Redstate

Posted at 1:42pm on Jun. 24, 2008 Hold on, Variety: back up there. Haim Saban's -not- meeting with Obama on Thursday?

That's not *burying* the lede. That's dumping the lede under twenty tons of quick-setting concrete.

By Moe Lane

Yes, I understand, superficially this article is supposed to be about the glitterati coming out for Senator Obama (Via Jake Tapper):

Obama's Hollywood Night

Sugar Ray Leonard and Jennifer Beals are the latest boldfaced names expected on Tuesday afternoon for Barack Obama's fund-raiser at the Los Angeles Music Center.

Also on the guest list are Dennis Quaid, Heidi Klum, Sidney Poitier, Cedric the Entertainer, Will.i.am and Kal Penn, as well as industry names like Ari Emanuel and Ron Meyer. Seal is scheduled to perform.

Very nice, I'm sure that Seal will do well performing his Song That Everybody Knows... and the rest of his repertoire. Celebrities a go-go tonight; all very well, and Obama should get a decent hunk of change out of it. But that's not the story. This is the story:

Obama is expected to reach out to others, like media mogul Haim Saban, who raised more than $1 million for Clinton's campaign. Asked by the Los Angeles Times whether he planned to attend a meeting that Obama and Clinton are hosting on Thursday with her top money men, he sent back a terse reply: "No."

[Bolding mine.]

Let me summarize the below-the-fold for you: if Barack Obama leaves California without a firm commitment of support from this man, then Barack Obama's trip was a failure.

Read on.

Posted in 2008 | California | Haim Saban | Obamafiles | Remnants Of The Best Democratic Primary EVER — Comments (20)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:37am on May 29, 2008 California tolerance.

By Paul J Cella

Suppose you are a government employee in California, authorized to conduct civil marriage ceremonies, and you object on moral or religious grounds to same-sex marriage. According to the plain logic of the California Supreme Court’s decision earlier this month, you are simply a bigot; the spring of your objection is irrational prejudice. There is no ground for tolerance for your views, precisely because your views impinge upon the fundamental rights of others. Recall that even someone (like Senator Obama) of the view that while marriage should remain an institution exclusive to a man and a woman, civil unions should be established for homosexuals, is also a narrow-minded bigot, again according to the force of the Court’s logic.

Fortunately, San Diego County is more magnanimous than the judicial despots of the Court. County employees will not be forced to perform marriage ceremonies to which they have a moral objection. Los Angeles County employees will not be so lucky. Tolerance forbids their objections. Wrote the City Attorney: “County clerks have no legal standing to grant county employees the authority or ability to choose which marriages they wish not to officiate at, based on their personal views or biases. [The Court] has been crystal clear on this issue — same-sex couples must be afforded equal protection under the law.”

It is instructive to observe the machinations of Liberalism on this issue. It is not enough that approval of same-sex marriage be institutionalized in law; disapproval of its opponents, too, must be institutionalized in law. We cannot “agree to disagree,” in the common catchphrase. For a state employee to resist blessing same-sex unions is tantamount to his denial of equal protection to a certain class of people; in short, unconstitutional.

Libertarians can hardly go a day without denouncing the “imposition” of morality by traditionalists; yet the imposition contemplated by Los Angeles County, in accordance with the Court’s clear logic, eludes their attention. In this our dear Libertarians simply resemble Liberals in their quaint innocence of what a public orthodoxy is. To use their cherished parlance, never has there existed a society that did not impose morality. The imposition of morality is a concomitant of social order. No orthodoxy, no society. That Liberals and Libertarians are uncomfortable with words like “orthodoxy” in no way changes the fact that they seek to impose one just like anyone else.

In our country, no one imposes morality like supreme courts. We are at the point where it is possible to answer the question, Who rules America? with a single word: “Courts.” Perhaps someone among out Liberals and Libertarians would like to make a forthright argument for judicial aristocracy. That at least would have the virtue of candor.

Posted in California | Culture | gay marriage | Tolerance — Comments (414)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 7:31pm on May 23, 2008 Mathematics are Fun!

By Ben Domenech

GetReligion posts this excellent find:

According to the headline in the print edition, “Californians slimly reject gay marriage.” The Times website’s front page says, “Californians reject gay marriage by a bit.”

And the online version headline is:

Times Poll: Californians narrowly reject gay marriage
Voters also back a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions, a new Times/KTLA survey shows.

Los Angeles Times staff writer Cathleen Decker writes the story about this narrow support for an amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Here’s how she begins:

By bare majorities, Californians reject the state Supreme Court’s decision to allow same-sex marriages and back a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at the November ballot that would outlaw such unions, a Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll has found.

Italics mine. There are four paragraphs of narrative before we get to the numbers:

Either way, the poll suggests the outcome of the proposed amendment is far from certain. Overall, it was leading 54% to 35% among registered voters.

Yes, you read that right. In the Los Angeles Times newsroom, 19 percentage points constitute slim, narrow, bare majorities. Gosh, I wonder how the story would be played if the opposite results were found. I know, as Barbie says, that math is hard.

Posted at 4:49pm on May 21, 2008 Did Laura Richardson (D-CA) Abstain on the Mortgage Bailout Vote?

By Erick

Laura Richardson is a California Congresswoman. She's also one of the many reasons the housing industry is collapsing. Congresswoman Richardson, you see, is one of those homeowners who got into a house with no money down and then walked away from her mortgage.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Capitol Weekly reports that newly elected California Congresswoman Laura Richardson walked away from the mortgage on her $535,000 Sacramento home, letting the house slip into foreclosure and disrepair less than two years after she bought it with no money down.

"While being elevated to Congress in a 2007 special election, Richardson apparently stopped making payments on her new Sacramento home, and eventually walked away from it, leaving nearly $600,000 in unpaid loans and fees," the publication reports.

Hey, if you own stock in Washington Mutual, Richardson is screwing you. But on a serious note, did she abstain from voting on the mortgage bailout bill? Will she be able to take advantage of the bill for personal gain?

And ain't this just typical of a Democrat. They buy a house and let it fall apart. Just like they're doing in Congress and to the troops -- just walking away.

Laura Richardson: metaphor for Democrat control.

UPDATE: She did not vote. So, that opens up more questions. Does she now intend to take advantage of the bailout? Did she advocate that others in her caucus vote for it. If so, did she tell them it'd financially benefit her?

Posted in CA-37 | California | Congress | Free loaders | Laura Richardson — Comments (19)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:56am on May 17, 2008 Re: California Situation

By Neil Stevens

Ben, it'd be a lot more respectable that the Governor wants to pass the buck to the voters, if he hadn't already once passed the buck to the Supreme Court.

Seriously. In 2005 the Democrats passed a bill redefining legal marriage to include homosexual couples. Schwarzenegger vetoed that bill on the grounds that he wanted the courts to decide. And now that the courts have done just that, he wants the decision to be made again?

There's no principle at all to how he handles this issue. He just lacks the courage to take a stand, is all.

Posted at 3:13pm on May 14, 2008 Splitting California

By Neil Stevens

Texas may hold the option of splitting into multiple states, but it's California that most needs broken up. Traditionally, the proposal has been a North-South split, but some of us have other ideas.

Via Paul Cella I came across this post by Jeff Culbreath reacting to a proposal to split California into three states. Both Culbreath and Phrelin.com focus heavily on geography in taking the traditional north-south split, but adding a third state, separating the northern coastline from the rest of the proposed Northern California.

I think this is a bit self-serving, and misses where the meaningful split is.

Read on...

Posted in California | culture | State Politics — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:45pm on May 12, 2008 Here they come...

By Neil Stevens

The Sacramento Bee is coming after State Sen. Tom McClintock, California's best known conservative and candidate to Rep. Doolittle's seat in district 4.

Oh yes, he's "intolerant," an "ideologue," and worst of all, he's anti-earmarks. The Bee quotes approvingly of an attack by a supporter of former Rep. Doug Ose's, who is running against McClintock to return to the Congress, who says in horror "Tom will publicly refuse the tools available to all 435 members of Congress."

As for me, I'm with the Republican quoted at the end of the article:

"I think Tom is probably the most active voice in restraining state spending," said state Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Penn Valley, a campaign supporter. "He just tells it like it is. He's upfront and he doesn't play political games.

"If that's a weakness, it's one I'd like to have."

For what it's worth, I'm with McClintock for Congress, and against Ose. This is a district we can have our pick of Republicans. This is no time and no place to go with a pro-spending Republican.

Posted at 1:42pm on May 7, 2008 California Republicans open primaries

By Neil Stevens

I was sitting here, reading my sample ballot for the June primary election here in California, and noticed something startling. It says here that nonpartisan voters may request a ballot for any of the following parties: Democratic Party, Republican Party, American Independent Party. This is a change. In the past, independents could only vote in the Democratic and AI primaries.

Clearly, the California Republican Party has changed the policy. I assume this happened at the last convention in San Francisco, during which my attention was focused on the platform fight.

This is disappointing to me. As things stand, conservative stalwarts in the party do the state a great service by leveraging their Constitutional prerogatives and limiting the tax-and-spend desires of the Democratic majority. If we allow ourselves to be watered down by 'independents,' then we could destroy that, and the Democrats would be able to run amok raising taxes, supermajority requirement or no.

I, for one, personally prefer we go back to having truly closed primaries. Even if "moderating" on spending, taxes, and culture would net us a few more seats, it could cost us what limited success we do have in Sacramento.

Posted in California | open primaries | primaries | Republicans | State Politics — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:45pm on May 3, 2008 Fighting Eminent Domain Abuse in California [Updated]

My view: Yes on 98, No on 99

By Neil Stevens

The fight continues to protect Californians from the abuses of civil liberties authorized by the Supreme Court in Kelo v. New London. Proponents of our civil rights against theft of property have placed on the June ballot Proposition 98. Unlike the last Proposition 98, which began our disastrous budget problems by placing hard lower limits on school spending growth, this one is from the good guys. The new Proposition 98 is a proposed state Constitutional amendment that would place sweeping restrictions on eminent domain abuse statewide, and ensure that "just compensation" is provided even when the takings occur.

However, the forces of big government are not quick to give up. Corrupt city and county governments have in turn put on the ballot Proposition 99, another proposed amendment. Masquerading as an anti-eminent domain law, Proposition 99 would not even have helped in the Kelo case, so narrow are the limits on government set.

Read on... Updated below the fold

Posted in Arnold Schwarzenegger | California | Eminent Domain | girly man | Kelo v. New London | State Politics — Comments (11)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:51am on May 3, 2008 I think that says it all

By Neil Stevens

There's a pretty nasty primary race going on where I live, between Assemblyman John Benoit and Russ Bogh for the Republican nomination to the State Senate (37th district). This is a Republican district, so the primary is the election that counts. I've been pretty much ignoring it, though, waiting to decide until I vote in June.

However, today I got a piece of mail that I think says it all. Bogh put out an attack flyer on Benoit, criticizing him for voting to cut over $1 billion in spending, spending we certainly can't afford. The Republicans in Sacramento, being vastly outnumbered, have one job: fight for spending and tax cuts during the budget fight, using the leverage given to the minority by the state Constitution.

If Bogh is going to be a spender in Sacramento, I think it's likely that in June I will be favoring Benoit for State Senate.

Posted at 1:02am on Apr. 5, 2008 California Democrats seek stealth tax hike

By Neil Stevens

Sacramento Democrats are looking to sneak in a tax increase by abusing a technicality of the California Constitution. Normally, all tax increases require two-thirds of each house of the legislature, which means in practice Republicans can and do veto tax increases.

However now Assemblyman Charles Calderon, Democrat of Los Angeles, wants to amend the state sales tax law in a way that he says will require Apple's customers to pay sales taxes on all iTunes downloads, applying state sales taxes on a service instead of a tangible good for the first time.

Because this proposal redefines and expands an existing term in the state lawbooks, rather than creating a tax increase, Calderon and other tax-hungry Democrats claim that only a simple majority is required, which means the tax hike can sail through the Democratic-controlled legislature without a single Republican vote.

Anything to swipe a buck from our pockets. That's the Democratic Party way.

Posted at 10:33am on Apr. 2, 2008 California: No Better Than China In Intellectual Property Rights

The Pathetic Case of Biomedical Patent Management Corporation v. California Department of Health Services

By Erick

Before Congress gets on its high horse again about China stealing American intellectual property, perhaps it or the courts ought to crack down on Little China a/k/a the State of California. It'll be pretty darn hard for us to maintain our credibility otherwise.

Here's the deal. There is a case working its way to the U.S. Supreme Court right now called Biomedical Patent Management Corporation ("BPMC") v. California Department of Health Services. The procedural background is not that important for our purposes, but to give you some, California moved a lawsuit filed against it by BPMC for patent infringement to federal court. The case was dismissed on venue grounds and re-filed. The second time, California claimed it had sovereign immunity and could not be sued on the matter.

Here's the funny party. Since 1990, California has filed 21 patent suits against companies and individuals the state claims have infringed on patents held by the State of California. From 2000 to 2006, California has collected over $900 million from patent lawsuits.

Since 1987, California has been sued at least six times for infringing on the patents of others and it has invoked sovereign immunity, thereby avoiding the lawsuits. There is no doubt that California has infringed on many other patents, but the patent holders did not like their odds in court and walked away without suing. In other words, the state is competing with the private sector through its university research facilities, infringing on private sector patents, then screaming about sovereign immunity when the private sector seeks to enforce its patent rights.

Now, here's where it gets even more humorous or disgusting, depending on your point of view. BPMC holds a patent for a non-invasive prenatal screening for fetal abnormalities. It has licensed its patent to places like the Mayo Clinic and a host of other facilities.

California's Department of Health Services uses BPMC's patented process. Not only will the Department of Health Services not pay BPMC a license, but it is requiring any other person in the state who wants to use BPMC's patented procedure to pay a license to, naturally, the State of California -- shutting BPMC out of its own patent.

If the Supreme Court won't stop California from behaving like Communist China, Congress must act. California's contempt for the free market must be stopped.

Posted in California | Patents | Technology | U.S. Patent No. 4,874,693 — Comments (4)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:59pm on Mar. 28, 2008 War Were Declared

By Neil Stevens

California Republicans declare war on the state Senate Majority Leader Don Perata, says Flash Report:

In a strongly worded conference call to Republican leaders and County Chairs, California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring declared war on Senate President Don Perata. Never in the history of California politics has an elected official been recalled for casting a vote against tax increases.

Senator Jeff Denham (pictured left), SD 12, whose district includes the counties of Monterey, San Benito, Stanislaus and Madera, represents a broad agricultural region with socially conservative Democrats. The district has about 48% Democrats with 39% Republicans. After enormous pressure, Denham refused to cast his vote with Democrats on last summer's budget bill. The recall election is set for June 3, 2008.

Read the full article for details on this radical escalation of California politics by the Democrats.

Posted at 5:03pm on Mar. 27, 2008 The Girly Man Stops Trying

By Neil Stevens

Once upon a time, California Republicans would appoint great members to the Board of UC Regents, and men like Ward Connerly would fight radical leftism from there.

Not now though. Governor Schwarzeneegger is now appointing left-wing Democrats to the body, making his administration all the more indistinguishable from what Phil Angelides's would have been.

I blame the recall, and the progressives who created it. Down with progressivism in all forms. Up with closed political primaries and caucuses. Never again must we let a man like this be our nominee.