My Photo

May 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

BlogStats


« This Swamp Will Not Drain | Main | Sandbox – 1jan17 »

30 December 2016

Comments

rl crabb

You mean after the last eight years of hateful birth certificate monkey comparison obstruction from conservopublikins you don't understand why the other side isn't groveling at The Donald's feet? Get ready, bubba, the shit train ain't even left the station yet.

Todd Juvinall

Well let' see. I don't recall one satire or biting criticism from Crabb on Obama. Now I could be wrong but even if you did you soft shoed it since you did not want to be called a racist. And all of us who even questioned a policy were skewered by you and your ilk. I could care less if any celebrity shows up but many will. I'd like another Clint show or maybe Simmons from KISS or Jon Voight. Maybe Kelsey Grammar. Anyway, we have been called every name in the book by you and your ilk and I really could care less. A "badge" of courage in my view. Bubba!

fish

Complaints about who isn't singing at the inauguration is as pointless as Todd and Paul arguing over the shade of blue the counties voting base currently finds itself! Frankly I'd be surprised if most of the "stars" mentioned have recovered sufficiently from Darth Menopauses loss to perform anyway!

I'd be all for him taking the oath in the oval office followed by no festivities other than that "draining of the swamp" we were promised!

Todd Juvinall

Hey I resemble that remark. We are a mauve county though. LOL!

Todd Juvinall

Drain the swamp? Here is Obama's parting FU!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-unleashes-3853-regs-18-for-every-law-record-97110-pages-of-red-tape/article/2610592

Bill Tozer

Artists march to a different drummer. When once asked how one becomes a writer, Hemingway replied "Marry rich."

Bill Tozer

Fish, not having any of those Crack-Rap "jo mama is a hoe" drugged out performers in front of the cameras at the inaugural is a good start to draining the swamp.

George Boardman

It isn't just the lefties who are protesting:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4075742/Mormons-launch-petition-trying-stop-Tabernacle-Choir-singing-Donald-Trump-s-inauguration-one-member-resigns-perform-ceremony.html

BradC

Maybe folks have been reading up on Trump. This looks like a good read- especially considering Trump tried to sue for $5 Billion over it - what a hoot!

https://www.amazon.com/TrumpNation-Donald-Timothy-L-OBrien/dp/044669617X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483115054&sr=8-1&keywords=Trump+nation

Here is an excerpt,

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/305798/don-king-told-mike-tyson-his-wife-was-boning-donald-trump/

fish

Posted by: BradC | 30 December 2016 at 08:31 AM


Wow......finally a president with a little courage......reckless and crazy though it may be! Kinda puts Sugar Frosted Barry O's mom jean wearing, delicate wristed timidity into proper perspective!

Walt

Blaming the birth cert. on Trump RL? Recall Hillary started that? Or where you napping when the facts of that came to light? "O" sure has shown his stripes as a Muslim.

Gregory

If Obama care largesse had poured several hundred thou into my home, I'd probably have warm thoughts about it, too... but someone else pays those bills and they didn't get to keep their plan.

The neo-McCarthyite alt-left is unhinged and I do expect it will get worse before it gets better.

Gregory

Regarding performances at the inauguration, maybe Ted Nugent can lipsync to the Beyonce SSB recording?

Bill Tozer

9:50 Much worse that the present will it get. Their hatred knows no bounds. That will never change and I, for one, accept it. Time to move the ball forward.and fight and scratch for every millimeter. Nobody said it would be easy. Expect more uncontrollable hate and blind fury in the months come. It will never get better, yet we shall overcome. I feel good. Real good. I hear a symphony of exploding heads.

George Rebane

GeorgeB 823am - Mr Boardman, are you confusing the petition signers with conservative Mormons, or, based on the stereotype that there are no liberal Mormons, claiming that they are one and the same?

Bill Tozer

Mr. Boardman: The Salt Lake Tribune endorsed Hillary. I pulled that jewel out of my Encycopedia of Kinda Worthless Information. That be Romney Country.

You know, I see something positive going on. Each time a libs shits a brick, that is one less brick to buy for the wall. At this rate, Mexico will only have to pay for the mortar

.

Bill Tozer

A different take: never get tired of winning.

"But if celebrities don’t show up for President-elect Trump, that will be exactly what his followers love about him — that he smashed the liberal elite establishment. That he won in spite of the entreaties of the Left Coast glitterati."

http://www.salon.com/2016/12/29/donald-trumps-celebrity-free-inauguration-could-make-the-white-house-great-again/

George Rebane

BillT 1151am - An excellent point Mr Tozer!

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

A rundown.

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

http://www.robertmlee.org/critiques-of-the-dhsfbis-grizzly-steppe-report/

http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/

http://www.welivesecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/eset-sednit-part1.pdf

http://www.welivesecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/eset-sednit-part-2.pdf

jon smith

A Londoner, an Italian, and two Canadians bulk out your list of unpatriotic left wing bigoted pinheads. How dare they not race to the United States at the beck and call of an American president to play him a merry tune. They shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Bill Tozer

9:10am. No problem. They will be put on the no fly list and the IRS will start flooding them with letters. :).

George Rebane

jons 910am - Do you then believe that Donald Trump will also be the president of the listed foreigners? My commentary applies to those who legally call America their home, earn their money and pay their taxes here. Trump's inaugural invites should put no burden beyond a civil response on foreigners living elsewhere.

Todd Juvinall

No one cares on our side if the pinheads stay away from Trump. They are mentally challenged and deadbeats anyway. Clint, Jon Voight, Kelsey Grammar, the Cappy from Forrest Gump and all our military and police will be rooting for Trump. Just read the Merced Cops Horsemen will be marching. Who cares about weaseling artists anyway.

Scott Obermuller

The Russians have been trying to hack and disrupt cyberspace for quite a while. So have the Chinese. So have we. This has only become an issue now because Hillary lost.
Trump did not win because of anything the Russians did.
I think we might be a bit more concerned with the Chinese moving out into contested areas and simply taking over. If they are not stopped, they will do what they attempted to do with India in the 50s and what they did do in Tibet.
The left simply can not accept Trump's victory because of the left's insolence and insular behavior. They can not or will not listen and understand any other way other than their own. They created a monster out of Trump by attacking him personally with exaggerations and outright lies. Now the monster they created is loose and in power.
No wonder the left has lost it's mind.
I must admit I really don't care about the 'artists' that won't perform for Trump's inaugural celebration.
Trump will not accomplish as much as he claims and will not be as bad as his detractors say he will be.
The only real celebration for me is that Hillary will not be pres. Beyond that, I'll wait and see.

George Rebane

Actually none of 'us' really care about the entertainers who won't perform for Trump's inaugural. I received the following in an email that expands on how the burgeoning Left created us, the Irredeemable Deplorables.

I haven't said too much about this election since the start....but this is how I feel.... I'm noticing that a lot of you aren't graciously accepting the fact that your candidate lost. In fact you seem to be posting even more hateful things about those of us who voted for Trump. Some of you are apparently "triggered" because you are posting how "sick" you feel about the results.

How did this happen you ask?
You created "us" when you attacked our freedom of speech.
You created "us" when you attacked our right to bear arms.
You created "us" when you attacked our Christian beliefs.
You created "us" when you constantly referred to us as racists.
You created "us" when you constantly called us xenophobic.
You created "us" when you told us to get on board or get out of the way.
You created "us" when you attacked our flag.
You created "us" when you took God out of our schools.
You created "us" when you confused women's rights with feminism.
You created "us" when you began to emasculate men.
You created "us" when you decided to make our children soft.
You created "us" when you decided to vote for progressive ideals.
You created "us" when you attacked our way of life.
You created "us" when you decided to let our government get out of control.
You created "us" the silent majority.
You created "us" when you began murdering innocent law enforcement officers.
You created "us" when you lied and said we could keep our insurance plans and our doctors.
You created "us" when you allowed our jobs to continue to leave our country.
You created "us" when you took a knee, or stayed seated or didn't remove your hat during our National Anthem.
You created "us" when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating.
And we became fed up and we pushed back and spoke up.
And we did it with ballots, not bullets.
With ballots, not riots.
With ballots, not looting.
With ballots, not blocking traffic.
With ballots, not fires, except the one you started inside of "us"
"YOU" created "US".
It really is just that simple.

Walt

Great list Dr.R.. That pretty much sums it up.
Yet "O" and Co. is done with their dirty work. Kinda like evicted renters. They are trashing the place as best they can before they get tossed out the door. From massive new regulations, to closing off thousands of square miles of public land.

Then we Gov. Moonbat thinking Ca. doesn't have to abide by FED laws.

stevenfrisch

Then we Gov. Moonbat thinking Ca. doesn't have to abide by FED laws.

Posted by: Walt | 31 December 2016 at 12:03 PM

You mind kind of like Cliven Bundy?

Scott Obermuller

Yeah frisch - kinda like Bundy. Except Brown took an oath of office in which he promised to uphold all state and fed laws.
Bundy was arrested by the feds.
That doesn't seem to be happening to Brown and I notice you're not clamoring for it, so you might want to think for a while before you go comparing Brown to Bundy in that regard.

stevenfrisch

Well Scott, the original premise of Walt's post is incorrect. Brown did not say he would not follow federal law, as Bundy did; he said that he would take action to advance policy that he believes is good for the people of the state of California.

“California can make a significant contribution to advancing the cause of dealing with climate change, irrespective of what goes on in Washington,” said Brown in the Times interview. “I wouldn’t underestimate California’s resolve if everything moves in this extreme climate denial direction. Yes, we will take action.”--NYT

""We will protect the precious rights of our people and continue to confront the existential threat of our time — devastating climate change," he said. --LAT

I was merely pointing out that since Walt believes the Governor's position is that he doesn't have to follow federal law and he is no different than Bundy, then Walt's position is hypocritical.

Gregory

It's about time the inauguration shrinks... let's leave the pomp and circumstance to European coronations. Anything to reduce the BS. Have a short parade, followed by the swearing in.

Then Republicans can tune in Fox and get the Swearing Out ceremonies for the outgoin' while the Band Plays On.

All Hail Governor Brown... he now owns Global Warming politics in the USA. He'll either be a hero or a schmuck when AGW is either universally accepted or becomes fodder for late night comics for the next few generations. Of course, I already think he's a schmuck. So is Frisch.

We really are at a turning point for the entire argument, as the already weak Solar Cycle 24 is mostly wound down, and Cycle 25 is expected by solar physicists to be historically weak, approaching Maunder Minimum status. We've just finished a major El Nino warming event and the fall in temps from the peak earlier this year is in process, place your bets as to where it ends. The chances are very good that in 2018, there will be enough bad news for the California Warmistas to find themselves on the wrong side of history to an extent that even they see it. Only time will tell.

I'm sure Frisch will be among the last to recognize the end.

Gregory

hmmmmm

Looks like Frisch left an unclosed italic...
[corrected it, thanks Gregory. gjr]

Todd Juvinall

Jerry Brown was AG here when he decided not to defend the people's initiative on Prop 8. Many of us were outraged at his "criminal behavior". But like most liberals who break the law, they get a promotion. Americans outside California decided they will have no more of this. And even Nevada County voted for sanity in defining marriage and voted for it.

Walt

Illegals Stevey,, illegals. You bring up Bundy? LOL! how bout the trespassers on FED land protesting a pipeline?(I know,, NOT Ca.) FEDS: "naaa,, we'er not going to do anything about it" Who's going to clean up after those folks? The protesters going to haul off the cars and trucks they burned?

Brown thinks he already rules over his own country.

Don Bessee

What's up with Frishy @ 1204? Mini-stroke? Too many mimosas this early? ;-)

stevenfrisch

Walt's original post was factually wrong....period.

George Rebane

What again was factually wrong with Walt's 1203pm?

But then Walt does ask a relevant question in his 138pm.

Scott Obermuller

frisch at 12:41 - "Brown did not say he would not follow federal law..."
That's a pretty fascinating view of the law. Frisch is claiming that not following the law is OK as long as you don't say you're not going to follow it? What?

stevenfrisch

Scott, Brown did not say he would not follow federal law, nor has he failed to follow federal law. I am not claiming not following federal law is OK (although I can think of times when I would support it) I am saying that it never happened.

What is wrong with Walt's original post is that there is absolutely no place in the last two months that i can find anywhere where Governor Brown says he does not think Califonria has to follow federal law.

You guys do know what a "start man" is don;t you?

stevenfrisch

Thanks for closing the italics...I was just looking up how to do it :)

stevenfrisch

By the way, re: Todd's 1:17 PM

The California State Constitution grants the California Governor and the California Attorney General the power to determine how they are going to implement state laws. The State Constitution also grants the State Supreme Court jurisdiction over determining he constitutionality of Propositions.

The process to hold a Governor or Attorney General accountable would be to challenge their implementation of the law in federal court. Supporters of Proposition 8 did that and lost, fair and square.

Scott Obermuller

'Brown told the crowd at the event that they were welcome in the state regardless of their citizenship.
"You're all welcome in California today," he said.'
http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-brown-mexico-20140802-story.html
Brown is also on record as being in favor of giving illegals privileges such as driver's licenses and free health care.
That's aiding and abetting illegal activity, frisch.
Brown is not 'implementing' federal immigration law, he's giving aid to those who are breaking fed law.
That goes against Brown's oath of office. As if Brown cares.
Anyway, Brown is on record saying openly that he will support those breaking federal law. And that is, in itself, going against the law.
So you are wrong, frisch.

Gregory

Trump's people will be conducting the 2020 Census... I wonder how many California households with Illegal Alien (to use the precise yet unpopular politically incorrect term) residents will be answering them completely and truthfully, and what the effect will be on the number of Electors from our state.

George Rebane

ScottO 236pm - For those who want to confirm that Brown has and continues to violate federal law, I refer you to US Code Sec 8 Art 1324.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

Here one can assure himself that Brown and his cohorts in state government are all guilty of violating federal law, especially all aspects of the cited article. And this applies doubly to officials of the so-called sanctuary cities.

Todd Juvinall

stevenfrisch | 31 December 2016 at 02:26 PM

Make believe there Frisch. They are sworn people and they take a oath. I took it as well. You just tried some "fake news", just like all libs. That was a good try though. But unfortunately for you I know what I said was factually true. And you never supplied a link to the Constitution you say exists. What a hoot!

stevenfrisch

Re: Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 31 December 2016 at 03:06 PM

No fake news here big boy....you may have taken an oath but I have little confidence you ever really knew what it meant.

Ballot Propositions in California are subject to judicial review...which is exactly what happened with Prop 8.

Here is a primer on the judicial review process:

http://www.iandrinstitute.org/docs/Holman-Judicial-Review-of-Ballot-Initiatives-IRI.pdf

Scott Obermuller

frisch at 7:02 - what happened to your statements about Brown breaking his oath?
"Supporters of Proposition 8 did that and lost, fair and square."
And so did Hillary - right?
Fess up, frisch. Brown is breaking fed law and Hillary lost, fair and square.
Hmmm - sounds like frisch is choking on something.

stevenfrisch

Re: Posted by: George Rebane | 31 December 2016 at 02:59 PM

If the federal government wants to make the case that Governor Brown is in violation of US Code Sec 8 Art 1324. the Department of Justice can prosecute. They have not, thus the Governor is not in violation.

Even more important, the Governor does not have jurisdiction in the case of cities or counties that declare themselves sanctuary cities, only cases where the state has primary jurisdiction over someone, which are relatively narrow; and the existence of sanctuary cities per se does not violate federal law--unless it is adjudicated again.

According to a 2009 Congressional Research Service report that discussed local law enforcement agencies' responsibilities under § 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) and § 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), the "primary federal restrictions on state and local sanctuary policies" concern a state or local refusal to maintain or share immigration status information. However, the report noted that the 1996 law "does not require entities to collect such information in the first place" and the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit indicated that "Congress cannot directly compel states to collect and share information regarding immigration status with federal immigration authorities.

So unless it is adjudicated again, Brown is not in violation of federal law.

Todd Juvinall

Frisch the judicial review is prior to the election. You really don't know diddly do you? And the oath I took is a very important thing which you would probably not take as you really are not a patriot according to you.

Your initiative primer is not even a California based document. Jeeze, you really need help.

From your link,

"California courts, however, are not of one mind when it comes to initiatives. Part of the reason
behind the courts' diverging views on judicial scrutiny of initiatives is that, depending on the level
of court, judges are selected through three very different methods"

stevenfrisch

Re: Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 31 December 2016 at 02:36 PM


There are such things as facts. The case you are making Scott has been tested in federal court (see above) so you are wrong right now, and unless that changes in the future, you will continue to be wrong.

It really is quite simple, if the new federal administration wants to prosecute this case they can try to, but until then, sorry Charlie.

stevenfrisch

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 31 December 2016 at 07:14 PM

You need to study more Todd, judicial review can be at many different stages of a Proposition being advanced, including AFTER it has passed. And yes, I did read the document, but clearly you did not.

stevenfrisch

By the way Todd, Prop 8 was reviewed by the SCOTUS, which they did after the election, not before.

stevenfrisch

Re: Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 31 December 2016 at 07:10 PM


Seriously Scott? What I said was that Governor Brown (then Attorney General Brown) stated that he was not going to implement the law until judicial review was complete. Proponents of Prop 8 attempted to get an injunction requiring him ti implement and lost. That is the law---not what you want to be the law, or think should be the law, but what an actual judicial proceeding says is the law until it is changed, either legislatively or by a higher court.

That is kind of how America works gentlemen.

Scott Obermuller

"They have not, thus the Governor is not in violation."
So, frisch thinks that since they used jim crow laws in the south for decades, and there was no prosecution of the officials upholding those evil, unconstitutional laws, there was no crime and they didn't have to abide by the Constitution.
Just amazing, frisch. No prosecution, no crime.
And we notice frisch is now back-tracking and no longer defending his previous statements.

Scott Obermuller

JonBenet Ramsey was murdered, but no one was ever charged. frisch thinks there was no crime because there was no prosecution.
See the logic?

Scott Obermuller

"Congress cannot directly compel states to collect and share information regarding immigration status with federal immigration authorities."
Laughing so hard, I missed that one.
Brown is still in violation of the statutes linked in George's post at 2:59.
But frisch's new-found theory that if there is no prosecution, there is no crime, is priceless.
And frisch still is silent about Hillary losing, fair and square.

Walt

WOW Frisch,, now point the finger at the FEDS. What a load.. That one sure filled up your crapper. Better call a plumber. Yup, The FED DOJ, run by "O" and Co., are sure going to crack down on poor Ka. for harboring illegals. "O" and Co. can't let them in fast enough, hog tied ICE, pulled CBP's(that's customs and boarder patrol for your shallow mind) teeth, shipped illegals to every state in the union. And somehow Ka. isn't breaking any FED laws on the books? Your grasp on things really suck.

Maybe you missed it. Ol' Moonbat's blood pressure is up knowing Trump just might end AGW research. What's Moonbat's answer? " We will launch our own satellite to monitor things."
Really? At who's expense? Is he going to rob funds from his train to nowhere?
I'm all for it, if Moonbat is IN that soon to be space junk.

Walt

For Frishiy..
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/31/dems-plan-to-use-millions-in-taxpayer-money-to-keep-illegal-immigrants-from-being-deported/

stevenfrisch

Yes Scott I am saying precisely that--that if ones action, reprehensible as you or I may believe it to be, is within the law and found to be legal at the time the action is taken, it is legal--and that is how it works. To change Jim Crow we had to change he law. Now I might defy the law, but it's still the law.

Brown did no such thing. There was no legal decision that his actions as Attorney general were contrary to the law.

Why is that so hard for you guys to understand?


stevenfrisch

Re: Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 31 December 2016 at 07:33 PM

And that is just nonsensical...I know that even you know that is not what I said, nor is it pertinent to the original point.

Gregory

"Why is that so hard for you guys to understand?"

We're not from Chicago.

Walt

Loos like it's time for someone to rip open a top shelf box of wine. (or in this case whine?)

Todd Juvinall

Frisch, your interpretation on Prop 8 is "fake news" and you just keep peddling it. The review is done by the AG prior to the initiative being released for signature gathering. Then it passed and was sued. Jerry, the AG decided not to defend it as was the requirement. But then it went to the SCOTUS where it was remanded back to a local court that ruled it unconstitutional. You see you were completely wrong as usual. You need to review and read more and get educated like me.

My lesson to the ignorant student for the day.

Bill Tozer

9:10pm
Why you be so mean?
:)

Bill Tozer

Happy New Year all you absolutely marvelous Deplorables and you deghtful fabulous Irredeemables....and...uh.....er.....ugh......Mr. stevenfrisch as well.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=arbpu1xKAow


Scott Obermuller

"There was no legal decision that his actions as Attorney general were contrary to the law."
Actually, we are talking about his actions as governor.
But you dodge and weave, don't you, frisch. And what about Hillary? Can't even respond, can you?
I never said Brown had been convicted of anything. Simply that he aids and abets criminal activity.
And that he has broken his oath of office. The absence of prosecution is no proof to the contrary.
frisch believes that jim crow laws were legal. No sir, they were not. They simply were not prosecuted. We live under the umbrella of the Constitution. It is the law of the land and if you think that those who can escape it's rule by dint of trickery, deceit, or simply having a fed government run by knaves is grounds for declaring evil to be good - you are sick and evil yourself.
Happy New Years.

George Rebane

stevenfrisch 714pm - I and better legal minds than mine believe strongly that your arguments are wrong on all counts. For example, prosecutors including the AG have prosecutorial discretion that allows them to allocate limited resources to pursuing actual cases. But what is made clear with all such discretion not to prosecute is that its exercise at any time certain is never taken to be a ruling on a law being violated or not, and most certainly does not prejudice the case for prosecution at some future time. The history of jurisprudence contains countless cases where no prosecution occurred against parties patently guilty of violating various laws.

And there is growing momentum along with legal interpretations that permit governors to bring suit against their sanctuary cities or petition the federal govt to do it.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/307634-tex-gov-says-he-will-sign-law-banning-sanctuary-cities

And none of that mumbo-jumbo you cite about immigrants invalidates Art 1324 of my cited US Code. Were these to do so, the abrogation of 1324 would be explicitly called out.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad