The Arrogance of Power

Just keep changing the rules until you win…

When you can’t win, just keep changing the rules until you do. That’s the mantra of the California Democrat party and bag men in the State legislature.

Let’s take the case of the recall against State Senator Josh Newman, who within his first few months in office caved in to the party bosses and voted to raise $50,000,000,000 in new taxes, the majority of which will be paid by the people who can least afford it – the working poor, old people on fixed incomes, students, etc.

The consequent recall effort proved so popular that 85,000 signatures were submitted in barely two months, and that caused a veritable panic among the Democrat elitists who run Taxifornia. What’s a limousine liberal to do?

Cheat, that’s what.

Exhibit A for the prosecution: Democrats’ use of the budget process to change the state’s recall process that was already well-underway in the case of Newman, making the recall process longer and more onerous – a violation of due process and civil rights if ever there was one.

Exhibit B for the prosecution: Democrats use of political operatives on the California Fair Political Practices Commission to relax the rules regarding campaign contributions to the target of the recall, paving the way for wealthy left-wing donors to prop up Newman.

We are used to the nonsensical rhetoric about the “appropriate” way in which recalls should be used (only when it suits the agenda of those who make such ridiculous arguments), but the use of government power to muzzle the electorate has to be seen as a much more sinister trend. If ever the politicians in Sacramento get away with using their legislative power to get rid of political opponents you can bet it won’t be the last time they do it.

27 Replies to “The Arrogance of Power”

  1. The arguments that recall should only be used in such and such a case belies the intent of the original creators of the California recall statute, which was to give the electorate the unfettered ability to get rid of a politician for any reason they want.

    Recall opponents are always nattering about how it should only be used in the case of malfeasance in office – a category of behavior already covered by the Criminal Code. Really what they are saying is that recalls should never be deployed except in cases they think are appropriate.

    1. “Really what they are saying is that recalls should never be deployed except in cases they think are appropriate.”

      That’s true. In Fullerton in 1994 and again in 2012 the anti-recallers kept using this same old tired argument. What it REALLY boiled down to was the refusal of ruling clique (who had previously hated each other along party lines) to admit the barbarians at the gate. And so people like Dick Ackerman and Jan Flory found each other in a nasty lip-lock thanks to their mutual hatred of a common enemy.

      1. Sounds about right, but don’t forget that Ackerman was not just a knee-jerk, pro-government stooge. After he left office in 2008 he became a lobbyist and had millions of reasons to oppose the recall.

        People like Flory just did it because they really hate common people who have the audacity to question where all that tax money went.

  2. I cannot vote for the recall and I hope my neighbors in Yorba Linda agree. I can and will vote to continue to diminish the influence of the CRP and the social conservative boot licking lackeys of the police state who have no problems taking money from the people and passing it along to law enforcement.

    1. Thanks for having our boy Josh’s back.

      Don’t forget your bumper decal. It’s our free gift for helping us keep our Supermajority and our quarter million dollar compensation packages.

      1. Right? Newman is toast. Unless the Dems steal the recall – which seems highly likely, if the courts allow them to get away with it.

  3. Repubs lost a close election in a District they believe to be theirs. Voters chose Newman. It’s called democracy. If you want to recall Newman for doing his job, that’s one thing. But promising voters the recall will repeal the gas tax is just plain wrong. The recall is really about “the arrogance of those without power.” The Repubs lied to get their signatures because they knew they could get away with it. They know, they’re lying, we know they’re lying so all of this faux moral outrage over the Democratic response is pretty lame.

    1. So,,,,raising taxes on poor people (old folks, minorities students, working poor) is Newman’s job? That’s the pure arrogance – screwing your own (alleged) constituents, however, not at all uncommon in the limousine liberal mindset. The smoke is rising from the toaster, brother.

      The repeal of the gas tax is the end game – not the immediate goal of the recall – which is to send the message that somebody else will be next.

      Good to see the Dems have no moral high ground, though, if the best argument you can come up with for cheating is that the Republicans are b-a-a-a-a-a-d people.

  4. Jerry Brown was in Brea last week. He stopped by a fundraiser at Griffen Construction for Josh.

    He fucking cleaned up. $$$$$$$$$.

    Trouble is only a handful of atendees can actually vote in the recall. Which supports my theroy: it’s all about other peoples money!

    1. I’m very curious to see what sort of campaign the anti-recallers roll out: “Recalling Newman Won’t Get Rid of The Gas Tax, You’re Stuck With That, Suckers”

      That’s sure to go over well.

    1. “The GOP targeted the freshman senator ostensibly because he voted for the package of taxes and fees to fund transportation projects. What’s really at stake is the Democrats’ supermajority in the California Senate. ”

      Same difference.

  5. Today’s capitol news alert from “The Sacramento Bee” exposes how newly appointed Fair [as in Fairly Fraudulent?] Political Practices Commission member Brian Hatch secretly conspired with the attorney lobbying against the FPPC’s fundraising reform rules. Their collusion typifies the unseemly politics inspired by Senator Newman and his “maul the recall” schemes of corrupting one respected government standard after another — a deliberate gaming of democracy for Newman’s personal, partisan gain.

    Neither Newman nor Hatch can defend their unscrupulous choices with logic, so both try to bait public sympathy with fool’s fancy. For Newman it’s the spin that his inner sense of conscience (rather than any discernible show of much-needed intelligence) guided him to impose additional taxes so the same under-performing, mismanaged transportation system could continue to run amok. For Hatch it’s an equally dizzying contention that he’s also above fault, only in his case it’s not a matter of conscience but a lack of conscious thought. Hatch supposedly knew not who he texted, somehow completely unaware of the fact that he was engaged in strategic ex-parts communications with the very attorney who opposed the FPPC’s consistently impartial legal counsel.

    Newman and Hatch sully the principles of public service. The audacity of their missteps are matched only by the absurdity of their excuses.

    1. “Not only is it dishonest to collect money from donors who want to support one candidate and transfer it wholesale to another, it also opens a door to political money laundering. The rules have been in place for more than a decade. Changing them now to serve one party’s purposes would irreparably damage the commission’s credibility as the public’s political watchdog.”

      If you agree with the Los Angeles Times’ editorial board, then please take a moment to respectfully voice your concerns to the FPPC in writing via…
      1. Email:
      — AND/OR —
      2. Snail Mail:
      Fair Political Practices Commission
      ATTN: Comments on Aug. 17th meeting item No. 28
      1102 Q Street, Suite 3000
      Sacramento, CA 95811

      Messages must satisfy the following requirements:
      1. Detail the relevant meeting date for your comments = August 17, 2017
      2. Cite the specific agenda number you’re referencing = General Item 28*
      3. Deliver by the acceptance deadline for review = before noon Aug. 16th

      *Summary note on General Item 28 reads:
      “In re Rios Opinion Request. Staff: General Counsel Jack Woodside and Commission Counsel Ryan O’Conner. After the Commission voted to grant Mr. Rios’s request for an opinion at the July meeting, the Commission will now consider whether to adopt a draft opinion concluding that contribution limits do not apply when state candidates make contributions to a recall committee controlled by another state candidate.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *