Kalifornia Korner - Sex Change on the Tax Payer's Dime!

Gotta love this one coming from the Socialist Utopian Society of the People's Republic of Kalifornia!

Seems that Berkeley City Council are deciding on whether to set aside taxpayer money for workers to get sex-change operations. Yep! Berkely, by the way, has about $252 million in unfunded liabilities for the promised benefits of its 1,500 workers. They also have been consistently ceding land over to UC (which doesn't pay the same city taxes), which has been forcing tax increases to make up for the lost revenue.

(translation: they're going broke).

They are wanting to set up a discretionary "Sex Reassignment Fund" (you can't make this shit up), which would pay out to qualifying city workers. ("Qualifying?!"....Now that sparks some really disturbing images...)

 According to city officials (from an article in the San Francisco Chronicle today), the benefit is what is "just and fair" for the transgender community.

You know, I keep a separate file just on California Socialist BS...only been maintaining it for about 3 months, and I already have a sizeable collection.

"Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on 'rhetoric' and a 'climate of hate' to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains. ... [T]hose who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America's political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder."
--law professor Glenn Reynolds

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

- C. S. Lewis

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book

GUNS! EWWWW!!! ICKY!!!

Well, the Progressive-Socialist scum in Washington aren't wasting any time taking full advantage of the Arizona shooting! This time from both sides of the aisle. Legislation is on the table from Rep. Peter King (R-NY) to prevent the carrying of firearms within , “..1,000 feet of the President, Vice President, Members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary.”

King said, “From a conservative perspective, we have to have a stable society, we have to keep crime down. You cannot do that if the police cannot be assured that illegal guns are not on the street. To have a stable society and a safe society, we have to remove illegal guns.”

So let's make sure I understand this: We need a NEW law that makes ILLEGAL guns...er...MORE ILLEGALER? And how would a law like this prevent some nut job from carrying a gun anyhow? Will he be worried about getting into trouble after he guns down the crowd? Anyone? Anyone? Buehler? Buehler? Hellooooo....

Ok, so then this law doesn't address those “super double-secret illegal” guns, but just “legal” gun owners...you know, the ones who tend to abide by the law, and aren't much inclined to open up on a politician or a crowd, but may be willing AND ABLE to stop a crazed killer if such a situation presented itself...

I can't picture too many law enforcement officers who are saying to themselves, “Boy, I'm going to feel soooo much more safe if this law is passed....it will all but obliterate those illegal guns!” I mean SERIOUSLY?

There is also legislation on the table from Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) that will introduce a measure to ban “high-capacity” gun clips (defined as more than 10 rounds). Forget the small detail that these morons don't know the difference between a “magazine” and a “clip”, this kind of law has been tried in the past, and it does absolutely nothing. (Remember the “assault weapons” ban? What a joke that was. It was so bad, they let it expire.)

Once again, we have an example of a bloated, corrupt bureaucracy that wants to gradually strip away our rights so they can have more power to control all aspect of our lives. From your right to protect your life, to what you can or cannot eat, to what you can and can't do in your car or in your house...

And as usual, there are way too many people who actually want a large, statist bureaucracy to relieve them of the stressful responsibilities of making decisions for themselves. These idiots will actually feel safer with this kind of legislative nonsense.

The left once again using the Constitution as a fecal wipe...

After the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords by some nut job, it may come as no surprise that leftist politicians, bloggers, talking heads, publications, etc. are now pushing for limitations on free speech by "proposing a ban on threatening language or symbols", as well as firing up the tired old argument of gun control.

Before any of the facts were in, they came out in droves to blame Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Fox  News, and the Tea Party "hate mongering" of influencing the shooter. One particularly brain-dead liberal (an oxymoron, I know), Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, flat out stated that, "...violent rhetoric comes exclusively from the Right."

First off, this guy was a nut job. It doesn't matter if he was Right, Left, Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Nazi, or anarchist. Using this incident to try to gain political points is pretty sick, in my opinion. If we want to knit-pick the facts, then lets consider the information he gave on his social network pages, such as his favorite books being "Mein Kamf", and "Communist Manifesto" (staple reading for the far left), and the fact that his past associates all described him as being "very liberal"...

As for the the nonsense of only the Right incites violence, I did some searches; only a few minutes yielded me a ton of incidents of violence, and all that popped up on the initial search were FROM THE LEFT. 

Examples:

How about some anti-Bush rallies? I wasn't able to find any decapitated Obama posters...

Funny how the "noble" Lefties didn't find a problem with these gems...but then again, these fit their agenda...

Need more?

How about some left wing anti-war protesters in Minnesota?

I'm only scratching the surface here, folks...a great resource can be found here:

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

“How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.” — Ronald Reagan