Sep 012010
 

A little over a week ago, the Roseville Press-Tribune ran an article on David Larson for Roseville City Council.

We covered it here on Right on Daily. David moved here to Roseville with his wife/spouse/husband from the Bay Area.

David is also featuring the endorsements of prominent Placer County Liberals – like Jennifer Montgomery who voted against a county ordinace to ban project labor agreements in Placer County.

But Larson leads with his left – big time. It is hard to understand why the Placer County Democrat Party is abandoning David, he should be their poster child… A bay-area liberal who was Married by Gavin Newsome?

Of note – David highlights his participating in the Sustainability Action Committee, the Growth Management Committee and the like. When you couple this with the Democrat endorsements – you can safely conclude that he is both Green and Anti-Growth.

DAVID LARSON Age: 46
Occupation: Roseville Planning Commissioner/Small Business
Owner
Education and Qualifications: I have a Bachelor’s in
Marketing/Economics from SJSU. My community involvement and
qualifications include: Roseville Planning Commission, Roseville’s
Sustainability Action Committee, Roseville Parks and Recreation Commission, Project Play Committee, Roseville Chamber Mentoring
Program, Roseville Leadership Program, Roseville Growth Management Vison Committee, and Revitalization Committee.
Volunteer work: Blue Oaks Neighborhood Association, Tommy Apostolos Fund, Neverforgetourfa!len organization, March of Dimes, and One Root Festival.
My current role as Planning Commissioner provides valuable experience to effectively manage our city’s growth while maintaining its culturally rich history, character, and warmth. Our city government must deliver practical and creative solutions to the challenges the city of Roseville faces today. As a councilmember, I would work collaboratively to support fiscally sound planning, strengthen our local economy, and enhance public safety.
I am proud to be endorsed by: the Roseville Police Association, Jennifer Montgomery – Placer County Supervisor 5th District, and David Uribe – Chairman Roseville Library Board.
Please join me in moving Roseville forward. I ask for your support on November 2nd – together we can ensure that Roseville continues to develop as one of the most attractive and vibrant cities in the country.

To learn more, please visit  http://notodavidlarson.wordpress.com/ or
call 916-532-3347.

Aug 312010
 

Neil Pople: Age 30. Former candidate for Placer County Democrat Central Committee – who railed against the war in Iraq etc. (like any moonbat of the left did back when Bush was President)

Now, it is time to run for City Council, and next Congress? Frankly, I think Mall Cop might have been a batter occupation – but I digress…

NEIL POPLE Age: 30
Occupation: Legal Clerk
Education and Qualifications: I have lived in Roseville for nearly 22 years and love the city I call home. I’m running for City Council because I believe a 21st century city needs 21st century leadership. We are facing a critical time in Roseville, and success or failure depends on the next generation of leaders. We cannot afford to simply look to old ways to solve new problems. It’s going to take innovation, courage and transparency to make Roseville the city it deserves to be.

If elected, I will be a willing ear to listen and a strong voice to represent you. I want to serve this community and help repair our faltering economy, support our men & women in uniform, help improve the state of our schools and keep the high quality of life we all enjoy. If elected, I can promise that I will do my best to represent the community that helped raise me. I want to help lead real, positive change, but I need your vote to do it.
Please visit www.neilpople.com for more information.

CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!!! He said absolutely nothing. What a waste of money.

Jun 222010
 

California Governor Candidates: Jerry Brown – freaked out liberal Mayor of Oakland, Atty General who likes to sue to stop development.

Meg Whitman: Admittedly Liberal Republican

Lt. Governor Candidates: Gavin Newsome – Mayor of Bankrupt San Francisco, sanctuary city where innocent citizens are murdered by illegal alien felons and who violated state law by Marrying people at City Hall (when he was about to be overrun by scandal)

Abel Maldonado: Sold his vote on the largest tax increase in state history for Prop 14. 22% score from the CRA in 2009, worse than some democrats.

Atty General: Kamala Harris – hates punishing criminals, and part of the SF establishment behind the maintenance of their sanctuary city

Steve Cooley: reportedly a social Liberal. Out of the above six – easily the most conservative, taking stands in favor of border security, three-strikes and enforcing existing laws regardless of whether he agrees with them

US Senate – Barbara Boxer, Freaked Out Liberal from San Francisco. Hates the Military, 28 years in office

Carly Fiorina – finally, we hit a top-down conservative.

The question is – are the liberal Republicans enough of a contrast from the Freaked-Out Liberal slate from San Francisco?

I think Cooley can make that case.

Carly makes that case easily.

Maldonado and Meg Whitman?

Failure to have a USP (Unique Selling Proposition) other than Jerry Brown is bad – will not fly.

Judge Deciding Prop 8 Case is Gay

 Andy Pugno, Gay Marriage, Proposition 8, Yes on 8  Comments Off on Judge Deciding Prop 8 Case is Gay
Feb 072010
 

I don’t know if this is a case of the SF Chron outing the guy or if it is a case of re-stating one of those things below the surface that has been there for years.

Everyone I know describes Vaughn Walker as a Country Club Republican and the behavior of Walker during the trial indicates that the fix is in.

Quoting the article – in particular, the end with Andy Pugno’s comments:

If the judge decides that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, supporters of the measure are sure to take it to the federal appeals court and the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary. Kendell expects that if that happens, the measure’s proponents will make an issue of the judge’s sexual orientation – at least in the public arena.

Not so, said Andy Pugno, general counsel for the group that sponsored the Prop. 8 campaign.

“We are not going to say anything about that,” Pugno said.

He was quick to assert, however, that Prop. 8 backers haven’t gotten a fair shake from Walker in court. He cited both the judge’s order for the campaign to turn over thousands of pages of internal memos to the other side and Walker’s decision to allow the trial to be broadcast – both of which were overturned by higher courts.

“In many ways, the sponsors of Prop. 8 have been put at significant disadvantage throughout the case,” Pugno said. “Regardless of the reason for it.”

Prediction – Prop 8 is going to the US Supreme Court.

Jan 282010
 

Nowhere in the MSM did you see coverage of homosexual activists saying in court, “if we can’t marry, then no one should.”

Nowhere in the MSM did you see coverage of the No on 8 lawyers calling voting Yes On 8 a hate crime.

Nowhere in the MSM did you see coverage of how the judge refused to issue  a reciprocating order compelling No on 8 to turn over their campaign documents the way Yes on 8 had to.

Nowhere in the MSM did you see anything close to a recitation of the legal facts – the most absurd of which is the claims that Homosexuals are a powerless minority. Hmmm, Harvey Milk Day? Our Assembly Speaker?

Again – the Prop 8 trial shows us why the American Media Establishment is a direct threat to our Republic and should be treated as propaganda and regulated under campaign finance law.

Quoting Andy Pugno: “But no matter how loud the pleas for sympathy become, there is simply no legal basis for the fantastical, unsupportable claim that the homosexual community in California is “politically powerless.” Does Equality California, California’s biggest gay lobby organization, think of itself as powerless? Does the Human Rights Campaign, which featured President Obama at their latest dinner, believe they are politically powerless? Are we to believe that these groups are politically powerless despite their ability to raise $43 million to oppose Prop 8, and to attract the support of the entire political establishment, Hollywood and the media? Not with a straight face we can’t.”

The bottom line – only Marriages produce Children. The fact that the voters had to be called on to remind the California Supreme Court of that fact is insane. The fact that the homosexual lobby has run to a liberal judge to usurp the will of 7 million voters and the above comments prove their agenda in their mind justifies tyranny, persecution and whatever other means in order to be advanced.

The Bottom line? – quoting Andy Pugno Again: “What may be lost in all the sensationalism of the past two and a half weeks of trial is that the burden of proof to invalidate Prop 8 lies squarely with the plaintiffs. They cannot win unless they prove that the voters were “irrational” when they chose to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in our state. Contrary to their public relations claims, the outcome of this case does not depend on whether the Prop 8 sponsors can prove that homosexual marriage will harm traditional marriage. The controlling legal issue is not whether homosexual marriage is good or bad, but rather whether the people have the right to decide what is best.  The plaintiffs simply did not carry that burden.

Meanwhile, we have shown that limiting marriage to its longstanding definition is rational because marriage benefits children, not just the adults. Whenever possible, it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father. And man-woman marriage is the only human relationship that can biologically serve that distinctive purpose.  A same-sex relationship can never offer a child both a mother and father. It’s that simple.

The plaintiffs put on a spectacular show-trial of irrelevant evidence, calling to the stand many “expert” witnesses to testify that allowing homosexual marriage would: help local governments raise more tax revenues, help gay and lesbian couples to accumulate greater wealth, and improve the self-esteem of homosexuals.  But those are political arguments for society to consider, not legal support for the claim that the US Constitution contains the right to homosexual marriage. The courtroom is simply not the proper forum for what is clearly a social, not a legal, appeal.

I predict that Judge Walker will legislate from his bench and cite the emotional arguments of the No on 8 side in his decision.

It wouldn’t surprise me to see my name on a list of bigots somewhere soon – remember, it’s all about tolerance, right? (forget what the voters think)