Republicans and conservatives put up a whole lot of nothing against Attorney General Kamala Harris this year other than Orly Taitz — and those red eyes will only help her among OC’s libertarians. Is she really going to be the runner-up in June — and sole challenger to Harris in November? It’s not clear what other challenger could stop her!
The only candidates for Attorney General this year that I’ve been able to find statewide are these.
Two of these candidates you’ve heard of, if you ever watch political news:
- Kamala Harris (D), the incumbent and prohibitive favorite
- Orly Taitz (NPP), South Orange County Attorney/Doctor/Businesswoman/Birther/MMJ Advocate
It’s not that Taitz has a large following — but she does have a dedicated following, and even a smallish following against a split vote among her opponents plus people voting semi-randomly can be enough to pile up 20% of the vote. If Harris gets 60%, that would guarantee her a spot in November. (Some Dems like Vern may vote for her to make sure that she wins the second spot.)
Four candidates you probably haven’t heard of before:
- Ronald Gold (NPP), Retired Deputy Attorney-General
- John Haggerty (R), Attorney
- Jonathan Jaech (Libertarian), Attorney
- Phil Wyman (R), Former Member, State Senate (and perpetual candidate)
Gold has a nice ballot designation — but it refers to a position he held from 1972-1979. (He’d likely be vulnerable to a ballot designation challenge — if anyone wanted to bother.) Haggerty appears to be a intellectual property attorney from Santa Clara who does not appear to have a campaign website or any political background. Jaech has a website, but like me he struggled to collect the filing fee by the last date of March 7 — without the benefit of my excuse that I had just entered the race and had been fundraising for fewer than 40 hours.
You might have heard of Wyman — if you’re old enough to remember when he served in the legislature or if you’re Bakersfieldian enough to remember when he lost to the guy who lost to Michael Rubio for State Senate in 2010, but especially at age 69, and out of the legislature for a decade — after being the only Republican incumbent west of the Mississippi to lose a race in the 1994 GOP avalanche — he’s not the draw he once might have been, and hasn’t been for 20 years.
You may be able to see where this is going: no one is going to defeat Harris in November regardless, but it looks pretty likely that none of the four men in the race will defeat Orly for second place — putting her on the ticket for every statewide Republican candidate to enjoy.
I suppose that either Haggerty or Wyman may get a California Republican Party endorsement and make it onto a lot of mailers, or something — though if Orly is smart she’ll be buying up those that Harris hasn’t — but the failure of the state Republican party to bring anyone of stature into the race to keep Orly off the November ballot is frankly amazing.
Dozens of Republican attorneys in OC alone could have entered this race and immediately become the front-runner to become runner-up. No one did. Oh well — they’ll find out soon enough why this was a bad idea.
Typo Monster here: “…anyone of stature into the race to keep Only off the November ballot…”
Can’t help mentioning my own premature speculations about Orly in the last Glorious Top-Two Primary: http://kitchenmudge.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/see-if-im-right
As it turned out, She was defeated with low turnout, which will tend to make party regulars a higher proportion of the vote, and suppress the effect of vague name-recognition. Turnout might be even lower in a non-leap year.
It’s probably a question of whether the GOP makes any effort to support ANYBODY else.
(Thanks for the correction. If one types as many characters as I do, as quickly as I do, one depends on one’s readers for them!)
Good piece from 2012, Mudge. By that time, the CRP had already decided to rally behind Elizabeth Emken — a fresh face who didn’t have many drawbacks and was a “name of the future” — so Orly’s winning was not as likely. This time, thought, they’re limited to the choice of Haggerty (who doesn’t look like he was recruited) and Wyman (who, if he was recruited at all, was probably something like the 14,593rd choice of whoever recruited him.)
Harris has done a very good job as DA — enough to pick up upwards of 60% of the vote. (She’ll probably advertise in the primaries, I imagine, because it’s a good opportunity for her to tell her story as she continues to ramp up her post-AG plans. So — maybe even 70%.)
Without a fresh young Emken as an opponent, and as someone likely to be favored by just the sorts of people who would hate Kamala Harris because Obama, your 2012 analysis seems all the more likely to apply in 2014. And yes, even though I would not do it myself, I do expect to see some sort of “Dems for Orly for Mischief” organization voting for her to make Republicans — despite the fact that she’s re-registered as NPP — look bad.
Since most of us are sick of the corruption, lies, and deliberate destruction of California for farming, jobs, etc (such as letting the water out of Folsom Dam. Anyone who has any education at all realized right away that could only have been deliberate; not closing our borders to illegal immigration – No, it is NOT the feds job, they only legally have the duty to decide what it takes to become a US citizen, the rest is up to the states. Letting the feds keep California property that they were holding in trust until we got our Constitution written and government up – which has been done for a very long time); if she will sign this she has a great chance to be the next Calif. AG:
Resolution Of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association
Pursuant to the powers and duties bestowed upon us by our citizens, the undersigned do hereby resolve that any Federal officer, agent, or employee, regardless of supposed congressional authorization, is required to obey and observe limitations consisting of the enumerated powers as detailed within Article 1 Section 8 of the U S Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.
The people of these united States are, and have a right to be, free and independent, and these rights are derived from the “Law of Nature and nature’s God.” As such, they must be free from infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, unreasonable searches and seizures, capricious detainment’s and every other natural right whether enumerated or not, pursuant to the 9th amendment.
We further reaffirm that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” (10th amendment)
Furthermore, we maintain that no agency established by the U S Congress can develop its own policies or regulations which supersede the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, nor does the executive branch have the power to make law, overturn law or set aside law.
Therefore, in order to protect the American people, BE IT RESOLVED THAT,
The following abuses will not be allowed or tolerated:
1) Registration of personal firearms under any circumstances.
2) Confiscation of firearms without probable cause, due process, and constitutionally compliant warrants issued by a local or state jurisdiction.
3) Audits or searches of a citizen’s personal affairs or finances without probable cause, and due process, and constitutionally compliant warrants issued by a local or state jurisdiction.
4) Inspections of person or property without probable cause and constitutionally compliant warrants as required by the 4th Amendment and issued by a local or state jurisdiction.
5) The detainment or search of citizens without probable cause and proper due process compliance, or the informed consent of the citizen.
6) Arrests with continued incarcerations without charges and complete due process, including, but not limited to public and speedy jury trials, in a court of state or local jurisdiction.
7) Domestic utilization of our nation’s military or federal agencies operating under power granted under the laws of war against American citizens.
8) Arrest of citizens or seizure of persons or property without first notifying and obtaining the express consent of the local sheriff.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,
that the undersigned Sheriffs, Peace Officers, and other Public Servants, do hereby denounce any acts or agencies which promote the aforementioned practices. All actions by the Federal Government and its agents will conform strictly and implicitly with the principles expressed within the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.
There is no greater obligation or responsibility of any government officer than to protect the rights of the people. Thus, any conduct contrary to the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights will be dealt with as criminal activity.
It will NEVER happen. Here’s why: Orly Taitz had made some very insensitive and racial remarks in the past in regards to hispanics (deportations), blacks (called the President “a black liar”) and add to the mix that one of her campaign workers is Dr. James David Manning out of New York who has called gays “homo” and has advocated by suggestion the stoning of gays. She has been sanctioned by courts in the amount of $24,000.00 and over the years she has never released a financial statement in her sham of a Foundation.
Around 15-20% of California’s voting population may, unfortunately, see those things as positives.
In a top-two environment with a popular incumbent and a handful of others providing anemic competition, even 15% may be enough to finish second and make it through to November. If she got 20%, it would be reasonably likely. Do you think GOP-endorsed Gubernatorial candidate Tim Donnelly is going to reject her? I don’t.
Actually, unless we remove all machine voting NON of us will have a “voice” in the elections. The votes will go to whoever has been already chosen to continue the destruction of the state of California, will be counted in a foreign nation, and will NOT be verifiable by any of us.
Our highest law in this state EXCEPT where there is a conflict with the US Constitution – which is rarely.
California Constitution, Article 2 Voting, Initiative and Referendum, and Recall, Section 1. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.
SEC. 4. The Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that affect elections…
SEC. 7. Voting shall be secret. (Scan symbols make our votes NOT secret and the election invalid.)
Article 20 Miscellaneous Subjects, SEC. 3. Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and
subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
“I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
“And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows: _____________________________________
(If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) and that during such time as I hold the office of __________________ I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”
And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment. “Public officer and employee” includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or
instrumentality of any of the foregoing.
“or other unlawful means” is Agenda 21. Treason against the state of California and the USA.
here’s a sampling of how Orly can help Hispanics, blacks and every other upstanding citizen that will give her their vote):
“Now, what happened “after 2008″ that sent this loser company “through the roof?” Hmmmmmm?
Related: CGI was also awarded HUD contract to assist in the distribution of $1.7 billion in relief for Hurricane Sandy.
Time to end this, demand immediate rescission of the contract and refund. Demand investigation in disbursements of hurricane Sandy funds.”
Dr. Orly Taitz Esq.
Posted on | October 28, 2013
More:
“Valerie Jarrett’s daughter and son-in-law work for CGI
YourTubeNews is reporting that now we know why a Canadian company got the contract for ObamaCare.
Not only is Michelle’s Princeton classmate an executive with the company, but news broke last night that Valerie Jarrett’s daughter Laura and her husband Tony Balkisoon, the son of a Canadian MPP, both work for CGI Federal.”
Go to her web site and see for yourself what she is accomplishing
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com
Greg, you picked the worst photo possible of Orly to post. As for your remarks about her red eyes, she has red eyes because she gets very little sleep, because she works day and night for We The People, using most of her own resources. Something Obama-crony Harris wouldn’t dream of doing. Did you mention Harris’ sister is married to another Obama crony, Tony West, the current Acting Assoc. AG? Taitz was born and lived many years under a dictator. For this reason, she fled the USSR for the freedom of America. She states that, for this reason, she can spot a dictator-in-the-making a mile away. It makes her sick to see what America has become since she arrived years ago and became a naturalized citizen. We could not elect anyone who loves America and her people more than Taitz already does, and that includes Harris.
That is not even remotely the worst possibly photo of Orly that I could post. I hope not to be pressed to prove that. In fact, I think it’s a pretty good photo of her.
My noting her “red eyes” was a subtle (now less so) nod to her position in favor of legal use of medical marijuana, for which I do salute her. And I can certainly believe that she’s a hard worker. That’s not the problem with her.
I won’t debate you here and now about Taitz’s other merits and demerits. Suffice it to say that Taitz will not beat Harris in November under almost any conceivable scenario, probably including a major scandal. I haven’t seen many others join me in predicting that Taitz will make it to the general election, though — many traditional writers about politics just don’t seem to want to think about it. So this is about as good a treatment as she’s likely to get from a writer outside of her group of fans.
Greg, I have no doubt Harris will win, and I don’t believe I indicated that Taitz would. CA has become a very corrupt state headed in the direction of Detroit, due to Democrat leaders for decades and I don’t expect that to change, what with all the recruiting of illegals and their subsequent votes. Remember when Taitz ran for SoS? At that time, she was opposed by two Democrats, with one – Damon Dunn – running as a Republican to ensure a Democrat continued in the SoS job. Dunn was a registered Democrat in two states – FL and MO. That trickery left Californians sure to vote in a Democrat, as the names Dunn and Bowen were better known. With Dunn running fraudulently on the GOP ticket, he and Bowen effectively covered all bases.
One can register in a different party to run. It’s crazy-making for people in both major parties — Karina Onofre’s recent conversion being an example — but (absent more) it’s not fraudulent. And I don’t think that Dunn was running to edge out Taitz so much as to promote his own political career.
California has just come back from the brink of insolvency — after Republican Governors from 1983 to 2010, except for five years of Gray Davis — under Brown. That’s not the direction of Detroit. I’ve been involved in Democratic politics here for the past seven years and I have never heard or seen of anyone “recruiting illegals” (by which I expect you mean unauthorized residents). Think about it: how much would our generally useless District Attorney like to prosecute that, if it were true?
Support Orly if you want — but don’t make stuff up. But thanks for, unlike Denise just below you, actually offering an argument.
Excuse me, Greg, but I am not making anything up. Did you hear about the Regime sending fliers over to Mexico, giving Mexicans info on entitlements available to them and how to sign up if they come here? I consider that “recruiting illegals” to come to this country. It may not fall under the definition of official recruitment, but it certainly encourages and provides incentive to immigrate. And of course, one can register to run in a different party — but not at the same time they are registered in another party elsewhere. There’s a waiting period that must be met – in Dunn’s case it was 12 months – before one can legally run as a different party candidate.
Wow! You have a source for that?
@ Vern,
“A government watchdog group has discovered that the United States government is advising Spanish-speaking residents that they need not declare their immigration status to qualify for food stamps.
Judicial Watch obtained the Spanish-language flyers through a Freedom of Information Act request and announced on Thursday that the “promotion of the food stamp program, now known as ‘SNAP’ (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA.
A statement on the flyer—emphasized in bold and underlined—reads, “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.”
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said of this discovery, the “USDA is actively working with the Mexican government to promote food stamps for illegal aliens.” This implication, he asserted, “should have a direct impact on the fate of the immigration bill now being debated in Congress.” Judicial Watch – sorry do not have the URL.
@ KBB,
Actually, unless we remove all machine voting NON of us will have a “voice” in the elections. The votes will go to whoever has been already chosen to continue the destruction of the state of California, will be counted in a foreign nation, and will NOT be verifiable by any of us.
Our highest law in this state EXCEPT where there is a conflict with the US Constitution – which is rarely.
California Constitution, Article 2 Voting, Initiative and Referendum, and Recall, Section 1. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.
SEC. 4. The Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that affect elections…
SEC. 7. Voting shall be secret. (Scan symbols make our votes NOT secret and the election invalid.)
Article 20 Miscellaneous Subjects, SEC. 3. Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and
subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
“I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
“And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows: _____________________________________
(If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) and that during such time as I hold the office of __________________ I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”
And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment. “Public officer and employee” includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or
instrumentality of any of the foregoing.
“or other unlawful means” is Agenda 21. Treason against the state of California and the USA.
Cal,In California, the majority of non-citizens are not eligible for Food Stamps/SNAP/Cal-Fresh benefits. This is the regulation from CDSS (California Department of Social Services):
Citizenship/Immigration Status
Certain non-citizens such as those admitted for humanitarian reasons and those admitted for permanent residence are eligible for CalFresh benefits. Eligible household members can get CalFresh benefits even if other members of the household are not eligible.
Calfresh eligibility is available to most legal immigrants who:
Have lived in the country for five (5) years, or
Are receiving disability-related assistance or benefits, regardless of entry date, or
Are children under 18 years of age regardless of entry date.
Non-citizens who are in the U.S. temporarily, such as students, are not eligible. A number of states have their own programs to provide benefits to legal immigrants who do not meet the regular CalFresh Program eligibility requirements. California’s program is the California Food Assistance Program.
KBB — no, I have not heard about the Regime sending fliers to Mexico trying to entice Mexicans to California with promises of entitlements. Please post what you consider to be your best source (or more than one) providing evidence that this happened. I tend to believe that when people end up with widely discrepant conclusions it’s largely because they start out with widely discrepant premises, so let’s try to nail down the truth here.
I don’t think that there’s a legal waiting period, at least not of the length you mention. Karina Onofre probably doesn’t either, given that she just switched parties prior to her run for AD-74. But if you have a citation to statutes or regulations, I’ll read it with interest.
A government watchdog group has discovered that the United States government is advising Spanish-speaking residents that they need not declare their immigration status to qualify for food stamps.
Judicial Watch obtained the Spanish-language flyers through a Freedom of Information Act request and announced on Thursday that the “promotion of the food stamp program, now known as ‘SNAP’ (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA.
A statement on the flyer—emphasized in bold and underlined—reads, “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.”
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said of this discovery, the “USDA is actively working with the Mexican government to promote food stamps for illegal aliens.” This implication, he asserted, “should have a direct impact on the fate of the immigration bill now being debated in Congress.”
Second? What’s wrong with people. Taitz is the only candidate who should be considered because she is the only candidate who is for USA citizens.
“The only candidate who is for USA citizens?”
Really?
I find that rather hard to believe.
Probably because it just isn’t true.
Just like most of what Orly and her supporters say.
And why anyone would vote for her is beyond me.
It is scandalous that you are using “Publius”. Denise is correct. Denise, also look at Robert C. Newman for Governor. He assisted the group in creating, and then signed, this:
Resolution Of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association
Pursuant to the powers and duties bestowed upon us by our citizens, the undersigned do hereby resolve that any Federal officer, agent, or employee, regardless of supposed congressional authorization, is required to obey and observe limitations consisting of the enumerated powers as detailed within Article 1 Section 8 of the U S Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.
The people of these united States are, and have a right to be, free and independent, and these rights are derived from the “Law of Nature and nature’s God.” As such, they must be free from infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, unreasonable searches and seizures, capricious detainment’s and every other natural right whether enumerated or not, pursuant to the 9th amendment.
We further reaffirm that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” (10th amendment)
Furthermore, we maintain that no agency established by the U S Congress can develop its own policies or regulations which supersede the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, nor does the executive branch have the power to make law, overturn law or set aside law.
Therefore, in order to protect the American people, BE IT RESOLVED THAT,
The following abuses will not be allowed or tolerated:
1) Registration of personal firearms under any circumstances.
2) Confiscation of firearms without probable cause, due process, and constitutionally compliant warrants issued by a local or state jurisdiction.
3) Audits or searches of a citizen’s personal affairs or finances without probable cause, and due process, and constitutionally compliant warrants issued by a local or state jurisdiction.
4) Inspections of person or property without probable cause and constitutionally compliant warrants as required by the 4th Amendment and issued by a local or state jurisdiction.
5) The detainment or search of citizens without probable cause and proper due process compliance, or the informed consent of the citizen.
6) Arrests with continued incarcerations without charges and complete due process, including, but not limited to public and speedy jury trials, in a court of state or local jurisdiction.
7) Domestic utilization of our nation’s military or federal agencies operating under power granted under the laws of war against American citizens.
8) Arrest of citizens or seizure of persons or property without first notifying and obtaining the express consent of the local sheriff.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,
that the undersigned Sheriffs, Peace Officers, and other Public Servants, do hereby denounce any acts or agencies which promote the aforementioned practices. All actions by the Federal Government and its agents will conform strictly and implicitly with the principles expressed within the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.
There is no greater obligation or responsibility of any government officer than to protect the rights of the people. Thus, any conduct contrary to the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights will be dealt with as criminal activity.
Which is a HUGE step up!
WOOHOO! Interviewing Orly at her Mission Viejo office on Friday. Any suggestions for questions? Post ’em here or e-mail ChezVern@aol.com.
POBAR.
(1) Does she think that EDD is “a useless agency”?
(2) Why should anyone vote for her over a real Libertarian party member?
(3) What percentage of the vote does she think she needs to place at least second in June — and how does she plan to achieve it?
(4) Who is and who is not in the conspiracy ash asserts about Obama’s birthplace? Complete lists of both, please — from memory.