Cancer has done what our justice system failed to do.

I have no way of knowing this side of eternity whether or not she truly was remorseful, repented, and begged God for mercy. Either way, she knows now more than ever before the evil of her actions.

Previously: Dying Charlie Manson Follower Not Released

It's official. The effort to put state marriage licensing back on the California ballot, this time or November 2010, has paperwork. Looks like we're facing 13 months of intense appeals to emotion, mocking of our convictions, and attacks on marriage as marriage neutering advocates try to get us to repeal the very California Marriage Amendment we voted into place in November 2008. My analysis of the the LATimes.com blog entry and some of the comments is over at The Opine Editorials.

Sorry I haven't blogged more today. Been busy with other stuff.

I pray we're not heading further down a slippery slope with the claims of actress Mackenzie Phillips that, as an adult, she carried on a decade-long consensual affair with her own father. (A child was slaughtered as a result, most likely to hide their actions.) It should be noted that her father isn't around to defend himself - and given his drug abuse, how could he really be sure what happened back then anyway - and that Phillips is promoting a book. Her sister Chynna backs up the claim by saying Mackenzie told her about long before a book was in the works. My analysis of the larger issues and public reaction is over at The Opine Editorials, if you can stomach more of this topic.

More research confirms what we already know from other research and experience. Deborah Bonello reports from Mexico City in this LATimes.com blog posting.

Most Mexicans think their lives would be better in the United States, and one in three said they'd move to the U.S. if they could, according to the latest findings on Mexican attitudes from the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

Shamnesty would only encourage more of them to come here illegally, as amnesty in the mid-80s encouraged 20 million illegal aliens to flood into the nation.

Half of those who said they'd migrate north of the border said they would do so without permission, although recent data on immigration suggests that the flow of Mexicans north is slowing.

Slowing. That means the rate of the increase in the influx is slowing down – and that means we're still getting more.

They’re right, of course - life is better here. They ones who don't know that simply don't know enough. Or maybe they have outstanding warrants here.

In news that is not unrelated, the Los Angeles City Council has voted to place limits on how many roosters households can have.

California regulations are costing 493,000,000,000 dollars and 3,800,000 jobs, according to this interesting entry from Jan Norman that I found on her Orange County Register blog.

That’s an average of $134,122 per California business, $13,801 per household and $4,685 per resident each year.

Scary.

The study parallels a 2005 federal report on business regulations commissioned by the Office of Advocacy within the U.S. Small Business Administration.That report concluded that federal regulations cost $7,647 per employee for businesses with fewer than 20 employees.

This state report is based on data used by Forbes magazine’s annual ranking of state for business friendliness. It does not single out specific regulations that drive up costs.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who have counters to this. But if you've ever tried to start or move a business to California - especially one that employs others, you'll be able to decide for yourself.

Among the California conclusions:

The total cost ($493 billion) is almost 5 times the state’s general fund budget and a third of the state’s gross product.

The 3.8 million jobs lost equals 1/10th of California’s population. California has about 14 million jobs, down 1 million from the peak in July 2007.

The total cost breakdown is $266.5 billion in direct costs of various regulations, $210.5 billion lost labor income and $16 billion in business taxes the state would get without the regulations

Beautiful.

One producer of construction aggregates in the state, Vulcan Materials, testified in an Assembly Jobs Committee hearing in June that it 'is not uncommon for the permitting process to involve millions of dollars and in some cases to take as long as 10 years to secure the necessary permits, many of which address duplicative regulatory aspects.'

You can read the entire report here. I don’t know if it takes into account local regulations, too.

Will conservatives in Orange County, California capitulate to the demands of radical marriage neutering activists? A couple of advocates of marriage neutering want us to think so. I analyze their commentary in my latest posting on The Opine Editorials.

I am a limited government conservative, and I believe the state does have an interest in licensing marriage that it does not have with other kinds of voluntary personal associations, such as same-sex domestic pairings. Do I think marriage/family laws are fine the way they are? Heck no. But neutering state marriage licensing will only make things worse.

I will stay out of your bedroom. Stay out of my voting booth.

We have an update on the case against community organizer Nativo "Larry" Lopez. Latest word from Salvador Hernandez in the Orange County Register is that a settlement agreement couldn’t be reached. He's facing four felony charges of voter fraud.

Lopez, who is national president of Mexican American Political Association and national director of Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana, said the charges against him were groundless and he and his attorney planned to fight the allegations.

Of course they are groundless.

Lopez has faced voter trouble in the past, including in 1996 for allegedly registering new citizens in the congressional district where Democrat Loretta Sanchez upset incumbent Bob Dornan.

A congressional investigation found some voters had cast ballots before their citizenship was finalized. The Orange County District Attorney’s office investigated the allegations, but no charges were filed.

Poor persecuted Larry.

Previously:

Community Organizer Larry Lopez May Settle

Larry Lopez Facing Felony Charges

Straight From the Burro's Mouth

Guess what? Some "religious leaders" want the law written to guarantee that your taxes will pay for the health "insurance" of illegal aliens. They recently had a press conference in Los Angeles calling for this, as reported by Teresa Watanabe in the Los Angeles Times. I won’t hold my breath waiting for those fixated on strict and total "separation of church and state" from denouncing this religious meddling in the legislative process.

Calling access to healthcare a moral and spiritual imperative, Los Angeles religious leaders and their flocks are urging congressional leaders to include illegal [aliens] in any healthcare reform plan.

I can’t speak for other religions, but any religion that follows/reveres Jesus should note that Jesus commanded the church (His followers) to care for the needy, not government. So these "leaders" as calling on government to act like a church and do their job for them. How about conducting a press conference by elected officials calling on religious groups to care for the needy?

The Roman Catholic Church, the nation's largest religious denomination, with 67 million members, considers healthcare a basic human right, a position articulated in a 1963 papal encyclical by Pope John XXIII. As a result, the church believes that illegal immigrants should be included in any health reform plan, according to Kathy Saile, director of domestic social development with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

"If healthcare is a basic right, you can't start cutting people out," she said.

Yeah, well, it isn't a basic human right. Nothing that requires someone else to do something, unless a crime has been committed, is a basic human right. My right to free speech does not compel you to listen to me, or give me a billboard. And notice the subtle shift from "insurance" to "care". Illegal aliens already get health care.

But some religious conservatives disagree. Richard Land, who heads the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the 16-million-member Southern Baptist Convention, said that biblical exhortations to care for the poor apply to people of faith, not to governments, and should inspire private charitable efforts but not taxpayer-funded plans for illegal [aliens].

"It's noble and commendable to be charitable with your own money, but it's something different to be charitable with other people's money," he said.

Exactly.

For Josephina Dedoy, a 58-year-old Mexico native and legal U.S. resident, the debate is intensely personal. She and her husband, a naturalized U.S. citizen, have a daughter who has epilepsy and is undocumented, having been born in Mexico before her parents earned legal status.

Say, isn’t Mexico a Catholic nation? What about Mexico taking care of this?

Church membership (and financially contributing to the church) is voluntary in this country. Taxes are not. It is immoral to force care of illegal aliens on other people.

You can find comments on a related blog posting at LATimes.com.

As you may have noticed... although I never really went away, like a bad infection I'm back. That means I intend to post regularly four days a week and occasionally the other three days of the week. Tell your friends, tell your enemies - send them all my way.

I have resumed posting on The Opine Editorials as well.

In one entry, I analyze an article covering the push for Harvey Milk Day.

I also have a question for Ben & Jerry.

Caren Bohan reports in this Reuters piece that Obama is criticizing banks for being against further government involvement in financing higher education.

President Barack Obama criticized the largest U.S. banks on Monday for trying to thwart legislation that would overhaul federal student loan programs.

Of course businesses are going to seek to protect their interests. This is part of a larger problem. The more power the central government has, the easier it will be for the elite to manipulate the system to their advantage. This is why we need limited government with separation of powers.

He singled out in particular banks that have received bailout money from the federal government, saying they want to maintain the status quo on student loans because they get an "unwarranted subsidy" from it.

So what if that is true? Welfare-dependent crackhead Democrat voters do the same thing.

The U.S. House of Representatives last week approved legislation that would cut major banks and student loan giant Sallie Mae out of a large slice of the $92 billion university student loan business, shifting most lending into a program run by the U.S. Education Department.

Where is the Constitutional justification for the federal government being involved in any of this?

"The large banks -- many who have benefited from taxpayer bailouts during the financial crisis -- are lobbying to keep this easy money flowing."

He says that like it was wrong for the banks to take the bailout money, but that's not what he seems to believe, if the rest of his actions are taken into account.

Many U.S. students take on crushing debt loads to pay university bills that can total $50,000 a year or more at the country's private universities.

Why? We are paying so much for public universities and community colleges. Why should we make it easier for private universities to increase tuition rates? Maybe if the federal government wasn’t providing loans and outright grants, the universities would have to keep tuition rates lower or risk not getting enough students. I just don't see the justification for any kind of federal involvement in higher education, except when it comes to military academies and scholarships for military veterans.

The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times is again calling for the rewriting of California's constitution.

People who call for this do so for one or both of the following reasons:

1) In November 2008, California voters adopted the California Marriage Amendment.
2) In May 2009, California voters overwhelmingly defeated a deceptive ballot measure that would have extended tax increases.

That's it. Because we believe we are taxed enough already, and because we believe it is our place to change marriage licensing and not a court's, the Leftists in the state want to scrap the rules of the game. It's not enough for them to control the legislature, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. They want to punish us for not voting their way on ballot measures.

It's not always easy to identify the tentacles that are strangling California and keeping it from fulfilling its promise for 38 million residents. Who wrecked our public school system, which was once the envy of the world? Who ruined the nation's premier network of highways, the most ambitious and reliable water delivery system, the best state parks? Who killed the spirit of opportunity and innovation that once made California the headquarters for banks and oil companies, for makers of surfboards and electric guitars, for computers and communications?

Environmentalist whackos, illegal aliens, and government employee unions – that would be a good place to start.

Well over two-thirds of registered voters said recently that they would vote yes on two key ballot measures to pave the way for a constitutional convention to wrest back control of the state for Californians.

I highly doubt that the poll indicated that such a convention would likely doom Prop 13. Include that, and what it would mean, and watch the number plummet. That two thirds of Californians don't think the state government is working well right now doesn't mean they all way to go in the same Leftward direction.

One tentacle belongs to public employee unions.

When even these people admit this, then you know it isn't some extremist right-wing strawman.

They have the influence to select Democratic Party primary candidates in urban areas, and the money and foot soldiers to ensure their election. Then, at contract time, those unions sit across the table from officials they put in office -- officials who realize they are bargaining with people who have the power to end their careers.

It isn’t just contract time. It is during much of the legislative process. If the California Teachers Association wants a Harvey Milk Day, to celebrate someone because he was attracted to men and was murdered in a personnel dispute, then by golly they will get one.

Another tentacle belongs to big business.

They couldn't take Big Labor to task without also going after business. But here's the difference. People choose whether or not to purchase from, invest in, or work for a business. Most people in a union in California had much less choice about joining that union, and whether or not their dues go to support Leftist campaigns.

We need to split the state. That will have more positives in outcomes than a new state constitution. As I've written before, I don't care if one or more new states are created, or if parts of California get annexed by other states – but it is ridiculous to subject the rest of us to the whims of the crazies in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Without the split, I smell a rat.

Here's a story by the Orange County Register's Jon Cassidy that I couldn't let slip by.

A man arrested and charged with murdering a prostitute at a Garden Grove hotel is a gang member who has been deported to Mexico three times in the last decade, Garden Grove police said at a press conference this morning.

Cesar Gomez, 34, of El Monte, is scheduled to be arraigned on a murder charge Monday at West Justice Center.

He is accused of strangling Ashley Lilly, 24, of Inglewood, to death at the Crowne Plaza Anaheim Resort on Harbor Boulevard some time late Aug. 20 or early Aug. 21.

I'm no supporter of prostitution (financially or morally), but that someone is a prostitute does not make her any less of a human being, and does not justify her murder. Of course, she made the chances of a crime like this against her more likely when she chose to engage in her own criminal activity.

Lilly had been severely beaten in the face and choked by hand, and her room had been ransacked, police said. She had not been sexually assaulted, police said.

What a waste of human potential this murderer is.

After getting some of his rap sheet, we get this quote:

"We arrest these criminals, the DA does a good job prosecuting them, but beyond that our system is overwhelmed and broken," Polisar said. "Our borders are like revolving doors for these criminals. It's like sweeping back the ocean with a whisk broom."

We should bill Mexico for every dime we spend on this guy. Si se puede.

Almost a week ago, the Los Angeles Times ran letters reacting to Obama's special plea for expanding government under the guise of reforming health insurance. I wanted to look at a few of them.

Rachel Bruhnke of San Pedro wrote:

Regarding your editorial, what I would like to see Obama propose in the debate on how to pay for healthcare is a transfer of money from U.S. warfare to U.S. healthcare.

Awww, isn't that sweet? Here's the problem. Unless it is amended, the Constitution instructs the federal government to engage in national defense, but does not permit it to get involved in health "insurance".

Larry Rennacker of Santa Barbara wrote:

I am having trouble connecting the dots. You have folks who support the right of the state to kill people (death penalty) but are up in arms, literally (according a recent Times article about ammo purchases), when it comes to that same state providing healthcare to its citizens?

Yes, Mr. Rennacker, some people support executing duly convicted murderers but not forcible redistribution of wealth under the guise of health "insurance". People can already get health care by going to the emergency room. Prosecuting criminal cases and carrying our sentences is a basic function of government. Obama isn't talking about a state program – he's talking about federal programs. There is a difference.

Arthur Saginian of Saugus wrote:

The most realistic approach to reforming our current healthcare system would be to attack its biggest problem: cost. Find its components and tear them down. In the meantime, we can simply make it illegal to deny or cancel coverage.

Socialism? Perhaps. But how else can you combat abusive capitalism?

"Abusive capitalism" takes place when there is a monopoly or some sort of fraud. It isn't fraudulent to say, "We don't want to insure you." It is fraudulent to promise services under certain conditions, then take the money and not provide the services even though the conditions were met. So, socialism is not needed. Fraud detection and prosecution is needed.

Kevin McKiernan of Santa Barbara wrote:

The president finally said the words he needed to say: Healthcare for all is a moral issue. It kind of makes you proud to be an American.

So, just to be clear Kevin, it is perfectly okay for force one's morality on other people via the law, correct?

What is moral about forcing someone to pay for services rendered to a stranger?

Here's an article from a few weeks back when I got pulled away from spending much time on this blog. Paul Pringle reported in the Los Angeles Times.

The former president of the union that represents Los Angeles County government workers has agreed to plead guilty to federal fraud and tax charges in connection with an alleged scheme to collect illicit consulting payments from a labor-related nonprofit, officials said Thursday.

Alejandro Stephens, a longtime leader of the Service Employees International Union local, signed an agreement to plead guilty to one count of filing a false income tax return and two counts of mail fraud, the U.S. attorney's office said.

This guy was supposedly leading government employee unions. It is especially troubling when there is corruption there.

Stephens lost his union presidency in 2007 when his SEIU chapter, Local 660, merged with several others.

The county later fired him from his job, alleging he had refused to return to work after a lengthy leave.

Do you know where your union dues are? Kudos to the Los Angeles Times for covering this, and the authorities who go after corruption.

Some of my Leftist friends are circulating videos of 9-12 protesters who say strange things or aren't well spoken, or have misspelled signs. The thing is, they pass around these videos as if there are no Leftist protesters like this. Any ANY large protest, you are going to find people who don't speak well, or who have odd ideas, or can't spell. How many protesters at the the party conventions last year (presumably Leftist, given their association) couldn't even tell you WHY they were protesting? This is human nature, people.