GOP voters passing on Calif. U.S. Senate race, poll finds

Republicans and Independents

are sleeping through the election

• The corrupt "top two" election system is giving voters a choice of an open borders leftist Democrat or of an open borders leftist Democrat.  So many voters are planning to not bother voting at all.
• My 2014 Ballot  -  In November, 2014 I left all of the statewide offices on my ballot blank. I refused to vote for any of the corrupt Republicans or Democrats who forced this anti-freedom "election" system on voters.

(Los Angeles Times)  -  Half of California’s likely Republican voters and a third of independents said they wouldn't vote for either candidate in the state’s U.S. Senate race this November, according to a new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California.

The survey found that 28% of all likely California voters said they didn’t support state Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris or Orange County Rep. Loretta Sanchez, and 14% said they were undecided. Harris and Sanchez are Democrats.

Among those backing a candidate, 38% of likely voters supported Harris, compared with 20% for Sanchez.

Support for Harris appears to have dropped since the June primary election, when a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll showed her with a 47% to 22% lead.

The two Democrats will face off in the November election, setting the stage for the highest-profile contest between two members of the same party since California adopted a top-two primary election system.

In the June 6 primary, Harris received 40% of the vote and Sanchez nabbed 19% among the 34 candidates on the Senate ballot. Duf Sundheim, a former chairman of the California Republican Party, landed in third place with 8%.

Read More . . . .

Sample of a Free Election

Below is that last election for the Senate of Australia.  Voters had multiple 

parties to choose from with eight parties winning seats in the Senate.

.

Maybe, just maybe, Californians should adopt the free election system 

of Australia instead of the current one-party authoritarian state.

Voters gather around to view the rare and nearly
extinct California Republican elephant.

Mexicans vs Blacks - Racism in U.S. Senate Contest

Democrats Play the Race Card

Both Leftist Democrats beat the race drum for votes

(Sacramento Bee)  -  Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez, in an interview with Univision 19 that aired this weekend, suggested that President Barack Obama’s endorsement of U.S. Senate rival Kamala Harris was in part based on race.

Sanchez was asked why the president had endorsed Harris in the unusual race between two Democrats this year. Speaking in Spanish, she noted that Obama and Harris are longtime friends, then added: “She is African American. He is, too.”

Sanchez, in a statement after the interview aired, said she “in no way” implied or intended to imply Obama endorsed Harris for racial reasons. “I was stating the fact that the endorsement was based on their long-term political relationship,” she said.

Her remarks come days after she ripped Obama for endorsing Harris, arguing he should be focused on helping Democrats win the presidential race rather than inserting himself in a contest between two party members.

“California’s Senate seat does not belong to the political establishment – it belongs to the people of California,” Sanchez said, adding she believes voters will make their own choice in November.

Anxieties between African Americans and Latinos have been an underlying, yet seldom discussed, issue in California politics. Sanchez has aggressively courted Latinos in her campaign to succeed U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer. She has spoken about her Mexican American roots and her ability to speak Spanish. “I think we need a Latina in the U.S. Senate,” Sanchez said in January.

Born to a Jamaican father and Indian mother, Harris said after the shooting of five officers in Dallas that she doesn’t know a black man, be he a relative, a colleague or a friend, that has not been subjected to racial profiling or an unfair stop.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article91430872.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article91430872.html#storylink=cpy

Read More . . . .

Insane Democrat Racism
Loretta Sanchez wants the voters to hire her for the U.S. Senate because she is Mexican and speaks Spanish.
.
Meanwhile a half Black Comrade Obama endorses a half Black Kamala Harris.

The People's Republic of California
jj
November brings us yet another phony pretend election where voters are given the "choice" between a Leftist Democrat for Senate or a Leftist Democrat for Senate.
.
Under the corrupt top two primary system all small opposition political parties and independent candidates have been banned from the ballot.  You are allowed to vote only for the parties the special interest Elites allow you to vote for.
.
Other nations who also ban opposition parties from the ballot include Communist Cuba, Communist China, Communist Vietnam and Communist North Korea.

Gavin Newsom: “easier to get a gun than a happy meal in California.”

Fascist Democrat Thug 

Shows His True Colors

(Breitbart California)  -  On July 19, Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom tweeted that it is “easier to get a gun than a happy meal in California.”

He based this statement on an earlier claim that there are twice as many gun dealers as McDonald’s restaurants in California. However, he overlooked that McDonald’s restaurants are not required to observe a ten-day waiting period on burger or fry purchases; gun sellers are.

Newsom first claimed there are more gun dealers in California than McDonald’s via a campaign email, and PolitiFact California (PFC) supported the claim after looking at numbers. According to PFC, 1,165 McDonald’s are in California and somewhere north of 2,315 licensed gun dealers. 

The number of gun dealers could be as high as 2,900, a number that is difficult to verify because the licensing requirements in California are so burdensome that some individuals who are Federal Firearms License holders (FFLs) never bother getting a corresponding state license to sell guns in the state.

Nevertheless, the claim that there are twice as many gun dealers as McDonald’s is more than plausible. However, this does not substantiate a claim that it is “easier to get a gun than a Happy Meal.”

Not only do Californians have to submit to a ten-day waiting period on gun purchases; they also have to pass a background check. No background check is required for a Happy Meal.

Additionally, the burden of buying a gun is only the first step of many other requirements tied to owning one. Those include registering the weapon with the state, as well as observing magazine capacity laws and gun storage requirements (depending on the city of residence).

Additionally, even for citizens who pass a background check and the waiting period, the choices for guns are sharply curtailed by California law; only guns built to California specs can be sold in California. But a Happy Meal is a Happy Meal, and you can get yours with a hamburger, a cheeseburger, or chicken nuggets; the choice is up to you.

Newsom’s tweet about guns and Happy Meals comes one week after President Obama told attendees at the Dallas Police Memorial that it is easier “to buy a Glock” than a book. He said relationships between police and minority communities are strained because “we flood communities with so many guns it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than [to] get his hands on a computer or even a book.”

Read More . . . .

Voter Fraud? Double voting took place in the election

(East Bay Times Editorial)  -  The June primary election exposed an unacceptable potential for voter fraud in California that the state Legislature must immediately fix.

In just three counties, Contra Costa, Alameda and Santa Clara, 194 people voted twice, suggesting the abuse statewide might run into the thousands.

Unfortunately, Secretary of State Alex Padilla's office exacerbated the problem just before the primary election with its questionable reading of an ambiguous law.

Before the November election, he should join efforts to provide safeguards for local election officials so this doesn't happen again.

This isn't one of those conservative pushes to disenfranchise voters; it's a problem that can be solved quickly without making it more difficult to vote. Left unchecked, the vulnerability can be easily exploited.

The problem involves people who sign up to vote by mail, receive a ballot and then request a new one for numerous reasons: For example, they move, they change party registration, they change their name, or they say they didn't receive a ballot or made a mistake marking it. These are situations that apply in all elections.

Or, as seen in the June open primary, they register with no party preference and then want a partisan ballot allowing them to cast a vote for president. While the Republican Party doesn't allow crossover voters, Democrats do. Lots of independent voters wanted to participate in the Bernie Sanders-Hillary Clinton race.

Whatever the reason, voters ended up with two mail-in ballots. They can then mail one in. If they try to mail in the second one, it will be caught.

But some voters took their second ballot to the polls on the primary election day. Under state law, voters can trade their mail-in ballot at the polls for a "live" one. But not if they already voted.

Once marked, live ballots are immediately commingled with others, making it impossible to retrieve those improperly cast. In 2013, Joe Canciamilla, Contra Costa's elections chief, recognized the potential problem. To guard against abuse, he required giving these voters "provisional" ballots at the polls.

That allows county election officials to check the names before opening the ballots. The Secretary of State's Office says state law doesn't permit that. Canciamilla disagrees, and we think he's right.

Nevertheless, Contra Costa was directed this year to replace the mail-in ballots with live ones. Consequently, those voters were able to cast a second ballot at the polls with no way to retrieve it when a later review of voter rolls caught the double-voting.

Ideally, poll workers would have real-time, electronic voter rolls to guard against this. The state is working on that. But it's still years away.

Meanwhile, this abuse must be prevented. The integrity of our electoral system is at stake.

Read More . . . .

Big Pharma's $70 million tops California campaign contributions

A Bidding War Between Oligarchs

• Elections are mostly really about competing Cartels of wealthy Oligarchs who often want to suck furiously on the Public Teat of the Treasury.
• It is an advertising war of lies and half truths where the voters support the propositions with the most ads.

(San Jose Mercury News)  -  With Californians facing the busiest ballot in more than a decade, big spenders are poised to make it one of the most expensive election battles in state history -- already contributing $185 million to fight over everything from sex, drugs and guns to tobacco and taxes.

The money is piling up on behalf of campaigns for 17 statewide ballot measures -- the most since March 2000. And when it comes to big backers, Big Pharma is far and away the towering force.

According to figures released Monday by the nonprofit MapLight, drug companies have already poured $70 million into an effort to fight Proposition 61, which would limit the prices state agencies pay for prescription drugs.

That's 38 percent of all the money so far invested into the various ballot measures through July 7, the Berkeley-based group reported. Some observers are predicting drug company contributions will top $100 million by Election Day.

"This is their bread and butter,'' said Barbara O'Connor, director emeritus of Sacramento State's Institute for the Study of Politics and Media, who expects the industry will invest as much money as its needs to win.

The beneficiary of that drug company money, Californians Against the Misleading Rx Measure, says they got an early start on raising campaign cash. "As the other campaigns start kicking into high gear, they will start raising more," said Kathy Fairbanks, the no campaign's spokeswoman.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the measure's sponsor, has raised about $10 million, according to president Michael Weinstein.

"Maybe $100 million can convince people to vote against what is in their own best interest,'' said Weinstein. "From our point of view, today, tomorrow or 10 years from now, justice will prevail on drug pricing.''

Big Pharma is closing in on the $94 million raised in 2006 -- the most by any one side in a California initiative campaign -- to fight Proposition 87, an alternative energy measure opposed by oil companies, according to Alec Saslow, MapLight's spokesman.

The nonpartisan group's review showed unions, school administrators, and the California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems have given $19 million to the campaign for Proposition 55 to extend an income tax increase on people earning more than $250,000 a year.

Meanwhile, Tom Steyer, a San Francisco billionaire and possible Democratic contender for governor in 2018, has contributed $1 million to support Proposition 56. The measure would increase the cigarette tax by $2 per pack.

Other big names in Silicon Valley also have surfaced as preeminent ballot backers, so much so that O'Connor is calling it, "Silicon Valley against the normal political players,'' such as labor unions and associations that usually raise campaign war chests.

"It will be interesting if the traditional players can match the funding, and if that funding will produce -- or will equal -- a win,'' O'Connor said. "In this election, who knows?''

To wit: Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, Paul Graham of Y Combinator, and Marc Benioff of Salesforce have given money to support Proposition 62, a measure that would repeal the death penalty and replace it with life in prison without the possibility of parole. The campaign already has raised nearly $4 million.

A competing measure, Proposition 66 is aimed at eliminating delays in carrying out the death penalty by imposing time limits on legal reviews of capital convictions. It has the support of law enforcement groups. Proponents have raised $3.3 million.

Then there's Napster co-founder Sean Parker, who has contributed about $2.8 million of $7 million total to support Proposition 64, a measure to legalize marijuana.

The committee opposed to legalizing pot, the Coalition for Responsible Drug Policies, sponsored by California Public Safety Institute, has raised $141,000.

A
Democrat Party Condom Police
Will Democrat run California send condom inspectors to the sets of porn movie shoots to make sure the condoms are properly installed and snug with no leakage? Moron Democrats want to get a firm grip on both our wallets and deployed condoms.

A measure requiring actors in adult films to wear condoms, Proposition 60, has raised more than $1.6 million from its only financial supporter, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

"People like Tom Steyer and Reed Hastings have already written large checks,'' said Melissa Michelson, professor of political science at Menlo College. "I think this is the tip of the iceberg and we'll see massive amounts of spending.''

But Michelson believes many of the measures are tied to core values "and glossy mailers are probably not going to change your mind,'' on something like gun rights or the death penalty.

"I think Californians are used to the idea that some of these initiatives attract a huge amount of spending,'' she said. "But what I don't think a lot of people know is that so much depends on whether you can sow doubt into voters' minds. Then, the safe thing to do is vote no.''

Read More . . . .

Environmental group wants to bring the grizzly bear back to California

Cornelius B. Johnson and the Sunland grizzly in 1916

(BANCROFT LIBRARY, UC BERKELEY)

In 1916, Cornelius Birket Johnson, a Los Angeles fruit farmer, killed the

last known grizzly bear in Southern California and the second-to last

confirmed grizzly bear in the entire state of California. (More)

Bring The Grizzly Back To California

• As a Conservative John Muir Conservationist I firmly believe that Man is the real beast that is dangerous. We pave over and destroy all that is beautiful in nature.
• If it was not for the environmental movement we would see Walmart and auto malls in Yosemite Valley, and ALWAYS man would claim it is in the name of "progress".

(San Francisco Chronicle)  -  The only place the grizzly bear lives in California today is at the San Francisco Zoo, but an Arizona-based advocacy group wants to change that.

The Center for Biological Diversity would like to see the iconic animal depicted on the California flag return to the wilds of the Golden State where they haven't been seen in nearly 100 years.

The environmental group filed a people's petition late last year calling on the California Fish and Game Commission to conduct a feasibility study looking at reintroducing grizzlies — a much larger and more dangerous relative of the black bear —  in California's Sierra Nevada.

The center's wildlife biologists have identified 8,000 square miles that they believe is prime grizzly habitat. They believe the animals could thrive and bring balance to nature in the remote areas of Yosemite, Kings Canyon and Sequoia national parks and the national forest land in between, as well as in a separate pocket in the Trinity Alps Wilderness. (See map in gallery above.)

Man The Butcher

Novelty chair made from a California grizzly carcass

BANCROFT LIBRARY, UC BERKELEY

See More:

Great grizzly bear hunt in Santa Paula

This summer, the group is launching an ad campaign to encourage more Californians to sign the petition and raise awareness among state politicians. As of early July, 12,000 people have signed and the group is hoping to reach 50,000.

The center went down a similar road in 2014, when it filed a legal petition in 2014 calling on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to study the possibility of grizzly reintroduction in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado. The request was rejected, and Biological Diversity Conservation Advocate Jeff Miller thinks likely due to "political will."

"I don't think there was any good legal or biological reason for it," Miller said. "All it was asking for was for them to study whether it was feasible. I think they were wanting to avoid controversy. Grizzlies are dangerous and the thought of them being around can scare people."

Part of the push for bringing the grizzly bear back to California is related to a proposal from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove bears in the Yellowstone Region from its list of species protected by the Endangered Species Act.

Some 50,000 grizzlies once inhabited the lower 48, but in 1975, those numbers dwindled to 1,000 and in the Yellowstone area 136 bears remained. Today, roughly 1,500 to 1,800 grizzlies are in the lower 48, and 700 to 800 in the Yellowstone region, and many of the agency's biologists think these numbers mark a successful recovery and indicate it's time to lift the ban on hunting and trapping them.

Man killed every bear until you could only find a carcass in a museum. 

But Miller feels it's too early to de-list the grizzly and says the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission is already fast-tracking approval of the state's first trophy hunt of grizzlies in 40 years.

"We're concerned once they lose Endangered Species protection, the populations is going to start plummeting," Miller says. "We think this is the time to protect those existing bears and get bears back to their usual haunts."

And one of those haunts was once California. Before the Gold Rush and hunting eventually led the species to become extinct in the Golden State in the early 1900s, the bear populations were especially dense along the state's coastal regions and river valleys, areas where the combination of rich, fertile land and abundant wildlife provided food and habitat for grizzlies.

But now people have flooded these areas, and some experts don't think there's enough space in the state to accommodate these mega-fauna. The bears are notoriously dangerous, and while they rarely kill humans, these incidents are tragic, and some think encounters with humans in highly populated California would be inevitable.

"Not only are we approaching 40 million people in this state, grizzly bears traditionally would roam oak woodlands and even beaches and eat whale carcasses," says Jordan Traverso, a spokesperson for the California Fish and Game Commission. "Reintroducing them would suggest bringing them into places where people are now, not typical black bear habitat. The idea has been a nonstarter for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife."

With that said, Traverso says if a petition is delivered to the Commission it will undergo the formal review process.

Read More . . . .

California flunks small business report card

East Bay Times - Editorial

We have gotten quite accustomed to reports about California's terrible business climate and companies moving to, or expanding in, other states that offer greater economic freedom and fewer crazy regulations and taxes. Add another one to the list.

According to the fifth annual Thumbtack Small Business Friendliness Survey, based on the responses of more than 12,000 small business owners who utilize the website to offer their services, California is failing small businesses, earning a grade of "F" and ranking 33rd of the 35 states evaluated. Only Connecticut and Illinois scored worse.

As is also a common theme among such evaluations of states' business friendliness, Texas topped the list, followed by Utah and Tennessee, which also earned "A-plus" grades, and Georgia and Colorado, which each received an "A."

"Tax rates are less important than regulatory complexity," the study concluded. "For both cities and states, tax rates still matter far less than either tax-related regulations or the burden of complying with tax-based regulations."

California received an "F" in eight of the 10 categories analyzed -- ease of starting a business; regulations; health and safety; employment, labor and hiring; tax code; licensing; environmental; and zoning. It earned middling scores in ease of hiring ("C") and training and networking programs ("B-minus").

California cities did not fare well, either. None received better than a "C" grade, earned by Anaheim, Oakland and San Diego. Los Angeles, Riverside and San Jose each received a "C-minus," while Sacramento got a "D" and San Francisco earned an "F," racking up the third-worst scores of the 78 cities analyzed.

"State fees make it very difficult for new businesses to thrive," a home theater specialist responded. "Doing business is never easy, but the regulations and red tape make it much harder than it needs to be, especially at the city level," added a door installer.

Often, those regulations are unnecessary and counterproductive, particularly when it comes to licensing laws, of which California has among the most burdensome rules in the nation.

To take one example, "State licensing is not an indicator of professionalism or competence in the tree service business," a tree trimmer reported. That's right. California is one of a small number of states that requires a license for tree trimming.

California lawmakers need to wake up and smell the moving vans. This may come as a shock to them, but many other states do not view businesses as the state's personal piggy banks to be plundered or playthings to be micromanaged to fit our overlords' ideologies, and they are all too willing to welcome our entrepreneurs and hardworking employees, willing and able to offer new and better goods and services to their citizens.