Burned again by that giver of false promises, George W. Bush.  This is why we despise this parisan man who feels obligated to serve 13% of the United States -- while saying "to hell with everyone else, you just don't count."

Immediately defying his hollow, lying "spirit" of bipartisanship after the Democratic election rout, Bush is resubmitting a platter of freedom-hating, anti-Constitutional judicial nominees that have already been rejected once or more by the Senate.  He is using his now-lame duck Senate not to move toward bipartisanship, but as a last-chance hurrah to spit in America's eye one more time.

Take, (please), the renomination of Terrence Boyle.  He is critiqued here for an unbelievable disregard for even basic individual rights, to wit:

"The Fourth Circuit has criticized Judge Boyle several times for prematurely throwing out cases despite the persistence of facts in dispute. In Fuller v. White, a pregnant woman claimed that a prison guard used excessive force against her and caused her to miscarry. Judge Boyle granted summary judgment after insisting there were no genuine factual disputes, even though the parties’ affidavits contradicted one another. A unanimous Fourth Circuit reversed.24 Three years earlier, Judge Boyle did the same thing. In Moore v. Morton, the Fourth Circuit reversed him, finding that the case should not have been disposed of on summary judgment because both the plaintiff claiming to be the victim of excessive force and the sheriff alleged to have used it had put forward substantial supporting evidence.25

"In Godon v. North Carolina Crime Control & Pub. Safety,26 a boot camp counselor claimed that her supervisors violated her First Amendment rights when they fired her for complaining about the treatment of black and female cadets. Judge Boyle dismissed the case, finding that the counselor’s speech was not a matter of public concern protected by the First Amendment, but rather merely a personal expression of dissatisfaction. A unanimous Fourth Circuit panel, including conservative Judges Niemeyer and Wilkinson, reversed.27 On remand, Judge Boyle again threw out the case, granting summary judgment against the counselor. The Court of Appeals again reversed.28 A unanimous panel found that factual disputes – "some of which the district court seems to have recognized"29 – persisted."

Then there is Michael B. Wallace, critiqued here for, among other things, believing that the federal courts should have almost no power to overturn unconstitutional laws -- a recurring theme among the far right.  (Begin reading at page 32 of the above link for further information.)

This is why we despise the self-serving George W. Bush.  We have placed hope in him time and time again, and each and every time, he has chosen to spit in America's eye -- again -- and again -- and again.  The next time someone asks, "why don't you support our President?", remind him that this President has never, on even one occasion, treated the majority of Americans as if they count for anything.

I will not vote for one single Republican again until these pure-partisan, vicious, freedom-hating powerbrokers are beaten out of power within the Republican Party.

 

A little something came over my e-wire yesterday that really ought to knock a few new eyes wide open -- eyes of good folk who think that voting for "pro-life" and "pro-family" "conservative" candidates will result in anything resembling same:

http://www.alainsnewsletter...

"Will Liberals Succeed in Going On the Offense?"

"Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America said, "common sense" initiatives might include requiring health insurance coverage for birth control, emergency contraception at hospitals for rape victims, sex education, and information on contraceptives for young people."

..."Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council anticipates "the fiercest assault of our time against abstinence, marriage, life, good judges, and religious freedom," he wrote in this week’s National Review."

..."It remains to be seen if Americans, who want to preserve decency, will stand by and watch as the moral foundations of the nation are chipped away at even more."

.

What's this?  Policies aimed at reducing unwanted pregnancies -- the source of most abortions -- is a bad thing?  Providing meaningful information on some of life's most important decisions is an assault on "decency"???  Being unafraid of human sexuality makes one a "liberal?"

Yep, I told you so.  People who follow my blogs know that when I warn, "don't make me say I told you so," know that I am never wrong when I give such warnings.

"Pro-life" politics -- as typified by those who put "pro-life" up in lights under a "conservative" banner -- are not about sparing the lives of unborn babies, and they never have been.  That noble, appealing goal invariably takes a back seat on a very long bus to their real agenda: legislating into place their psychotic, terrified, and Biblically unfounded fear of human sexuality.

Voters need to know that when a candidate campaigns on "pro-family" values or "conservative values," this is what they mean.  These are not Christian values or Biblical teachings -- these are Victorian remnants from times and places like Cincinnati and Peoria in the 1950s -- and are so bizarre and Taliban-like that even most conservative fundamentalist Christians would be shocked to know the truth.

And of local importance, these are the "conservative values" that a certain highly militant church in Northwest Bakersfield is trying to smuggle into the Kern High School District.

When it is considered an assault on "decency" and "our moral foundations" to provide any meaningful and factual information on human sexuality, now you know why people like me refer to them as the "American Taliban."

There are many issues on which I agree with Republicans more than Democrats.

But not one single Republican is going to get my vote until these people are driven the hell out of what used to be the Republican Party that I remember.

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
.
Does the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms, reflect an individual right, or merely the right of the militia?
.
The answer is the former, with a spotty yet pretty consistent trail of Supreme Court and state Supreme Court case law to back it up.  
.
I will also show that our Second Amendment rights are most secure under a consistent application of liberal Constitutional legal theory, and are most jeopardized by the ultraconservative theories of the judges that President Bush wants to place on the federal bench.  And, I will show that our Second Amendment rights depend upon a presumption of the human species that is most consistent with a liberal, humanistic worldview.
.
Intent of the Founding Fathers
.
The most obvious indication that the Second Amendment was intended as an individual right is the fact that every other phrase in the Bill of Rights that refers to rights of the "people" was written and intended to refer to individuals.  The Second Amendment is deeply embedded in the portion of the Bill of Rights that guarantees individual rights, rather than perhaps tacked alongside the Tenth Amendment, where it might be construed to be strictly a state right.
.
During the ratification of the Constitution, the state of New Hampshire made the official recommendation that "Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion."  At the Massacusetts ratifying convention, Samuel Adams urged an amendment guaranteeing the individual right to bear arms.  New York, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania likewise called for a specific protection for the individual right to firearms.
.
Early Court Rulings Assume Individual-Rights Interpretation
.
Prior to the Civil War, many state court rulings clearly reflected the assumption that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right rather than merely a states-rights issue or a state militia privilege.
.
In Aldridge v. Commonwealth (1824), an appellate court in Virginia dealt with the rights of free Blacks, the restrictions upon which were "inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, both of this State and of the United States," including "their right to bear arms."
.
In Simpson v. State (1833), the Tennessee Supreme Court said of the state constitution's equivalent of the Second Amendment, "By this clause of the constitution, an express power is given and secured to all the free citizens of the state to keep and bear arms for their defence, without any qualification whatever as to their kind or nature." [Italic emphasis mine.]
.
In State v. Reid (1840), the Alabama Supreme Court upheld a ban on carrying concealed guns and knives.  However, the ban was upheld on the assumption that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right:  "The evil which was intended to be remedied by the provision quoted [the right to keep and bear arms], was a denial of the right of Protestants to have arms for their defence, and not an inhibition to wear them secretly."
.
And in Nunn v. State (1846), the Supreme Court of Georgia referred to the Second Amendment in reversing the conviction of a man wrongfully charged with openly carrying a firearm: "inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void."
.
The Supreme Court Weighs In
.
The Supreme Court has had surprisingly little to say about the Second Amendment.  Some of what it has said should come as a stern warning to today's demands for appointing more "conservatives" to the federal courts.
.
In Cruikshank v. United States (1876), a conservative Supreme Court mirrored today's most extreme "conservative" legal thought in holding that the Second Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) only restrained the federal government -- states were free to restrict or ban firearms to their hearts' content.  But even Cruikshank considered the Second Amendment an individual immunity rather than a mere collective militia-based right asserted by some liberal scholars.
.
Presser v. Illinois (1886) reached the same conclusion, holding that the Second Amendment only restrained the federal government.  Yet Presser, as well, considered the amendment to be an individual immunity of some sort.  Had the amendment represented only a collective militia right, the plaintiff would not have found standing to lodge a Second Amendment complaint.
.
In both cases, the Second Amendment was indeed considered an individual right rather than a militia or state right.  The cases merely ruled that the the amendment only shielded individuals from the federal government.
.
Even the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) case observed that if Blacks were considered citizens, it "would give to persons of the negro race... to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."  The right to keep and bear arms was seen as an individual right.
.
And while United States v. Miller (1939) examined limitations on what kinds of arms could be restricted, it lends support to the view that the collective role of the militia arises from the individual right to keep and bear arms: "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
.
The Second Amendment and Liberal Constitutional Theory
.
The architect of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, in the first session of the 42nd Congress (March 29, 1871), listed the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights, as being the rights of individual citizens.  Moreover, he stressed, in no uncertain terms, that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment rendered the Bill of Rights binding upon the States:
.
"These eight articles I have shown never were limitations on the power of the States, until made so by the Fourteenth Amendment.  The words of that Amendment, 'no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,' are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union."
.
The Second Amendment was counted among those rights of the citizens of the United States.  
.
(As an aside, the fact that the conservative court that issued the Presser decision had twisted the 14th Amendment into something far narrower than its author intended -- shows that ultraconservative judges are the ones with the activist agenda, much moreso than "liberal judges.")
.
Today, far right legal theorists -- like those favored by the Bush Administration -- want to tear down the Bill of Rights as it applies to states.  When you realize that most gun bans and gun restrictions come from the state and local level, the ascendance of "conservative" judicial theory within the federal judiciary would effectively spell the end of your Second Amendment rights.
.
Dangers to our Second Amendment rights have been justified by other legal tricks and ruses routinely advocated by "conservative judges."  In Robertson v. Baldwin (1897), the court used the fact that "protecting public morals" has been used to justify exemptions to the First Amendment, to itself justify encroachments upon the Second:
.
"Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons..."
.
In other words, be careful what you ask for.  If you want to see judges appointed who will declare arbitrary and poorly founded reasons to curtail freedom of the press, those same judges will likely devise poorly founded excuses to curtail your gun rights.
.
The Second Amendment's Humanistic Worldview
.
Finally, it's worth pointing out that the Second Amendment is consistent with a liberal, humanistic vision of human nature.
.
It might seem, at first, that the right to own firearms is necessary because of the evil element in society, thus an emphasis on the dark side of human nature.
.
However, what the Second Amendment actually assumes is that the evil element is a small minority.  It assumes, much to the contrary, that the great majority of Americans can be trusted to own deadly weapons and use them responsibility.  
.
In other words, the Second Amendment assumes the inherent goodness of the vast majority of human beings -- a thoroughly humanistic worldview.
.
Moreover, it's easy to conclude that if the Founders felt that the great majority of citizens could be trusted to own deadly force, then those same citizens can likewise be trusted to make every other life decision responsibly, whether what books to read, whom to sleep with, or even using marijuana.  If we can be trusted with deadly weapons, it follows that we can be trusted with liberties of less gravity as well.
.
The greatest statement in favor of human freedom of choice may be -- of all things -- the Second Amendment.
.

In another of my arcane, abstruse dissertations on Constitutional law and theory, I will show that the Bush judicial nominees that Senate Democrats filibustered really are the bizarre, insane fringies that needed to be stopped.
.
Let's look at this proposal by Judge Charles W. Pickering, whose ill-fated nomination was withdrawn in 2004:
.
http://www.washtimes.com/co...
.
He proposed this Amendment:
.
"The Constitution and the amendments thereto duly adopted in the future may be changed, modified, amended or added to only by amendment duly adopted as outlined in Article V of the Constitution. Neither the Supreme Court nor the inferior courts will create law, change, modify, amend, or add to the Constitution, but will interpret the Constitution and amendments in accordance with the common understanding of the relevant provision at the time it was adopted. This amendment does not affect the weight to be given prior decisions under the Doctrine of stare decisis."
.
Sounds good...  Or does it?
.
Not only is it dangerous because it essentially tells judges how to think, but it all but prohibits judges from drawing simple logical deductions from the text of the Constitution.  But first things first.
.
The "understanding of the relevant provision at the time it was adopted" would leave many of the rights we take for granted unprotected.  When the First Amendment was adopted, there would be no protection whatsoever for broadcast media, cable media, satellite media, or the Internet, since none of these existed at the time.  The Founders couldn't possibly have had these in mind, so the First Amendment would not protect them.
.
Next, the Founders didn't envision today's plethora of state and federal agencies.  Since the First Amendment only mentions Congress, all of these other state agencies would enjoy unlimited regulatory power, since the Founders were only thinking of restraining Congress back in 1791.
.
Pickering writes, "What brought on this unfortunate fight? The transfer of all the hot button social issues: Partial-birth abortion, abortion for teenagers without parental consent or even parental notification, same-sex "marriage," references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance, at public buildings, ceremonies and institutions, display of the Ten Commandments in public places, rewriting history to delete all references to a religious motivation in the settling and building of America, and hard-core and child pornography -- are being settled in the courts of our land rather than in legislative bodies. "
.
What Pickering -- and his proposed amendment -- are basically saying is that judges not be permitted to draw even simple logical deductions from the Constitution, since doing so would amount to "creating law."
.
Let's explore where this leads.
.
The First Amendment forbids Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.  Now, let's say that Congress, or your state, passes a law requiring parents to enroll their children in government-run schools.
.
You might say "Wait just a rock pickin' minute!  I'm a devout Christian, and I have the right to educate my children in schools of my own religion!"

.

Sorry, no can do.  For a judge to conclude that "free exercise of religion" means "the right to enroll your kids in the school of your choice" would amount to that judge "creating law" -- since the latter conclusion doesn't physically appear in the Constitution.

.
The same applies to any other case in which a judge would look at a broadly written Constitutional right and derive from it a more specific right.  Under Pickering's theory, all that would remain of your First Amendment religious freedoms is the right to kneel before the God of your choice and pray.
.
But wait; there's even more.
.
This further proves Bush to be a bald-faced liar when he claims to seek judges who will "strictly interpret the Constitution."  The Pickering Amendment would require almost the opposite: it would require judges to double as historians and reach outside the Constitution and into the oftentimes debatable issues of American history to divine the proper application of a passage of the Constitution.
.
Strict constructionism, this isn't.  It's very much the opposite of Bush's stated claim for what he wants in a federal judge.
.
Senate Democrats were entirely justified in blocking the nominations of nuts like Pickering.  Unlike what the negligent media have neglected to tell you, Senate Democrats were blocking judicial nominees who would essentially reduce the Constitution to zero.
.
While you're kneeling to the God of your choice, you'd be wise to include a heartfelt prayer of thanks to Senate Democrats for shielding your most basic Constitutional protections from total destruction by the judicial nominees that Bush has gone out of his way to nominate.
.

NO WAY is this just "supply and demand."  Don't even give me that tripe.
.
I'm about to do something that I have always been very resistant to doing: buy into a liberal conspiracy theory.
.
Who else has noticed that the price of gas has gouged upward 12 full cents since the election, just four days ago?
.
No way is this just supply and demand at work.  Don't even give me that oil-company apologetic garbage.
.
This is conscious, and this is deliberate.  It's just too freaky to be coincidental.
.
1.  Lower the gas prices to help get Republicans elected.
2.  Republicans lose control of Congress.
3.  Punish the people and gouge us while we're still powerless.
.
Watch out, gougers.  We're only powerless for two more months.
.

On MSNBC's Scarborough Country, political commentator Pat Buchanan correctly noted that Democratic candidates, almost without exception, completely avoided what he and I consider to be the most important issues -- even if from opposite sides of the fence.
.
Focus on the family, an anti-freedom big-government advocate, offers its most recent post-electoral lament (at the time of this writing) here:
.
http://www.citizenlink.org/...
.
I'll touch the judicial appointments issue one more time, briefly:
.
"Turning to the Senate:

• Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., will be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said Sen. Leahy's probable chairmanship will "undoubtedly become known as the worst of the unintended consequences" of the '06 elections.

"His impact on the confirmation of federal appeals-court judges will repeat the 'black hole' experience of the period of May 2001 through January 2003, when Leahy also chaired the committee," Hausknecht said.

"For example, the same month that Leahy became chairman in 2001, John Roberts was nominated for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals," he said. "Some 19 months later, Leahy still hadn't even given him a hearing.

"He treated 11 other nominees with similar contempt," Hausknecht added.

Pro-family legal analysts expect nothing different out of Leahy this time, Hausknecht added.

"I also anticipate that any openings on the Supreme Court will engender a campaign of obstruction, led by Leahy, of such magnitude that it will make Justice Alito's contentious confirmation process look like a walk in the park," he said."
.
I'll reiterate once more:  Appointing freedom-hating, Constitutionally blind agenda-driven judges to the federal courts is the far right's top priority.  If Leahy takes the chairmanship again, our Constitutional freedom is a little bit safer.
.
But there's more:
.
""What they are going to have votes on, instead, will be increased federal funding for comprehensive sex-ed programs; they will also try to water-down the current pro-life provisions that prevent federal funding for abortions, particularly in military hospitals overseas. So the tone of Congress is going to change."...

..."Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have both consistently voted for the pro-abortion position on issues," Christensen said. "They have taken extreme positions on increased federal funding for Title X (sex-education) programs and programs that put money into the coffers of Planned Parenthood. They have not supported the issues that most pro-lifers, most values voters, support at all.""
.
Being "pro-family," in the Religious Right, simply means being anti-sex, fearful of anything that treats human sexuality openly and honestly.  Their fear of sex education, and their desire to suppress it, is so far out of the American mainstream that even most religious conservatives consider it misguided.
.
And pro-life?  Hell no.  I have an unassailable pro-life background, having wanted to join Operation Rescue at one time.  That's one reason why I consider the Religious Right's fear of sex woefully misguided -- not only is their desire to suppress sex education nowhere justified by the Bible, but statistics and results show that the societies with the lowest rates of abortion are the societies with the most open and honest attitude toward sexuality.
.
Conservatives can rightly criticize the hard-core coastal Left for being out of touch with mainstream America.  But what many voters don't know -- and Democrats, for some reason, aren't telling -- is that the Religious Right leadership, and the lawmakers they helped elect -- are equally out of touch with mainstream American values, out of touch even with the values of most Christian conservatives.
.
Buchanan is right.  Why the silence on these issues, Dems?  The best thing about Democratic control is being talked about -- but only by the far right wing.  They need to be answered in the public square.
.

.
.
Given what looks like will be a Democratic-controlled Senate, our Constitutional freedoms are a bit safer.  For now.

.

For the past six years, the GOP-dominated Senate Judiciary Committee has rubber-stamped far-right judicial nominees, many of whom harbor an absolute, complete, total disregard for the Constitution and its guaranteed rights and freedoms.  The worst nominees have been stopped by Senate filibuster.
.
Expect a different rubber stamp to get a little workout unless President Bush lives up to his promise to act in a bipartisan manner:  REFUSED.
.
While freedom-haters like Rick Santorum and (most likely) George Allen have been defeated in their Senate re-election races, there are still plenty far-right senators who have made it a top priority to pack the federal courts with judges who will turn a blind eye to your Constitutional liberties.  
.
Take South Dakota Senator John Thune, who ousted the long-standing Democrat Tom Daschle.  Please.  Thune has a special page in his nook of the Senate web site that is devoted to packing the federal courts.
.
His statement therein, "I believe that we should appoint judges to the federal bench who will abide by and apply the rule of law, instead of activist judges who try and create law" is very deceptive.
.
In reality, what people like Thune deem an "activist judge" is any judge who declares even one meddlesome law unconstitutional.  And any time that a judge deduces from the Bill of Rights that Americans are guaranteed a particular personal liberty, that judge is bashed for "creating law."
.
Wrong.  They're just doing their jobs.
.
I return once again to the immortal Federalist Paper #78, written by founding father Alexander Hamilton:
.
"The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly
essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I
understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the
legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no
bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of
this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the
medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts
contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this,
all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to
nothing..."
.
"But it is easy to see, that it would require an
uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful
guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had
been instigated by the major voice of the community."
.
The top priority of the far right wing has been to hand-pick judges who will refuse to perform this duty.  In the words of Hamilton, "all the reservations of particular rights and priveleges would amount to nothing."
.
Freedom is a bit safer now.  But we still have some bad senators to defeat.
.
America can do it.
.
.

What's really at stake this November?  For about 13 percent of Americans -- the 13 percent that President Bush caters heavily to -- the stake is the intentional destruction of Constitutional liberty in the United States.  The 13 percent that, in the form of James Dobson and Ted Haggard, enjoy the President's private ear for an unbelievable hour every week.
.
Nobody outside the Beltway, and few people inside the Beltway, enjoy such an extraordinary level of catered, red carpet service by this President.
.
And I'm about to tell you why.

.

Focus on the Family, a big-government, anti-freedom Religious Right group, warns as follows:

http://www.citizenlink.org/...
"Conservative pundits and pro-family legal analysts say if liberals gain control of Congress on Tuesday, the fate of future conservative judicial nominees will hang in the balance.
.

With them, according to Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst of Focus on the Family Action, will hang the fates of pre-born babies, marriage and religious liberty.
.

"The success of the president's judicial appointments depends on conservative control of the Senate," he said."
.
Concerned Women for America notes:
http://www.cwfa.org/article...
"But there is nothing more problematic for America’s future than the threat of judicial activism. It is no secret how the left would handle that challenge; they promoted 22 filibusters of qualified conservative judicial nominees. "
.
That's the far right's top priority: pack the federal courts with corrupt, biased judges who have little to zero respect for the Constitution and its guaranteed individual rights.
.
Don't be fooled by the term, "conservative judicial nominees."
.
The definition these Religious Right groups impart to "conservative" is infuriatingly deceptive -- and is the exact opposite of what "conservative" used to mean.
.
"Conservative" used to mean "limited government."
Religious Right-friendly "conservative" judges believe in nearly unlimited government.
.
The logic is simple to follow:
.
1.  The Religious Right, America's Taliban, hates personal freedom with every fiber of their being.
2.  The Constitution represents an absolute line in the sand against government intrusion and mistreatment -- the Constitution, the highest law in the land, tells government what it may and may not do to the citizens that it governs.  The Constitution enshrines rights and freedoms that no government may lawfully violate.
3.  The judges appointed to the federal courts -- especially the Supreme Court -- are the Constitution's enforcers.  They are, in effect, the police to enforce Constitutional law upon government.
4.  Therefore, the far Religious Right must disable the Constitution and its system of checks and balances.  One of their means of trying to nullify our Constitutional liberties is to pack the courts with judges who will refuse to uphold it.
.
Judges serve lifetime appointments.  Therefore, our Constitutional rights will suffer a lifetime of damage unless the far right is stopped.
.
Stopping them requires a Democratic majority in the Senate.
.
When you vote next Tuesday, vote not just for yourself, but for your children.  And your grandchildren.  Don't jeopardize the freedoms that they grew up to take for granted.
.
For more detailed information on the grave danger that our Constitutional liberties face, see my recent blog post:
http://people.bakersfield.c...
.