California: Us

Finally, Dianne Feinstein, the ethically challenged US Senator, provides another hint as to her values.

She wants to give over one million illegal aliens in California amnesty--a free ride--amnesty from their criminal activities.

Any wonder the ACLU loves this women.  She is the one that demands guns be outlawed--EXCEPT for the one SHE carries.  This is a woman that believes the law is meant for those that do not know any better.

Oh, in the midst of a fiscal meltdown, she, along with Arnold, is going to provide a $10 billion bond measure ($20 billion in new debt including principle and interest).

Dianne Feinstein needs help.  She prefers bankruptcy, law breaking and higher taxes to responsible government.  Now she want those who have taken one million jobs from honest Americans and give them to criminals.

Shame on us for allowing her the right to protect criminals.

If you want to visit a war zone, Iraq is the place to go, not Mexico.  At least we have US troops in Iraq to protect you.  Mexico has corrupt police and military that works with the drug dealers and weapons runners.

Police officers and policed chiefs are being gunned down.  The Cancun police chief resigned, the gangs told him to leave town or he will die--so he left.

Want drugs, guns or a good fire fight, go to Mexico.  Want a tan, go to the Bahamas or Hawaii.  Mexico is a dangerous place, go there if your will is up to date and you like a good war.

Eric Holder, the Obama appointee as Attorney General prefers law breakers to upholding the law.  As an appointee in the Democrat Clinton Administration he promoted a presidential pardon for a fugitive from justice, who had an ex wife that "donated" millions to Clinton causes.

Now Holder has decided he will not enforce Federal marijuana laws.  he does not have to repeal them, just refuse to enforce them--just like he id doing for illegal aliens.

"Cultivating, using and selling medical marijuana are allowed in some instances under California law. But such actions are outlawed entirely under federal law, which supersedes those of the states.

The oral arguments in the effort to overturn Prop 8 ended about a half hour ago, and the hearing has made some things clear, even though final outcome remains uncertain.

Queerty has a good overview of the seven justices that will decide the case and their general political leanings. Much of this was confirmed by what I could see in the oral arguments.

There seem to be two main questions at play here. First, will Prop 8 be upheld? Based on the arguments I would tentatively posit the court will rule this way:

Overturn: George, Moreno, Werdegar
Uphold: Baxter, Chin, Kennard
Unclear: Corrigan

Kennard ruled with the majority last May on the marriage cases, but as the day went on it became clear she does not buy the "Prop 8 was a revision, not an amendment" argument.