Thursday, February 23, 2012
from the Rooster

Ever wonder what “Fat Cats” and “Prostitutes” have in common?   The latter work in Cat Houses and Fat Cats just take your money. What’s what? You say?
            I am talking about the striking difference between the present day progressive politician who lives high on the hog (there I go again with the animal thing) at your expense.    What gave me the thought was an article I read about how Chinese Communist bosses steal from the coffers.   Remember the Communist motto, “One for all and all for one!” It seems Party bosses drive around in $100,000.00 dollar cars and military officers drive $560,000 Bentleys, etc. Their motto is “All for me and none for you”. Then I read, in Italy, members of Congress rip off the people with salaries of over $200,000.00. That is just the tip of the ice theft, with expenses covered for office, staff, travel, health care, families on the payroll, and inside trading. There is no end to their theft. Remember, Italy is broke. Progressives really like change. Well not so much… bills are better.
            Politicians in Asia, Europe, and here, are actively stealing wealth from the taxpayers and it is not considered theft. On the other hand, a Prostitute, in most countries, is a criminal. Right?  You see, if you pass the law, you have the power to exclude yourself from the definition of theft. But do they? Maybe it is just that no one wants to prosecute politicians for theft. After all, most prosecutors are politicians as well.    Oh! It’s easy to find a District Attorney who will joyously prosecute a hapless lady or young lad who gives pleasure for money, but that same District Attorney will not even begin to bring to justice a Senator or Congressmen, etc. for dipping into the treasury far in excess of their worth.
            In most States and Countries, theft is a simple crime. You take value from someone else, without their consent, and the law says you are thief.  It can be by force or not.   Not a complicated concept.   What about when a politician who passes a law sucking up money, he or she is not worth. Isn’t that doing the same thing?  Eureka!!   Taxpayers have never given consent to have their taxes pay for something of no value. Taxpayers vote politicians in office, but not so they can steal from the treasury. Excess pay and benefits are things providing no value and are taken against the will. Where is the prosecutor who will demand an honest hour for an honest dollar? Not in my community.
            No where in the Constitution of the US, Italy, or any of our States, is there a law which gives anyone the right to take, for their own benefit, money (directly or indirectly) from the Treasury. You have to go to the Criminal codes for your answer. What these selfish, self-centered politicians are doing fits the classic definition of theft.  Why then do they get away with it?  First of all, politicians vote for their own wage and benefits. Taxpayers only relief is to vote them out of office.  Another reason is these politicians pay bribes to the voters, in the way of gifts (food stamps), stimulus packages for this group or that group etc.  This puts their voters in the rip-off mode as well.  A final reason is that their taking has snuck up on us.   If your assemblyman/woman simply grabbed the money and ran, you would scream “theft”. When they take it by little pieces, everyone is hood winked. The same occurs when the bookkeeper embezzles from a trusting employer.   The taking should be a crime, but few understand it or care. Well, I do and so should you. 
            Just to give you a homegrown example. In the early 60’s, a California Assembly person got $9,000.00 a year, an allotment for an apartment in Sacramento, and a meager travel allowance. ($9,000 today would be some $60,000).  The apartment was to lessen the travel needed. It was a wash.    He/she also got a meager staff.   An office and maybe three people. One for the home district and two in Sacramento. That Assemblyperson was in session about 6 months of the year.  Today, he or she gets a base salary of $95,000 plus and a per diem when in session (now, you know why they stay in session so long). Ok, let’s say they stay in session for 200 days. They get $141 plus a day or $28,000.00 plus a year. This is on top of the $95,000, for a total base pay of $123,000.00. Add to this a staff of some 5 to 10, offices, and stuff paid for, gifts from lobbyist, medical care, free travel, and on and on, and the real expenditure, each year, for a low rung Assemblyperson is close to $200,000.00 a year. Don’t forget extra pay for temporary duty. Compare that to the 1964 price and you can see we are being ripped off by about 60% . Don’t tell me they are worth it. Pay nothing and you will have candidates standing in line.   It does not take a high IQ to figure out we are being ripped off.   That, Amigos, is a synonym for stealing.
Posted at 13:46 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Thursday, February 23, 2012
the Ninth Circuit Court… Gawd save us!!
from The Rooster

This week the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco ruled against a provision of the California Constitution, which banned Gay folks from Marriage.  When that law was a baby it was called Proposition 8.   Mind you this law did not condemn Gays, it did not say they were disenfranchised from the vote, or any such thing. It simply said “Marriage” is reserved for people of the opposite sex.   It did not prohibit gays from establishing, as they had, another form of legal union.   It simply recognized history, that marriage was developed as a concept for the union of opposite sexes, to make a family.  The two judges who voted to  invalidate this law,  violated their oath of office and should be disbarred.
            The reason I quit the law business, after some 34 years, was just this. So many men and women have taken the oath to be a Judge and then ignore their oath  and  do as they feel.  Let’s not forget that the California Judge, who ruled proposition 8  was unconstitutional was himself gay, and retired right after making his opinion. His conflict was so obvious it must have weighed heavily on his mind.    Ignoring the law was not the way we did business,  when I started back in the 60s,  but that is the way it ended up. Especially in California, and more especially in the 9th Circus Court.   Ruling on feelings destroys the concept that we live under laws and must obey laws. It is part of anarchy.
            The Oath each of these judges took is as follows:
                        “I …Stephen Reinhardt (the judge who wrote the opinion) …_do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as judge under the constitution and laws of the United States. “  
            Simply stated, when looking at the law, a judge should apply the law without feelings and partiality.  He or she must do this recognizing the laws of California are part of the laws of the United States.   Now these two judges applied their feelings and were partial. Exactly what they swore not to do.
Here is what they said which are their personal feelings and violated the “respect to persons”  part of the oath.  Remember they did not act as trial judges.
            1- “Proposition 8 serves no purpose…”   That is their opinion. Not law.
            2- “…has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and  lesbians..”    That is their opinion.  Others disagree and is not law.
            3- “…officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples…”    That is their opinion. Not law and others disagree.
             The part of the US Constitution these two appelate judges used is the much abused 14th amendment. This amendments original purpose was to do nothing more than to prevent States from denying citizens rights the Federal Constitution and laws guaranteed.   In the final part of the 14th’s first provision, it says.’
             “ …nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”   
            Most Civil rights rulings have used this provision as if it stood alone as brand new law.   It does not and did not.   The problem is that the Federal law is not equal and there is no mandate that it be equal.   I rest my case on the graduated Income tax, affirmative action laws, and subsidies for this person and company as congress sees fit.   All the 14th was doing was nailing down the cure for Slavery, just as the 13th did and as the 15th did.   It took three amendments to get it right.
            So for these judges to rule, on their opinions, and to apply equality when the US Constitution does not require it, is like their saying they do not like bathrooms because they smell, and especially that any law allowing them should be un-constitutional because they do not treat the sexes equally.   At its best their action is legislative, not judicial. At its worst, they ignore their oath, and for that reason I say they should be impeached as a warning to others, not to stray from what they swear to do.
Posted at 13:42 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Login Login
Email Address* :
Password* :

New Registration Forgot Password?
Categories Categories
Al Fonzi
Andy Caldwell
Ashly Donavan
Bill Glynn
Dan Logue
Darin Selnick
Dr. George Watson
Dr. Jane Orient, M.D.
Dr. Mike Tabor
Dr. Wendy James
Gary Beckner
Gordon Mullin
Gretchen Hamel
Harris Sherline
Janet Cronick
Jerry Scheidbach
Joe Armendariz
Judson Phillips
Lowell Ponte
Matt Barber
Matt Kokkonen
Mike Brown
Mike Gorbell
Mike Stoker
Phil Kiver
Richard Cochrane
Richard Fryer
Richard S. Quandt
Robert Jeffers
Robyn Hayhurst
Roger Hedgecock
Rooster Bradford
Santa Barbara City Watch
Stephen Wallace, M.S. Ed.
RSS Feed RSS Feed
Top 10 Recent BlogRSS Feed
Al FonziRSS Feed
Andy CaldwellRSS Feed
Ashly DonavanRSS Feed
Bill GlynnRSS Feed
Dan LogueRSS Feed
Darin SelnickRSS Feed
Dr. George WatsonRSS Feed
Dr. Jane Orient, M.D.RSS Feed
Dr. Mike TaborRSS Feed
Dr. Wendy JamesRSS Feed
Gary BecknerRSS Feed
Gordon MullinRSS Feed
Gretchen HamelRSS Feed
Harris SherlineRSS Feed
Janet CronickRSS Feed
Jerry Scheidbach RSS Feed
Joe ArmendarizRSS Feed
Judson PhillipsRSS Feed
Lowell PonteRSS Feed
Matt BarberRSS Feed
Matt KokkonenRSS Feed
Mike BrownRSS Feed
Mike GorbellRSS Feed
Mike StokerRSS Feed
Phil KiverRSS Feed
Richard CochraneRSS Feed
Richard FryerRSS Feed
Richard S. QuandtRSS Feed
Robert JeffersRSS Feed
Robyn HayhurstRSS Feed
Roger HedgecockRSS Feed
Rooster BradfordRSS Feed
Santa Barbara City WatchRSS Feed
Stephen Wallace, M.S. Ed.RSS Feed
Archives Archives
Skip Navigation Links.
Tag Cloud Tag Cloud                      
Validator Validator