THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA - This site is dedicated to exposing the continuing Marxist Revolution in California and the all around massive stupidity of Socialists, Luddites, Communists, Fellow Travelers and of Liberalism in all of its ugly forms.

"It was a splendid population - for all the slow, sleepy, sluggish-brained sloths stayed at home - you never find that sort of people among pioneers - you cannot build pioneers out of that sort of material. It was that population that gave to California a name for getting up astounding enterprises and rushing them through with a magnificent dash and daring and a recklessness of cost or consequences, which she bears unto this day - and when she projects a new surprise the grave world smiles as usual and says, "Well, that is California all over."

- - - - Mark Twain (Roughing It)

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Democrats to fine businesses $15,000 per worker

"It's hand-to-hand combat right now."
California Retailers Association President Bill Dombrowski

Democrats look to drive large employers out of California with huge fines ranging from $6,000 to $15,000 per employee

The People's Republic of California - A new and controversial proposal in California's Obamacare related health care overhaul calls for the huge fining of large employers if the wages they pay are not high enough to keep workers off Medi-Cal rolls.

Leftist Democrat Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez will formally unveiled the measure as Assembly Bill 880 in a drive sponsored by the California Labor Federation and United Food and Commercial Workers.

"We need to close a loophole that basically allows the largest and most profitable employers in the state to skirt their responsibility to provide health care coverage," said Gomez (Socialist Democrat - Los Angeles).

California labor unions have launched a lobbying, direct mail and online advertising blitz in support of legislation to penalize large employers if wages they pay are not high enough to keep workers off Medi-Cal rolls.

"We're seeing that there's a small number of large employers that are trying to game the system, and this is something that the Legislature, I think, has a responsibility to address," said Steve Smith, spokesman for the California Labor Federation.

The campaign has collected about 12,000 petition signatures in support of Assembly Bill 880, bought online advertising expected to be seen by a million people before week's end, and is bringing dozens of union members to the Capitol every day this week to lobby lawmakers, Smith said in the Sacramento Bee.

Political fliers also have been sent to constituents of Assemblyman Brian Nestande, a Palm Desert Republican, after he voted against the union-sponsored bill in the Assembly's Health Committee.
The campaign might end up costing six figures, Smith said.
"This is a huge issue for workers," he said of legislation supported by the campaign, Assembly Bill 880.

AB 880's monetary penalty has been "scrubbed" from on-line versions of this story.

Here is the info from the print version of the Ventura County Star:

California Retailers Association President Bill Dombrowski said there are up to 1,200 California businesses with more than 500 workers that could be impacted by the bill.

Dombrowski estimates the penalties would amount to $6,000 to $15,000 for each worker enrolled into Medi-Cal.

"It is chilling," he said, "I don't know how you would handle that."
The labor federation and United Food and Commercial Workers are joint sponsors of AB 880, which has passed policy committees and is headed for the Assembly floor. Los Angeles Democratic Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez introduced the bill.

AB 880 would affect Walmart and various restaurant chains and janitorial firms, Smith contends. It would penalize employers of 500 people or more if their workers qualify for Medi-Cal coverage.
Existing federal law allows businesses of 50 employees or more to be penalized if their full-time workers are forced to buy health insurance from a new state exchange because they are neither covered by an employer plan nor eligible for Medi-Cal.

AB 880 would lower the threshold further and encompass part-time workers, but it would apply only to the state's largest employers. The penalty would be roughly the sum necessary to provide health insurance.

A Walmart spokeswoman referred calls about the bill to a business coalition opposing it, which released the following statement from Bill Dombrowski, president of the California Retailers Association:

"AB 880 has overwhelming opposition from nearly every industry in this state. This is one of the worst bills introduced and it will have devastating impacts on jobs, our economy and the implementation of Obamacare."

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/05/labor-groups-launch-three-pronged-fight-to-pass-walmart-bill.html#storylink=cpy

Also see THE FEDERALIST - A $15,000 "Obamacare" fine - Welcome to Socialism

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Corruption - Calif. Obamacare spending kept secret

California Obamacare exchange granted secrecy
Obamacare becomes one giant pig through for allies of Socialist Big Government.

A People's Republic of California law that created an agency to oversee national health care reforms granted it broad authority to conceal spending on the contractors that will perform most of its functions, potentially shielding the public from seeing how hundreds of millions of dollars are spent.

The degree of secrecy afforded Covered California appears unique among states attempting to establish their own health insurance exchanges under President Barack Obama's signature health law.

An Associated Press review of the 16 other states that have opted for state-run marketplaces shows the California agency was given powers that are the most restrictive in what information is required to be made public reports the Associated Press.

In Massachusetts, the state that served as the model for Obama's health overhaul, its Health Connector program is specifically covered by open-records laws. The same is true in Idaho, where its exchange was established as a private, nonprofit corporation, and in New Mexico.

The Maryland Legislature subjected its exchange to the state's public information act, but protected some types of commercial and financial information.

In California, the explicit exclusions from open-records laws may run afoul of the state constitution, said Terry Francke, head of Californians Aware, a group that promotes government transparency.

If the Legislature wants to limit access, the state constitution requires it produce findings that demonstrate the need for shielding information from the public. In the bill that authorized the exchange, the Legislature devoted two sentences to address that issue. It argued the cloaked spending was "necessary" to protect "powers and obligations to negotiate on behalf of the public."

Those provisions are vulnerable to being declared unconstitutional, according to Francke.

He said, in essence, lawmakers are saying they need it because they need it, with no details or evidence to support it. The Legislature should have answered the questions, "Why couldn't the exchange do its job without this secrecy? What's the worst that could happen?" Francke said.

Exchange spokesman Dana Howard said the agency complies with state law but declined to discuss in detail how it determines what is public and what is not.

"I'm not going to go down item by item, about how it is and what kinds of meetings and what was talked about," he said.

It's routine in government to keep bids secret until contracts are awarded, so one vendor does not get an unfair advantage over others. After a bid is awarded, contracts generally become fully public.

In setting up the California exchange, lawmakers gave it the authority to keep all contracts private for a year and the amounts paid secret indefinitely. "Except for the portion of a contract that contains the rates of payment, contracts entered into pursuant to this title shall be open to inspection one year after their effective dates," reads the code specifying what exchange records are exempt from public disclosure.

According to agency documents, Covered California plans to spend nearly $458 million on outside vendors by the end of 2014, covering lawyers, consultants, public relations advisers and other functions.

Other exchange records that are allowed to be kept secret include those that reveal recommendations, research, strategy of the board or its staff, or those that provide instructions, advice or training to employees. Minutes of the board meetings also are exempt from disclosure.

The indefinite ban on releasing rates of pay to companies and individuals receiving contracts also goes beyond exemptions for other state health programs, such as Healthy Families, which withholds rates of pay from disclosure for up to four years, but not permanently.

In response to an AP public records request, the agency released information on a dozen competitively bid contracts issued since early 2011. They included $14 million for a 19-month contract with Ogilvy Public Relations for marketing and other services; $400,000 for Pricewaterhouse Coopers for a four-month deal developing a small business program; and $327 million for a five-year deal with consulting giant Accenture to develop a web portal and enrollment system for those who will seek coverage.

Those contracts also are accessible on the agency's website, along with about two dozen requests for services the agency has published. But it's not clear how many contracts the agency has executed, for how much or with whom. Staff counsel Gabriel Ravel said in an email that the agency "exercised its discretion to waive this exemption" for the contracts it released to AP. However, "all other existing contracts are confidential and privileged," he wrote.

The closeted spending was quietly authorized in a bundle of amendments added to the bill just days before it was passed by the Senate and Assembly during a blitz of activity in August 2010, when California was sprinting to become the first state to embrace the most extensive health care changes since Medicare.

Legislative staffers who worked on the technical language in the bill discussed the possibility of limiting the scope of the records exemption but settled on making it comprehensive after concluding it was not practical to try to determine what should be left out.

No public hearing was held on the provision because legislative leaders did not consider it substantive enough to send the bill back to committee for an airing, according to the office of Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles.

Statements issued to the AP by his office said the bill met the constitutional test and "contains the relevant findings," while striking a practical balance between the need for confidential rate negotiations with medical plans and a board that meets in public and is covered by open-meetings law.

"At the time of the drafting of the bill in 2010, this was a non-controversial, technical provision modeled on the same exemption long provided to successful government health insurance programs, including the state's Healthy Families Program," one statement said.

Perez's account that there was agreement on the confidentiality rules in the Senate Health Committee was disputed by former Sen. Sam Aanestad, a Republican on the panel who said he opposed those blanket privacy rules as well as the broader bill creating the exchange.

"This is such an untested field, there has to be strict illumination and oversight from day one," said the retired oral surgeon. Empowering bureaucrats to make unilateral decisions on access to contracting records "bodes for disaster."

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Republican wins Central Valley state Senate race

GOP Cherry Farmer takes Senate
seat away from the Democrats

(Update - It appears the announcement that Republican farmer Andy Vidak won outright former Senator Michael Rubio's seat may have been premature: an updated vote count puts Vidak below the 50-percent-plus-one threshold he needed to surpass to avoid a runoff against his Democratic opponent, Kern County Supervisor Leticia Perez.

An updated total posted on the Secretary of State's website at 3:21 this afternoon gave Vidak 49.8 percent of the vote and Perez 43.8 percent.

Observation.  I find it interesting that the "extra votes" that are found after election day always vote Democrat.  Just an observation.)

A Republican has won a hotly contested state Senate contest in the southern San Joaquin Valley, with his top Democratic rival conceding Wednesday that the race will not go to a runoff.

With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Vidak -- a Republican from Hanford -- won 51.9 percent of the vote in Tuesday's special election for the vacant seat.

Democratic challenger Leticia Perez -- Kern County's 5th district supervisor -- won 41.7 percent of the vote. She conceded early Wednesday morning and congratulated Vidak on the victory.

Fellow Democrat Francisco Ramirez had 3 percent of the vote. Democrat Paulina Miranda had 2.6 percent, and Peace and Freedom candidate Mohammed Arif has 0.6 percent reports KERO 23 ABC News.

The special election victory by Hanford cherry farmer Andy Vidak will have no practical effect on the state Senate, where Democrats retain a supermajority, but serves as a psychological boost for the party after massive GOP losses in recent election cycles.
Democratic Kern County Supervisor Leticia Perez, of Bakersfield, and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, both ceded the 16th Senate District race to Vidak.  Perez has raised more than $1.1 million, largely from the state party, Senate Democrats in Sacramento and political action committees. Vidak raised more than $850,000, with a lot of cash from district agriculture, and an assist from Senate Republicans and the Tulare County GOP. Adding another Republican senator increases the hurdle for Democrats to reach the two-thirds majority needed to pass tax hikes and puts the GOP in a stronger position heading into next year's elections, said Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar reports the San Jose Mercury News.
 . "It's a big shot in the arm," he said. "The district just sent a pretty conservative salvo across the bow of the Democratic majority." Vidak's campaign did not immediately return multiple telephone calls seeking comment. Democrats won two-thirds majorities in both legislative chambers in November. That was the first time since 1933, when Republicans did it, that one party has held simultaneous supermajorities in the Assembly and Senate.

Vidak, who narrowly lost a congressional bid in 2010, had 52 percent of the vote, enough for an outright victory.

Democrats have a large registration edge in the 16th Senate District—50 percent to Republicans' 31 percent—but three Democratic candidates and a Peace and Freedom Party candidate split the left-leaning vote. That cleared the way for Vidak to win a simple majority.  
 Democrats also blamed low voter turnout in their regions coupled with a relatively high turnout in Vidak's stronghold of Kings County. Steinberg issued a statement congratulating Vidak while suggesting that Perez might make another run for higher office. Vidak will have to defend the seat in 2014. "Special elections are unique voter-turnout environments, and this is clearly not the last we've heard of the immensely talented Supervisor Perez," Steinberg said. Next year's election for a full Senate term will be under different district boundaries, drawn by the state's independent redistricting commission in 2011. The new 14th Senate District will encompass all of Kings County and parts of Fresno, Kern and Tulare counties. According to the California TargetBook, current voter registration in that district is 48 percent Democratic, 31 percent Republican and 17 percent no party preference.
 "In 18 months, this will be a new race in a new district with a very different turnout model," said Jason Kinney, a political consultant for Senate Democrats. Democrats will retain their Senate supermajority despite losing the seat that had been held by Democrat Michael Rubio, of Bakersfield, who resigned in February to work for Chevron. The party still holds 28 seats in the 40-member Senate, leaving it with one more than the supermajority needed to raise taxes, pass emergency legislation, override gubernatorial vetoes and put constitutional amendments before voters without Republican support. The supermajority could be trimmed temporarily to the bare 27-member minimum because Democratic Sen. Curren Price appears poised to leave for a seat on the Los Angeles City Council. Price will leave the Senate in July if his lead from Tuesday's election holds.

Monday, May 20, 2013

Democrats: "No profit allowed for medicinal marijuana"

Democrat bill says "Thou shalt not make a profit on pot."
The pansy picking loon Communist state legislature attacks those "evil"
businessmen who dare to open a business and make a profit.

The People's Republic of California would take steps to regulate the sale of medical marijuana under a bill approved Monday by the state Senate, restricting cannabis dispensaries that Comrade Obama's Federal prosecutors say have grown out of control.

California voters first supported legalizing marijuana to treat illness in 1996, but Comrade Obama's Federal prosecutors recently cracked down and attacking the private property of the landlords of pot stores.
The industry has dared to grow enormously profitable by providing a service that people willingly want and need..

The Senate sent the bill to the Assembly on a 22-12 vote and without any Republican support.
The legislation makes it clear that dispensaries cannot operate at a profit, but that the owners can receive reasonable compensation and reimbursement for expenses reports The Signal - Associated Press.

"This bill is not about the legalization of marijuana," said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. "It does seek to assure that patients who need medical cannabis have access to it. It is intended to assure that drug cartels and other criminals do not benefit from the lack of regulation."
100% Bullshit.  If you did not make the business illegal then cartels would not be involved.  Alcohol cartels vanished the day prohibition ended in the 1930s.

He said his SB439, along with pending legislation by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, is "intended to come to some sort of an understanding with the federal government."

The bill's language is still being negotiated with law enforcement groups and is likely to be amended in the Assembly, Steinberg said.

It would not affect local regulations or prohibitions on dispensaries, authority that the state Supreme Court upheld earlier this month.

The bill would adopt guidelines issued by Gov. Jerry Brown when he was the state's attorney general in 2008, making it clear that the dispensaries cannot operate at a profit. Those operating within the guidelines could not face state prosecution.

Under Brown's 2008 guidelines, cooperatives registered under the state's Food and Agricultural Code or organized as less formal "collectives" (Communist) are legal under California law, while for-profit dispensaries are not.

But there is lingering confusion over what is permitted in California, as indicated by the three competing medicinal marijuana measures that Los Angeles voters will consider on Tuesday's municipal ballot. The measures would either limit the number of dispensaries or allow new ones to open.

Some 200 cities have outlawed or restricted dispensaries.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Students are raped by fees while administrators live the high life

"I feel your pain."
While students are screwed with endless fees, the new San Diego State President Elliot Hirshman was approved for a $400,000 compensation package.  This is $100,000 more than his predecessor for doing the same job.

Hidden Taxes  -  Cal State students are forced to pay a fee just to graduate
  • The "adults" in administration and the unions rape the system to line their own pockets while the students are saddled with a massive debt that they cannot even declare bankruptcy on.

In the olden days I worked my way through Cal State at a minimum wage job and graduated with zero college debt.  But those were the old days. 

Since then California education has gone to shit with insane fees for college students, over paid administrators and a high school system with a huge drop-out rate that graduates near illiterates. 

Now graduating students at more than a dozen California public universities will have to hand over money before they are handed their diplomas, a newspaper reported.

Across the state, 15 of Cal State's 23 campuses have graduation fees, the Oakland Tribune reported.

Cal State East Bay charges $45 to graduate. At San Francisco State, the fee is $100 - $60 more than it was two years ago.

"There is a fee for everything," said Natalia Aldana, a Cal State East Bay communications major and journalist who will graduate in June. "I think it's really unfortunate that they have to charge students for everything they do, including graduation."

The fees are not new, but students are noticing them at a time when they have experienced tuition fee hikes nearly every year they were on campus, the Tribune reported.

At San Jose State, some students recently learned they'd have to pay $75 to participate in their department's celebration.

"You've worked so hard," said Rebecca Krueger, who started a blog about the fees. "It's this time of honor and celebration, and you're hit with this fee just to participate. You feel nickel-and-dimed."

Cal State spokesman Mike Uhlenkamp said because tuition money can only be used for instruction costs, campuses must look elsewhere to pay for graduations. The state's Master Plan for Higher Education has created a complicated set of fees, the Tribune reported.

UC Berkeley graduates don't pay a separate fee to get their diplomas, but commencement tickets cost $10 a head - even for graduates themselves.

Some San Jose State officials say the university could help departments control their ceremony costs by coordinating their planning.

At one event last year, Dorothy Poole, the head of the commencement committee, said she watched rental companies set up chairs for one department's event, take them down and put them up again for a different department a day later.

While students go deep into debt, the administrators get huge salaries.

The average annual base salary for a CSU president is about $298,000. As for the perks, presidents receive a $1,000 monthly auto allowance and a free house provided by the campus, or a $50,000 to $60,000 annual housing stipend.

CSU Board of Trustees approved a $400,000 compensation package for newly named San Diego State President Elliot Hirshman, while in the same meeting trustees also approved a 12 percent tuition increase. Hirshman earns about $100,000 more than his predecessor.

Six presidents now receive annual supplements ranging from $29,000 to $50,000 reports the Los Angeles Daily News.

A nationwide survey by The Chronicle of Higher Education of 190 public research institutions found that the average compensation for a university president in 2011 was $421,395. The highest paid leader in 2011 was University of Ohio President E. Gordon Gee, who earned $1.9 million. In California, the top earner was University of California President Mark G. Yudoff, who earned $581,232.

Monday, May 13, 2013

Major Threats to Proposition 13 and Homeowners

Nothing has changed since 1978.
The Marxist Democrats answer to everything is to steal more and more money from the producers of society and then re-distribute that money to those with "needs" and votes to sell.

Leftist Bills that threaten homeowners and small businesses are starting to move the the legislature
  • The Socialists are coming to steal everything not nailed down in order to fund the vote buying welfare state.

The new Socialist Democrat California Legislature is dominated by pro-tax politicians, and bills, that undermine the taxpayer protections in Proposition 13, have been introduced and are starting to be heard in committee. If approved, these bills could cost every property owner thousands of dollars.

There are seven bills pertaining to Proposition 13 that are up in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee next Wednesday morning, May 15th, at 9:30 in Room 112. Six of these bills directly undercut various provisions of Proposition 13 (SCA 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 11). Another bill, Senate Constitutional Resolution 25 (State Senator Mark Wyland, R—Escondido) is also up in the committee that day and honors Proposition 13 on its upcoming 35th anniversary.

An additional two bills, Assembly Constitutional Amendments 3 and 8, also diminish Proposition 13's protections. These have not been set for a hearing yet.


Senate Constitutional Amendment 3 (SCA 3), Mark Leno (D—San Francisco): Lowers the threshold for school district per-parcel property taxes from two-thirds to 55%. This is a direct assault on Proposition 13 because it makes it easier to increase property taxes above Proposition 13's one percent cap.

Senate Constitutional Amendment 4 (SCA 4), Carol Liu (D—La Canada) and Senate Constitutional Amendment 8 (SCA 8), Ellen Corbett (D—San Leandro): Lowers the threshold for the imposition, extension or increase of local transportation special taxes from the Proposition 13-mandated two-thirds vote to 55%. Most transportation special tax increases consist of very regressive sales tax hikes. These add to the burden of California taxpayers who already pay the highest state sales tax in the nation.

Senate Constitutional Amendment 7 (SCA 7), Lois Wolk (D—Davis): Lowers the threshold from two-thirds to 55% in order to approve a bond to fund public library facilities. Lowering the threshold for school facilities to 55% has already resulted in billions of dollars of additional property tax payments that otherwise would not have been approved by voters.

Senate Constitutional Amendment 9 (SCA 9), Ellen Corbett (D—San Leandro): Lowers the threshold from two-thirds to 55% to increase special taxes to fund community and economic development projects.

Senate Constitutional Amendment 11 (SCA 11), Loni Hancock (D—Berkeley): Lowers the threshold to 55% to allow for voters representing ANY local government entity to approve a special tax for ANY purpose. This is far and away the broadest application, and thus the most egregious, of these constitutional amendments.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 3 (ACA 3), Nora Campos (D—San Jose): Lowers the threshold to 55% for voters within cities, counties and special districts to approve EITHER a local bond measure or a special tax in order to fund emergency service facilities projects including police and fire services.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8 (ACA 8), Bob Blumenfield (D—Woodland Hills): Lowers the threshold to 55% for city and county voters to approve a local bond measure in order to fund emergency service facilities projects.

Tell your representatives that you oppose these bills that attack your Proposition 13 protections.

(Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.org)

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Obama acts to seize private property in California drug war

Marxist Obama attacks Berkeley medical marijuana dispensary
  • Obama and Democrats at the Federal level try to steal the private property of legal businesses in California in the insane "war" on drugs.

BERKELEY -- Comrade Obama's Federal government filed a lawsuit targeting the city's largest medical marijuana outlet and is aiming to seize the property from its landlord.

The suit, filed May 2 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, says Nahla Droubi of Moraga, who is the landlord for Berkeley Patients Group, is breaking federal drug laws by allowing the sale of marijuana and therefore is subject to seizure of her property.

The suit comes after Berkeley Patients Group was forced to close its previous location down the street on San Pablo Avenue last May when the landlord there received a letter threatening seizure for the same reason. The letter also cited the fact that it was too close to two nearby schools reports the Contra Costa Times.

It then moved down the street and reopened in December.

Sean Luse, chief operations officer for Berkeley Patients Group, which has been doing business in the city since 1999, said he was surprised at the suit because he did everything asked of him when he was forced to leave the last location.

"We moved our previous location and moved 1,000 feet from any school, so we're very surprised," Luse said.

The lawsuit against the Berkeley Patients Group landlord, in addition to citing federal drug laws, also mentions the proximity of two preschools in the neighborhood near the new location.

The War on Drugs with John Stossel 

Luse said Berkeley Patients Group will join the lawsuit as a defendant and stay in business as the saga unfolds.

"We look forward to our day in court," he said.

Last August, Droubi said she was not worried about having her property seized when Berkeley Patients Group announced it would become her new tenant.

"Our property is not close to any school," she said at the time. "The previous landlord had a very good experience with this group. He said they were very organized and most important thing is they had no violations and great security."

Droubi did not respond to calls seeking comment Tuesday afternoon, nor did a spokesman for the U. S. attorney in San Francisco.

The lawsuit is similar to one filed last year against Harborside Health Center in Oakland, the nation's largest medical marijuana dispensary. That lawsuit has not yet been resolved.

Kris Hermes, spokesman for Americans for Safe Access which advocates for medical marijuana with 50,000 members nationwide, said there have been about 20 dispensaries targeted in a similar fashion across California in the last couple of years, but he did not know how many of the suits have been successful.

He said the U.S. attorney's office has sent hundreds of letters to landlords threatening forfeiture "and hundreds have shut down as a result."

More recently he said a new round of threatening letters has recently gone to landlords of dispensaries in San Francisco and San Jose.

"The Obama Administration has so far gotten away with claiming that they are only targeting those in violation of state law," Hermes said. "Berkeley Patients Group stands in direct contrast to that contention. It's patently false."

“No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.”
John Jay
Founding Father of the United States

“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”
Samuel Adams

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Ex-GOP Assemblyman becomes a Democrat

"If I only had a brain."
Ex-GOP Assemblyman is "inspired" to become a Democrat by listening to Bill Clinton - a disbarred attorney, proven liar, impeached President and noted philanderer.

Former GOP Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher announced today that he has become a Democrat . . . perhaps looking to follow in the classy footsteps of his new hero Bill Clinton.

For some strange reason this clown, who does not what the Hell he believes in, was considered one of the Republican Party's likeliest future contenders for statewide office before abandoning the party to become an independent last year.

Fletcher, 36, abandoned the Republican Party in his failed campaign for San Diego mayor. It is unclear what ambition he may have within the Democratic Party reports the Sacramento Bee.

The declining GOP voter registration in San Diego just might have "encouraged" Fletcher to see the light of Marxism, Socialism and Big Government.

Fletcher announced his change of registration on his Facebook page this morning, in a message he said he also sent donors and supporters.

"I was reluctant to make this move," Fletcher wrote. "It wasn't due to any doubt about where I belong. It was simple dread over the criticism I would face."

Fletcher said he does not know if he will run for office again but has no current plan to. He went to work for one of his district's largest employers, Qualcomm, when he left the Assembly in December.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/05/nathan-fletcher-switches-again---now-a-democrat.html#storylink=cpy

Fletcher said in his Facebook post that the Democratic Party "reflects my values and beliefs." He said he watched President Bill Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention last year three times "trying to find something I disagreed with."

"I couldn't," Fletcher wrote. "It was clear - at least to me - that I was a Democrat." 


Saturday, May 4, 2013

Racist Casino Bill Passes State Assembly

Racist government policies of Democrats say Californians like Jessica Alba are not allowed to own a casino because she is Hispanic.  She belongs to the wrong race. Neither could anyone of Egyptian, Thai, Chinese or French heritage. Only the American Indian racial group is allowed by the government to run this type of business.  In Nevada any citizen of any race can own a casino.

Another Racist Bill Passes
North Fork tribe's Madera casino plan clears Assembly

The North Fork Rancheria Band of Mono Indians moved closer to building a swanky casino resort along Highway 99 north of Madera after the state Assembly narrowly ratified a gambling compact with the tribe Thursday.

The floor vote came months after Leftist Comrade Gov. Jerry Brown affirmed the federal government's determination that the North Fork tribe could acquire property and build a casino on non-ancestral lands.

The unconventional process spurred intense lobbying by opponents who say it contradicts the principle of American Indians building on existing tribal lands reports the Fresno Bee.

After the vote, a leader of a rival Madera County tribe said the Assembly was setting a dangerous precedent. "How long till we see more applications for more off-reservation casinos?" said Nancy Ayala, chairwoman of one faction of the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians, which operates a casino near Coarsegold -- and not far from the North Fork tribe's ancestral land.

Ayala said that if the North Fork tribe is allowed to build along a major state artery, it would have an advantage over other area tribes and risk the jobs of employees at the Chukchansi Gold Resort & Casino near Coarsegold.

"It's very unfortunate that the Assembly, acting on inaccurate information, decided to give momentum to an off-reservation casino that flies in the face of what California's voters have approved," she said.

Assemblyman Isadore Hall (D-Compton) who carried Assembly Bill 277, cast the bill as a sorely needed economic boost for the North Fork tribe, who he said merely want "the same right granted to every other sovereign tribe in the state of California."

"This compact would put Californians back to work," Hall said in a speech on the Assembly floor, adding that tribal gaming has replaced welfare with work. "Tribal gaming has replaced despair with hope and dependency with self-reliance," Hall said.

Assemblyman Frank Bigelow (R-O'Neals) whose district enfolds the tribe and the proposed casino site, said the bill would reinvigorate what has become "a shell of a community" beset by economic malaise.

Cheryl Schmit, director of Stand Up For California!, which opposes the proposed casino, said opponents were not given the chance to speak at the Assembly hearing.

Racist Democrat legislators say because Ving Rhames is black
he is not allowed to own a casino in California.

Corrupt Indian Casino Money
The tribes get what they want from the Democrat legislature

Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, Temecula, CATribal government with gaming interests 1,182 donations: 1,054 to candidates, 47 to ballot measures and 81 to parties

Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Cabazon, CATribal government with gaming interests 413 donations: 314 to candidates, 23 to ballot measures and 76 to parties