The AP’s Beth Fouhy has written a particularly offensive hit piece against Sen. McCain. This shocks me not even a little, though it’s more than a little disappointing. Consider these paragraphs as why I think it’s a hit piece against Sen. McCain:

Just last month, McCain reversed himself after years of opposition and called for lifting the federal ban on oil drilling off the U.S. coast. The Arizona senator promotes energy development as a way to boost the economy, and a recent poll found many voters are open to offshore drilling as a way to ease gasoline prices.

But McCain’s views could be troublesome in California, which has seen its share of catastrophic offshore oil spills. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a McCain ally, opposes such drilling and in a television interview indicated he would be open one day to serving as the “energy czar” in an Obama administration.

It isn’t a stretch to think that Fouhy’s intent was to label McCain a flip-flopper without calling him that directly. It’s also not a stretch to think that mentioning girlie-man Gov. Schwarzenegger’s desire to be Obama’s energy czar is meant to imply that Republicans are split on drilling.

Then there’s this: (continue reading post »)

As California goes, so the nation? Let’s hope not.

We thought this was worth posting in its entirety, c/o WSJ.

–
California as No. 1
July 17, 2008; Page A14
Wall Street Journal

New York City has long been the highest tax jurisdiction in the United States, but California politicians are proposing to steal that brass tiara. California faces a $15 billion budget deficit and Democrats who rule the state Legislature have proposed closing the gap with a $9.7 billion tax hike on business and “the rich.” There’s a movie that describes this idea: Clueless.

The plan would raise the top marginal income tax rate to 12% from 10.3%; that would be the highest in the nation and twice the national average. This plan would also repeal indexing for inflation, which is a sneaky way for politicians to push middle-income Californians into higher tax brackets every year, especially when prices are rising as they are now. The corporate income tax rate would also rise to 9.3% from 8.4%. So in the face of one of the worst real-estate recessions in the state’s history, the politicians want to raise taxes on businesses that are still making money.

This latest tax gambit was unveiled, ironically enough, within days of two very large California employers announcing they are saying, in the famous words of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, “hasta la vista, baby” to the state. First, the AAA auto club declared it will close its call centers in California, meaning that 900 jobs will move to other states. “It costs more to do business in California,” said a AAA press release, in the understatement of the year.

Then last week Toyota announced it is canceling plans to build its new Prius hybrid at its plant in the San Francisco Bay area because of the high tax and regulatory costs. Adding to the humiliation is that Toyota will now take this investment and about 1,000 jobs to a more progressive and pro-business state: Mississippi. (continue reading post »)

Over at Politico, Roger Stein is speculating on McCain’s chances at winning California in November. His take is intriguing:

1. If McCain wins California in November, he almost certainly will become the next president of the United States.

The Democratic nominee would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get to 270 electoral votes and victory without California. Sure, the Democrat could theoretically make up for the loss of California (55 electoral votes) by winning both Texas (34) and Florida (27), but how likely is that? Not very.

As the late Lee Atwater, a major architect of George H.W. Bush’s victory in 1988, said, “I can win without California; they can’t, so I want it.”

2. Winning California is going to be very tough for McCain.

On the surface, McCain looks like a reasonably good match for California. He is a relatively moderate Republican, he is strong on the environment, he talks about low taxes and ending waste, he retains a somewhat maverick image, and he could be popular with independents. He is, broadly speaking, in the same mold as California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, who will campaign vigorously for him.

But there is a one big difference between Schwarzenegger and McCain, and it has enormous political implications: Schwarzenegger supports abortion rights and McCain does not.

3. Candidates who oppose abortion rights do not win California.

They don’t win at the state level, and they don’t win at the national level. The last presidential candidate who opposed abortion rights and won California was George H.W. Bush, and that was 20 years ago.

And since the Democratic nominee is sure to support abortion rights, McCain cannot win California, right? Not necessarily. He may have one slim chance to win California if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

4. Obama favors giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. McCain opposes it, and this could give McCain the state.

Giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants is unpopular in California. Schwarzenegger successfully exploited opposition to such driver’s licenses in both of his elections, and McCain would have a shot at winning California by exploiting it also.

Yes, it would be ironic for McCain, a moderate on immigration, to take a hard line on this issue, but politics often make people do ironic things.

Dan Schnur, who was McCain’s communications director in 2000 and is now a political strategist based in California, says the driver’s license issue could trump the abortion issue when it comes to McCain. ….

This could swing in two directions. On the one hand, abortion-rights people may recognize that it is somewhat unlikely that Roe be overtuned and decide to vote McCain for other re

The Democrats rightly condemn the Bush Administration’s profligate spending policies. But I suspect the Democrats’ criticism is based more on jealously than condemnation that he spends the people’s money like a drunken Kennedy.

The proof is in legislative actions the Plantation Party has taken this week in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the California General Assembly.

On the federal level the house Democrat leadership managed to pass on a party line vote the “omnibus spending bill.” Among other things, the Democrats demonstrated their support for the troops in Iraq by cutting off all funding for them. They also showed their support for border security and immigration reform by killing funding for a border fence, while at the same time providing $10 million in “emergency” funding for legal representation for illegal immigrants.

On the state level, California Democrats responded to the state’s $14-billion budget shortfall by calling for a new entitlement program that would cost more than the deficit. They want universal health care for all California residents (hmmm, what do you want to bet this means regardless of legal immigration status?). Way to go, guys.

The federal bill ran into common sense (and Republicans) in the Senate who decide that American soldiers dead on the battlefield for lack of ammunition is not good policy. The state bill still has to pass the state senate and the voters must approve taxing themselves to the tune of another $14 billion to provide health insurance for someone else.

The Democrats will provide more theater of the absurd as election day approaches; they can’t help themselves.
Just remember when you go to the polls who it is they want to tax and who will benefit. You can bet the tax will be on every working American and the benefits will go to someone else.

–

Kip Allen is an award-winning broadcast and newspaper journalist currently residing in Southern California. He is a contributor to CaliforniaConservative.org, and you may read more of his work here.

For those who believe North Korea and Canada are models for California’s healthcare solution, radio host Anthony Vultaggio and policy analyst Ralph Weber (CFP, REBC) unraveled the mythology for KRLA listeners last week. Mr. Weber’s thoughtful analysis is easily understood, and if you miss something you can replay it. Incidentally, Mr. Weber says that he pays $250/mo for complete coverage for his family of four!

As if Mr. Weber’s testimony wasn’t compelling enough, the former Medical Director for Diagnostic Imaging at Thunder Bay Regional Hospital called in with several Kafkaesque stories of waste, bureaucracy, and inefficiency.

Dr. Lee Kurisko MD, who practiced in Canada for 13 years before moving to Minnesota, said that his hospital serviced a “catchment area” of about 250,000 people with only one MRI and one CT scanner. The waiting period for elective MRIs in Thunder Bay was 13 months – the CT scan seven months. In Newfoundland, the waiting period was 2½ years! Some physicians had a two-year waiting list for consultation. Unless you’re wealthy enough to seek treatment in another country, or you’re a politician (they exempt themselves from Canadian healthcare), Canadians must tell their lumps and tumors to wait.

Dr. Kurisko described his hospital’s equipment as old, decrepit and dangerous: “To get new equipment, one had to be politically connected to the ‘levers of power.’” As the Director of Medical Imagining, his lofty title gave him no authority to perform. Unlike the United States, it often takes years to get new equipment.

Dr. Kurisko also described how he reviewed cases by posting x-rays on a screen, reviewing the images, taking them down, writing a report, and putting up another set – repeating the process for each of his 40,000 annual cases! When he asked for a rolloscope to improve efficiency, the hospital CEO said there was no money in the budget, but that he could contact the Ministry of Health (700 miles away) and plead a “special case.”

Dr. Kurisko, who left Canada to practice in Minnesota, also exposed two other Canadian healthcare fallacies – That, 1) problems can be fixed by raising their 43 percent federal and provincial taxes and, 2) medical outcomes are better for Canadians.

This show is well worth hearing and sending to your friends. I also plan to ask Mr. Weber about his $250/mo healthcare policy, which could save me over $6000 annually!

Fortney Pete Stark lost it on the House Floor this morning during the SCHIP veto override debate. It wasn’t pretty:

“I’m just amazed that they can’t figure out…the Republicans are worried that they can’t pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don’t care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq.”

That wasn’t the worst of it:

“Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you’re telling us today? Is that how you’re going to fund the war? You don’t have money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.”

I’ll save my commentary for something worth commenting on. I’ll just leave you with this video of Fortney Pete Stark’s aruption:

Technorati Tags: Pete Stark, SCHIP, Anti-war Activist, Iraq War, President Bush, YouTube

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

When you’re a venture capitalist and technology multimillionaire, it’s easy to be liberal and write big checks…

(via VentureBeat)

Barack Obama gets big Silicon Valley names behind him — Obama has picked up checks from Sequoia Capital partner Michael Moritz, Google backer Ram Shriram, YouTube founder Chad Hurley and many more, making him an early valley favorite, at least among the area’s power players. Thanks to Eric Savitz, of Barrons, who has sifted through Federal Election Committee filings.

RELATED: Obama speech sparks anti-US rally

The Guardian reports:

“Democratic US presidential hopeful Barack Obama was criticised by Pakistani officials as ‘irresponsible’ for saying in a policy speech last week that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes in the country against al-Qaeda. Following the Pakistani officials’ comments, hundreds chanted anti-US slogans and burnt a US flag.”

Just another day for those with nothing else to do…

‘We are able to defend ourselves. We will teach a lesson to America if it attacks us,’ a local cleric, Maulvi Mohammed Roman, told the rally.

Almost sounds like a threat…

Elsewhere in the country, a suicide attacker killed nine people after detonating a car bomb at a busy bus station in an area bordering Afghanistan. The attack wounded 35 others, officials said. Army helicopter gunships and troops repelled a guerrilla raid on a military checkpoint earlier last week, killing at least 15 Islamists, the military said.

Terrorists, killing more innocent women and children.

(yeah, that’ll show us!)

This week, we learned that Keith Ellison and Jim McDermott became co-sponsors of the impeachment bill written by Dennis Kucinich, H.R. 333.

Let’s take a look at the co-sponsors of the impeachment bill:

US Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) made a speech on the House Floor, “The Vice President Should Resign or Face Impeachment,” announcing his plans to support the bill. US Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) also joined yesterday.

The other total supporters include original sponsor, US Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), plus US Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Janice Schakowsky (D-IL), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Albert Wynn (D-MD), so far.

Here’s Keith Ellison’s take on the impeachment bill:

“They certainly deserve to be impeached [but]…the fact is that if we filed for impeachment now given everything that’s already happened, based on what we know so far, it would consume the news cycle to the point where that’s all we’d be dealing with and talking about. I’m a little concerned that it might overshadow other things we have to do. I’m a little concerned about that, given the situation. But do they deserve it? Hell yeah,” Ellison told BallerStatus.com in an interview published two weeks ago.

Mr. Ellison is a fine person to talk about impeachment. Michael Brodkorb of Minnesota Democrats Exposed reported last fall that Kathleen Anderson, then the district director of former DFL Rep. Martin Sabo, endorsed Tammy Lee, the Independence Party candidate for MN-5, saying that Ellison was a scofflaw:

The primary responsibility of any elected official is to make the laws. At the very least, our lawmakers should set a good example by obeying those laws. Is that asking too much? Apparently so, when it comes to Mr. Ellison. Time and again, he has demonstrated a scofflaw attitude.

What is a scofflaw? The dictionary says “a contemptuous law violator.” In fairness, contemptuous may be too strong a word to describe Mr. Ellison’s behavior. I can not know with certainty Ellison’s motivations. To be kind, perhaps he is simply disorganized when it comes to these matters. Nonetheless, he has repeatedly, and very recently, violated the laws the rest of us routinely obey.

Jim Moran, who’s made some rather anti-semitic comments in the past, will be officially listed as a co-sponsor eventually, too. Here’s a sample of Moran’s anti-semitism: (continue reading post »)

Given the raging “debate” over immigration, the timing of the following article is by no means coincidence.

However, even if the MSM is trying to give the impression that government is being “tough on illegals” (translation: c’mon, support el Presidente Bush & Ted “Likes-’Em-Wet” Kennedy), what it actually underscores is the urgency for both REAL immigration reform and showing how ineffective the enforcement has been so far.

Reuters reports:

“Scores of illegal immigrants, including a man wanted for murder and a convicted child molester, were arrested in Southern California raids this week, U.S. authorities said on Friday.”

Being dragged “coming out of the shadows,” as senior Kennedy likes to tell us. The great presumption being that they all want to be out. In the case of criminals, gang members, and those getting paid off the IRS radar, they prefer to be off the grid and will stay there. “Undocumented” and untracked.

The sweeps in Orange County, south of Los Angeles, were part of an operation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement targeting “criminal aliens” — defined as people in the country illegally who have also committed other crimes.

Of the 175 people arrested, 27 are criminal aliens and another 26 are “immigration fugitives” who had ignored deportation orders by a judge.

The raids were part of larger crackdown on immigration fugitives, which this year has resulted in the first ever decline in their number, to 632,189, according to an agency spokeswoman.

First ever decline? Well, heck, if it’s working, let’s just keep doing it ’til their numbers are back down to 1986 levels and then let’s talk about amnesty for 12 million illegals.

“The U.S. Senate is still struggling with a massive immigration overhaul, backed by President George W. Bush, that would legalize millions of illegals despite furious opposition from conservatives.”

Really? Just us? (continue reading post »)

Shortly after 9/11 I read a book by Benjamin Netanyahu titled “Fighting Terrorism“. Despite being copyrighted 6 years prior to the attacks of 9/11, Netanyahu made several stunningly accurate predictions about terrorism coming to the shores of America. Ever sine reading this book I have come to value his opinion very highly.

Netanyahu was recently interviewed in the Wall Street Journal regarding the growing threat of Iran. Personally, I do not envision Iran ever attacking the US. However, it is clear that they have worked against US interests and against our allies by supplying groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and by funding the insurgency in Iraq. Furthermore, Ahmedinejad’s incendiary rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map is very concerning, and I imagine that Mr. Netanyahu takes this threat very seriously.

What Netanyahu has proposed, and is currently lobbying for, is economic sanctions against Iran. Admittedly, in the past I thought that this would be a futile effort. However, Mr. Netanyahu makes a strong case for this proposal, that further economic strife could lead to decreased support for Ahmedinejad.

Mr. Netanyahu proposes a third way. The Iranian regime, he argues, is economically vulnerable. He is in America to urge state and local pension funds to divest from foreign companies that do business in Iran (U.S. law already keeps American firms out).

“This could be very effective… because Iran is in desperate need of new investments for its sagging oil industry. It’s curtailed its oil production by 7%, I think, in each of the last three years. It’s running unemployment to a rate of close to 20%, and Ahmadinejad is continuously being criticized from rivals within the regime and outside the regime for failing to deliver on economic problems.”

Divestment “could stop Iran dead in its tracks,” Mr. Netanyahu argues.

This is a very intriguing possibility, as it has the potential to avoid any military confrontation with Iran–either by the US or Israel. Several states have already passed legislation to divest, and California may join the ranks. “The big prize, of course, is California, whose $247 billion pension fund is the nation’s biggest.”

California State Assemblyman Joel Anderson (R - San Diego) has proposed legislation (AB 221) which would divest from Iran. So far it has been received with bipartisan support, and I hope this continues as it leaves committee and reaches the Assembly floor.

Cross Posted at The Gentle Cricket