While much of the country rejoices in last night’s GOP wins (HelloSenator-Elect Rubio!), California conservatives weep. Jerry Brownwas elected, Barbara Boxer won, prop 23 failed — and pot wasn’t legalized, so we can’t even dull the pain with a reefer.

Jerry Brown is entering his third term as California Governor (he was elected in 1974 and reelected in 1978). Due to grandfathering laws, he was (unfortunately) eligible to run again in this cycle. Given his experience, it should be easy to see what kind of governor he will be over the next four years.

In eight years as governor, Jerry Brown managed to turn a $6 billion surplus into a $1 billion deficit, did serious damage to our education system, and watched the unemployment rate soar under his leadership. In 1992, he admitted that he lied about everything as a politician, and in 2010, he refused to condemn someone from his office for calling opponent Meg Whitman a whore. He believes that raising taxes and imposing business-crippling mandates will save California.

Socialism worked so well in Cuba. Or was it the USSR? Venezuela? Bueller?

As for Barbara Boxer … what can I say? She’s one of the most liberal members of the Senate. She’s an elitist that cares more about trees and smelts than people.

And prop 23 failed to pass. It would’ve suspended California’s very own cap & tax law, AB 32, until unemployment could be reduced to 5.5% for four consecutive quarters. Obviously, the best way to save the environment is to drive all businesses out of California. Why don’t we all go back to the days of horse drawn buggies, when manure was piled on the streets? Remember, trees are more important than people!

In other California news, San Francisco hates children. The board of supervisors voted Tuesday to limit toys in children’s meals to those that meet certain nutritional guidelines. That’s right – San Francisco banned Happy Meals. Meanies.

Voting might be over for this year, but there’s still one thing to bet on: How long until California completely collapses?

Cross Posted at The Stir

We are now days away from voting in a Republican majority in the House, and quite possibly the Senate too. With the approval ratings in the tank for our top politicians, it’s not difficult to understand why Americans are saying, “Change it back!”

Democrats are doing their best to distance themselves from Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. In a campaign ad for Earl Pomeroy, Democrat incumbent for North Dakota’s lone House seat, he states:

I’m not Nancy Pelosi, I’m not Barack Obama; I’m Earl Pomeroy … My values are formed right here in Valley City where I grew up … I know I’ve disappointed you with a vote here or there, but you can always count on the fact that I do what I do for the right reason, for the people of North Dakota. Thanks for the chance.

After not being endorsed by the President for his bid to become Rhode Island’s next governor, Democratic candidate Frank Caprio told a Providence radio station:

I never asked President Obama for his endorsement and what’s going on here is really Washington insider politics at its worst — he can take his endorsement and really shove it as far as I am concerned.

Countless other Democrats hoping to be elected next Tuesday are distancing themselves from this administration’s job-killing policy of tax-and-spend.

It’s easy to understand why Democrats don’t want to be associated with Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or the rest of them. Since their party was voted into majority in 2006, and especially since 2008 when Obama was elected, we’ve seen spending spiral out of control, restrictive laws being passed against the will of the majority of Americans, and in just about two months, we’re in for thelargest tax increase in U.S. history.

Democrats are going to lose their majority because they won’t listen to us. Because they think they know better. They’ll let us come along for the ride, but we’d better shut up and sit in the back.

We asked them to read the bill, and they said no. They said it had to be passed before we could find out what’s in it. They laughed at us and said there was no point in reading it, because only lawyerscould understand it.

One legislator that worries about Guam tipping over voted on the health care bill that would take over 1/6 of our economy. That’s right, someone outside the realm of mental stability is voting on bills that will affect every citizen in our country.

Spending packages flew through Congress — auto bailouts, bank bailouts, and the takeover of the student loan industry. Let’s not forget the robotic bees: 10% unemployment, but by golly, let’s spend some money to develop a colony of robotic bees. That will make everything better (insert eye roll here).

The health care bill passed into law, and as Vice President Biden said, it was a “big fucking deal.” And since then we’ve seen coverage to children dropped, special deals cut to large corporations,breastfeeding moms discriminated against, menstruating women discriminated against, and women dying from breast cancer discriminated against.

Democrats might be trying to distance themselves from the liberal agenda, but it’s just too little too late.

Cross-Posted at The Stir

I am pro-life. I believe that abortion ends a human life. I do not think that showing people pictures of aborted fetuses helps our cause.

Missy Smith is running for D.C. delegate to the U.S. House, and she had two abortions that she now regrets. “I was told it’s not a baby. They lied to me,” she says in a controversial campaign ad. She continues, “And believe me I am angry. My heart has been ripped out. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Norton – they all support the murder of babies and the abuse of women by abortion. It’s time to make child killing illegal again.”

I don’t have a problem with this message, and my heart breaks for Missy Smith and others that have suffered abortions by ignorance. I believe that many women are lied to about the development of their babies in utero. Planned Parenthood has been caught lying to women about the development of their babies. In the early stages of pregnancy, it’s easy to suffer from out-of-sight, out-of-mind syndrome. Most women don’t feel their babies moving or even look remotely pregnant until well into the second trimester, when a baby is potentially viable outside of the womb.

A law passed recently in Oklahoma allows a woman to see her baby on ultrasound before making the decision to have an abortion. Some people might think this is cruel, but I think it’s empowering. Isn’t knowledge power? The bill doesn’t outlaw abortion; it just allows women to make the most informed decision possible.

No matter what side of the issue you stand on, there is no denying that abortion is violent. It’s so violent and against our human nature as women that Abby Johnson resigned from her position as the director of a Bryan, Texas, Planned Parenthood last year after watching an ultrasound of an abortion being performed.

The problem I have with Ms. Smith’s campaign ad is the use of images of aborted babies. Tiny and broken limbs are a devastating fact of abortion, but bombarding the public with these images helps no one. Pro-lifers are well aware of the crushing effects of abortion, and the pictures needlessly upset women that have already had abortions.

The worst thing that a picture of an aborted fetus does is shut down dialogue and discussion with people that consider themselves pro-choice yet anti-abortion. We can have an intelligent and reasonable discussion about the science of life and the results of choosing to have sex (even with protection), but a bloody image immediately turns people off and puts up a wall.

I appreciate Missy Smith’s attempt to inject the truth of human-hood into the abortion debate, but I doubt this ad will convince many people to champion fetus rights.

Cross-Posted at The Stir

In less than two weeks, California voters will have an opportunity tolegalize marijuana (at least at the state level) for recreational use. If passed, proposition 19 would allow the state to regulate and tax the drug, which could be sold to adults ages 21 and up.

The arguments for prop 19 are fairly straightforward. It would generate massive amounts of money to put toward things like parks, schools, public safety, and bloated pensions for government employees. It would put police priorities in order, since hundreds of millions of dollars would no longer be spent arresting non-violent pot smokers.

Maybe the biggest argument for legalizing marijuana is that it would cut off funding to violent drug cartels across the border.

The arguments against prop 19 are clear-cut as well: We’re talking about legalizing a mind-altering, gateway drug. What’s next? Heroin? Coke? Are we headed down the proverbial slippery slope?

The libertarian streak in me wants to legalize pot. At first glance, I like the points for passing the proposition. Not to mention that I’m all about the personal freedom to make our own decisions, for better or for worse.

Upon further examination, I don’t like what I see in the legislation. I’m one of those crazy Tea Partypeople who actually thinks you should read a bill before voting on it, so read it and read about it I did.

It turns out that while pot sales would be taxable, it would be left up to each city or county to design its own system of regulation and taxation. Furthermore, dealers would not be required to pay the taxes to the state, because marijuana sales are still illegal at the federal level, and the Fifth Amendmentprotects us from self-incrimination.

Prop 19 would create a ‘legal quagmire‘ for employers across the state, as well as threaten public safety. There is no definition for what constitutes being under the influence of marijuana in the legislation. While smoking a joint on the job or behind the wheel is or could be prohibited, there is nothing preventing someone from lighting up before operating heavy machinery.

I even had one conservative friend say she would vote against the pot prop because it would kill the free (drug) market, wiping small sellers off the map and out of business. You know that we right-wingers love our free markets!

On a completely personal note, I think the best argument against legalizing weed is that California voters are already boneheaded enough. After all, we’ve been voting Barbara ‘Call Me Ma’am’ Boxer to the Senate for over two decades. We’re also responsible for Nancy Pelosi and one of the only true RINOs around – Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Maybe this whole thing is a moot point anyway. Our farmers can’t even get any water to their crops. Not even cannabis can grow without a little H2O.

What do you think? Should pot be legalized?

Cross-Posted at The Stir

Remember that hit piece on the Tea Party in The New Yorker a few months ago? The whole thing basically said that the billionaire Koch brothers are funding the Tea Party movement. I’m still waiting for my check, by the way.

Lefty liberals know they can’t ignore us crazy conservatives, so they do their best to discredit us. Rachel Maddow calls us tea-baggers. Bill Clinton likens us to domestic terrorists. The NAACP calls us a hate group (which is interesting coming from a group that supposedly fights for equality). President Obama warns of the darker aspects of the Tea Party — and in Rolling Stone magazine, no less!

Liberals love to mock us and positively giggle with excitement over coming up with such eloquent insults as “Mashed up bag of meat with lipstick.” So clever! They insult us in an attempt to convince themselves and all 27 MSNBC viewers that we’re a radical fringe group funded by Wall Street Republicans. Because all those rich New Yorkers with houses in the Hamptons are Republicans (insert eye roll here).

Nancy Pelosi assumes we’re Astroturf because she doesn’t know anything different. In the liberal world,protesters are paid to show up to rallies. Their hearts are not even in it enough to clean up after themselves. Democrats assume that Tea Party candidates like Marco Rubio, Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, and even Christine O’Donnell are funded by rich Republican interest groups (which is really funny considering that those four won their primaries despite the GOP establishment backing their opponents) because they win their races with big union money.

The left cannot imagine a world where real live human beings care enough about their country and their future to come together of their own accord to make their voices heard. That we’re coming together to financially support the candidates we want representing us. SEIU or UAW does not back our candidates; we back our candidates.

From CBS News:

Typically, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Senate candidates get no more than 20 percent of their funds from small donors. But the latest numbers available from the Federal Elections Commission for some Tea Party favorites show much higher stats.

Ed Morrissey sums it up nicely over at HotAir.com:

This appears to negate the notion that the Tea Party is a corporate-driven movement. This shows that the Tea Party is a true grassroots movement, one with a significant amount of power.

They want to pretend that we don’t exist, and they can go on living their elitist little lives where they tell us what to do and what to eat and where to go to school and how much water we can have. They have no idea that we’re the majority, and in two weeks we’re taking the first step to restoring honor, freedom, and independence.

Happy Election Day. It’s going to be a good one.

Cross Posted at The Stir

Transparency in politics is good. We the people elect representatives to act in our best interest, and send them off to Washington where we hope they won’t let us down.

There are few things more frustrating than watching unpopular bills being passed into law through backroom deals and partisan meetings. When the health care bill was being rammed through Congress, politicians actually laughed at the notion that they might read it, and Nancy Pelosiherself said we had to pass it to find out what was in it.

We still don’t know what’s in the new health care law, since the rules keep changing.

Americans were told that bailouts were needed to save businesses too large to fail. Billions of dollars have been spent to save jobs and put America back to work. What was in those stimulus projects? Crack monkeys and menopausal yoga and skylights for wine cellars.

Let’s not forget about the auto bailouts, the takeover of the student loan industry, or the whole housing mess.

Little by little, our liberal, humanitarian government has been spending us into poverty in the name of the common good. The silent majority has been awoken and is stirring, getting ready to vote out liberty’s enemies in November.

What is a spendaholic control freak like President Obama supposed to do in the face of steadily declining approval ratings? A certain scene from The Wizard of Oz comes to mind, in which a little man implores his visitors not to peek behind the curtain.

The DNC released an ad Monday accusing Republicans of using shady tactics and dirty money to get elected. The ad says:

Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie: They’re Bush cronies. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: They’re shills for big business. And they’re stealing our democracy. Spending millions from secret donors to elect Republicans to do their bidding in Congress. It appears they’ve even taken secret foreign money to influence our elections. It’s incredible: Republicans benefiting from secret foreign money. Tell the Bush crowd and the Chamber of Commerce: Stop stealing our democracy.

This ad comes immediately after attacks from the President himself. Last Thursday, Obama referred to the Chamber of Commerce buying ads against Democrats with foreign money. On Monday, he smeared Karl Rove twice by name at an Illinois rally for Democratic Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias.

Do the allegations hold any water? No. Not even The New York Times can agree with the President on this one. The highly liberal paper states:

But a closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.

The notion that it’s Republicans stealing our democracy instead of Leftists like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is laughable at best. It wasn’t the right pushing bailouts and corporate takeovers and socialized health care.

Besides, President Obama and the DNC should be very careful what they wish for. I seem to remember a certain presidential candidate refusing to disclose where all of his campaign contributionsoriginated. Maybe Democrats should get the log out of their own eye before they go looking for splinters in Karl Rove’s eye.

Cross Posted at The Stir

Jerry Brown’s camp calls Meg Whitman a ‘whore‘ and lefty group NOW endorses him. NOW, of course, would be the National Organization of Women.

Our left-leaning President Obama has no faith in a woman’s abilities to make her own decisions about sex, nor does he believe in our incredible resourcefulness in overcoming anything, including an unplanned pregnancy.

When government health care rationing begins, it begins with women. They’ve already reduced our pap smears and mammograms, and now they’re trying to reduce our access to the breast cancer drug Avastin.

This is the party that’s pro-women? Um … No.

Traditionally, this issue of Social Security reform is one that few candidates have been willing to touch upon. After all, no one wants to alienate a huge block of voters, in this case senior citizens that rely upon that check each month.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that 2010 is not a typical election year. In the last few years, we’ve seen government spending spiral out of control, paid for by IOUs from our children and grandchildren.

The Tea Party movement is just one indication that people are fed up with our government’s current ideology of spend, spend, spend, and then spend some more. People are frustrated that government has gradually taken control of what should be personal choices, and has mandated our participation.

Like health insurance. The new health care law doesn’t care if someone doesn’t want to spend their money on health insurance; it demands that they do so. Or education. Our current education system punishes those that would choose to educate their children in the home or in private school. This does not exactly sound like freedom of choice.

Social Security is a forced retirement plan. Money is taken out of your paycheck, and when you reach a certain age, you receive monthly payments. Unlike private retirement, people don’t get to decide how much to save, nor where to invest it.

Now there’s an even bigger problem with Social Security than freedom of choice. The baby boomers are entering retirement, and the current system is simply unsustainable. Theoretically, the money should be there, waiting for the retiree, but the real world doesn’t work in theory.

Social Security spending is set to enter the red permanently in 2015, so something has to be done. Candidates are now speaking out about retirement benefits. Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubiosays that the age needs to be increased for the younger generation. Kentucky Senate nominee Rand Paul shares Rubio’s views, saying, “You’re going to have to have eligibility changes for the younger people.”

Joe Miller, the Republican that beat incumbent Lisa Murkowski in the recent primaries in Alaska takes it a step further, calling for at least some privatization of the system.

In an interview with CNN in September, Joe Miller touted a privatized system as “an account that the government is not going to steal from.” Asked whether he’d be open to ending “federal Social Security” for Americans being born now, he said: “Absolutely.”

No matter what our politicians decide to do about Social Security, one thing is certain. The current system will collapse if we do nothing. I’m glad our candidates are talking about it. Someone needs to.

Cross Posted at The Stir

Chuck DeVore and Nikki Haley join the show

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said, ”I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, okay. Do I need to say more?”

Well, I don’t know how anyone can vote based on identity politics. No one should vote for one party or another because they’re Mexican, black, female, or a circus carnie.

I’m not a Republican because I’m a blonde California mom that drinks too much Coke Zero. To say that is to say that Republicans treat my kind of people and other minorities differently than they treat other groups.

The fact is that every single person in the United States is a minority, and impossible to fit into a little box. Statistically speaking, I’m young and a woman, so I should vote Democrat. On the other hand, I’m pro-life and a homeowner, so I should vote Republican.

Democrats love women, but hate anyone against abortion. Democrats say they want kids to get a great education, but then deny the access to it by not allowing school vouchers. How is one supposed to align themselves with a party based on identity politics, when every person is a unique individual made up of a little of this and a little of that?

Republicans don’t play identity politics because they don’t need to. The truth is, Republican Party values are better for everyone, not just select groups of people.

Read More