held in contempt of Congress in 2012.
This is, essentially, the State of California posturing for the Leftists within and without; chest-puffing if you will. Holder’s retainer comes directly out of the budgets of the Senate and Assembly. Will Holder’s consultancy extend beyond the “initial” three months? Quite possibly.
Thanks kindly to Tom McClintock and Bill George for assisting me in the matter and their rapid response.
I happen to live in what I call Occupied Fornicalia, behind enemy lines.
It wasn’t my choice; it just happened. Just as with the truism that “I didn’t leave the Republican party, the Republican party left me.” Hence the fence and all.
Now that I’ve vented for a moment, please allow me to focus on something of a “localized” issue despite the fact that primarily I tend to accent posts of a more generalized, national nature.
But this post is critical for Californians. Trust me: critical.
I make it now for those who are either filling out their absentee ballots and for those who are about to step into a voting booth in less than two weeks.
That is to say, addressing California propositions on the ballot for the coming Tuesday, November 8th.
I can summarize things this way: vote NO on EVERY proposition except:
That said, let’s examine each proposition with a bit more detail. Tom McClintock and I vary on only a few of them.
Prop 51: NO
Right. Let’s just add $1,400 to your debt with one swipe of a vote. Sound borrowing be damned. Our children will pay off these “educational” bonds. They will not benefit from them.
Prop 52: NO
This is essentially a tax extension for Medi-Cal. Hospitals like it because it passes taxes to the patient, not them. It’s a permanent tax on sick folks.
Prop 53: YES
This is a public vote for revenue bonds. General obligation bonds are repaid from the state’s general fund; revenue bonds are repaid by users of a project (e.g. tolls to repay a bridge bond). This measure requires revenue bonds over $2 billion to be approved by voters, and is backed by taxpayer groups across the state. This is called accountability for your tax dollars. Uh, yeah.
Prop 54: YES
This primarily says: “read the damned bill first before you vote on it.” How could anyone disagree? This forbids the legislature from voting on a bill until it has been in print for 72 hours and available to both legislators and the public to read. It stops the dangerous practice of having to “pass a bill so we know what’s in it.” Duh.
Prop 55: NO
In 2012, Californians made a mistake in approving the highest personal income tax rate anywhere in the country on the “very wealthy people” who make over $250,000 a year. It is due to be phased out in 2018. This proposition would make it permanent. What’s wrong with soaking the rich? For openers, a lot of these “very wealthy people” aren’t wealthy and they aren’t even people. They’re struggling small businesses filing under Subchapter S. The really rich folks just re-arrange their schedules so they’re not legal residents and don’t pay the tax. As Arthur Laffer has often said, “There’s nothing in the world more portable than money and rich people.” Bingo. Thank you.
Prop 56: NO
Good God, another tobacco tax that just gets schluffed off into the CA general fund? Are you Fornicalia voters really this stupid? Apparently yes, you are, according to your Leftist rulers. Excessive taxation increases the incentives for black markets. Permanent spending programs are being funded with a declining revenue – and eventually taxpayers will end up funding the difference. Hello? You? Me? You imbeciles — shall I remind you — are the dimwits who voted for the “train to nowhere.” Hey, it’s not “your” money anyway, right? Except that, yes, you ignorant morons, it is. Taxes? Hello? Oh yeah. Except taxes on the illegal.
Prop 57: NO
Not just NO, but HELL NO. This is “clever” beyond belief. It is Leftists wanting to minimize the definition of a “violent crime” so that those who have committed — wait for it — manslaughter and rape can be considered “non-violent.” This is Jerry Brown’s — who has onset dementia(go ahead and ask Jerry Brown what day it is) according to people who work around him — latest measure purporting to release only non-violent felons from prison. But as the law works, this would include rapists, child molesters, gang-bangers, arsonists and human traffickers to name a few – and not to mention violent criminals who plea-bargained to lesser crimes. What in the holy hell?
To my mind this is the most craven, disgusting and abominable proposition suggested in the history of this state.
Let me make something clear: whilst Jerry Brown and Leftists throughout the state make their finest attempt to kick criminal felons out of prison — actually trying to keep violent felons out of the system in the first place — simultaneously they are the first to restrict your First and Second Amendment freedoms. You, the law-abiding, legal, tax-paying citizen. The politicians of this state have their own well-armed personnel as escorts — but you do not. The CHP protects the primary politicians. The Sgt At Arms protects other appointees in Fornicalia. That’s because they matter and you do not. You need to be disarmed for your own good. But wait; there’s another proposition (63) coming to address that specific issue. Might it go well for you? Likely not.
Perhaps you might ask: how’s that Proposition 47 and AB 109 working out for you right now? Property and violent crimes skyrocketing? Perish the word. Clearly it’s time — like Virginia’s Terry McAuliffe — to let felons vote here in Fornicalia. I wonder how they’d vote? Demorat, perchance?
Prop 58: NO
In 1998, California voters passed Proposition 227, which forbade the practice of segregating Spanish-speaking children and teaching them in Spanish-only classes (a practice with the Orwellian title, “bi-lingual education.”). It didn’t work. It wasn’t enabled in reality. The measure would stop this vital assimilation program and return classrooms to Spanish-only instruction. Goodbye English, hello Spanish. NO.
Prop 59: NO
That damned First Amendment has simply got to go. Right? This proposition calls on elected officials to overturn the Citizens United decision and in so doing repeal the First Amendment. Most of our elected officials are leftists who are doing so anyway. I‘m not and I won’t. Remember: Leftists abhor free speech. Unless it is theirs.
Prop 60: NO
Here we have condoms and porn. Excuse my bias, but it isn’t about “porn.” This is about the minutiae of a controlling state government. Expect that “Little Lending Libraries” will be targeted next. Oh wait. They already are.
Prop 61: NO
Price controls for drugs sound great, right? Except that price controls always sound good in theory – but in practice they always create shortages of whatever commodity is being controlled. Calling common sense. What occurs with shortages? Oh, right. Prices skyrocket. On top of insurance costs.
Prop 62: NO
Let’s eliminate the death penalty, shall we? Makes sense, right? Uh, no. Here is the sum total of the Leftist ballot measures on crime: release dangerous felons from our prisons (Prop. 57), disarm law-abiding citizens (Prop. 63) and provide old-age retirement plans for murderers (Prop 62). Yes, California’s liberals really are out of their minds. Insanity rules. Next question?
Prop 63: NO
This measure requires a PERMIT from the state of Fornicalia to purchase ammunition within its realm. In other words, the time and background check required for a firearm would equate to the time and background checks required for ammunition purchases.
The Heller decision infuriated Leftists, Obama and Hillary Clinton. This is the first step – requiring a permit (renewable every four years) to purchase ammunition, accompanied by fees and background checks (of people who have already passed background checks to purchase their firearm in the first place).
Prop 64: NO
Here, in terms of marijuana legislation, Tom McClintock votes yes. I stridently disagree. As a recently-retired peace officer of 41 years here in Fornicalia, why haven’t the DUI stats been checked of both Washington and Colorado? The collision rates? The death rates in traffic accidents? Hello? Going up. New and facile ways to craft a FST — or not? The persons and children overdosed on THC? Does the word “gateway” mean anything? Tom, you got it way wrong on this one, buddy. Please check how the marijuana laws are currently negatively affecting people in Colorado and Washington, sir. All this does is make not only people but government beg like doggies for their own piece of the lucrative cash pie. That’s not what government should be about.
Prop 65: NO
Grocery bags. Those terrible, terrible grocery bags. What to do? The law was part of a corrupt bargain that imposes these charges on grocery store customers and lets the grocery stores keep the revenue as extra profit. What part of NO does the average American Taxpayer not understand?
Prop 66: YES
This is a pro-death penalty measure sponsored by law enforcement and victims’ organizations that streamlines California’s death penalty and puts it back in play. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that a death penalty, consistently applied, suppresses the murder rate and saves innocent lives. And it has a guaranteed ZERO rate of recidivism. Guess what? Once convicted, twice shy.
Prop 67: NO
Your nanny state strikes once again. Tom sums it up wonderfully: A yes vote means no more disposable plastic bags at the grocery store (with certain exceptions for meat and other perishable items, and paper bags will cost you 10-cents each). A NO vote means much more than just preserving this one little convenience – it means repudiating the nanny state that California has become. Voting this down means saving yourself from the aggravation of cans rolling around in your car. But saying no to the nannies? Priceless.
And with that, ladies and gentlemen, exists my recommendations for Fornicalia’s propositions.
Thanks to Tom McClintock for his original thoughts.
He wasn’t serious when he was governor in the 70s, and he isn’t serious now.
Brown had the opportunity to support and promote, for one thing, the Auburn Damabove the Sacramento Valley. But he killed that project along with all others because he didn’t believe in funding infrastructure.
I find it so ironic that the man who killed dams and all other public projects (including vital additional highways) is finding himself in the hotseat regarding Fornicalia’s drought.
But his “solution” is no solution and proves he couldn’t care less about the state, much less the people who live here. You know: Fornicalia, the COASTAL state. The state with the ocean right next to its border.
The LA Times has decided it must continue to fellate Governor Brown, with its story here:
Brown orders California’s first mandatory water restrictions: ‘It’s a different world’
by Chris Megerian and Matt Stevens
Governor Jerry Brown, standing on a patch of brown grass in the Sierra Nevada that is usually covered with several feet of snow at this time of year, on Wednesday announced the first mandatory water restrictions in California history.
Brown ordered the California Water Resources Control Board to implement mandatory restrictions to reduce water usage by 25%. The water savings are expected to amount to 1.5 million acre-feet of water over the next nine months.
The article then goes on to describe a number of “water saving measures” that are akin to sitting in a chair and masturbating for all the good they will, overall, do. The “measures” address nothing long-term. The idiots amongst the media and ignorant Fornicalia residents applaud Brown. What a strategic thinker! The state’s growing illegal Mexican population can’t read and can’t understand English anyway. Perfect for a conniving Demorat governor like Brown, where the state is 99.9% blue. There are perhaps 75 Conservatives in Fornicalia. Me and my Representative Tom McClintock in the 4th. And trust me when I say I’ll Tweet him a copy of this post.
In other words, these “measures” won’t do much of anything to defray the crisis state of Fornicalia now and in the future. Because Fornicalia alternates between floods and droughts. There are few stable times in between. “Crisis” is more normal than normal.
With that in mind, Governor Brown has embraced and wants to enable with every fiber of his being the Scam Tram — his “legacy” — despite it’s first work being “unspectacular.”
In fact, Brown’s Scam Tram will cost, at this point, over $68 BILLION DOLLARS through the next 16 years. That is a conservative figure. Approved in November of 2008, Proposition 1A, it allocated $9.95 BILLION DOLLARS for the project. To say that this figure has expanded would insult even the retarded amongst my readers.
Further, the Scam Tram won’t reach its claimed speed of 200 mph at all; at this point, with its promised stops, it won’t much exceed the FRA common passenger speed of 79 mph mandated by most common passenger diesel-electric locomotives via their gearing.
Anyone think that $68 BILLION DOLLARS somehow equates to an approved-by-the-voters $9.95 BILLION DOLLARS?
Oddly enough, I do not. It — call me crazy — sounds to me like some kind of scam. Perhaps even a Scam Tram.
At this point, let’s ask an obvious and an equally-political question: what takes priority? Solving a long-time state-wide drought issue, or providing a rail project that guarantees nothing in terms of water provisions?
Governor Brown, you have a quandary. Fund the Scam Tram or fund the obvious: water infrastructure projects to include desalination plants dotted from the north to the south on your coast.
McClintock on CA Drought: ‘We Are Being Governed by People Who Are Out of Their Minds’
by Joel B. Pollak
WASHINGTON, DC — Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) warns that California’s water crisis will continue until there are major changes in state government, and until Republicans win the U.S. Senate.
“We are being governed by people who are out of their minds,” McClintock said, referring to the inability of state and federal authorities to manage California’s water supply.
“Droughts are inevitable–they are nature’s fault. Water shortages are our fault,” he said.
And I couldn’t agree more with Representative McClintock.
In fact, it was Governor Jerry Brown’s problem first in the 70s, which he purposely chose to ignore. Via schadenfreude, it is now his issue to handle in his doting hypocrisy.
Speaking to Breitbart News in his Capitol Hill office, McClintock outlined what he believes would be necessary to prevent future shortages: resuming construction on existing dam projects, some of which were abandoned during Gov. Jerry Brown’s first administration in the 1970s.
The Auburn Dam project, for example, would create a reservoir two-and-a-half times the size of the ailing Folsom Lake, he said. In addition, McClintock suggested raising the height of the Shasta Dam from the current 600 feet to 800 feet, as originally designed. That, he said, would add nine million acre-feet to its existing storage capacity–double its present volume.
Precisely the issue I raised in the post prior to this. Jerry Brown had his chance to solve the issue before it became the massive problem it is now. And he roundly refused.
McClintock also criticized Brown’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta tunnel project, which will cost billions but would offer no water storage capacity and no hydroelectric power. He noted that state water projects in the mid-twentieth century spent comparable amounts in current dollars, yet also included storage and generated electricity, and paid for themselves over time.
“It’s only in the last several decades that the state has issued general bonds for these projects, which leave taxpayers on the hook. It’s insane,” McClintock said.
I can only concur, Congressman. It is in fact insane. All that cash to be spent with no electrical generation included. At least Brown and Leftists are nothing but consistent.
Environmentalists have opposed the construction of new dams, partly because of habitat and scenery destroyed by reservoirs, and because of the physical obstacle dams often pose to annual fish migrations.
There you go. The veritable Crux of the Biscuit. Lefitsts and Enviros clearly value fish and scenery over humanity.
Yet McClintock sees dams as a critical part of addressing California’s chronic water shortages. He and his Republican colleagues have also passed several measures aimed at changing the distribution of water to favor struggling Central Valley farmers, and he intends to hold hearings to investigate the release of large amounts of water from existing dams just before winter.
Allow me now, at this point, to illuminate some additional Leftist hypocrisy, if you will.
Jerry Brown has thrown Fornicalia’s political power and wherewithal into electric cars, but he refuses to see the obvious: just where will we acquire the electricity necessary to recharge this massive fleet of change?
There are NO electrical generation stations “in the works” now in Fornicalia.
On the current system, with hot days, the CalISO can’t even find sufficient power to forestall brownouts, much less expand power to potential hundreds-of-thousands of electric vehicles.
Fornicalia has, simply, One Party Political Power. People have historically had to flee from those kinds of governments around the world.
It is alive and well in Fornicalia.
Which is why I shall leave this state when I retire. It is about to go straight to Hell and I shall not be complicit in that ride.
I chanced across a news site called the Missoulian, sent to me by a comment-friend (the symbols I cannot reproduce here in my basic version of WordPress), which featured a headline in this article that reads:
Congress: House Speaker John Boehner unwilling to jeopardize his position
Pat Williams, Missoula
Republican Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner and I are friends. We have seldom visited since I left the Congress in 1997, but during Boehner’s first years in the House I was the chairman of an education committee of which he was a member.
Boehner, despite our political differences, was attentive, engaged and always considering fresh ways, as he saw it, to improve the nation’s schools. I liked him and still do – although now I am troubled by the policy and political muddle in which he has been cast. It is also disappointing to note that he prefers to follow rather than lead.
Boehner, although a genuine “corporations come first” Republican, is far more moderate than his four dozen Republican members who agree with the “take no prisoners” radicalized creed of their tea party constituents. That minority within the House Majority trampled roughshod over the preferences of most of the citizenry by taking the U.S. federal government hostage to their demands.
And, of course, here is where the writer and I agree then depart, and not just a tad bit, but radically.
Yes. Agreed: Boehner is “far more moderate than his four dozen Republican members who with the ‘take no prisoners’ radicalized creed of their tea party constituents.”
But a massively-important interjection: to believe in the Constitution, to believe in a limited government, to believe in a Constitution that, by its nature, tends to limit government (as I, frankly, quite nicely summarized here) is not a concept or philosophy that can be categorized as “radical” unless you yourself are a radical and a disbeliever in the brilliant precepts of our founding fathers — as horribly Caucasoid as they may have been. Damn them for that. When you minimize our foundational documents you bleat for a “Living Constitution.” Meaning: you simply want more governmental Free Cheese.
Our current Constitution frames much of what we value in terms of what the government cannot do.
– The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures
– It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment.
The vitally-important final paragraph from the article is:
However, this year’s Boehner seems to feel the Speaker’s cloak slipping from his shoulders and apparently is unwilling to jeopardize his vaulted position. Thus he continues to substitute ducking and dodging for bold leadership. Perhaps it was too much to hope, but wouldn’t it have been historic if Speaker Boehner told his Republicans to either act like adults or find themselves a new Speaker of the House?
The GOP has pretty much “gone along to get along” and I am primarily done with that philosophy.
Because I should care to point out the statue of Captain Obvious standing in the room: when is it, precisely, when a moderate Republican has been embraced recently by the electorate, or not been demonized by the press, or not been castigated by the Demorats? Clue me in, if you please: when?
So: “wouldn’t it have been historic if Speaker Boehner told his Republicans to either act like adults or find themselves a new Speaker of the House?”
Again, another point of departure with the — I submit — Leftist author: his Republicans in the arms-length guise of Ted Cruz ARE acting like adults. The Fiscal Adults. The Logical Adults. The Common Sense Adults. Sitting at the Adult’s Table. As opposed to the kid’s table at Thanksgiving. Because: there are no adults in DC these days.
Additionally: the GOP should find itself a new Speaker of the House. Perhaps John Boehner should feel the speaker’s cloak slipping from his tanned shoulders.
It was discovered yesterday that California taxpayer dollars will be funneled into the pockets of ex-US Attorney General Eric Holder and his firm, Covington & Burling, in order to fight the Trump administration on behalf of the State of California. For background, please see this.
I happen to live in what I call Occupied Fornicalia, behind enemy lines.
That is to say, addressing California propositions on the ballot for the coming Tuesday, November 8th.
