Democrats Against Democracy

This editorial speaks for itself.

from LA Daily News

Anti-democracy: Redistricting panel in cross hairs of legislators. Don’t let them kill it.

Updated: 02/26/2010 10:14:22 AM PST

CALIFORNIA voters are starting to make some moves to wrest control of their government away from entrenched interests and entrenched legislators. And now those threatened interests are fighting back.

That’s the only way you can look at the attempt to do away with the state’s new Citizens Redistricting Commission, which is drawing support from Democrats in California’s congressional delegation.

The Citizens Redistricting Commission is a result of the voters passing Proposition11, the Voters FIRST Act in the November 2008 general election. The commission is still being set up, but it clearly already has lawmakers worried.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and 12 other Democratic Congress members have given at least $5,000 each to a campaign to scrap the redistricting committee before it does its work. And Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, who will run for the seat held by retiring Rep. Diane Watson, chipped in $20,000.

The 14 legislators gave $160,000 in all to the so-called Financial Accountability in Redistricting Act, or FAIR Act, an initiative to repeal Prop. 11, which is currently in the signature-gathering phase.

If FAIR petitions get 694,354 valid signature by July 5, the act will land on the November ballot, endangering the voters’ 2008 decision to let citizens redraw Assembly, state Senate and Board of Equalization boundaries – instead of letting sitting Assembly members and senators draw their own boundaries to keep themselves and their parties in power.

There’s a reason lawmakers are willing to shell out so much money for this initiative, and it’s not about good government. They want to keep their jobs secure and know that a fair redrawing of the state’s political districts might endanger their re-election chances.

Our advice to readers is to thwart this well-funded attempt to override the voters by not signing any petition that includes this summary:

“Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority for Redistricting with Elected Representatives. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.”

The last time legislators redrew their district boundaries, in 2001, they divvied up the state into safe districts for Democrats and Republicans – choosing their own voters instead of letting voters choose them.

Districts almost never change hands from one party to the other, which favors the most conservative Republicans and the most liberal Democrats in primaries because they don’t have to worry about the general election. This leaves the moderates – the people who might actually work together to solve California’s problems – out in the cold.

The result is a gridlocked Sacramento, where state lawmakers put more stock in ideological divisions than in solving problems or governing for the benefit of the entire state.

The citizens commission will help end that partisan gridlock, which is why it is the target of the FAIR act.

In California, it is Democrats who most fear redistricting the most. They hold most of the elected positions and therefore have the most to lose in redrawn districts. If Republicans held majorities, they would do the same thing.

That’s because, to most legislators, staying in office and keeping the party in control of seats has become more important than representing the people who gave them those seats in the first place.

And there is nothing good about that kind of government.

The Census is an Invasion of Privacy

CBS News reports on line that Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann told the Washington Times that she and her family will not be fully filling out the 2010 census forms.

Bachmann, a Republican, said her family will only be indicating the number of people in the household, because “the Constitution doesn’t require any information beyond that.”

I must agree with the congresswoman. Claims that the information will be confidential cannot be believed. Illegal aliens would be foolish to fill out the census questionnaire. I do not believe they will be looking for illegal aliens immediately but ICE could be doing that soonor or maybe not. What illegal alien would want to take the chance that everything will be OK?

U.S. Constitution – Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, “ Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”

There is no requirement to identify the name of each person, their race, gender, age, date of birth, household relationship, if you own or rent your home, or your telephone number (there were no telephones when the constitution was written).

The question of race is amplified even more by asking if you are of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin. The sub-question asks even more information of your family background if you are part of one of the above categories. There are no questions about any other group or national origin. California has fairly large Chinese, Filipino, and Jewish populations. Why not ask about those groups?

When I applied for Social Security the interviewer not only knew that I am married but named my wife. My monthly benefit was increased based upon that fact. While that is good for me it also told me that the government already knows too much about me and my family.

I am not revealing any more information. I will follow the Michele Bachmann procedure. They get the count of people in the house but nothing else.

Harry and Bess

Harry Truman was a different kind of President. He probably made as many, or more important decisions regarding our nation’s history as any of the other 42 Presidents preceding him. However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House.

The only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in Independence Missouri. His wife had inherited the house from her mother and father and other than their years in the White House, they lived their entire lives there.

When he retired from office in 1952, his income was a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an ‘allowance’ and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.

After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There was no Secret Service following them.

When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, “You don’t want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn’t belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it’s not for sale.”

Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, “I don’t consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise.”

As president he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food.

Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale. (sic. Illinois )

Good old Harry Truman was correct when he observed, “My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there’s hardly any difference!

I say dig him up and clone him!!

Rabbi Arnold Stiebel, Ph.D.
Woodland Hills, CA
arnoldst@aol.com

Child Molestation

When will we have laws in every state that puts child molesters and sexual predators in jail for life?

This question is promoted by today’s AP report from San Diego.

March 03, 2010 2:01 AM EST

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Thousands of people are at a vigil in a San Diego suburb for a 17-year-old girl whose body is believed to have been found five days after she went to a park for a jog.

—-

Twelve-year-old Polly Hannah Klaas was having a slumber party when a strange man holding a knife entered her bedroom, tied up all the girls and put pillow cases over their heads. The intruder then took a sobbing Polly off into the night.Her friends stood back-to-back trying to untie themselves. When that didn’t work, one girl was able to bring her hands under her feet to free herself. The girls then awakened Polly’s mother, who immediately called the police.It was October 1, 1993.

A stranger had invaded a private home in Petaluma, CA and snatched an innocent child from her very own bedroom. There were witnesses to tell the story. People in her home town and throughout the world helped search for her.

By the time Polly’s body was found on December 3, 1993, over 2 billion images of Polly Klaas had been distributed worldwide.

——

Parolee named in Lily Burk abduction, murder *

Kevin Roderick • July 27 2009 1:20 PM

Police said today that they took transient Charlie Samuel into custody by 5:30 p.m. Friday on drug charges in Downtown. They now have a pretty horrific chronology of the events that led to Burk being found dead in her Volvo; Samuel was apparently spotted getting out of the car’s driver-side door at 4:52 p.m. outside 458 Alameda. Police believe Burk was abducted about 3 p.m. from outside Southwestern University Law School, located in the former Bullock’s Wilshire store on Wilshire in Koreatown. Samuel had been released from state prison in February and was arrested April 23 on a parole violation, then enrolled in a drug program.

Laws pertaining to sex offenders and child molestation vary with each state. California is probably no different than many other states but it certainly has had a continuing rash of repeat offenders. This situation is likely to grow larger due to budget shortfalls.

From Sentencing Law and Policy. The Texas Senate panel approved a bill allowing the death penalty for repeat child sex offenders Tuesday but said major work remains on the proposal. Senate Bill 5, the “Jessica’s Law” urged by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, now advances to the full Senate. The law is named for Jessica Lunsford of Florida, a 9-year-old girl who was abducted, raped and killed.

The Senate Criminal Justice Committee vote was 5-1 with one member abstaining. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott joined Dewhurst at the hearing in supporting the bill, which calls for a minimum 25-year sentence for violent child sex offenses and life without parole or death for second offenses.

Abbott brushed off concerns that the U.S. Supreme Court might find the death penalty unconstitutional for crimes that do not end in death. Noting that the court barred the death penalty in a rape case 30 years ago, Abbott said he sees a “greater chance” the high court may allow the death penalty for repeat, felony sexual assault against children. “I would proudly and personally go up to the United States Supreme Court and defend the constitutionality of this case, this legislation, which I think is the right legislation for the state of Texas,”said Abbott….

Prosecutors and others who testified against the measure fear that families will be reluctant to turn in friends or relatives, who reportedly commit nine out of 10 sexual offenses against children.

From USLegal Definitions. The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect defines child sexual assault as: “Contacts or interactions between a child and an adult when the child is being used for sexual stimulation of the perpetrator or another person when the perpetrator or another person is in a position of power or control over the victim.” Sexual abuse has been defined to include inappropriate physical contact, making a child view sexual acts or pornography, using a child in making pornography, or exposing an adult’s genitals to a child.

In some states, social workers, medical professionals, clergy, foster parents, attorneys, and camp counselors are required to report abuse. Some states require any person who suspects abuse to report it to authorities. The time when a complaint may be filed, called the statute of limitations, varies by state. One state law sets the statute of limitations on serious sex abuse of a child at age 31 for the victim in criminal cases and age 20 for civil litigation. In another state, the time period is defined according as a certain number of years after the victim turns 18. There is a trend toward extending the statute of limitations in such cases because research has shown that victims typically develop psychological coping, or blocking, mechanisms which may cause them to suppress the abuse or prevent their understanding of the cause of their trauma.

Pat Robertson is at it Again!

Some Creative Writing!

From The Desparate Blogger

FEBRUARY 27, 2010 12:41PM
Robertson: “God Even Angrier with Chile than Haiti”

Citing what he described as the “the persecution of a great hero who rid their land of Godless communists” as a possible cause, prominent TV evangelist and amateur seismologist Pat Robertson today argued that the 8.8 magnitude of the earthquake that struck Chile early this morning should serve as a warning to the population that “God is even angrier with them than he is with the people of Haiti.”

“If I had to guess, I’d say it must have to do with Chile’s persecution and attempted prosecution of their great former leader, and a personal hero of mine, Augusto Pinochet – who, it should be noted, had never been convicted of a crime when the Lord called him home three years ago.” The popular host of ‘The 700 Club’ and longtime bingo circuit icon also added, “General Pinochet not only assisted the CIA in the overthrow of Chile’s Marxist government, but is widely credited with personally arranging the meetings of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of his countrymen with Jesus.”

General Pinochet, who spent the last eight years of his life fighting prosecution on human rights and other charges before succumbing to congestive heart failure in December 2006, could not be reached for comment, even by Robertson. The General–turned-Dictator has long been considered a transformative figure in the field of Crimes Against Humanity as a result of his landmark policy of ‘Forced Disappearance’, and was even honored in 1998 with the first-ever arrest warrant for a former head of state under the principle of ‘universal jurisdiction’ by Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzon, who is currently investigating former Bush Administration officials for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

For his part, Robertson, who reportedly lobbied then-President George W. Bush on behalf of former Liberian Dictator and accused Human Rights criminal Charles Taylor in exchange for lucrative gold mining contracts, says that he is “praying that the people of Chile will heed this warning, and never again blaspheme against God and international free-market commerce by nationalizing their most precious natural resources.”

Don’t Vote for a California Governor

This Fox and Hounds Daily offers a very interesting take on the California gubernatorial race.

Is ‘None of the Above’ the Smart Choice in the Governor’s Race?

By Joe Mathews Journalist and Irvine senior fellow at the New America Foundation Fri, February 26th, 2010

If you think California governing system is badly broken, how should you vote in the governor’s race?

The likely nominees of each party, Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman, haven’t even bothered to offer an answer. (And for the record, Steve Poizner, despite being more specific about his policies than his rivals, has dodged this big question too).

Neither has spoken at any length about the state’s deep structural and constitutional problems, much less committed to addressing them.

At best, a vote for either Brown or Whitman is a wild guess. At worst, a vote for either is a waste of time. Without a mandate for broader change, the next governor, whether it’s Brown or Whitman, will be lucky to muddle through four years with more of the budget gimmicks and debt we’ve used for too long in California.

Is there a better option?

Well, leaving the ballot blank might be the better option.

A non-vote in the governor’s race isn’t a cop out. It’s a choice. In California, a “none of the above” vote has real weight.

How’s that? Because under the rules of California’s direct democracy, a non-vote for governor matters.

The qualification standards for initiatives and referendums are based on percentages of the number of votes cast for governor in the most recent election.

Thus, if fewer votes are cast in a governor’s race, it will take fewer signatures to qualify an initiative or referendum for the following four years. With lower signature requirements, the cost of qualifying initiatives drops.

So if you’re an advocate of a constitutional convention or some of the reforms offered by California Forward, you could give a boost to those efforts by not casting a vote in the governor’s race. Effectively, your non-vote would make it easier for those reformers – or others – to qualify their measures in the future. This could be an important boost for reformers, who have been unable to raise the big money needed to qualify measures this year.

Here’s a suggestion: someone in those reform movements should start making this point, and launch a campaign for “none of the above” in the governor’s race. Such an effort, if cleverly conceived, would be a lot cheaper than qualifying good government initiatives.

And if “none of the above” gained any steam, it could have more than just the long-term effect of making future reforms easier to qualify.

It might force Brown and Whitman to stop hiding the ball and start addressing the concerns of reform-minded voters right now.

A Message to Iran

Everything points to American and Israeli preparation for a possible attack on Iran before that nation obtains the capability to produce nuclear bomb. David Ignatius, of The Washington Post, stated on the Chris Matthews Show that the United States is on a fast track to the development a super bomb that could penetrate underground facilities. Israel has unveiled a new drone fleet that can reach Iran.

Just a few days ago the New York Times published an editorial titled “Time’s up for talking with Iran.” An edited version of that editorial was printed in the Toronto Star. Clearly the U.S. government is making every effort to send a message to Iran. That edited editorial appears below.

Over the last four years, the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly demanded that Iran stop producing nuclear fuel. Iran is still churning out enriched uranium and has now told United Nations inspectors that it is raising the level of enrichment – moving slightly closer to bomb-grade quality.

Enough is enough. Iran needs to understand that its nuclear ambition comes with a very high cost.

President Barack Obama said on Tuesday that the United States and its allies are “moving along fairly quickly” on a new sanctions resolution. He also said it would take several weeks to draft a proposal. That is not reassuring. Once a resolution is written, the negotiating process typically drags on for weeks, if not months.

Iran is in such economic and political turmoil that its government may be more vulnerable to outside pressure. Security forces have expanded a crackdown on the political opposition, arresting hundreds of people ahead of Thursday’s anniversary of the Iranian revolution.

American officials say they are eager to impose sanctions that would inflict maximum damage on the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which runs the nuclear program and a large chunk of the Iranian economy.

The plan, as we understand it, is to block their banking, their shipping, their insurance. American officials also say they want to minimize the additional suffering of the Iranian people. That makes sense to us, although squaring the circle won’t be easy.

If the Security Council is to move ahead with sanctions that bite, Washington and its allies are going to have to step up the pressure on Russia and China – Iran’s two enablers, both with a veto – to go along.

Russia has signaled support for another resolution. If history is any guide, we fear Russia will sharply whittle down the impact. China, eager to buy ever more oil from Iran, is an even bigger obstacle. China needs to understand that ensuring reliable oil supplies would become a lot harder if the Middle East is roiled by a nuclear-armed Iran.

The more the Security Council temporizes, compromises and weakens these resolutions, the more defiant and ambitious Iran becomes. If the Security Council can’t act swiftly, or decisively, the United States and its allies will have to come up with their own tough sanctions. They should be making a backup plan right now.

This is an edited version of an editorial that appeared this week in the New York Times and was printed in the Toronto Star

Isn’t this all about sending a message to Iran?