We now know the names of the three judges who will be handling the federal trial over the California constitution next Monday. See my entry at The Opine Editorials.

I'm more interested in their views on separation of powers, federalism, and whether men and women are different (and if this is demonstrated in their personal lives). Men and women are treated differently by the federal government, after all.

Times have been better. But let's not forget that things could be much, much worse here in the U.S.A. Let's pray we don't find out just how bad things can get.

I'm thankful for knowing my Lord and Savior. I'm thankful for my family. I'm thankful to be an American. Those are three blessings that overflow my life.

The modern American Thanksgiving meal is a overly bountiful one, a testament to how capitalism has produced plenty. From the farmer to the importer to the grocer, participants in the market have allowed us to splurge.

I bid you a pleasant and reflective Thanksgiving Day. 

As if California didn't enough unaccountable boards to come up with new ways to intrude into the lives of citizens, Margot Roosevelt reports in the Los Angeles Times that a "task force" – the California Adaptation Advisory Panel, a group convened by the Los Angeles-based Pacific Council on International Policy – is calling for the creation of a "climate change panel" to "focus statewide attention on adapting to the effects of global warming."

Why not also create an Easter Bunny Monitoring Agency?

They want this new bureaucracy to do…

stepped-up data-gathering, monitoring and coordination among state agencies and in the private sector to prepare for a steep sea level rise, diminishing water supplies and the spread of wildfire, as studies have predicted.

Translation: we’re going to get more regulation and taxation of our business and personal lives.

The 70-page document, largely financed with a grant from the oil company BP, steers clear of controversial proposals, such as mandating higher insurance rates for coastal building, strict water conservation for agriculture or a moratorium on development in fire-prone communities.

Financed by BP? Wait, didn’t this most recent election tell us that we can't believe anything that is backed by an out-of-state oil company?

The report highlights projections of as much as 55 inches of sea-level rise along California's coast by 2100, and suggests that developers should stop assuming a "static environment."

And what if this prediction turns out to be false? The people who made the claim will be long gone and not held accountable. How about predicting where the water level will be in ten years, and if you're wrong, how about some sort of restitution?

Meanwhile, City of Los Angeles Tony Villar signed a climate-change pact in Mexico City. How about a border control pact?

The so-called Mexico City Pact is a precursor to climate-change talks with world governments opening next week in the Mexican resort city of Cancun.

How much is this costing everyone? How large of a carbon footprint is being made by this summit?

The emperor has no clothes. The jig is up. Knock it off with all of this "we're going to stop global warming" stuff. Find a new way to try to tax and regulate us, and a new excuse for your trips.

There is no doubt that California's population centers, the counties of San Francisco and Los Angeles, are heavily influenced by the Left in general, and that includes marriage neutering advocates. But a new Los Angeles Times/USC poll has some flaws - or at least the way the paper is reporting about its own poll is misleading.

See my analysis over at The Opine Editorials.

One more reason for an exodus of productive American citizens who believe in limited government...

Strikingly, almost one in five California voters said they would never cast a ballot for a Republican.

There are hundreds of comments after the story, some hitting the nail on the head. Go scan them.

C-SPAN is going to be televising the hearing on the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8. Read what I have to say over at The Opine Editorials.

Lame-duck failed RINO California Governor Schwarzenegger, desperate for a some sort of legacy given his inability to change things in the state capitol, and no doubt trying to please friends in the Hollywood circles to which he hope to return, is on a global warming kick. He’s used to pretending to fight imaginary problems, isn’t he? Margot Roosevelt has the Los Angeles Times story.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday launched an international organization to tackle climate change with leaders from regional governments in Europe, South America, Africa, Asia and the United States.

The failure to achieve an international climate pact in Copenhagen last year left many people discouraged, Schwarzenegger said, addressing several hundred delegates to a "climate summit" at UC Davis. But now, he added, "The sub-nationals should do their work.... The green revolution is moving forward full speed ahead without the international agreement."

Funny, if he tried a similar approach to illegal immigration, I'm sure it would be blocked because it is a federal issue. Environmental treaties aren't?

Despite Schwarzenegger's cheerleading, the signing ceremony for the Regions of Climate Action group, known as the R-20, had a lame-duck quality. Only one other U.S. governor, outgoing Democrat Jim Doyle of Wisconsin, was present for the signing in the half-empty auditorium; no provincial leader from China, Earth's largest carbon-emitter, agreed to join the effort.

Schwarzenegger officials had predicted that about 100 government leaders would sign the pact to cooperate on climate change; but in the 11 months since the governor first announced the initiative, only about 25 states and provinces have agreed to be part of the group. Besides Doyle, the group includes the governors of Michigan, Oregon and Washington.

Sad.

In an effort to highlight specific progress, Schwarzenegger also signed a "memorandum of agreement" with the governors of the Mexican state of Chiapas and the Brazilian state of Acre to develop a framework that would allow those states to sell forest carbon offsets in California's upcoming cap-and-trade market.

California's draft cap-and-trade regulations allow companies that are required to cut pollution to meet up to 8% of their emissions reduction obligations through offsets, which may eventually include tropical forests in other nations.

What a sham of a mockery of a scam. Which reminds me… I've written before about the demonization of the very useful plastic bag in California. Well, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 for a plastic bag ban in the unincorporated areas of the county. Rong-Gong Lin II has the Los Angeles Times version of the news.

The ban, which goes beyond ordinances adopted in Malibu and San Francisco, most directly affects 1.1 million people who live outside the county's incorporated cities. But anyone shopping at stores in such areas would encounter the new rules.

Outdoing San Francisco? Yikes.

By January 2012, the ban will cover 1,000 stores throughout the county. The ordinance also seeks to keep shoppers from turning to paper bags as an alternative by requiring stores to levy a 10-cent surcharge per paper bag.

What could go wrong?

The 3-1 vote was partisan, with the three Democrats - Yaroslavsky, Gloria Molina and Mark Ridley-Thomas - supporting it. It was opposed by Republican Michael D. Antonovich; Don Knabe, also a Republican, was absent.

Antonovich expressed concern that small, mom-and-pop shops will be at disadvantage financially, in part because they won't have access to volume discounts for paper and reusable bags. He also worried that low-income people would be forced to buy bags to pick up pet waste or carry their lunch.

"At a time of economic uncertainty, with a large number of businesses leaving our state and community, this would not be an appropriate time ... to impose this additional regulation," Antonovich said.

It is too bad that the others don’t have the perspective of Antonovich.

I agree that courts should choose the Constitution over a lesser law, even if that law was voted in directly by the people. However, I haven't seen the reason why the California state constitutional amendment voted in as Proposition 8 was found to be in violation of our national Constitution by a federal court. It is Constitutional, moral, practical, and necessary to treat different behaviors and different kinds of associations differently. That is what Prop 8 does.

The 9th Circuit has set a date to hear some arguments about an appeal. Supporters of the amendment will first argue that they have standing to appeal in the first place.

You probably know Leftists and a lot of centrists and even some Republicans or professing conservatives who act like your views are strange and don't make sense. I know I do. I strive for consistency in my political philosophy and to deal with reality, not things as I wish they were. I am developing a personal declaration to give to people I know who question the basis for my views. If you do the same, feel free to lift text from what I have so far. I think it is also a good idea to include some introduction, such as...

Since you ASKED me...

First and foremost, I usually do not let political differences come between me and my friends or associations. I am open to respectful discussions. Hopefully, you are like me in that regard. If you can't tolerate someone having different political views, approaches, or affiliations than you and still be a friend, coworker, or whatever, then please don't read any further.

And with that, here is what I have so far...

I believe...

• The best system of government possible in today’s world is one described in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence - a sovereign democratic representative republic uniting individual states in a system of limited government comprised of three branches that have a separation of powers with checks and balances over each other; a union of laws, not of men.
• The Constitution, as amended, tells the federal government what it can do rather than listing all of the things it can’t do; absent a Constitutional mandate, the federal government should not act.
• Courts, including the Supreme Court, should be directed by law. When a law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution overrides the law.
• Rights are something with which we are born, not granted by government. These rights do not obligate others without their consent unless a crime has been committed. The government exists to protect rights from being trampled upon by others (fraud/theft, assault, etc.), but when government isn’t limited, it becomes an entity that violates rights.
• Each human being has these rights, has inherent worth, and has something to offer other human beings.
• As much as possible, government should treat people equally, including treating people who do the same things in the same way. Not everyone will exercise their rights in the same way, to the same result; it isn’t the function of government to correct this.
• Whenever possible and rights are not violated, voluntary use of personal property/resources, expressions, efforts, and transactions should be allowed without any government restriction. It is these things, including private charity, that will meet the needs and desires of the most people in the most efficient way possible. This also rewards and encourages innovation, ambition, calculated risk, and merit. Whenever this is not possible, limited local government involvement, such as county, city, or special district, is preferable to state involvement; in turn, limited state involvement is preferable to federal involvement.
• It is immoral and counterproductive for the government to take money by force from one person or group of people and give it another unless the recipient is performing a Constitutionally assigned function or the function is otherwise a Constitutional mandate.
• It is unkind in immoral to encourage individuals to be financially dependent on government.
• It is preferable that laws and government procedures be changed through the legislative process, including amending the Constitution, rather than through a court decision.
• As individuals, we have a moral obligation to: 1) Be good stewards of what we own/have.[1] 2) Engage in prudent charity.[1] 3) Respect the rights of others.[2]
• The default state of the world is selfishness, despotism, nepotism, and corruption, resulting in poverty, war, crime, oppression, and double standards. The USA only avoids or minimizes these things by vigilant adherence to our principles, though there will still be problems. Societal perfection is not possible through mere enlightenment or technological advancement.
  

I do NOT:

• Forget nor minimize the accomplishments and contributions of government employees, even in instances where I maintain that private efforts could have achieved the same or better results.
• Dislike anyone, nor presume to know anything about them based on their sex, age, disability, race, skin color, ethnicity, national origin, language, socioeconomic status, creed, religion, sexual orientation, citizenship status, marital status, parental status , or weight – except for the inherently obvious (example: I know someone who was born in Egypt was born in Egypt). I think people who dismiss or attack or exclude anyone based on these criteria, aside from the practical[3] are being evil.[4]
• Deny that the rich will have more for themselves and more influence, but that will be true in any system; free markets, which are only possible under limited government, are the best system for allowing the most people to improve their own economic status. There are many examples of minorities who have come to our country with nothing and have obtained a middle class or wealthy lifestyle, or have provided a foundation for their children to do so. Many of today’s poor will not be poor in the future, especially if they avoid crime, substance abuse, and raising children out of wedlock. The more we centralize power in the federal government, the easier it will be for the rich to manipulate the system to their advantage at the expense of others.[5]
  

Where do we disagree?

Notes:

[1]We may form partnerships or groups to accomplish these things, but, we should not FORCE others to participate or do what we think is best.

[2]In some cases, when people do not abide by this third obligation (usually by theft or assault), it is appropriate for some level of government to be used to deal with the crime.

[3] Examples: If a man claims to be gay, I would not try to set him up with a woman as a date; I would not set up a child on a date with an adult.

[4]I do recognize that there are real differences between men and women and that they are not entirely interchangeable. As such, the pairing of a man and woman is inherently different than the pairing of two men or two women. But to the fullest extent possible in a sensible context, government should treat men and women equally.

[5] Example: If you think a CEO of a company is getting too much pay relative to his employees, you and others who agree with you are free to do any number of things to encourage the CEO to change this, including but not limited to: 1) appealing to the CEO; 2) appealing to the company’s investors and business partners; 3) engaging in a media campaign; 4) refusing to buy the company’s products or services; 5) starting a competing company; 6) rejecting job offers from the company, etc.

HOWEVER, if the federal government goes beyond Constitutional direction, it may subsidize the company with taxpayer money, or pass laws that discourage competition for that company, and you have a lot less control over this because, provided you are a voter, you are just one of many (perhaps millions of) voters who elects two out of fifty senators to six year terms, you are just one of thousands of voters who chooses one of the 435 Representatives in the House of Representatives for a two year term, and you are just one of many (perhaps millions) of people who vote to tell your state (one of fifty) representatives which Presidential candidate to elect for a four year term.

The California Supreme Court says that our laws require illegal aliens to get in-state (lower) tuition rates for state schools, while a legal immigrant or naturalized citizen who has lived in Arizona since age 1 does not. Maura Dolan reports at this LATimes.com blog.

The California Supreme Court decided unanimously Monday that illegal [aliens] may continue to be eligible for in-state tuition rates at the state's colleges and universities rather than pay the higher rates charged to those who live out of state.

Yet another reason we need separation of state and school.

In a ruling written by Justice Ming W. Chin, one of the panel's more conservative members, the state high court said a California law that guarantees the lower tuition for students who attend California high schools for at least three years and graduate does not conflict with a federal prohibition on giving illegal [aliens] educational benefits based on residency.

Let's change that law. Privatize the schools. Let private institutions, nonprofits, businesses or anyone else who is interested take them over, or shut them down and sell the property.

Meanwhile, Larry Gordon reports in the Los Angeles Times print edition that University of California recruitment is going after out-of-state students, who pay more. How does that look to someone who has paid their taxes in California for twenty years and their kids are trying to get into a UC campus?

Community organizer and illegal alien advocate (as long as they are Mexican) Larry Lopez's mental health is a question in his criminal court ordeal over eight felony counts of voter fraud. Martin Wisckol at the Orange County Register has the story.

“The case has been delayed because Lopez was uncooperative with the previous psychiatrist,” said L.A. County DA’s spokewoman Jane Robison. “He was referred to another psychiatrist.”

It’s been a long, winding road to trial for Lopez, and when a trial or settlement will ever come about is anybody’s guess. A month after he was charged in June 2009, his lawyer, Edward R. Munoz, told me a settlement was possible.

At a February hearing, he fired Munoz and repeatedly told the court he was not the defendant – and was ordered to have a mental competency hearing.

He was eventually found competent to stand trial, but not before being jailed for four days after failing to identify himself to the court.

I pray that if he is mentally ill rather than just being a jerk, he gets the help he needs.

The admitted deficit in the state budget so far is up to $25,400,000,000. Oh, but it is all going to be taken care of now that the Democrats will officially have the Governor spot back, in addition to their permanent dominance of the state legislature, now that a simple majority can pass another bogus "budget".

Thank you for all that you have done and continue to do.
 

The Los Angeles Times printed a couple of letters today in response to a piece on the coming fight over Obamacare. Kim Iannone of West Hills was unoriginal in writing:

I have an easy solution for opponents of President Obama's healthcare law.

The law prohibits insurers from denying coverage to those with preexisting conditions. Easy solution: Let the insurance companies reject Republicans with preexisting conditions.

The law prohibits insurance companies from canceling policies when people develop diseases and disabilities covered by those policies. Easy solution: Let the insurance companies cancel the policies of Republicans who develop diseases and disabilities covered by those policies.

It's easy: Let the Republicans live as the heroic, rugged individuals that they are without the protection of insurance.

That would be great, Ms. Iannone, as long as Constitutionalists (not all Republicans are Constitutionalists, nor are all Constitutionalists Republicans, by the way) could opt out of paying for Obamacare and was free of all unconstitutional restrictions on offering or receiving health care or health insurance. Constitutionalists are not all rugged individualists. We note that the federal government is constitutionally limited, and we recognize that there is no authorization given in the Constitution for the Obamacare intrusion into health care and health insurance. Amend the Constitution if you think it is such a good idea. We also recognize the role and value of state and local governments and voluntary associations such a marriage, businesses, nonprofits, religious congregations, etc.

Let free markets and voluntary charity work. THAT would be reform.

Previously: My National Health Care Plan

Civil partnerships are once again being used as a Trojan Horse to try to neuter marriage, this time in Britain.

I want to see the British courts recognize that a pairing inclusive of the diversity of both sexes is different than a pairing that excludes one of the sexes, and thus laws making a distinction are just.

My analysis is over at The Opine Editorials.