Latest News!Written By Comment Count Comment Last Three May 26, 2009
CA Political News
The California Supreme court has ruled in favor of the voters of California.
The Supreme Court upheld the Prop. 8 ban on same sex marriage. At the saqme time upheld the validity of the 18,000 marriages approved before Prop. 8. Be assured, the fight is not over. In 2010 the Left will put a repeal of Prop. 8 on the ballot. Thanks goes to those who promoted this effort. and, a backward thanks goes to Jerry Brown for undercutting the anti-Prop. 8 briefs by filing an incoherent brief, off topic, in favor of same-sex marriage. Thank you Jerry for helpng end same-sex marriage in California. To see more of the story go here. Do you think this is the right decision? Will you help keep this decision as the law of California. Click here to see complete story.
"The California Supreme Court has upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed. The decision Tuesday rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval." -
0
March 27, 2009
CA Political News
You can go to court, the Left can put it back on the ballot--and they will--but the people of California still oppose same-sex marriage.
This is a divisive issue. But for Republicans it is a good one for the long term. The more the Left puts it on the ballot or talks about it publicly, it reminds church going minorities that the Democrat Party does not have their best interests in minds. Remember, blacks supported Prop. 8 by 70% and Hispanics had more than a majority support for not allowing same-sex marriage. Of course our tax and environmental policies harm minorities, as do our ACLU law enforcement rules. In fact, if you want to hate minorities, do as George Wallace and Ross Barnett did, become Democrats--the home of haters and bigots. Yesterday, Democrats created segregated schools, today we have affirmative action schools--neither helps the education of minorities. Democrats do not want stable families--Lyndon Johnson killed black families with his "War on Poverty". By forcing woman NOT to marry in order to get welfare, the Democrats assured two generation of black children not to have fathers in their homes. Same-sex marriage support for Democrats is just more of the same. Poll: Voters reject same-sex marriage -
0
March 21, 2009
CA Political News
A $3 billion, union only effort to raise LA energy costs by 21% was defeated by a narrow margin--but it was defeated. Every elected official supported it, the unions spent $3 million and the opponents less than $300,000. This was an effort to steal money from the poor and middle class, while making the totalitarian unions richer (totalitarian--if workers do not pay bribes they do not work).
This gives me hope that the massive tax increases on the May 19 ballot, along with the theft of Trust Funds, money from education, children and the mentally ill, will not be passed. The special interests were defeated in Los Angeles, they can be defeated in California. L.A. mayor: Lack of transparency killed solar initiative
By Rick Orlov, Daily News, 3/21/09 The city election results finalized this week sent a sharp message to Los Angeles officials - especially Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa - with the defeat of the Measure B solar initiative. That message, city officials said, was not the rejection of solar power. Rather, they took it as a rebuke of some of the details they wrote into the plan and the way they got the measure onto the ballot, seen by critics as too quick and secretive. Villaraigosa said he was disappointed that voters shot down the measure, as confirmed by a final tally late Thursday. But he said city officials will still move forward with the basics of the proposal. "I think clearly that folks want to see a broader discussion on the issue with all the transparency and accountability we can have," Villaraigosa said in a telephone interview from Chicago, where he is addressing the U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute conference. "But also, very surely Los Angeles should charge ahead with more sustainable energy. We have to have a more public process and engage all stakeholders to make sure they are involved in whatever we do." The complete vote, including the tabulation of some 46,000 uncounted ballots from the March 3 election, showed that Measure B lost by a 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent margin. There were 132,569 votes against the measure and 129,925 votes for it in the final count. Measure B was written primarily by the union representing Department of Water and Power employees, who would have done all the work installing solar panels if the plan had passed. A ragtag collection of grass- roots activists with little funding worked to defeat the measure based on arguments about process and details rather than the merits of solar power. Brian D'Arcy, general manager of Local 18 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which represents most DWP workers, said the vote was a major setback for the utility. "I'm not sure what was accomplished by this vote other than to delay what we do to develop renewable energy," D'Arcy said. "This was not a rejection of solar energy. It had 49.5 percent for it. It just barely lost. In a low-turnout election, it's easy to get people to vote no." D'Arcy said the proposal will now go to the Board of Water and Power Commissioners and the City Council to examine and try to implement a solar- power plan. However, he urged city officials not to let opponents of the measure rule how solar energy is developed. "I think there are elements that just want to privatize the DWP and take it away from its main function of providing energy to the people of Los Angeles," D'Arcy said. "We need this to create more jobs, develop green energy and have the DWP perform its main function." Conflicting studies by consultants placed the cost at anywhere from $1billion to $3billion for the proposal in Measure B, which called for developing 400 megawatts of solar power by 2014. H. David Nahai, general manager of the DWP, said he believed the city could still meet the 400- megawatts goal and timeline. Councilwoman Jan Perry, who chairs the City Council's Environment and Energy Committee, plans to hold hearings throughout the city to get input on the measure. "We will be very inclusive and open and deliberative and put things on the record," Perry said. Jack Humphreville, one of the leaders of the opposition movement, said he looked forward to the next developments. "We can all sit around doing high-fives about the defeat of Measure B, but what we want to see is the new process," Humphreville said. "DWP has to get its act together, and it might require them and the city going after some sacred cows to make it work. The goal is clean energy for the public and not something controlled by the DWP management and its unions." Some analysts thought the mayor was handed a second rebuke by the voters March 3. Although he easily won re-election, it was by a smaller margin than expected in competition with a handful of relatively unknown challengers. The final results showed Villaraigosa received 152,653 votes, or 55.6 percent. His closest challenger was attorney Walter Moore, with 71,923 votes, or 26.2 percent. Villaraigosa said he was looking forward to his second term. "I am humbled and honored by the support given by the city, and I look forward to taking on the challenges of the present and the future," Villaraigosa said. "I recognize people are concerned, and this economic crisis requires a strong and steady leadership. "My focus has to be on making the tough decisions that will get us beyond this crisis." -
0
March 18, 2009
CA Political News
The object of an election is to have the citizens vote. Whether they do it in person, or by mail, does not matter.
-
0
March 06, 2009
CA Political News
This from the OC Register says it all, " But taking the money from one pocket now to put in another is a disingenuous way to deal with the state's runaway overspending. We'd rather see ballot measures to repeal these public spendthrifts' legalized thefts of private money."
Prop. 1A allows the State the continue billions in higher taxes for three more years. But, the ballot summary, approved by Jerry Brown and Debra Bowen does not mention that fact. The Governor has told us the new "budget" will cut $15 billion in spending. But, Prop. 1B would give back $8 billion of that--note neither the Governor nor others are proud of this, so fail to mention the phony spending cuts. The ballot measures to be voted on by us on May 19th are frauds, lies and misrepresentations. Vote NO on all May 19th measures. Tell the politicians to stop lying to us. A defeat of all measures will send the message. Editorial: Bailing out on ballot 'gimmicks'
Major union lobbyist turns against the ballot measures needed to impose tax increases. Orange County Register editorial, 3/5/09 So-called budget "reform" may be about to unravel. An influential union lobbyist this week said he will urge a "no" vote on practically every one of the six measures Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature placed on the May 19 special election ballot. "It's not a budget fix. These are gimmicks," said Willie Pelote, lobbyist for California's 179,000-member American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union. He's correct. Considering that the latest Field Poll shows the governor's popularity at a near-all-time low of 38 percent, and the Legislature's even more dismal 18 percent, the last thing these would-be reformers need is well-financed, large-scale opposition. It probably will require that kind of opposition to defeat these measures, which are part of the tax hike, spending cuts and borrowing plan to bail California out of its $42 billion deficit. If Mr. Pelote persuades his AFSCME clients, will organized opposition from public school teachers, prison guards and others be far behind? Gov. Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders tried to sweeten the package to buy off potential opponents. They hope teachers, for example, support Proposition 1A's spending limits in return for Prop. 1B's guaranteed extra money to replace school budget cuts. The governor's traveling dog-and-pony show will simplify the message to mislead factions into supporting what they otherwise intuitively might oppose. But the simplistic charade already may have gone too far. Separate lawsuits are challenging two propositions' misleading ballot language. With good reason. Prop. 1A conceals the fact that a "yes" vote on spending limits also approves $16 billion more in sales, income and vehicle taxes over an additional two years. The ballot label for Prop. 1E to divert existing taxes for mental health services to the general fund also is "false and misleading," says a lawsuit to be heard today in Sacramento. Charges of deception are unsurprising. The six-proposition package, along with $12.5 billion in new taxes, were agreed to by only the four legislative leaders and the governor, behind closed doors, then approved by the scantiest majority vote of both the Senate and Assembly only after literally locking lawmakers in the Capitol for arm-twisting and promise-making. The ballot measures are nearly uniformly dishonest. Prop. 1A's alleged spending cap permits spending automatically to increase with increases in taxation, while adding another $16 billion in taxes over two years, more than $1,100 per family per year. Prop. 1B seeks to buy teacher union support to compensate for the first substantive cuts in public school funding in memory. Prop. 1C is a gimmick to "borrow" money designated for schools from the state lottery to plug the deficit. Likewise, Props. 1D and 1E divert taxes for early-childhood and mental-health services to plug budget gaps. Only Prop. 1F makes plain sense. It prevents pay raises for elected officials when the state has a deficit. We opposed the special taxes when they were imposed. But taking the money from one pocket now to put in another is a disingenuous way to deal with the state's runaway overspending. We'd rather see ballot measures to repeal these public spendthrifts' legalized thefts of private money. For now, voters should reject the gimmickry. That would send the Legislature and governor back to square one, where we think it unlikely they could twist enough arms to increase taxes further. Maybe then they finally would scale down state government's monstrous tax-devouring machinery. The people, to whom that money belongs, can make far better use of it. -
0
March 06, 2009
CA Political News
When a newspaper admits the government is hiding facts from the people, you know it is bad.
When government is refusing to make it easy for people to know how it is spending their money, you know they have something to hide. My guess is that with the Internet, bloggers, private investigators, corruption, sweetheart deals and payoffs will come to life if folks could see how the tax dollars are being spent. Only a crook would oppose this measure to bring sunshine to the spending of tax dollars--can not wait to see how the Democrats and unions oppose this one. Hopefully John and Ken will expose them as well. Get angry or get poor. Make spending info accessible
San Bernardino Sun editorial, 3/5/09 There's much to be said for letting taxpayers know exactly how government spends their hard-earned money. And there's nothing like shining a light on government activities to keep everything on the up-and-up and give constituents confidence in their representatives. So we expect state Sen. Bob Huff's Senate Bill 719 to speed through the Legislature to the governor's desk. Huff, a Republican who represents parts of San Bernardino, Los Angeles and Orange counties, introduced his Taxpayer Transparency Act of 2009 last week with three co-authors in the Senate and seven in the Assembly, including local Assemblyman Bill Emmerson, R-Redlands. The bill requires every state agency and department to set up a searchable database of its expenditures that the public can access on its Web site. "Transparency is an essential component of democracy and allows taxpayers to hold public officials accountable for their actions," Huff said, adding that public scrutiny will reduce possible impropriety - real or perceived - in the spending of taxpayer funds. He's right in asserting that his legislation would foster accountability while reducing waste and abuse. Huff's legislation calls for listing every expenditure in excess of $1,000 whether it comes in the form of a contract or subcontract, grant, purchase order, tax refund, rebate or credit. It exempts transfers between agencies and assistance payments to an individual beneficiary. Information listed for each expenditure must include the name and address of the recipient, the monetary amount, the type of transaction, the budget program source and a description of the purpose of the expenditure. The searchable databases would have to be up and running with information for the 2008-09 fiscal year by July 2010, and be updated monthly thereafter. The bill directs that each department's or agency's database must provide users the ability to view information in a format that is searchable and that may be downloaded and managed by the user with appropriate software. SB 719 os based on the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, which produced the free, publicly searchable Web site USAspending.gov, listing all federal contracts, grants and payments in excess of $25,000. Both the federal law and Huff's bill provide exceptions for classified information. Two of Huff's Senate co-authors are Democrats, but all seven Assembly members listed on the bill are Republicans. Government transparency is something both parties should support to the fullest, so we expect plenty of support from Republicans and Democrats as this bill progresses through the Legislature. -
0
March 02, 2009
CA Political News
Imagine stopping a $70 billion tax increase, you would think it would be easy. After all it takes a 2/3 vote of the legislature and the signing of a bill by a Governor who swore at his 2006 opponent who suggested he would support a tax increase.
And, you had every GOP member of the legislature, except for one, who signed a pledge not to raise taxes. Yet, taxes were raised sky high. So, this "spending cap" also has a waiver in it, by 2/3 vote--so why does anybody expect it to work? what happens when people find out that if it passes, they automatically get three more years of high taxes--are voters that stupid to vote for high taxes on themselves? The "spending cap" says that the legislature does not trust itself not to raise taxes and spending--and in that they are right, they are not to be trusted. Vote NO on all the May 19th ballot measures--save your homes, jobs and the State. Get angry or get poor. Opposition forms for state spending-cap Prop 1A Dave
1
February 11, 2009
CA Political News
The Democrats, the ACLU and their friends in ACORN yelled and screamed—if you have Voter ID, you will suppress the vote. Look at the two States with the strictest laws. Georgia had the highest turnout in its history. Indiana had the fifth highest turnout in the nation. States like Illinois and Mississippi, without voter ID, did not have large increases—, maybe because voters knew corruption and fraud was easy, so why waste the time. The Democrats, the ACLU and their friends in ACORN yelled and screamed—if you have Voter ID, you will suppress the vote. Look at the two States with the strictest laws. Georgia had the highest turnout in its history. Indiana had the fifth highest turnout in the nation. States like Illinois and Mississippi, without voter ID, did not have large increases—, maybe because voters knew corruption and fraud was easy, so why waste the time. Voter ID would stop the corruption of ACORN, stop the voting by illegal aliens, stop the fraud by political machines. The evidence is in. Only the crooks and corrupt would oppose Voter ID. Obviously they do not want high turnouts, they do not want honest elections. Ask your Democrat official holder, ask your ACLU friends, ask why they oppose honest elections? Ask why they support ACORN instead of democracy? What do you think? Would you vote for a ballot measure mandating honest elections, mandating Voter ID?
-
0
|
Sign our PetitionsPoll of the dayCategories
Archives
|
