A source provided me with the following information about Steve Poizner's record although the information is available at the links provided. I am not sure what to make of candidates who run on the Republican ticket who have supported Democrats so willingly.

 

************

If you liked Arnold, you’ll LOVE Steve Poizner - RINO Redux.  
 
We know about Poizner's significant political contributions to Democrats, and to the Gore/Lieberman Presidential Recount effort to overturn Republican President Bush’s victory there (see following page), but what we did not know was what good company he was in. 

 

Jane Fonda made a $100,000 contribution to the effort to complement Poizner’s $10,000 contribution (he wrote check for his wife!?) and the hundreds of Democrats that did the same that year.  Other contributors to the same committee of note: John Corzine ($25,000),  Congresswoman Barbara Lee ($10,000,)  Steven Bing ($200,000) and the list goes on.
 
According to available documents, Poizner supported the Gore recount financially before ever giving to any Republican candidate.  Did he even vote for President Bush?  He hasn’t said.
 
 
Recipient Committee      Date            Amount         Contributor

 

KERRY COMMITTEE   2/15/2001    $1,000.00 Carol Poizner
KERRY COMMITTEE   2/15/2001     $1,000.00 Carol Poizner
Korbach for Congress   8/1/2003       $2,000.00 Carol Poizner
John McCain                  6/30/2008      $2,300.00 Carol Poizner
John McCain                  6/30/2008      $2,300.00 Carol Poizner
Republican National Committee   6/30/2008    $28,500.00 Carol Poizner
Al Gore                           2/22/2000       $1,000.00 Stephen Poizner
Democratic National Committee   10/2/2000    $10,000.00 Stephen Poizner
Gore Leiberman Recount Committee   11/27/2000*    $10,000.00 Stephen Poizner
KERRY COMMITTEE   2/15/2001       $1,000.00 Stephen Poizner
KERRY COMMITTEE   2/15/2001        $1,000.00 Stephen Poizner
Bush Cheney Primary   6/30/2003       $2,000.00 Stephen Poizner
Korbach for Congress   7/31/2003      $2,000.00 Stephen Poizner
The Wish List                 4/8/2004          $1,000.00 Stephen Poizner
Ca Republican Party V8   6/7/2005       $9,952.00 Stephen Poizner
Santa Clara County  REP (Fed)   2/3/2006    $1,000.00 Stephen Poizner
Republican National Committee   12/28/2007       $25,000.00 Stephen Poizner
John McCain                  4/2/2008          $2,300.00 Stephen Poizner
CA GOP 2008 Delegation   4/10/2008      $900.00 Stephen Poizner
John McCain                  6/30/2008          $2,300.00 Stephen Poizner
Republican National Committee   6/30/2008    $28,500.00 Stephen Poizner

 
 Sources: opensecrets.orghttp://www.opensecrets.org
FEC Elections Database   http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/disclosure_data_search.shtml 
IRS Political Organization Disclosure (Recount) http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSearch/search/generatePDF.action
?formId='912084026-8872-0001'&formType=P72

 
 
 Link to (IRS form 990s and pdf files of form 8872 noting as pulled from the IRS website are included in the Appendices. Poizner’s contribution is found on Schedule A page 101 of 140 of the form 8872 for the period October 18, 2000 through November 27, 2000)
 http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSearch/search/gotoSearchDrillDown.action?pacId='476'&criteriaName='GORE%2FLIEBERMAN+RECOUNT+COMMITTEE'     

 

 

as for written opinion, here are two columns - one from Real Clear Politics, the other from SF Gate:

 

 

By Debra Saunders

Former eBay chief Meg Whitman is preparing to run for governor in 2010. Considering that California is so broke that next month it may have to issue IOUs instead of checks, I cannot imagine why anyone would want the job. And considering that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger started out as a political outsider who promised to parachute into Sacramento to clean up the mess -- only to allow it to grow messier -- I wonder if voters will be anxious to pick another parachute-in Republican for governor.
Not that the alternatives are all that appetizing. If Whitman may seem too new, some Democrats expected to jump into the race have been running for governor longer than many readers have been voting in California. Attorney General Jerry Brown ran and won the governorship in 1974 and 1978. Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, who has already announced his candidacy, ran and lost in 1982 and 1994. He announced he would run in the recall race, then didn't, but then ran for lieutenant governor, or governor in waiting, in 2006.

Jill Stewart

Friday, June 24, 2005

THINK OF 1958, so distant in the past that the Los Angeles Times ran front-page stories about Alaska finally being voted the 49th state and Russia launching a rocket that nearly reached the moon -- "farther than any object man has sent from the Earth."
Something that didn't make headlines -- because the reality of it wouldn't become clear for years -- was the fact that 1958 was the last time Republicans controlled the Sacramento Legislature, aside from an occasional oddball year or two.
It was the year California went Democrat, and never went back.
I mention 1958 because of the hectoring by California GOP hard-liners, whom pundits call the "circular firing squad" because of their corrosive effect on the party. We'll remain a one-party state as long as the GOP fails to quell its far right, which insures the party's failure here.
As a fiscally conservative Democrat, I want California to return to a two- party system, and thus engage in a true debate over the big ideas. Yet as Republicans gear up for the 2006 statewide elections, they are once again taking actions that guarantee they get nowhere in their uphill battle to regain California.

Take a look at Sacramento's newest online news site:

Local news, commentary, analysis - The Sacramento Citizen

 

It's still being completed, but almost there!
http://www.sacramentocitizen.com/index.cfm

Did you know why the two young journalists were in North Korea? Would you believe ...AL GORE? But the bombastic gasbag Gore has not been in the news much lately... or at all. He is strangely silent, given that his reporters are currently imprisoned by the North Koreans.

 

Arthur Bruzzone of the San Francisco Examiner seems to be the only reporter talking: "Al Gore's online news program There’s been a virtual news blackout at Gore’s TV Current, his on-line TV station has suppressed readers’ comments, refused to report the story about his own reporters.  TV Current even posted a guard to keep the press out, as reported by the SF Weekly."

 

Epicanthus Blog (Asian American News Aggragator) reports that the two Gore reporters may have been careless and that the two Gore TV Current  journalists were led across the border in a state of (truly unacceptable) ignorance, or that they were in the middle of the river, or that they were abducted across the border. But their cameraman has reportedly been back in the states for a while.   http://epicanthus.net/

 

Whatever really happened, Al Gore has not uttered one word about it. Do you think if these were two Fox news babes, Rupert Murdoch would be silent?

 

Read more about it - share your thoughts. When the going gets tough, Gore the gasbag gets silent.

I submitted the following Op/Ed to The Sacramento Bee today... will be surprised if it gets printed.

 

“It’s Just Emotions That’s Taking Me Over”

 

by Katy Grimes

 

When the Bee Gees sang “It’s Just Emotions That’s Taking Me Over” in 1978 from the song “Emotions,” they were singing about love and loss – not law.

 

Sacramento Bee editorial writer Jill Duman doesn’t know the difference. In Duman’s Sac Bee op/ed “Until computers rule courtrooms, human beings will do,” June 8, 2009, she fails miserably to make her case… any case that is. (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1926965.html)

 

In her defense of Sonia Sotomayor’s statement "a wise Latina with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life" (during a speech titled  "A Latina Judge's Voice"), Duman attributes this statement only to the 2001 speech, when in fact Sotomayor’s remark was frequently included in her speeches between 1994 and 2003 (Her speeches were released as part of Sotomayor's responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire).

 

Duman only argues emotion over fact, and of “experience” as a replacement for the rule of law. She makes it widely apparent that she does not respect the rule of law in America and instead prefers when “personal experiences affect the facts judges choose to see.”  And then Duman foolishly says, “But substitute the word "different" for "better,"(in Sotomayor’s speech) and you get to another part of the story…” Duman did not address what Sonia Sotomayor actually said – she’s weakly arguing what she wished Sonia Sotomayor would have said.

 

"Personal experiences," said Sotomayor, "affect the facts that judges choose to see." Duman states, “And is that such a bad thing? She asks:

• Do we lose faith in a judge who has grown up in the same community as her defendants? What does that have to do with the primary function of the Judge as it pertains to impartially upholding the law?
• Is a teacher less credible because she struggled with dyslexia? Not if she learned to overcome it. Who wants a dyslexic teacher?
• Would you want to know your OB-GYN has borne babies of her own? How does that make her a better or worse doctor? Does a plastic surgeon need breasts in order to perform successful breast augmentations?
• Would you feel better or worse knowing that the surgeon operating on your child's heart has children at home?” No, but if he has a heart, I am sure he is a good heart doctor.

 Duman’s weak arguments are purely emotion instead of rational, ignoring the more mature questions one would ask of their doctor or teacher about their training and professional track records.

 

Duman wrote of her experiences interviewing judges as a reporter for a legal periodical: “One judge remembered watching his own father preside over a courthouse, and his dad's willingness to laugh and empathize with the defendants.

Another, remembering her own wacky relatives, compared them to folks willing to represent themselves in court. A third judge spoke of his service year in urban America during the early 1960s and explained how that perspective clarified for him how difficult it might be for someone who is poor and unstable to meet court ordered requirements.

I thought of those judges as I read all the criticism about Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee…”

 

Yet she never once addressed that in America, Judges are expected to impartially uphold the rule of law by applying known principles to the laws, without the intervention of personal discretion in their application.

 

Contrast the following two statements, the first statement made by Judge Miriam Cederbaum, on the Southern district bench, and the second by Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Court of Appeals:

"Judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law."

Sotomayor when questioned whether "achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases," wondered if "by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society."

 

Duman’s contention that “our greatest hope is that those who have power over the rest of us aren't droids but people who bring their very best judgment to work based on what they've been trained to do and their own life experiences” in spite of her experiences “interviewing judges for the written profiles we published each week,” suggests her lack of respect for the primary function judges have in upholding the law. Instead she wants them to impose their “experiences” and personal “opinions,” claiming that as long as we try cases in front of “people” (judges), the final evaluation “will fall to a human,” to “evaluate” the law.

 

Duman, childishly wooed by the political-correctness of a Hispanic female Supreme Court Justice, has done a great disservice by ignoring the fact that judges must strive for impartiality, arriving at decisions guided by a dispassionate analysis of the law, regardless of their ethnicity or gender.

 

 

Katy Grimes

Sacramento

June 9, 2009

see my Op/Ed today in The Washington Examiner

 

Paper, plastic or bacteria for your groceries?

By: Katy Grimes, OpEd Contributor
- | 6/9/09 5:18 AM

 

Since America seems to be following the path to socialism, our way wouldn’t be complete without another contradictory law from the emotional and irrational left.

 

For many years paper grocery bags were used with regularity and preferred by consumers and shopkeepers. Trees are a renewable resource, so there was no guilt assigned to paper bag use. Most people have reused paper bags over the years for many purposes; trash and recyclables, book covers, sturdy wrapping for mailing packages, back-of-the-closet-storage for out-of-season shoes, garden cuttings, and even for fruit and vegetable ripening.

 

When the guilt-inducing tree-huggers invaded the political scene, paper products fell out of political favor and the use of plastic bags was ushered in. In the ensuing years, environmentalists have screamed loudly (again) now that plastic bags are killing aquatic life and filling landfills.

 

As the mother of a son who participated in many years of Boy Scouts, from Tiger Cubs through the rank of Eagle Scout, I got to know the Boy Scout Oath very well, as well as the Motto and Scout Law. We would all do well to remember this, and live by these words everyday. You don't have to be a Scout to be an honorable American citizen. 

Scout Oath (or Promise)

On my honor I will do my best

To do my duty to God and my country

and to obey the Scout Law;

To help other people at all times;

To keep myself physically strong,

mentally awake, and morally straight.

Scout Law

TRUSTWORTHY

A Scout tells the truth. He keeps his promises. Honesty is part of his code of conduct. People can depend on him.

LOYAL

A Scout is true to his family, Scout leaders, friends, school, and nation.

HELPFUL

A Scout is concerned about other people. He does things willingly for others without pay or reward.

FRIENDLY

A Scout is a friend to all. He is a brother to other Scouts. He seeks to understand others. He respects those with ideas and customs other than his own.

COURTEOUS

A Scout is polite to everyone regardless of age or position. He knows good manners make it easier for people to get along together.

KIND

A Scout understands there is strength in being gentle. He treats others as he wants to be treated. He does not hurt or kill harmless things without reason.

OBEDIENT

A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.

CHEERFUL

A Scout looks for the bright side of things. He cheerfully does tasks that come his way. He tries to make others happy.

THRIFTY

A Scout works to pay his way and to help others. He saves for unforeseen needs. He protects and conserves natural resources. He carefully uses time and property.

BRAVE

A Scout can face danger even if he is afraid. He has the courage to stand for what he thinks is right even if others laugh at or threaten him.

CLEAN

A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He goes around with those who believe in living by these same ideals. He helps keep his home and community clean.

REVERENT

A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

Scout Motto

Be Prepared

Scout Slogan

Do a Good Turn Daily

Thomas Sowell wrote at National Review Online today about the new code word for racism: diversity.

 

As the mainstream media circles the wagons around Judge Sonia Sotomayor to protect her from the consequences of her own words and deeds, its main arguments are distractions from the issue at hand. A CNN reporter, for example, got all worked up because Rush Limbaugh had used the word “racist” to describe the judge’s words.

Since it has been repeated like a mantra that Judge Sotomayor’s words have been “taken out of context,” let us look at Rush Limbaugh in context. The cold fact is that Rush Limbaugh has not been nominated to sit on the highest court in the land, with a lifetime appointment, to have the lives and liberties of 300 million Americans in his hands.

Whatever you may think about his choice of words, those words and the ideas behind them do not change the law of the land. The words and actions of Supreme Court justices do. Anyone who doesn’t like what Rush Limbaugh says can simply turn off the radio or change the station. But you cannot escape the consequences of Supreme Court decisions. Nor will your children or grandchildren.

 

read it HERE

 

He's once, twice, three times a Muslim... I'd love to take credit for that little quip, but alas, it is not mine.

 

Toby Harden of the Telegraph UK, writes about Obama's visit to Cairo, and his dubious claim that America is one of the largets Muslim countries in the world.

It is important to note that "if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world".

So says President Barack Obama. Or I should say: Barack Hussein Obama.

That's right: Barack Hussein Obama. Say it proud. Say it out loud. The middle moniker that dared not speak its name during the election campaign is now front and centre of the US president's attempt to woo the Muslim world, the theme of his visits to Riyadh on Wednesday and Cairo on Thursday.

Now, implicitly contrasting himself with the born-again, evangelical Bush who pursued a post-9/11 "crusade" against terrorism, Obama is presenting himself to the Islamic world as the personification of a new, tolerant - and, yes, partly Muslim - America.

 

read Harden's column HERE

 

(hat-tip to Mark Williams for finding this one)

Speaking of the vile media, The Berkeley Daily Planet published this:

 

Last week the Grizzly Peak neighbors of John Yoo received a “Neighborhood Alert” regarding Professor Yoo, in the form of a flyer letting them know he lives among them and providing information about his crimes, namely providing unethical and shoddy legal advice and cover to Bybee, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc. for illegal interrogation methods and the inhumane, degrading treatment of detainees—“unethical” because Yoo advocates breaking the law and “shoddy” because the memos were so ineptly crafted that they were repudiated and rescinded.

 

Zombie writes: These freelance protesters have decided on their own that Professor John Yoo is guilty of a crime and needs to be punished. No longer content to let the courts decide whether he is even to be charged with anything, much less found guilty, much less determine the punishment, the anti-Yoo protesters have decided to stalk him at home, menacing him and making sure that “John Yoo is going to have problems living a normal life now.”

 

Professor Yoo's address was published on a San Francisco website along with instructions about how and what to protest at his Berkeley home.

 

Professor Yoo is being targeted at his private home, for professional reasons, and called a war criminal. The Berkeley Daily Planet explains his "war crimes:" Contrary to Yoo’s frequent public assertions that he was helping to prevent another attack after 9/11, evidence shows that detainees such as Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi were tortured to get intelligence linking al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein in order to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq. A bipartisan report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that al-Libi “lied [about the Iraq link] to avoid torture.” Thus Yoo directly helped Cheney and Bush make the false claims that lead us into the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, which in turn has lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries, displaced populations, and cost billions of dollars we could have spent instead on health care, environmental protection, education, and infrastructure.

 

The Berkelely resident and writer of the inflammatory story in the Berkeley newspaper, Cynthia Papermaster, also had this to say: A number of groups, including students, alumni, professors and staff, are working to have him fired from UC. Dean Edley of the law school should ask Yoo to leave now. Yoo doesn’t have to be convicted or disbarred first. Also there’s a national campaign calling for Yoo to be fired by the Philadelphia Inquirer (see firejohnyoo.org). Maybe she'd like her job threatened and her home stalked by loonatics, who terrify her children and spouse, just because they disagree with how she earns a living.

 

read more about what these freaks have done to Professor Yoo and his family:

the Berkeley Daily Planet newspaper published an article encouraging people to join a vigilante-style protest in front of the private home of Professor John Yoo

 

and get the story at Zombie's Zomblog: how Berkeley shows its tolerance.

 

San Francisco liberals values - threatening and stalking John Yoo | Fire Andrea Mitchell!

 

Vile, despicable, disgusting hate-filled people - who am I talking about? The liberal left in this country...

With the inordinate amount of sympathetic media Dr.Tiller's brutal murder has garnered because he was an abortionist, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the mainstream media is the Democratic Party. Continuing with their sick agenda, they have all but ignored the brutal murder of Army Recruiter Private William Long and the gravely wounded 18-year-old Private Quinton Ezeagwula.

The White House has also ignored the recruiters' brutal attack.

 

The gunman of abortion doctor Dr. Tiller was Scott Roeder; white, Christian, anti-government, and anti-abortion. The gunman in the military recruiting center attack, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, was a black, Muslim convert, anti-military, and anti-American who admitted to police that if there were more military guys in the parking lot, he would have killed them as well.

 

Michelle Malkin addressed this in her column today:

But President Obama said nothing. The Justice Department was mum. And so were the legions of finger-pointing pundits happily convicting the pro-life movement and every right-leaning writer on the planet of contributing to the murder of George Tiller. Obama’s omission, it should be noted, comes just a few weeks after he failed to mention the Bronx jihadi plot to bomb synagogues and a National Guard airbase during his speech on homeland security."

 

The media chooses to ignore that Muslim extremists have set their sites on Military recruiters and Jews, but splash all over the headlines that abortion doctors are killed by crazy Christians. : Tracing the Left’s escalating war on military recruiters

 

Why?

 

Because the media is the Democrat Party and anti-Christian headlines targeting the "opponent" are good politics. The President does the same - ignores the Muslim extremists crimes but sends U.S. Marchalls to protect other abortion doctors... not military recruiting offices, but abortion doctors.

 

follow Michelle Malkin's research on this subject: http://michellemalkin.com/

 

These media people are vile.

 

 

Courtest of Iowahawk

 

Michelle Malkin today wrote about Attorney General Eric Holder's blatant violation of Georgia's elections:

 

 

Eric Holder and the DOJ are opening the voter fraud floodgates in Georgia. The Georgia secretary of state explains:

Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel issued the following statement following the U.S. Department of Justice’s denial of preclearance of Georgia’s voter verification process:

Atlanta - “The decision by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to deny preclearance of Georgia’s already implemented citizenship verification process shows a shocking disregard for the integrity of our elections. With this decision, DOJ has now barred Georgia from continuing the citizenship verification program that DOJ lawyers helped to craft. DOJ’s decision also nullifies the orders of two federal courts directing Georgia to implement the procedure for the 2008 general election. The decision comes seven months after Georgia requested an expedited review of the preclearance submission.

“DOJ has thrown open the door for activist organizations such as ACORN to register non-citizens to vote in Georgia’s elections, and the state has no ability to verify an applicant’s citizenship status or whether the individual even exists. DOJ completely disregarded Georgia’s obvious and direct interest in preventing non-citizens from voting, instead siding with the ACLU and MALDEF. Clearly, politics took priority over common sense and good public policy."

One reader left the following comment: "Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel needs to write a letter to Eric Holder reminding him of the 9th, 10th and 14th amendments. The states created the federal government and the states are in charge of elections."

 

It sounds as if that's exactly what the Georgia Secretary of State is about to do.

 

Furthermore, not allowing the state to correctly maintain voter rolls disenfranchises US citizens who are the only people legally entitled to vote.

The states need to wake up before they find themselves in the same position as GM and Chrysler. The states are the only solution to the mess the feds have put us in. If they don’t act to rein in the insanity in Washington, DC the America has a very dark future as a free nation.