When I think of Waxman/Pelosi/Boxer. However, beauty, sleeping or otherwise, is not one of those things.

'California Democrats will assume pivotal roles in the new Congress and White House, giving the state an outsize influence over federal policy and increasing the likelihood that its culture of activist regulation will be imported to Washington.'

Is it just me or does anyone else feel like the word "activist" should be looked at with a great deal of caution? And isn't the term "activist regulation" a sort of dichotomy? I read that as "anti-establishment controls."

But, then again, I may have left out the most important part of this -and the explanation to my questions- California Democrats.

Let me get this stright . Kal-E-Fornicate wants the rest of the states to bail them out when thay tell us to shove our immigration laws.

They have massive oil and gas reserves which not only would bring in massive revenues to their state and help us get off of forgein oil and thay tell us not in our back yard.

 I think Pelosi and Allan Colms are brother and sister . They look alike.

Screw you Kal-E-Fornicators. go back to Mexico. good riddence you pack of perverts. 

 Wanna bet the 40 Billion Mono Rail will go through from Vegas to Kal.

 They were all up in arms about the bridge to nowhere but loved the 15 Billion killer Big Dig to beautify downtown  Boostoon.

 Democrats are the lowest people in the U.S. 

After a couple of days for any remaining conservatives to escape, let's revoke California's statehood.

Welcome to the era of unity, you racist!

This is from James Freeman WSJ_ Oct. 31, 2008

....Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute tracks
regulation across the entire federal government. He reports that the
Bush administration set an all-time record in 2004, when it published
more than 75,000 pages of proposed and enacted rules in the Federal
Register.

Leftists might assume that many of these rules were actually
watering down earlier standards -- but where's the evidence of
declining compliance costs? Lafayette College economist Mark Crain
estimates more than $1.1 trillion in federal regulatory costs for 2004,
up an inflation-adjusted 16% from 2000. Overall agency enforcement
budgets have increased each year since 2004.

A recent report, "Regulatory Agency Spending Reaches New Height,"
from Washington University's Weidenbaum Center puts Mr. Bush's
regulatory activity in historical context. Co-authors Veronique de Rugy
and Melinda Warren say that when it comes to spending on regulatory
agencies, our current president is almost in a class by himself, with
an increase of almost 68% during his two terms. In constant dollars the
Bush regulatory budget increases vastly exceed those of predecessors
Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon and, yes, Lyndon Johnson.

Looking at regulatory spending in percentage terms, Mr. Bush's
staggering 2003 increase of more than 24% was the largest in the last
50 years. If Mr. Obama considers this a record of deregulation -- and
if current polls hold -- America's economy could be in for a very long
four years.

Typical libs; why let actual facts ruin a good tale?

The entire article can be found here:  http://online.wsj.co...

Please, oh please big government, take my money and figure out what to do with it.  Besides feeding and housing my family, supporting my church, sending my kids to school, getting to and from work, giving to charities, and investing in business, I can't think of a single thing to do with it! 

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

Look what neighboring Oregon wants to do their citizens...plus notice they say those in the rural areas wouldn't be affected...

My arse...they always find a way.

This is spooky in the long run....I have heard some a bit here and there about this, but this looks to be on the horizon...this hasn't been in the works for all this time for nothing.

I hate what has happened to the West and NW over the last three or more decades now. 

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh