« Sandbox - 3may15 | Main | The Rising Tide of Civil Asset Forfeiture »

03 May 2015


Bill Tozer

Dr. Rebane, it's not Bernie Sanders we should be keeping our eyes on. Nope, not at all. He just said his vision is that America should look like Scandinavia. We all know what Bernie stands for, what and how he thinks. No surprises. We ALL should be watching Lizzy Forked Tongue Warren.

Right now, it's Lizzy Sqawking Squaw Warren who is calling the shots from the sidelines, not Hillary. Whatever Lizzy wants, Hillary delivers. For example, Lizzy is down on some Pan American trade agreement currently before Congress. She recently uttered that the trade deal should be scalped, tanned, and dried. Hillary just last week started backing away from the trade deal. Funny, Hillary Rodclam Clinton 100% supported the trade agreement negotiated by her no less when she was Secretary of State shaking down forgein goverments for "grants" to the Clinton slush fund and deleting e-mails about the "trade agreement". The trade deal is her baby and both her and Obama saw eye to eye on this one. She was a good underling for Obama.

Now Lizzy gives it the thumbs down off with their heads and Ms. Clinton back pedals....from a deal she negotiated. So, whatever Lizzy wants, Lizzy gets.

George Rebane

BillT 1048am - Well yes, but my point is that it all starts with ol' Bernie whose socialist nudge starts the list to the left that draws in Lizzy and creates a collectivist's conundrum for Hillary.

Russ Steele

Just a thought:

Within the first 24 hours of announcing their campaign’s for president, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul each raised about $1 million while Marco Rubio raised more, about $1.25 million.

Burnie Sanders outraised all of these conservative candidates, hauling in over $1.5 million within the first 24 hours of announcing his run for office.

Sanders is going to use that money to drag the Democrats farther to the LEFT. The question is will Hilary follow the rabbit trail to the left, or does this give her an opportunity carve out some middle ground in the political spectrum?

George Rebane

RussS 224pm - Yes, that is the 'collectivist conundrum' for Hillary that I mentioned in my 1059am. Turning left, she meets Lizzy head on for who is the country's lead socialist; turning right, she meets a phalanx of Repubs all pointing out her long history of progressive pretentions (and lies). While this conundrum will not guarantee a Republican victory, it will be a confirming test of dumbth for our electorate who learned nothing from Obama's first term. Fun times, if the matter would not be so important for America's future.

Bill Tozer

Yes, Dr. Rebane. That is why you are smart feller and I just a fart smeller. Hillary has another quandary.. It's Obama. As an outstanding member of his Administration, she can't run from Obama and she can't run into the arms of the radical far left wingers. The only thing she has in her favor right now is that she does not need to go any farther left than Lizzy or Bernie or Fidel to win the nomination and remind us all she lived in the White House for eight years. Good thing Michelle replaced the missing China, but I digress. She should focus on the Big Prize and throw the Socialist Marxist Control Freaks a bone or two along the way.and stay in whatever she considers mainstream until the Nov, 2016 general election. A tightrope. Might work for her. A safe run at the Whole Enchilada.....safe, yet devoid of passion.
Pretty soon they will be calling her "old school" or an insider, so she better get off her rump and start tossing bones to the extremists of the far far radical hard leftwing as well has her big corporate donors. Just like our current President.
Wonder if she knows her golf handicap yet? Important things a Presidential canidate must know and anticipate because she will be asked this question sooner or later.

George Rebane

BillT 1213pm - Correctemundo Mr Tozer. For Hillary her former boss Obama is not an ideological bookend, but simply a monkey (gorilla) on her back that she will not be able to shake no matter what ideological stance she adopts or tries to dance through.

Bill Tozer

Dr. Rebane. Yes, yes, yes. BTW, nice catch on the slip on the tongue and quick recovery coming up with the noun "gorilla" to clarify Obama being a monkey on Ms. Rodclam's back. Omit that one little word "gorilla" and your friend Mr. Paul the music event producer (and all around good guy aka. The Guitarzan Man) would surely be decrying you as a racist.....again.

Speaking of racists (no, not Harry Reid or Eric Holder or Ms. Lynch), I was shocked, appalled, and dumbfounded that our good man Bernard Sanders would profess that his wet dream would be for us all to be like northernmost countries of Northern Europe, aka, a homogeneous people lacking diversity and clinging to our traditions and maintaining a historical national identify, culture, and language. Not very inclusive if you ask me. Sure, the respected Congressperson did not come right out and say it, but we all know what he meant.
Bernie Sanders wants to be the next Great White Father in Washington. Tragic. Right when you think you know a guy, he opens his mouth and advocates the rise of the Third Reich with a touch of Stalin and more than a sprinkling of dearly departed Chairman Mao. Makes me hate white people.

Bill Tozer

The tipping point. Bernie may be spot on and not a crackpot afterall.


Russ Steele

Reference the Update. See California Drought Report #14


While you are there check out some of the other California Drought Reports.

Ray Shine

When the NY Times this morning is touting a poll that shows 82% of Americans believe Secretary Clinton is honest and trustworthy while 92% believe she is qualified, I have doubts that the electorate is open to illumination.


Seen elsewhere......

They are utterly shameless liars.

I love the tactic of concealing their earlier crimes with the smoke of their latest crime. There are so many scandals and blatant crimes that the press never has time to actually focus on one of them.

It's as if Nixon covered up Watergate by taking Chinese campaign donations, then covered that up by selling judgeships, etc... Just keep the scandal parade going until everyone gives up.

Steven Frisch

Posted by: Bill Tozer | 05 May 2015 at 08:30 AM

Of course to really understand that graph one would have to overlay the actual top marginal tax rate on personal income in the US and the concentration of wealth in top income brackets over time. They they would see the correlation.

George Rebane

RayS 922am - Interesting pick up Ray. The remarkable part is that a concurrent NBC/WSJ poll (reported yesterday on Fox News) shows that fewer than one third of our voters hold similar sentiments about Hillary. Poll results depend much on the wording of the questionnaire. I wonder how the qnaires of the two polls differed to produce that result, assuming that they both sampled correctly.

Todd Juvinall

I did a post on the poll. Here is the poll link. Read it and all will see the NYT?CBS BS.


George Rebane

ToddJ 1208pm - I wonder what fraction of that NYT/CBS sample could reliably identify the Atlantic Ocean on a map.

Todd Juvinall


Bill Tozer

Polls, polls, everywhere a poll


George Boardman

It should be obvious by now that people are so committed to their views and candidates, they don't care how dirty politicans are.

Sen. David Vitter was easily reelected after admitting he patronized hookers. Gary Hart would sail into the White House today.


I do believe there are laws on the books that make "pandering" a crime. ( usually associated with prostitution) I do believe Hillary is doing just that, "pandering" to the illegals with her latest bribe for votes. “We can’t wait any longer for a path to full and equal citizenship, I will do everything." Bla, bla, bla......
Yup,, whoring for votes... Yet the pandering bitch gets away with it.


As long as we're talking about polls, the Harvard Public Opinion Project did one on attitudes of the young (18-29) towards climate change... and the younger the respondent, the less they believed.

Perhaps Frisch & Company are getting soft. Redouble your efforts. Maybe bring back the "10:10 No Pressure" campaign.

George Rebane

GeorgeB 329pm - Sadly, I think you have nailed it.

steve frsich

I have to admit Gregory that is such a magical button existed you would be very close to the front of my imaginary line. Come to think of it, it seems like a waste of the button, you are actually more valuable as an impotent and irrelevant local example of climate denial.

Todd Juvinall

Gregory, was that for real? 10, 10?

Boardman is correct, not only would Hart be elected, he would be praised. Bill Clinton, the masher, is the top dog in his party! Vitter is a side show and usually the R's boot people like him. Larry Craig retired after his "wide stance" pee in an airport.


I deny nothing, I just refuse the Climate Catechism and then I don't drink the wine, don't eat the wafer.

How horrible it must be to be you, Steven Frisch. Thanks for yet another testimonial of your hate for me because of my views of the truly science behind catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The end of Alarmism is near... when I first came out of the climate closet eight years ago, there were lots of people like you to fend off, but it's pretty much just the true believers who have all their eggs and egos in the warming basket that show any real venom.

Checking, last months satellite measurement of global low level atmospheric temps are but 0.07C above the average for Aprils since '79. Scary?

It should be noted that the UAH and RSS satellite datasets and the radiosonde datasets (all measurements of atmospheric temps) have all been tracking each other nicely, going back to '79. The computer models Frisch prefers to reality all disagree with each other, leading to wildly divergent claims of CO2's effect on surface temps ranging from 1.5C to 4.5C for a doubling of CO2. The terrestrial dataset keepers are doing their best to match what the computer models are telling us but they're losing that battle.

Todd, that video was from a real campaign that was pulled hours after it started.. they apparently thought the video would be seen as "funny" but Gillian getting blown up for thinking she'd get excused from conserving for doing the voice over was the only chuckle I got. Scaring children in the name of politics truly is evil.

I wouldn't be surprised if the crazed homicidal environmentalist's (played by Samuel L. Jackson) scheme in Kingsman wasn't inspired by that 10:10 video.

Todd Juvinall

Greg, what do you thinkj will happen to the AGW fanatics like Frisch when the "jihadists" get here? I think there is only one Allah.

Bill Tozer

Back to polls, there is only one poll I have ever read that came out 100% "yes" and zero per cent "no". The question posed was "Do you have a sense of humor?" Seems nobody thinks they are lacking a sense of humor. While many may disagree because they can think of at least someone totally devoid of a sense of humor, it just goes to show you how we view ourselves is not how we are viewed by others. For example, people close to Hillary Rodclam say she is self-deprecating and has a great sense of humor. I have yet to see her anywhere close to self-deprecating nor displaying her wonderful sense of humor. Neither have I seen one inkling of a sense of humor from those on her payroll that claim Hillary is more fun than shouting "God is Great" in a crowded movie theater. Some folks just can't take a joke I suppose.

Bill Tozer

Man, everyone is getting so uptight when they here the word "no". No humor. The Gov of Illinois did the unprecedented thing by giving a speech TO the Chicago City Council telling them "nooooo", the Great State of Illinois will not bail out Chicago. No is a complete sentence. Then the Chicago Teachers Union is all uptight because they are being asked to pick up some of their own pension costs, amounting to a 7% take home pay cut.

Now, under the topic of "California is so far gone" and humorless people, our own Gov is losing delightful and charming sense of humor. Them chickens are coming home to roost.



Todd 8:18, something like this:


Well well... A little proof of my pandering charge against Hillary.


Posted by: Walt | 07 May 2015 at 12:05 PM

God this is going to be a fun election season!

George Rebane

Your kind attention is invited to the 8may15 update to this post.

Bill Tozer

On the general theme of "Scattershots", President Obama said in 2013 that he shoots skeet "all the time" at Camp David. As one who leads by example, he donates the meat to the homeless. Think I will follow his example.


From the putative head of American Progressive politics.

Mr. Obama insisted that “this is the most progressive trade deal in history” and he scorned critics who say it would undermine American laws and regulations on food safety, worker rights and even financial regulations, an implicit pushback against Ms. Warren. “They’re making this stuff up,” he said. “This is just not true. No trade agreement’s going to force us to change our laws.”


C'mon guys you believed him when his schtick was "Hope and Change™" why can't you give him the benefit of the doubt now?

Judi Caler

George, regarding your May 8th update to 'Scattershots - 3may15' on the con-con and my article:

If amendments were meant to rein in an out-of-control government, then the framers wouldn’t have inserted Congress into the process. Congress either proposes amendments themselves, or alternatively, 2/3 of the States apply to Congress for a convention. At Article I, Section 8, last clause, Congress is granted the power to make all laws which are necessary and proper for carrying out its powers vested by the Constitution, and that necessarily includes Article V. That means Congress can set up and organize the convention it is empowered to “call.” The States cannot propose amendments. All the talk about the states controlling an Article V convention by custom is wishful thinking at best; there is no precedent, so we can’t predict the results. And if the delegates at the convention opt to change the ratification process, the States might not even participate in that.

When Article V was proposed in 1787, there were various versions. George Mason and a couple of others wanted the states to have control of the amendment process. But their version didn’t pass, and they lost; and they didn’t sign the Constitution.

You will never get a favorable resolution for a limited convention because of the inherent right of the people to alter or abolish their form of government as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and “We the People” in the preamble to the Constitution. Congress may take control of the set up and organization of the convention; but after it convenes, the convention becomes more powerful than any branch of the government and can do whatever it wants. Who is to control it?

And the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, wasn’t an afterthought or inserted to rein in the federal government. It was a compromise. Those opposed said that since the only powers the federal government has are those enumerated, why list the inherent rights of the people that the government can’t infringe on anyway, like freedom of speech? If you make a list, that opens the door for Congress, the President and the Courts to define those powers to see what they CAN infringe on, and thus the government will expand its power. Even today congress is talking about defining ‘press’ so they can limit it. AP and FOX News are press; but what about bloggers? The Bill of Rights was added after the Constitution was signed to fulfill a promise made to some in return for having signed the Constitution. It should serve only as a reminder of our inherent rights so that the people will know when the government is tyrannical. Yet the government has used those amendments it to expand its power, as predicted.

Under our federal system, the Sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer in the County and can protect his/her constituents against federal/state government overreach. The Sheriff has more authority than Congress or the President in that county. One constitutional sheriff backed by his constituents can assert his power over the state and the feds. Although there aren’t a lot of constitutional sheriffs, the movement is growing as the feds usurp more and more power.

There is no easy fix for an out-of-control government, and the people need to get educated and understand their form of government in order to keep it. After all, the Constitution is only a piece of paper and cannot enforce itself. There is an awakening of interest in this regard as our country slides towards tyranny. We’re battling a dumbed-down education system, but more and more people ARE waking up.

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, Nullification is any act or set of actions that results in a particular law being rendered null, void, or even just unenforceable within a particular area. The Northern States effectively nullified U.S. fugitive slave laws which required suspected runaway slaves to be returned to their alleged owners, by passing aggressive Liberty Laws, despite the Supreme Court ruling. The judiciary is just another branch of the federal government, and according to Article VI, Clause 2, the Constitution, and the laws of the U.S. WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF…shall be the supreme law of the land. Note the central qualifying phrase. Only the acts flowing from legitimate constitutional powers rise to the level of supremacy. When Congress, the President or the Supreme Court acts outside of its enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution, the action is unconstitutional, void and of no force. Nullification applies only to cases of constitutional usurpation. In contrast, Congress organizing an Article V convention is exercising an enumerated power.

Nullification is being used today all over the country at the state and local levels on issues like guns, marijuana, Common Core, the ACA, indefinite detention and the NDAA, FDA rules preventing terminally ill patients from seeking medical treatment, and more.

George Rebane

JudiC 941am - Thank you for that extended comment and clarification of nullification. The citing of that critical phrase about laws "made in pursuance thereof (the Constitution)" is an important amplification of the debate about the legitimacy and effectiveness of nullification applied.

The comments to this entry are closed.