Tag Archives: political parties

Legal in LA

Posted on by
Reply

Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón has decided to pick and choose the laws he’ll work to enforce and the crimes he’ll explicitly excuse. Here’s the Directive Gascon issued to the County Prosecutors. This is the opening of his Section I, Declination of Policy Directive [emphasis in the original]:

The misdemeanor charges specified below shall be declined or dismissed before arraignment and without conditions unless “exceptions” or “factors for consideration” exist.
These charges do not constitute an exhaustive list

Here are the high points of Gascón’s non-exhaustive list:

  • Trespass
  • Disturbing The Peace
  • Driving Without A Valid License
  • Driving On A Suspended License
  • Criminal Threats
  • Resisting Arrest

Here’s what Angelenos are going to face/have to do as a result of Gascón’s legal negligence:

  • deal with trespassers their way rather than wasting precious minutes calling the cops.
  • auto insurance claims are going to skyrocket, and then so will premiums, from letting anyone, under any circumstance or skill, drive and endanger everyone else, pedestrian and motorist.
  • police will be at increased risk—at least those remaining before he abolishes them—from resisters.

This. Is. California.

 

H/t Bill Melugan, investigative correspondent for FOX 11 Los Angeles.

Mistaken

Posted on by
Reply

Georgia’s Governor Brian Kemp and Lt Governor Geoff Duncan are refusing to convene a special session of the State’s General Assembly for the purpose of generating a legislative slate of Presidential electors in lieu of that nominally generated by the Georgia voters and an unknown number of illegitimate voters. Kemp and Duncan are grasping at straws, too, for their rational.

While we understand four members of the Georgia Senate are requesting the convening of a special session of the General Assembly, doing this in order to select a separate slate of presidential electors is not an option that is allowed under state or federal law.

This is where Kemp and Duncan are mistaken under the supreme Law of the Land, our Constitution. Here’s Art II, Sect 1:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress….

The General Assembly is well within Constitutional bounds to pick its own set of Electors. Furthermore, the State being the sole selector of Electors, there then can be no conflicting slates of Electors for a sitting Vice President to choose between. The selections are who the State says it is, whether is specifies those selected by the voters or those selected by the General Assembly.

The matter of such an act being contrary to State law is purely a non sequitur. States are allowed to change their laws; none of them are written in adamantine once enacted.

The political cost of the General Assembly appointing its own lot of Electors is a separate matter.

Blatant

Posted on by
Reply

Racism and sexism, that is, and they’re rampant in the Progressive-Democratic Party. Here’s Congresswoman Karen Bass (D, CA) during a FOX 11 interview last Friday on who California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) should pick to replace Senator Kamala Harris (D) in the Senate:

I will tell you that I do believe that there should be an African American woman in the Congress[.]

On the other hand, when asked whether should select an Hispanic to replace Kamala Harris, Bass said,

I agree with that 100%. I think that is absolutely correct, and I think that that should happen[.]

Once again, for the Progressive-Democratic Party qualification for a position matters very little, if at all. The primary criterion, according to Party, is the “candidate’s” race, and the close second criterion is the individual’s sex.

Qualification is far down the list.

Time to Buy

Posted on by
Reply

Ex-President Barack Obama (D), he of the open contempt for ordinary Americans, us bitter Bible- and gun-clinging denizens of flyover country (i.e., the vasty expanse of America that lies between the western coast and the northeastern coast), is at it again.

Former President Barack Obama, in his latest memoir, criticized Americans for liking “cheap gas and big cars” more than they care about “the environment”—even during a catastrophic event like the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

And

…many American voters for decades had “bought into the idea that government was the problem and that business always knew better….”

That last is fully vindicated by the arrogant Know Better attitude of Obama and his ilk, who insist that Government is the only solution, and us petty voters need to sit down, shut up, and do what we’re told.

It’s true enough that business is imperfect and often screws up. However, even with that, it’s axiomatic that business always knows better than Government.

With Obama spouting off again, it looks like it’s time to go out and buy a Humvee and a muscle car or two.

Persons and the Census

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court this week is taking up a case that centers on that. At issue is the question of whether President Donald Trump’s Executive Order excluding undocumented immigrants from state population counts—from the census—is a Constitutional one.

Progressive-Democrats and their Leftist supporters insist that “persons” in this context include illegal aliens.

“…inhabitants” at the nation’s origin meant people with a “usual” or “customary” residence in a state, which would include undocumented immigrants.

This is fallacious, as the WSJ‘s editors allude. Illegal aliens have no customary presence in any State—or territory. The illegality of their presence makes that condition not customary and entirely unusual, no matter for how long they’ve been able to evade the law.

Indeed, illegal aliens are, by their very illegality, every bit as transient in their States as any tourist. There is a critical difference, however: the tourist is here legally, and he’ll leave voluntarily at the end of his stay. The illegal alien is here…illegally…and he will be removed on detection, voluntarily or otherwise.

Progressive-Democrats and their Leftist supporters also insist that the Court must rule their way because otherwise Progressive-Democrat-run States stand to lose representation in the House of Representatives. This, too, is fallacious. Any relative loss or gain of representation is an outcome of the census and associated redistricting, not of any court action, which action can only be to uphold existing (here, census or immigration) law.

Their argument also is a cynical one. States plainly shouldn’t have the representation they have now to the extent their representation is based on the number of illegal aliens present. Nor is it the case that only Progressive-Democrat-run States could lose representation. Republican States can find themselves in the same strait—see, for instance, Texas, which is carefully ignored in their argument.

The only persons who should be counted in this, or any, census are those who are here permanently: American citizens and legal immigrants.

Illegal aliens, though, are not census persons, for all that they are human beings.