Reposted from Red County/San Diego…. Don’t You Love it when the Looney Left thinks the Left isn’t Looney Enough?

From the wire….

Sheehan Considers Challenge to Pelosi

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) – Cindy Sheehan, the soldier’s mother who galvanized the anti-war movement, said Sunday that she plans to seek House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s congressional seat unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks.

Sheehan said she will run against the San Francisco Democrat in 2008 as an independent if Pelosi does not seek by July 23 to impeach Bush. That’s when Sheehan and her supporters are to arrive in Washington, D.C., after a 13-day caravan and walking tour starting next week from the group’s war protest site near Bush’s Crawford ranch.

"Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership," Sheehan told The… Read More

If you like the TV ads with thehucksters prodding you to "But wait there’s more, act now and we’ll send you double of our very valuable product", then you’ll love Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 8 of the 2007-2008 session, known in more normal English as ACA 8.

This is yet another Capitol Trojan Horse, this one to try to fool voters into voting for "protection" from eminent domain takingsfor, in the bill,an ever-narrowing group of property owners in California. Senator Battin eloquentlyopined on this earlier, see his post too.

Some background:

June 2005, the US Supreme Court hands down it’s Kelo vs. New London CT decision, allowing thateminent domain has morphed from what the Founders had intended for the narrow and reluctant use of EmDo only for true public works projects that must go through private land,a road, a dam, etc. to upholding the use of EmDo to take any land for the development of a higher property tax or use tax base than what had been generated on that land currently, conferring that land to another private… Read More

Like it or not, the debate of a couple of weeks ago regarding the employment practices of the California Republican Party will now continue — at least for a few more months — with the submission of the "Paule Amendment" (see post here).

As noted by Tom Hudson as a comment followingJon Fleischman’s post of yesterday, the language in the proposed bylaw amendment makes no mention of immigration. In fact, it makes no mention of requiring CRP employees to be citizens. It does, however, ensure employees are "legally registered to vote in California as members of the Republican Party."

The only reference toanything regarding citizenship is in the title, "Bylaw Amendment Concerning Employee Eligibility and Citizenship." That said, it seems odd that citizenship is referred to in the title, but not in the text of the amendment. I respectfully suggest that it be mentioned nowhere, leaving the title a simple,… Read More

Like it or not, the debate of a couple of weeks ago regarding the employment practices of the California Republican Party will now continue — at least for a few more months — with the submission of the "Paule Amendment" (see post here).

As noted by Tom Hudson as a comment followingJon Fleischman’s post of yesterday, the language in the proposed bylaw amendment makes no mention of immigration. In fact, it makes no mention of requiring CRP employees to be citizens. It does, however, ensure employees are "legally registered to vote in California as members of the Republican Party."

The only reference toanything regarding citizenship is in the title, "Bylaw Amendment Concerning Employee Eligibility and Citizenship." That said, it seems odd that citizenship is referred to in the title, but not in the text of the amendment. I respectfully suggest that it be mentioned nowhere, leaving the title a simple,… Read More

Last night, Brandon Powers blogged on a resolution that has been submitted by FR friend and long-time GOP strategist and consultant Phil Paul to the State GOP. The gist of the resolution: the CRP should only hire citizens (the wording of it is that all employes must be, "legally registed to vote in California as members of the Republican Party"). I have known Phil for longer than I care to admit, and would serve in a foxhole with him any day. A more loyal friend you will not find. That said, as a member of the CRP, I would be voting against Phil’s resolution as it is currently written. Phil’s resolution is clearly in response to the fact that the former COO of the party was an Austrailian citizen, and that another member of the CRP staff is a citizen of Canada. America was built by immigrants — with the exception of those of native American Indian ancestry, everyone in this country is either an immigrant, or their parents, grandparents or ancesters were from another country. I believe strongly in… Read More

Last night, Brandon Powers blogged on a resolution that has been submitted by FR friend and long-time GOP strategist and consultant Phil Paul to the State GOP. The gist of the resolution: the CRP should only hire citizens (the wording of it is that all employes must be, "legally registed to vote in California as members of the Republican Party"). I have known Phil for longer than I care to admit, and would serve in a foxhole with him any day. A more loyal friend you will not find. That said, as a member of the CRP, I would be voting against Phil’s resolution as it is currently written. Phil’s resolution is clearly in response to the fact that the former COO of the party was an Austrailian citizen, and that another member of the CRP staff is a citizen of Canada. America was built by immigrants — with the exception of those of native American Indian ancestry, everyone in this country is either an immigrant, or their parents, grandparents or ancesters were from another country. I believe strongly in… Read More

The upcoming Assembly vote on ACA 8 illustrates the gulf between Liberals and Conservatives on basic property rights issues. The constitutional amendment Democrats are touting that"fixes" the bone-headed Kelo decision the Supreme Court inflicted on our countrywould, in fact, confuse and furtherdilute property rights protection in California. Typical, just typical.

The Fourth Amendment says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated…"

It is a peculiar impulse among the Left to apply state power selectively, rewarding some with the benefit of protection while denying it to others. ACA 8 reflects this by deciding some are more worthy of protection, while others are not by virtue of their size, success, or profession.

One of the favorite targets of property grabbers are churches. Last year the City of Long Beach declared a Baptist Church to be a blight so the city could condemn it, and seize it, so another, private, party could build condominiums. This was not an isolated incident, and it… Read More

Earlier today, former FlashReport blogger Phil Paule submitted the attached proposedbylaw change to the CRP offices in Sacramento.

The proposed change seeks to require that CRP employees be registered Republican voters, essentially requiring that they be citizens.

Clearly, it is in response to the recent situation involving the CRP’s now ex-COO.

It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out.… Read More