The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.
(H/T – HotAir Headlines)
Guess it’s time to bring back an oldie-but-good HamNation. As predicted, the DhimmiRATs are already dismissing the not-yet-delivered Petraeus report, prefering their own self-commissioned and -ordered “the war is lost” conclusion.
You can watch the webcast announcement either at his new campaign site (www.fred08.com) or on YouTube (thanks for the latter, Ian).
Now, who is going to be out by the end of the month? Don’t forget to vote on the left.
With Jim unleashing the double–barrel live-blog both on bRight & Early and Heading Right, it’s time to unleash my own effort. It will be a half-hearted affair as I’m also live-blogging the Brewer game over at the Bar.
As noted earlier, William Smith will be live-blogging from a bar. I’ll throw in the link to the actual liveblog post once he sets it up.
As a note, I paraphrase heavily, even stuff that’s in quotes. I use quotes to identify what I’m paraphrasing from the candidates. Stuff in italics comes from the moderators, and stuff in parentheses are my own comments. Standard stuff you should be used to by now.
19:13 – Guess I should throw in the specifics. It’s on Fox News Channel and FoxNews.com at 20:00. FoxNews.com will begin streaming in about 16 minutes.
Also, FreeRepublic is on the ball as always.
19:44 – Allahpundit pipes in. There’s at best 2 elephants in that room along with 6 mice.
19:55 – Fred’s “visit my site tomorrow” announcement.
19:59 – Ace checks in – Yep, none of this matters except for the race for #2 on the ticket.
20:00 – Brit’s live. Where’s the fish?
20:01 – Joining Brit, Chris Wallace and Campaign Carl. William’s behind already, only on beer #2.
NH’s GOP chair praising Brownback and his 6 supporters.
Introducing first, Tom Tancredo. Next up, Ron Paul. Batting third, Mike Huckabee. Cleaning up, Rudi Giuliani. Batting 5th, Mitt Romney. In the 6 hole, John McShame. Batting 7th, Sam Brownback. Finally, Duncan Hunter.
Lights and gong is here (noted as “DING DING”). 1 minute for answer, 30 seconds for rebuttal at Brit’s discretion.
20:04 – First question from Brit, Who has made the smart move, you suckers or Fred!. Huckabee takes a whack at Fred. Paul once again proving he’s running in the wrong party. McShame takes another whack; “We’re up past his bedtime”.
20:06 – Romney wants Fred to take more time. Correct Conservative Blogger liveblog link. I didn’t know Rudi was a DA in Manhattan. He pushes experience, and takes the first shot at the DhimmiRATs.
20:08 – To Wallace and illegal immigration. Romney – “Let’s reduce fed funding to sanctuary cities”.
Mary Katharine Ham and Matt Lewis join the live-blogging crew.
To Rudi – Would you continue to protect illegal aliens as President? Rudi – “It was all Clinton’s fault for stopping taking names.” DING-DING!
20:12 – To McShame – Are you and Romney both flip-flopping on immigration? McShame – “No one is for amnesty.” (except you, the DhimmiRATS, and El Jefe Jorge). “Let’s secure the borders first.” (welcome to the party, pal; too bad I don’t believe you.)
20:14 – To Huckabee – Defend calling those who want to toss the illegals out racists. – Deflects by calling to outsource immigration tracking to UPS and FedEx.
20:16 – To Tanc – I double-dog-dare you to call those that agree with you on immigration racists. – “It has nothing to do with racism, it has everything to do with the rule of law.”
20:18 – E-mailed question to Hunter – “What would you do to finish the fence?” Wallace adds that some ranchers don’t want it. – “The fence works. It’s the law. I’ll finish the 800-mile fence in 6 months.”
20:19 – To Campaign Carl at a restaurant and a officer – What good is an unmanned fence? What about those still here? Carl sends it back to Rudi and McShame – How is your plan not amnesty? – Rudi – “Again, it’s all Clinton’s fault. Let’s ID everybody coming in because everybody else is able to do it.” DING DING!
To McShame – “Amnesty is forgiveness” (er, it’s not applying the current rules, jackass).
20:23 – To Romney – “End sanctuary cities using the power of the federal purse.”
20:24 – Wendell brings up the Craig bomb. To Brownback – “He’s taking responsibility by resigning, and he should stick with it…. We shouldn’t stop standing up for family values.” DING DING
20:25 – To Hunter with another e-mail question – Should Craig resign immediately? – “Yes. When Pubbies have ethical problems, they leave. When ‘Rats have them, they often make them chairmen of committees.”
20:28 – Wendell drops the abortion bomb on Romney the flipper – “We need to respect lives of both the mother and the child.” To Huckabee – How do you reconcile your position with Rudi’s – “I’ll let Rudi answer that. Let’s respect life.”
20:29 – To Rudi on gun control, with a couple of Fred! quotes – “I made New York the safest large city in America.” (I note that the gun ban in NYC was in place long before you). And college students carrying? – “That’s up to states.”
20:31 – Wendell to Paul with a misquote on whether airplane passengers should be allowed to carry – “We moved the wrong way on protecting airplanes; it should be on the airlines, not the gubmint” (even a blind squirrel) DING DING
20:32 – Back to Campaign Carl and another gubmint worker – Please don’t ban homosex marriage (shocked, SHOCKED a gubmint employee would take the lieberal position). To Brownback – “Do not redefine marriage from one man and one woman.”
20:35 – BREAK! Eric at RedState’s late and disinterested, and I’m late picking up Michelle; sorry about that.
20:38 – We’re baaaaaack! FoxNews’ token lieberal continues by inviting McShame to attack Rudi on foreign policy. “I knew Rummy’s strategery would fail. The new strategy, which isn’t mine, is working. Oh, and I was a squadron leader.”
20:40 – Chris to Rudi – Defend yourself, and will you finally go to Iraq? – “I hope so by the end of the year. I’m not running on 9/11; I’m running on being mayor of New York City.” DING DING and he continues to run on.
20:42 – Wendell to Romney – You said that we should be all-but-out of Iraq by Feb. Defend. – “I never gave a timeframe, but the surge seems to be working. I don’t envision a permanent role in Iraq.” Token lieberal pushes for a hard date again. Romney dodges.
20:44 – To McCain – “It’s working, not seems to be working, because we have a great general there. The great debate will be in the Senate. I want them home with the right reasons, with honor.”
20:45 – To Paul – What about the bloodbath that would happen if we listened to you and your fellow DhimmiRATs? – “I’m in the wrong party.” (hey dumbfuck toofer, the Islamokazis want us dead not just because of our policy, but because we exist and a couple of them are here, so they consider America part of the Worldwide Caliphate). Hume WHACKS the toofer.
20:47 – Brownback piles on – “Let’s have a political surge.”
20:48 – Wendell points out how the pratfalls of the Brownback 3-state plan (Turkey and Iran taking out the Kurds, the Sunnis rebelling over having no oil) – “We’re going to be there a LONG time.” DING DING!
20:50 – Hume to Huckabee – How do we contininue the surge with the minor American bloodletting going on? – “We broke it, we bought it. I agree with McCain that we cannot leave without honor. Hey Paul, STFU.”
To Paul – “A few neocon fascists went in, not the country.” CATFIGHT! Paul the toofer wants to repeat Vietnam. Hey Paul, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND JOIN THE DHIMMIRATS, YOU COCKSUCKING MOTHERFUCKING PIECE OF SHIT!!!!!! HOW FUCKING DARE YOU!
20:54 – To Hunter (oh, is he in this debate?) – “We leave with victory.” Token lieberal – No matter how long it takes? – “You don’t understand the determination of the US Marines and US Army.”
20:55 – To Tanc – “I hope the surge works. The war is with radical Islam, and Iraq is a battlefield in that war. This is not a war that will end with our departure. We were not attacked because we had troops in Saudi Arabia. We were attacked because Islam is incompatible with the rest of the world.” DING DING
20:57 – Back to Campaign Carl – There was a skirting of the issues.. SHOCKA – Campaign Carl finds another gubmint employee, a deputy sheriff – Romney, how do we end the war in Iraq? (anybody want to still claim that New Hampshire is anything other than a loser lieberal state?) . Romney answers – “People who put their lives on the line are in a league of their own, and we owe them our respect. It’s a global conflict against jihad going on, and we have to win in Iraq because losing has global consequences. We need a global strategy.” Hume – McCain would disagree with you about “looks” versus “is”. Romney – “We don’t have a report yet.”
21:00 – Token to Romney – Would you wiretap mosques even without a court order? – “No. To continue, we have to focus on preventing by every means necessary, including getting court orders to wiretap mosques. The most important civil liberty is the one to stay alive.” To Tanc – Is torture a line you wouldn’t cross? – “Waterboarding isn’t torture. I’ll do whatever it takes to keep the people of this country safe.”
21:03 – Token to McShame – Did Tanc just overreach, and oh, take your anti-torture shots at Boooooosh – “Waterboarding will be used as an excuse by the other side to torture us.” (Think back to the Hanoi Hilton, Johnny boy. Us not torturing the VC and NVA didn’t stop them from torturing you).
21:05 – Token to Rudy – Defend your call to not close Club Gitmo. – “Where do you want them? New York? DC? Oh, and when has a nation won a war when it set a timetable for withdrawal?”
21:06 – Token to Hunter – Would you hold those “freedom fighters” there indefinitely if we can’t convict them? – “Hell yeah. We’ve caught a bunch of them on the battlefield after we thought they were done.”
21:08 – Token to Brownback – “Would you have your VP do what I and my fellow lieberals think Cheney does?” – “No, but I would lean heavily on him.” DING DING
21:09 – Chris finally takes over. McShame, why won’t you say you won’t raise taxes? – “I don’t need no steenkin’ pledge. I’ll focus on the spending.” Chris points out McShame voted against the tax cuts of 2001-2003, McShame tries to claim that he did so because there was no focus on spending.
21:12 – Chris – Sam, my man, shouldn’t McShame sign? – “Yes.” To Rudi – Your record as a fee-hiker is a long one. Why don’t you try to counter that with this pledge? – “I only want to take one pledge, and let’s not focus on the fee hikes.” (fees that almost everybody has to pay IS a tax, dumbshit).
21:14 – Chris to Romney the flopper – Hey Fee-fee. Defend your fee hikes. (damn, but I like that nickname) – “Don’t focus on the fees. Since it’s been an hour since we whacked the Dhimms, that $250 that Breck Girl wants to let middle-class America save tax-free wouldn’t even buy them a Breck haircut.”
21:17 – Chris to Huckabee – FairTax only helps out the very poor and the very rich. Defend. – “The FairTax at 23%…” (STOP THE TAPE – It’s 30%, not 23%) “…would end the underground economy.” (unbelievable bullshit – it would create a nice black market, especially near the border.)
21:19 – Paul is officially off his meds.
21:20 – Back to Campaign Carl for dessert. Finally, not a public employee, but a PolySci student – Rudi, you’re the weakest family values candidate. – “You don’t need to look at my family life.”
21:22 – BREAK! Another Brit scenario special coming up after the commercials (no wonder why the Dhimms, and especially Hiliary, didn’t want to appear on Fox News).
21:25 – Hume’s scenario – The IAEA says that Iran is on the cusp of getting nukes, Iran responds by kicking out the inspectors. Iran’s attacking Iraq. The UN imposes a limited sanctions regime, but won’t use force. Iran increases its rhetoric about vaporizing Israel. What do you do? Paul – “We sing kumbayah.” (get off the fucking stage, fuckwad)
21:28 – Missed what Hume added for Tanc. – “We continue to waffle, but we don’t tie our soldiers’ hands. To Hunter – “I don’t like these hypotheticals, but we would try to do what Israel did in 1981.” (doesn’t solve the problem permanently, and Iran learned from the “all the eggs in one easy-to-strike basket” lesson.)
21:31 – To Huckabee – “I’m not saying, but it would be what I thought would be best for the American people.” To Brownback – “We’re facing it now. Oh, and Iran’s nutjobs don’t care about surviving an exchange with Israel as long as they destroy it.” To Rudy – “It’s different than the Cold War. Iran is the #1 terror sponsor, and we cannot allow Iran to go nuclear. McCain had it right when he said that as rough as going would be, it would would be rougher to not go.” DING DING “Reagan talked to the Soviet Union with 1,000 missiles pointed at them.”
21:35 – To Romney – “We can’t let a nation that talks about genocide and talking about nuclear weapons have nukes. Let’s build consensus because there are good ‘Rats.” (unfortunately, they’re all dead, Mitt). “Let’s get the world behind us.” DING DING “If we have that, they’ll think twice.” (Really? They want a Shi’ite Caliphate or no world at all).
To McCain – “We can’t let Iran have nukes, and we can’t depend on our ‘allies’. I’d employ the Reagan methods he used to get the hostages back.” (you might want to read your history, McShame.)
21:39 – We’re OUT!
The Federal Election Commission ruled in two separate cases yesterday that independent internet activity does not violate federal campaign laws. In the Kos case (touched on earlier here), they found that the Daily Kos meets the definition of a media entity not owned by a political party, political committee or a political candidate and thus is exempt from campaign finance laws under the media exemption.
The other case, which I had not heard about, is even more relevant. An individual by the name of Michael L. Grace created a blog to advocate the defeat of Representative Mary Bono (R-California) in the November 2006 election. The FEC ruled that he did not make unreported expenditures, coordinate with her opponent, David Roth, or make an in-kind contribution to Roth’s campaign.
Both Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and Michael L. Grace are lieberal jackasses in the first degree who would probably advocate the death of No Runny Eggs, but I am glad they won their cases.
Nothing much happened besides Tommy “The Other” Thompson realizing he had no chance and Hiliary Clinton following the playbook of her husband and taking $42,000 in illegal donations. That changes tonight with the last pre-Fred debate, which William Smith will not be live-blogging from on-site. He will still be live-blogging, but like me (in between pitches of the Brewer game, that is), it will be beer-aided.
In honor of Fred’s filing tomorrow, it’s time to ask who won’t be a candidate by the end of the month.
Who will no longer be a candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination at the end of the day Sept. 30, 2007?
Up to 9 answer(s) was/were allowed
Total Voters: 90
Loading ...While that in itself is news, what makes it especially delicious is how the media is savaging the Democratic mayor of New Orleans. Case in point, this AP story from John Moreno Gonzalez:
NEW ORLEANS – Mayor Ray Nagin could be days away from announcing he will run for governor of Louisiana "” a move many in this stricken city regard as preposterous.
I’m actually surprised that is the lead sentence. However, the usual presstitute template applies; if Nagin were a Pubbie, it would have read something like this – “Republican Mayor Ray Nagin could be days away from announcing he will run for governor of Lousiana "” a move everybody in this dysfunctional city regard as preposterous.”
If Nagin runs, he will do so on his stewardship of New Orleans. But this is a city in great distress two years after Hurricane Katrina, with large swaths still empty, an appalling murder rate and a painfully sluggish recovery. Nagin’s disapproval rating stood at 65 percent in a recent poll….
I’ll put the the odds of the endorsement of Nagin by Tom “Milk Carton” Barrett at 3-1.
I could continue with the jokes, but I have an overgrown lawn to deal with, after spraying the yard with another couple of cans of Yard Guard, that is. My WMD order from the UN hasn’t come through yet; I knew I should’ve written it in Farsi.
Revisions/extensions (7:45 am 9/7/2007) – Put away the popcorn, Nagin’s not running.
Uncle Jimbo and Kev take whacks at Katty Katie Couric, Mark Cuban, and the NBA. Let me say that if I didn’t hate the Dallas Mavericks before, I sure as hell do now.
Mosquitoes have to eat too </sarcasm_bit_up>. Got chased into the house early yesterday evening, had the bitches buzz the window all night, and then the kicker, they swarmed me when I got the morning paint-catcher.
Hell, I’m ready to create and unleash WMDs on them; I can’t wait until the first freeze of the season.
(H/T – JammieWearingFool)
DhimmiRAT National Committee Chairman Howard Dean was among the Dhimms that made the pilgrimage to the Labor Day weekend gathering of the Islamic Society of North America in Rosemont, Illinois, and he endorsed their political takeover of America:
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told American Muslims gathered in Rosemont to think beyond voter registration drives.
“You need to run for political office,” Dean said Saturday. “The only way you can achieve your goals is to stand up and say who you are and be proud of it.”
Considering that Dean is a doctor, I don’t think he can claim ignorance that the Islamokazis’ goal is a worldwide Caliphate by every means necessary.
(H/Ts – Allahpundit and Curt/Flopping Aces)
Mexican President Felipe Calderon made a couple of rather startling statements in his State of the Nation address yesterday:
We strongly protest the unilateral measures taken by the U.S. Congress and government that have only persecuted and exacerbated the mistreatment of Mexican undocumented workers. The insensitivity toward those who support the U.S. economy and society has only served as an impetus to reinforce the battle "¦ for their rights….
Where there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.
I know El Jefe Jorge won’t do it, but it is well past time to militarize the southern border. Indeed, HotAir commenter Pilgrim notes that this likely canceled the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, specifically Article V –
The boundary line established by this article shall be religiously respected by each of the two republics, and no change shall ever be made therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the General Government of each, in conformity with its own constitution.
The question is out there again courtesy Allahpundit, so it’s time to bring the old poll back, but with a twist. Since WP-Poll now supports multiple answers, let’s run it again. This time, you get up to 3 options, and if I still haven’t hit your sweet spot, pipe up.
Who should we retaliate against if the Islamokazis nuke the US (part 2)?
Up to 3 answer(s) was/were allowed
Total Voters: 156
Loading ...Who should we retaliate against if the Islamokazis nuke the US?
Up to 1 answer(s) was/were allowed
Total Voters: 22
Loading ...Since Ed Driscoll was up later than I was last night and stumbled here, I guess it’s time to rectify a serious wrong and add him to the roll.
(H/T – Allahpundit)
Agence France-Presse claims in a story about the Soviet Unio…er, Russia’s plans to have a manned Moon mission by 2025 that “(t)he only moon landing in history is NASA’s Apollo expedition in 1968.”
Really? Let’s review a short history of successful lunar landings (except for the first 2 items, crash-landings are not included), culled from NASA’s Lunar Exploration Timeline and John Walker’s Lunar Landing Sites page:
There have been several missions in the last decade and a half where a spacecraft has been intentionally crashed into the Moon as the last act of the mission. Also, there were far more than 24 Soviet Luna missions; most of the spectacular failures were never acknowledged by the Soviets.
Jeff Emanuel at RedState has the scoop. At 3:30 pm CDT, Fred Thompson will announce he’s entering the race for the Republican Presidential nomination.
Revisions/extensions (4:21 pm 8/30/2007) – The Fred announcement tour begins on Thursday, September 6, the day he will tell the Federal Election Commission that he is no longer just “testing the waters”.
(H/T – Sister Toldjah)
11 years after the initial discovery of several vials of phosgene gas in Iraq, the re-discovery of said vials at a UN building in New York City touched off a kerfuffle. The statement from the UN is less than reassuring:
On Friday 24th August 2007 in archiving UNSCOM files, UNMOVI staff discovered two small plastic packages with metal and glass containers (ranging in size from small vials to tubes the length of a pen) with unknown liquid substances. The archives are located at the UNMOVIC headquarters, 866 East 48th Street, 3rd and 6th floors.
An initial investigation has revealed that these items were recovered from a former Iraqi chemical weapons facility, al Muthamma, by UNSCOM inspectors in 1996.
It was only on 29 August, however, that the inspection report containing an inventory of the items was recovered. The inventory shows that one of the items may contain phosgene (COCL2) suspended in oil — an old generation chemical warfare agent. The inventory also indicated that the other package contains Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) reference standards in sealed glass tubes. These standards are used to calibrate chemical analytical equipment.
UNMOVIC has confirmed that normally such items would have been transported directly to appropriately equipped laboratories for analysis and not sent to UNSCOM/ UNMOVIC headquarters in New York. In the past, UNSCOM chemical samples were sent via military transport directly to Edgewood labs.
And this is the agency we’re supposed to trust with certification of disarmament of WMDs?
Despite the fact that there is no budget crisis because revenues and spending continues at the rates in the budget (thus automatically increasing the amount available for Medicaid, as well as increasing the amount collected by other various taxes), and the fact there won’t be a Medicaid funding “crisis” until 2009, Jim “Craps” Doyle (WEAC/Potawatomi-For Sale) has ordered a 20% reduction in Medicaid spending, with plans to spread the self-inflicted pain even further if he doesn’t get the doubling of taxes that he and the Legislative ‘Rats want. If I were healthier, I might have beat Dad29 to the proper analysis:
Which, of course, is the reality. It’s not a question of running short of funds. It’s a question of not getting his way.
So he stamps his foot and pouts.
That’s a helluva way to govern, Darth.
Blogging will be light for a while. Head’s spinning and hurting, body’s as frigid as an ice road, and my eyes are bulging.
(H/T – Slublog)
NRO’s The Cornerhas a very interesting map of those living in Manhattan, NY that are getting farm subsidies. Do note the 5 large dots; they’re people getting more than $250,000 per year in farm subsidies.
Under the House Dhimm farm bill, they’re likely to continue to receive those grants; those making up to $1,000,000 per year are eligible, with loopholes allowing even more-wealthy “farmers” to get in on the trough.
(H/T – Geoff at JunkYardBlog)
Michael at Innocent Bystanders picks up on a Reuters report that America has 90 guns per 100 citizens and suggests we all charge north. While I like the idea of no longer having to import my Kokanee and Labatt Maximum Ice, or pay non-citizen rates for a fishing license, I don’t like the prospect of having to supply my SocSecurity number to get that license.
While I have your attention, a late reminder from US Citizen at Traction Control that today is Buy Ammo Day. I am running a bit low on .40 S&W FMJ.
Revisions/extensions (7:59 pm 8/28/2007) – Elliot has the money quote from the AP version – “‘There’s no clear relationship between more guns and higher levels of violence,’ Krause said, pointing to low ownership and high crime rates in Latin America.”
(H/T – Dad29)
Just to refresh your memory, here is Section 13 of Article XIII of the Wisconsin constitution:
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.
The California Supreme Court is currently considering a consolidated set of cases where the city of San Francisco and assorted nuts want to force California to recognize gay “marriages”. Before I get to the truly-mind-blowing part of the post, here’s a short history cribbed from VoteYesMarriage.com, an outfit seeking to enshrine marriage into California’s constitution:
– In 2000, voters approved Proposition 22, which became Family Code section 308.5, which read in entirety, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Do note that, other than a grammatical anomaly and the substitution of “this state” for “California”, that is The First Sentence. Also, do note that the Family Code is part of California’s statutes, not its constitution.
– Between 2003 and 2005, the California Legislature systematically extended every right traditionally reserved for marriage to same-sex couples under the banner “domestic partnerships”, including forcing private entites who either have government contracts or provide insurance to provide full married benefits to same-sex couples.
– In 2004, San Francisco issued same-sex “marriage certificates” in violation of state law. While California’s Supreme Court voided it, it invited a challenge to Family Code 308.5 on “constitutional” grounds, which was promptly issued.
– In 2005, the California courts held those extensions “constitutional” by declaring that Prop 22/Family Code 308.5 only protected the name “marriage” and not any rights associated it, and then extended the force-feeding of same-sex benefits to all entities that provide public accomodations.
– In 2006, an appellate court ruled that Family Code 308.5 did prohibit same-sex “marriage”. That case is part of a consolidated set of marriage cases currently before the California Supreme Court.
Even before we get to the bombshell, we have “(a) legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage” created in California. Now, on to the bombshell.
On June 20, the California Supreme Court asked the interested parties in the consolidated marriage cases referenced above to answer four questions:
- What differences in legal rights or benefits and legal obligations or duties exist under current California law affecting those couples who are registered domestic partners as compared to those couples who are legally married spouses? Please list all of the current differences of which you are aware.
- What, if any, are the minimum, constitutionally-guaranteed substantive attributes or rights that are embodied within the fundamental constitutional “right
to marry” that is referred to in cases such as Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, 713-714? In other words, what set of substantive rights and/or obligations, if any, does a married couple possess that, because of their constitutionally protected status under the state Constitution, may not (in the absence of a compelling interest) be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature, or by the people through the initiative process, without amending the California Constitution?- Do the terms “marriage” or “marry” themselves have constitutional significance under the California Constitution? Could the Legislature, consistent with the California Constitution, change the name of the legal relationship of “marriage” to some other name, assuming the legislation preserved all of the rights and obligations that are now associated with marriage?
- Should Family Code section 308.5 – which provides that “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” – be interpreted to prohibit only the recognition in California of same-sex marriages that are entered into in another state or country or does the provision also apply to and prohibit same-sex marriages entered into within California? Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the federal Constitution (U.S. Const., art. IV, ?? 1, 2, cl.1), could California recognize same-sex marriages that are entered into within California but deny such recognition to same-sex marriages that are entered into in another state? Do these federal constitutional provisions affect how Family Code section 308.5 should be interpreted?
Both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (RINO-Hollywood and Attorney General Jerry Brown (D-Moon) filed briefs that answered the first 3 questions essentially identically.
Answer #1 summary (identical in both briefs) – There Are No Differences Between the Legal Rights and Benefits or the Legal Obligations and Duties Provided to Married Couples and Those Provided to Registered Domestic Partners Under California Law. Mostly noted above, though Brown’s brief took the added step of noting that even if “marriage” were granted to same-sex couples, it would not be recognized under federal law or by other states.
To that, I say, “Only until the Ninth Circus gets a hold of it.”
Answer #2 summary (Brown’s brief) – Although a Compelling Justification Would Be Needed Before the State Could Forbid a Man and a Woman from Entering into the Essential Relationship We Know as Marriage, Married Couples Do Not Possess Any Substantive Right Or Obligation Under Californa Law That Could Not Be Eliminated by Legislative Action Supported by a Rational Basis. (Schwarzenegger’s brief summary begins after the comma) Of particular note is the last sentence of both briefs (Brown’s brief quoted; Schwarzenegger’s brief essentially identical) – “But the State submits that, except for this essential ability to choose and declare one’s life partner in a reciprocal and binding contractual committment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded exclusively to married couples in California could be aborgated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose.”
In short, the only guaranteed right of marriage in California is to choose one’s “life partner” (the phrase is used in both briefs). Before I get to the item that makes even this moot in the eyes of the executive branch of California’s government, I will note that Schwarzenegger urges in his answer to the fourth question that Family Code section 308.5 be interpreted to mean that same-sex “marriages” not be recognized regardless of where they were entered into.
Answer #3 summary (identical in both briefs) – No Constitutional Provision Would Prohibit Changing the Name of the Marriage Relationship to Some Other Name. And thus “marriage” and Proposition 22/Family Code section 308.5 die. I will note that Schwarzenegger’s brief notes that the reference to “marriage” in Prop 22 might mean that any change in the name could require a vote of the people.
In short, without The Second Sentence, and without the protection of being part of Wisconsin’s constitution, The First Sentence would have been utterly meaningless, as it would neither have defended the institution of marriage nor the name of marriage itself.
I don’t recall any of the early-morning forecasts mentioning any possibility of rain today. That’s funny; I saw rain and even heard some thunder about noon. At least I didn’t end up like the golfer killed under a pine tree in Madison when a driving thunderstorm rolled through there about 10 am.
Most of the attacks on revenue limits to the schools have been on the belt-tightening forced upon districts that are shrinking. A story in today’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel launches a new front; they find that districts that are have increasing enrollment can’t unilaterally increase taxes and spending by an unlimited amount. They even trot out a line from one of the myriad of front groups for the teachers’ union and school districts, the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future – “One of its criticisms is that under the revenue caps, the amount of money a district may raise from year to year is based largely on enrollment, without regard to cost increases for the services that districts provide.”
Ignoring the fact that school districts can and often do bust the caps with voter approval, there is a basic lie in that statement; there is an automatic adjustment for cost increases in the cap. It may or may not be enough for the teat-suckers of WEAC, MEA and WEA Trust, but it is there.
Even though Wisconsin’s forefathers planned for the likelyhood of an unbreakable impasse in the adoption of a new biennial budget by decreeing that state taxing and spending continues at the levels of the previous budget in that event, the not-so-little piggies known as municipal politicans are whining that they don’t know whether they can bust open the tax-and-spend spigot. The editorial-passing-as-a-story money quote: “The general consensus, however, appears to be this: The earlier the resolution, the better. But only if the resolution is a good one.”
FoxNews.com is reporting that there are no less than three working hacks of the Apple iPhone that fully-untether it from AT&T’s network. While it is legal, at least in the US, I won’t be supplying the links (mainly because I can’t afford an iPhone, but also because I strongly suspect that all the methods will void the warranty).
A word to the wise; if you do hack an iPhone for use in the US, you’re going to have to pay the $175 termination fee to AT&T and then pony up to T-Mobile’s network as Sprint and Verizon and US Cellular use an incompatible network format.
Revisions/extensions (7:08 pm 8/24/2007) – Added US Cellular to the list of incompatible networks. The iPhone operates on GSM networks only.
[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]
