Tag Archives: California

Even Democrats realize Cap and Trade = economic disaster

CA dems re-think cap and trade

CA dems re-think cap and tradeFor years, economists have been saying that cap-and-trade would be an economy killer. Now, a group of California Democrats has come to the same conclusion in a letter to the head of California’s air resources board.

The 16 Democrats have requested a delay or change to the rules that would put gasoline under the same cap-and-trade rules as power stations have been suffocating under. The rules are set to take effect in 2015.

In the letter, the group warned that “fuel prices for consumers are going to be driven up once fuel is covered under cap-and-trade at the start of next year, weakening the economy just as California is recovering from the last recession, and hurting the most vulnerable members of our communities who must commute to work and drive long distances for necessary services like medical care.”

Now they suddenly understand that their policies are hurting working people and families?

Everyone remembers Obama’s famous “necessarily skyrocket” remarks. Cap-and-trade is intended to make sure that energy prices do just that. Shortsightedness may be getting the better of the progressive left.

The higher prices are intended to curb demand, but that doesn’t work on a necessity. Families have to attend school meetings, go to work, go get groceries and such. That requires fuel or electricity.

If fuel and energy prices rise, that trip to the grocery store will cost more and leave less for non-essential spending. Whether the fuel price hikes result in bus fare increases, train ticket price increases or a higher price at the pump won’t matter – the trip will now cost more and leave families with less.

It appears that Obama is following Jimmy Carter’s economic plan .. and getting the same results.

America Our Way with Dustin Hoyt – July 10th

RadioLogo

RadioLogo
When: Wednesday, July 10th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: America Our Way with Dustin Hoyt on Blog Talk Radio

What: Dustin Hoyt takes on the biggest issues of the day, advocating for smaller government, liberty, common sense, and honest politicians. His insight and witty commentary provide entertaining and provoking angles on everything from fiscal policy to the most sensational statements. With a twist of Libertarianism and Conservativism that blends well to all who support the tea party and true American values. This show taps into all the things patriotic Americans love and need to hear in the battle against the left and the expansive government we fight against.

Tonight: Dustin will be talking about Constitutional violations by police in Nevada, and California. Also, he will talk about Saudi Arabia, and their instructions to foreigners during Ramadan.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Prop 8 Ruling Avoided: Supreme Court clears the path for gay marriage in California

Image via LA Times
Image via LA Times

Image via LA Times

The Supreme Court has ruled that California citizens who want to uphold the gay marriage ban do not have the right to appeal the lower court rulings striking down the ban.

Proposition 8 was passed by the voters of California in 2008, but last year, the federal court of appeals deemed it unconstitutional.

This 5-4 decision is another win for gay marriage in America.

California moving to increase minimum wage

Tax Credits (CC)

Tax Credits (CC)

Tax Credits (CC)

The California Assembly has passed a measure that will increase the minimum wage in The Golden State. Wages would increase from $8 to $9.25 under this measure that is now moving on to the state Senate for consideration. UPI reports:

The bill’s author, Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Watsonville, said higher wages would “allow our families to provide for their children, pay their bills and give them dignity and respect.”

The measure would increase to $8.25 an hour next year, $8.75 in 2015 and reach $9.25 by 2016. The federal minimum wage is $7.25.

The vote was 42-24. Only Assemblyman Ken Cooley, D-Rancho Cordova, crossed party lines in the vote.

The California Chamber of Commerce stated that this measure will be a “job killer,” and will prevent businesses from being able to afford to hire new employees.

Armor-Clad CA Mayor Seeks Support

stockton mayor

stockton mayorStockton, the small resort city South of Sacramento, California sought bankruptcy protection from its obligations last summer. The bankruptcy filing by Stockton, more than 290,000 residents, has been closely watched by both bond insurers who guaranteed the city’s debt and CalPERS, the state pension fund for public workers.

Retiree health care, financed by most California cities on a pay-as-you-go basis, and pension payments based on union agreements pushed Stockton, along with several other California cities into bankruptcy.

New Stockton mayor, Anthony Silva brought with him armor and a helmet (which he donned) during his unique State of the City address this week. The mayor plead with city residents to join him in helping clean up the city both literally and figuratively. The mayor believes raising taxes is the only way the city will be able to improve safety in the crime ridden city. At over 14% unemployment it is expected that Silva will meet opposition among both the council and residents to his plan.

 

California’s massively unpopular gun confiscation measure

Demomcrat Logo

Jerry BrownThe Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday that Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation that would take “handguns and assault rifles” away from 20,000 Californians. Popular opinion in the LA Times own poll shows the Governor is not following the will of the people.

Evan Westrup, a spokesman Governor Brown said that the bill “makes our communities safer by giving law enforcement the resources they need to get guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals.”

The state has always had laws allowing them to take weapons from those who obtained them legally but have since committed a crime or been diagnosed with a psychological condition. This new legislation puts $24 million behind the law so that confiscations can happen faster.

The first of many gun restriction bills to head to the governor, this measure hires dozens of new agents specifically for the task of firearms confiscation.

The money does not come from the state’s general fund. Instead, the $24 million will be taken from a fund intended to strengthen California’s background check system.

The fees are known as DROS fees or “Dealer’s Record of Sale”. While other states collect no additional fees from dealer’s, California set up the DROS fee telling constituents that the fees would go to enhance the background check system. Instead, it appears that the fees will be used to confiscate firearms.

No good fee goes unpilfered.

The firearms background check system has been the focus of gun debate for the past few months. Supposedly, 90% of Americans wanted to see improved background checks. Now California believes that funds intended for such actions should be used to collect firearms that were legally bought instead.

Many ask where the money will come from to improve the background check system? How else will the large community of retail firearms-purchasing criminals be caught when they buy “assault rifles” at a gun store?

The good news is that California already has a registry of its gun owners which makes finding the current gun owners easier. The state has a database containing all those owning guns that the NRA and gun rights activists have long said would lead to confiscation.

Now, Governor Brown has proven that those registries are used to find gun owners for the purpose of taking their firearms. While the reasons may or may not make sense to different groups, the purpose of the database is now obvious.

What happens when the gun ownership bar is lowered next time? Will traffic tickets be enough? Spitting on the sidewalk? Shooting a double-barreled shotgun out the back door for home defense? Hey, don’t blame me, that was the Vice-President’s idea. Or what if the local law decides that your attitude on government is troubling? The Palm Beach Post reports that Palm Beach, Florida Sheriff Ric Bradshaw has been given the power to investigate people that disagree with their government.

The Florida state legislature gave the Sheriff $1 million dollars which he intends to use to fund an intervention unit.

The Sheriff says the new unit is important and that he wants ”

people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government.”

Sheriff Bradshaw replied to concerns saying “We know how to sift through frivolous complaints.”, but many are not convinced.

“We don’t want to take away people’s civil liberties just because people aren’t behaving the way we think they should be,” said Liz Downey of the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

It appears that the California legislature is ignoring their constituents, the will of the people, public sentiment or all those other words Obama uses to tell us that Congress is doing it wrong.

When asked if this program should be a model for the nation, a Los Angeles Times poll had these results as of 9:00pm on Thursday (you can vote in it HERE):

confiscation survey

 

UPDATED: Parents Want 2nd Opinion on Child’s Health; CPS Takes Child

cps

UPDATE MONDAY 7PM MST: A judge has ruled that the baby be transferred to another medical center and will allow the family to be reunited with their child. The parents must not take the child from the hospital without appropriate discharge and must follow all medical advice.

Additional information provided indicates the child has had a known heart murmur and the family has been under regular pediatric cardiologist care with the understanding that heart surgery would be necessary but had not been considered an emergent basis.

//

As mom to a special needs child our family is well acquainted with social workers and state agents. In these tough financial times many state workers are being paid less and working more.  For the most part the workers want to do what is best for the family. But what happens when an accusation appears to be made without merit? Can a child be removed from its parents simply because an accuser thinks he might know best?

In the case below parents of an ill baby take the child to the hospital. Following, by the parents’ accounts, what appears to be errors on the part of hospital staff and talk of extreme open heart surgery the parents remove their child and take it to a neighboring hospital for a second opinion. At the second hospital doctors release the child to be taken home with the parents for continued health care.

At one point, Anna says, a nurse came in and started giving the baby, named Sammy, medicine.

When she asked what it was, the nurse allegedly replied, “I don’t know.”

“I’m like, you’re working as a nurse, and you don’t even know what to give to my baby…?” Anna said in an ABC10 Action News interview. They later found out that medicine was antibiotics, which Anna claims the doctor told her Sammy shouldn’t have received. After doctors started discussing heart surgery, the Nikolayevs decided they wanted a second opinion.  They weren’t categorically opposed to the procedure, but they wanted a different doctor. “If we got the one mistake after another, I don’t want to have my baby have surgery in the hospital where I don’t feel safe,” Anna explained.

But it seems staff at the first hospital reported the family to Child Protective Services because the parents took the child out of the hospital without permission.  And according to the reports and parent statements police assisted CPS agents to forcibly take the baby from its mother.

We all want our children to be safe, to be protected. Child abuse is horrendous and should be treated seriously. Everyone believes that it is better to be safe than sorry.

But when is the accusation the only proof necessary to take a child from its parents?

 

Gay Rights Debate Reaches the Supreme Court

by Jeremy Griffith

HRC symbol appearing on Facebook promoting gay marriage issue

HRC symbol appearing on Facebook promoting gay marriage issue

Have you noticed a strange symbol showing up on the Internet, especially Facebook? There is a red block with two pink horizontal and parallel bars showing up on FB to replace people’s profile pics. This symbol is an alteration of the more commonly seen emblem of the Human Rights Commission, an organization that supports gay rights, (normally seen as two gold parallel horizontal bars on a purple field). There is an article today in HuffPo that explains this very thing.

The reason for the promotion of this symbol is to show support for gay marriage nationwide as the controversial Proposition 8 is being discussed in the Nation’s Supreme Court. This California Law is the legally binding law, approved of by the voting public of California defining marriage as the relationship between one man and one woman, effectively banning the relationship of any other type.

Now, let’s get this straight, I am not in favor of gay marriage of any type, as I am a Christian and I believe in what the Bible has to say on this issue. I will never be in favor of gay rights per say. Whenever homosexuality or any sexual perversion is mentioned in the Bible, bad things happen, (regardless of straight or gay). But from a purely intellectual standpoint, I understand and respect what the gay lobby is trying to do.

Currently, no one is being treated substantially different under the current law of California. Gay people have the same rights as straight couples; they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Of course, that’s not what they want. What they want is special treatment to marry someone of the same sex, which is a special status not currently allowed.

HRC's normal symbol often seen as a bumper sticker.

HRC’s normal symbol often seen as a bumper sticker.

Now from a strictly libertarian viewpoint, I don’t really care if gay people are allowed to get married or not. I don’t approve of that type of relationship, but who am I to judge my neighbor, as long as he is not picking my pocket or breaking my leg. I understand that the gay couple wants the same benefits from the government that I would get as a straight person, which include but are not limited to: a) passing on of employment benefits to a domestic partner, b) the privilege to adopt a child, c) the right to visit a sick domestic partner in the hospital without interference from other blood relatives.

These are admirable goals, which I think can be achieved outside of declaring sanction of gay marriage. Why shouldn’t gay couples have these benefits along with any straight couple? Clearly the states can enact specific laws regarding these very complex social issues.

Here is the slippery slop now. I work at the Mayo Clinic. Under current policy the Clinic accepts living wills or powers of attorney for patients diagnosed with terminal illnesses, and it tries to honor those. However, the Clinic will usurp that power of attorney or living will if a blood relative of the patient objects, negating the will of the patient. This is unacceptable whether we’re talking about straight or gay patients, this should not be. If I have gone through the effort to make my will known, why should anyone else, relative or not, be able to simply usurp my will while I lay helpless my deathbed? If you’re gay or straight, it doesn’t matter. Everyone should have their close friends by their side when dealing with a life-threatening or terminal disease. The right of the suffering patients should be considered above that of any other, period!

Obviously we should strengthen the force of powers of attorney and medical directives.

As for the adoption issue, I am fully in favor of letting gay couples adopt so long as social services is being involved. There is no evidence that I have seen that shows that a gay couple is any more or less prone to abuse a child than a straight family. I would rather see a child get a good home than remain wards of the state. Social service involvements can oversee parents, regardless of sexuality, to determine that the child is indeed being received by a safe and stable home.

Then there is the issue of employee and social services benefits. I am all in favor of employers extending benefits to same sex couples, but here again there is a slippery slope. Should the employer have to extend benefits to Muslim or Mormon families where there are multiple wives, multiplying the cost to the employer per the number of beneficiaries? Isn’t that discrimination? Is it fair to the employer?

I think that if we are going to recognize one type of relationship, then we are excluding the others. If we open up the definition of marriage, then we open a barrel of monkeys that will be hard to close. I believe that the employers should extend benefits to one spouse only, to the exclusion of relationships of multiple beneficiaries. But here is where the state can enact laws, with the consent of their citizens, to determine the details.

I have no objection to the individual states enacting laws that make sense to their voters. What I do object to is robed elites at the appellate and Supreme Court levels usurping the will of the voter. Let the people decide what’s best for them and let the courts mind their own business.

The only reason for the court involvement is that this loud and vocal minority cannot be satisfied and must usurp the will of the majority by going over their heads to the appellate and supreme courts. In my view, these courts have no authority to usurp these laws; their only jurisdiction is to determine whether the laws enacted are constitutional. I’ve read the constitution; I don’t think there is any reference there to marriage, gay or otherwise. The only logical decision the courts can do is kick back these lawsuits and let the legislatures do their jobs. But they won’t because there is a certain power and prestige that comes with the judge’s robe and they like to use it to their benefit. The minority concerns like the gay lobby make use of this fact. As long as judges are allowed to legislate from the bench, the will of the majority will be meaningless.

And why should the state be involved in endorsing marriage in the first place? Have we had enough of the nanny state as it is? Why should I as a single person be punished for remaining single while married people get tax breaks (or penalties in some states)? Isn’t this the federal government picking winners and losers? I have an idea, let’s treat everyone the same, with a flat income tax, starting at incomes of $20k or more that taxes everyone at the same rate. Wouldn’t that be fair? No winners or losers, everyone treated the same. Perhaps that’s an issue for another column.

All in all I believe this is a 10th Amendment issue. States have the right, with the consent of their citizens, to determine what laws to enact in their state, and as long as those laws don’t break the constitutional standard, they should remain issues of the state. Where the constitution is silent on an issue, so too should be the court.

Jimmy LaSilvia of GOProud.

Jimmy LaSilvia of GOProud.

I recognize there will be debate even among conservatives and libertarians in regard to this issue. I welcome polite interface with people of differing opinions. My friends at GOProud for instance might have a different take. I respect their opinion. It annoys me that my friend Jimmy LaSilvia and his organization were barred from attending CPAC. As a conservative, I think there is room for debate on these very controversial issues. What there isn’t room for in the Republican and Conservative circles is hatred and name calling. That is reserved for the lockstep Liberals and Progressives. It suits their narrow-mindedness and low tolerance.

Unloaded Guns Can Kill!

unloadedgunlady

No, you didn’t misread that title. Yes, there are leftists out there that think unloaded guns can hurt people. And yes, unfortunately, those leftists are in office!

If this doesn’t go viral……

Well, all I can say is that I hope this California Councilwoman doesn’t have any aspirations to move up in the political world. Here’s hoping she can continue to afford her botox bills without moving up, shall we?

H/T ConservativeVideos

FEMA: Burned Out Family Can’t Rebuild

sacramento fire fema

Meet the Taylors, a Sacramento family whose home burned down last August. After dealing with the devastation and emotional trauma the family discovered that FEMA had changed the rules for their area and now would require their home be built 20 feet above ground in order to meet the new flood zone designation. While the fire damage was covered by their insurance the new building requirements were not.

“The city won’t let me fix my house because of FEMA regulations,” Jennifer Taylor said in an interview to Fox News in November. “This is so wrong.”

We bought this home in 1998 because FEMA had certified the levees as 100-year flood protection,” Taylor told FoxNews.com. “Homes are just not being fixed here. … There’s at least a handful of us in this situation.”

In 2008 FEMA revisited flood prone areas and decertified the levee.

Watch their documentary and understand their frustration with the government.

Follow the Taylor’s challenge on Facebook: BurnedOutInNatomas

CA Teacher’s Union Creates Controversial Video

the rich

From the California Federation of Teachers Union Website: Tax the rich: An animated fairy tale, is narrated by Ed Asner, with animation by award-winning artist Mike Konopacki, and written and directed by Fred Glass for the California Federation of Teachers.  The 8 minute video shows how we arrived at this moment of poorly funded public services and widening economic inequality. Things go downhill in a happy and prosperous land after the rich decide they don’t want to pay taxes anymore. They tell the people that there is no alternative, but the people aren’t so sure.  This land bears a startling resemblance to our land.

The following video channels Occupy Wall Street protestors by claiming the rich got rich through tax cuts and tax loopholes and even tax evasion. When the “people” fight back the “rich”  urinated on the “poor,” at least according to the video. (At about 2:50 into the video.)

CFT Communications Director Fred Glass, who wrote and directed the video, told TheBlaze the cartoon is not intended for children.

“I love animation and I believe it is an effective way of communicating ideas that is a little different,” he said, adding that there are no plans to show the video in California classrooms.

The teachers union is proud of their work. What do you think?

Watch it and ask yourself: Is it educational? Is it based on facts? Is it appropriate?

Los Angeles Daily News Endorses Mitt Romney

On Saturday, the Los Angeles Daily News, the second largest newspaper in the L.A area, endorsed Republican candidate Mitt Romney for President. Note that the Daily News endorsed Barack Obama in 2008.

FOUR years ago, as America faced serious trouble at home and abroad, this news organization embraced the need for bold change to a different brand of leadership and endorsed Barack Obama for president.

That assessment of the depth of the nation’s problems and the most promising solution was correct in 2008. Regrettably, it applies no less in 2012, after nearly a full term of Obama’s administration. This is why the editorial board urges voters to choose Mitt Romney for president in the Nov. 6 election. He is the leader this country needs for the future. . .

Sad to say, the reservations our editorial board expressed about Obama in 2008 have been borne out. His inexperience in an executive position has been exposed. His naivete about his chances of getting much of his program through a deeply partisan Congress has been cured the hard way.

Instead of taking charge in Washington, Obama has shown unwillingness to take even the most basic step in presidential leadership: picking up the Oval Office phone to bring his influence to bear on reluctant representatives and senators.

Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the Affordable Care Act, is symbolic of his term for another reason: It passed entirely because of Democratic support.

The economy is making an all-too-slow recovery. The nation’s budget problems remain unsolved, portending a new financial crisis ahead. In the ending of the Iraq War and the killing of Osama bin Laden, there is a sense that we’ve already seen the high points of an Obama administration.

And Americans hoping for better from a prospective second term are frustrated by Obama’s failure to explain how four more years would be different. . .

Instead of following through on his hope-and-change message, Obama keeps telling us the limits of hope and change.
We are all for hope and we champion change. Many of this organization’s editorial positions are guided by the belief that change in government is to be sought, not feared. We embrace new leaders, independent thinking, and shaking up the status quo; this philosophy is evident in several other endorsements this fall.

Four years ago, the editorial board’s willingness to change horses in the middle of a churning river led us to call for voters to break the Republican hold on the White House and try a Democrat with a fresh spark.

Today, it leads the editorial board to urge voters to say “enough” to a Democratic administration whose sincere best has turned out disappointing, and install a seasoned leader with a record of fixing problems.

Mitt Romney is that seasoned leader.

This endorsement comes on the heels of a recent poll which showed that the most solid blue state in the union isn’t as supportive of the President this go around.

In CA Gas Shortages Feared; Prices Jump

20121004__BW_DN05-GAS-05+PC72NRK_400

Fears of a gas shortage are spreading across the state of California as residents woke up to gas prices that had jumped as much as 30 cents in some places over night. The average cost of gas per gallon in California is now $4.49/gallon and some station in L.A. are listing unleaded prices at $5.69. Warehouse giant Costco has already closed some gas stations around the state, citing a lack of fuel and no way to predict when the next delivery will be. The price jump is being blamed by some economists on a fire and accident at to refineries that caused a slow-down in production, a switch in the seasonal blend and more gas and oil being exported to Mexico. Gas stations are already reporting long lines and worries about future deliveries.

In light of the suspicious but positive jobs numbers today a gas shortage in any state doesn’t seem to jibe with the idea of a recovery.

Always the model of awareness and concern, Governor Jerry Brown has been tweeting about…the Oakland A’s and new tax hikes on the November ballot…two days ago!

 

 

 

 

The sky is falling, but don’t worry! The recovery is booming and Jerry’s going to make sure Californians don’t have to worry about those few remaining dollars in those pesky, cumbersome savings accounts.

crossposted at kiradavis.net

« Older Entries