Headline du jour

MO Says "No" to O

Obamacare rejected in Missouri 71 to 29.

ACTION ALERT: STOP STARK NOW! Help Chris Pareja!

By RightKlik

Pete Stark is one of the most vile, hateful, incompetent left-wing statists this country has ever had to put up with. He is a truly disgusting man whose values (or lack thereof) are an anathema to 90% of the people in every corner of this country.

Recent videos from a town hall meeting in Pete's congressional district show that Pete's constituents are finally fed up. But to overcome the power of incumbency, Pete Stark's constituents need our help!

If we don't act immediately to help the people of CA-13, the people in Pete Stark's district will not have a serious alternative to Stark on the ballot in November. Currently Pete is only opposed by one person, Forest Baker (R), a candidate who does not appear to be running a serious campaign.

Forest Baker's campaign webpage is just that: a page. No links, no contribution button, no social media, no videos...no color! The page is monochrome! If you google hard enough, you can find a campaign Facebook page, but there's nothing serious there either.

Thanks to Michelle Malkin, we now know there's a serious candidate who is ready to run against Pete Stark, but the window of opportunity to get on the ballot is closing fast! Chris Pareja is a Tea Party independent who is working hard to get the 9,500 signatures he needs to get on the ballot. Friday is the deadline!

Chris Pareja explains:

"The signature collection team did an awesome job this weekend. Many people are sun burnt and tired. We collected 1305 signatures, which is awesome, but we still need 7500 more valid signatures by Friday. If you believe in miracles, please pray for one."

I'm sure Chris Pareja would prefer to get a few hundred extra signatures to buffer against the legal challenges that would surely come from Stark and his allies if Pareja only gets the bare minimum number of signatures.

* You can download and print a petition here. *

I urge all bloggers who read this to put up a post to draw attention to Chris Pareja so he can get the signatures he needs.

Spread the word through all social media avenues.

Friends, we can make this happen...but we have to act now!

• Pareja on Facebook
• Chris Pareja on Twitter
• Pareja's campaign website

Chris Pareja for Congress:

510.342.0226

Contact Chris

More

Pete Stark: "I wouldn't dignify you by peeing on your leg"

Pete Stark: "The Federal Government can do most anything in this country."

Pete Stark: Refusing to hire illegals might be unconstitutional.

Pete Stark: Sending kids to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement.

"There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit."

— Ronald Reagan

California: Ladies' Night for Republicans

At least, that's what the early returns show. Polls closed at 8:00 PDT. With 6% of the vote counted, in the Senate race to replace Barbara "Bouncer":

Carly Fiorina 59 %
Tom Campbell 22%
with Tea Party favorite Chuck DeVore trailing, in third.

For Governor,

Meg Whitman 66 %
Steve Poizner 26


Prop 14 yes leading 61%
No 39%

On the Democratic side, former governor, Jerry "Gov. Moonbeam" Brown is winning with 83%. No one else even close.

Barbara Boxer is winning with 79%
Blogger Mickey Kaus 5%

California Ballot Propositions: Endorsements

Tomorrow is election day in California. Here are my endorsements for ballot propositions:

Vote yes on "Prop 13"
Vote no on Props 14,15,16,17

If you are not convinced about 13, vote no on that one, too!
It's time we stopped mindlessly amending the state constitution based on special interests and deceptive advertising.

NO on 14: The Pig in a Poke Act of 2010

This pertains to the California primary, so if you don't live in California, or a state or country that might follow California's lead someday, you can ignore the rest of this.

"Never buy a pig in a poke". Something most of us learned when we were quite small.
For those of you too young to have heard this before:

poke
 /poʊk/ Show Spelled[pohk]
–noun
1. Chiefly Midland U.S. and Scot.. a bag or sack, esp. a small one

You don't want to "buy a pig in a poke" because you have no idea whether you're getting a pig or an alley cat. Which is why proposition 14 makes bad law.

The backers of Prop 14 are trying to sell it as some sort of "reform", telling us we don't get the best quality candidates to solve our problems, and that Prop 14 would get us a better variety of candidates.

When, of course, the exact opposite would occur. A perfect example of this is taking place in the Democrat Senate primary. As we noted before, front runner Barbara Boxer refuses to even debate challenger Mickey Kaus. Now, I don't have a dog in this fight, but it's awfully heard for me to believe that sending the two top vote getters to duke it out in November would ever give someone like Kaus a chance to even express an idea of reform, much less act on it. What if someone like Kaus represents genuine reform but because he doesn't have deep enough pockets or the backing of special interest money to get name recognition in the primary, what are the odds of him representing the people of California no matter how good his ideas are?

Prop 14 backers tell us that the political parties and "special interests" are in favor of the status quo. But, special interest candidates and multi-millionaires will be the only viable candidates who can flood California with advertising from Oregon to Mexico and have a prayer of finishing in the top two.

Boxer's refusal to debate Kaus borders on criminal, but what if the stratagem for winning future elections is to just keep your mouth shut, say as little as possible and try to win a popularity contest? How does that get us better candidates, when by ducking debates, we may not have a clue as to what they believe or who might be the better candidate?

To make matters worse, under prop 14, "write ins" would not be permitted in the general election. I'm not sure that this would pass Constitutional muster, but it certainly is against the spirit of democracy! If two pro-choice or two pro-life candidates were running in the general election, many people would feel that they could not, in good conscience, vote for either of them. A "write in" seldom has a chance of winning, but it allows the voter to register his or her protest against the people or the policies represented by the mainstream.

And what about candidates who might be, shall we say, less than forthcoming about what they believe? What if candidate "A" gets one of the top two slots for November and then it comes out that the candidate lied or misrepresented his position. Maybe it is revealed that the candidate associated with some unsavory characters. If the candidate is not properly vetted in the primary, why should the voter be banned from selecting someone else and mounting a write in campaign for them?

What if both candidates lied or misrepresented their positions? There are no "do overs". There's no mechanism to impeach a candidate for public office. And prop 14 takes away your right to write in an alternative.

We have a viable two party system where like minded people can put forth a candidate that at least has a theoretical chance of winning. Prop 14 could silence a large segment of the population and leave them without a choice whom they could in good conscience support.

Here's another old saying: Don't throw out the baby with the bath water! The system we have isn't perfect, but it has served us fairly well over the years. And it accommodates a wide variety of beliefs: Communists, Greens, Peace and Freedom, Libertarian, Republican and Democrat to name just a few. Prop 14 gives you two choices: Like it or lump it.

Whatever California needs, it is not fewer choices of who will fill our public offices.

Proposition 14 may not be the worst amendment to the constitution of California ever presented, but it certainly is in the running!

Vote NO on 14.

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything

Update: And because great minds think in similar ruts, here's another yet similar perspective on Prop 14 Viewed From the Right

California Proposes Open Primary Amendment

I got my sample ballot for the June California primary today, and while I was reading through the ballot propositions, I came across this gem:

Prop 14 Elections. Increases Right to Participate in Primary Elections.

Excuse me! Right??? Democrats Independents and fringe party whackos have the right to vote in my party primary???

Changes the primary election process for congressional, statewide, and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate's or voter's political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference.
Fiscal impact: No significant net change in state and local government costs to administer elections.

I suppose you could call this the "Minority Party Disenfranchisement Act of 2010". If your candidate is Green, or Peace and Freedom, or even Communist, will your candidate even make it to the ballot? Doubtful. This amendment prohibits write in candidates in the general election. That seems unConstitutional to me. Certainly against the spirit of democracy.

Proposition 14 also allows candidates to hide their party affiliation, to deceive voters into thinking they are "independent" when they are nothing but party hacks.

I don't think so. Not just "no", but "Hell, no!"

Pardon my French!

Cross posted at Say Anything