Jerry Brown Wins "Man of the Year"

Sex Helps California Democrats to lose Assembly supermajority

Pervert Democrats Kill Supermajority

(AP)  -  California Democrats will be without a supermajority in the Assembly for months and risk losing the two-thirds edge needed to pass tax and fee increases in the Senate.

When lawmakers return in January, they will have two vacant Assembly seats that won't be filled until at least April after Los Angeles members resigned amid sexual misconduct allegations. In the Senate, a member in a competitive district is facing a recall over his support for a gas tax increase and another could face pressure to resign depending on the results of a misconduct allegation.

"It will certainly affect votes," said Democratic Assemblyman Ken Cooley, chairman of the rules committee.

Supermajorities were needed this year to pass the gas tax increase and reauthorize the cap-and-trade program. Passing a budget only requires a simple majority.

Although the changes cut into the Democrats' legislative power, tax and fee increases are less likely to come up for votes in election years because they can be unpopular with voters.

Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday set an April 3 primary date for a special election to replace former Assemblyman Raul Bocangera, who resigned last month amid sexual misconduct allegations. If no candidate gets at least 50 percent of the vote, a general election will take place June 5, the same day as the statewide primary.

A date hasn't been set to replace Assemblyman Matt Dababneh, another San Fernando Valley Democrat, who plans to resign Jan. 1. He denies a lobbyist's allegation that he assaulted her in a bar bathroom last year.

Sen. Tony Mendoza also could face pressure to resign depending on the results of an investigation into sexual misconduct claims. He denies improper behavior.

A date hasn't been set for a recall election against Sen. Josh Newman of Fullerton. Newman's district spans parts of Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties and is highly competitive.

Democrats jammed a new set of recall rules through the Legislature this year — including one that requires the state to estimate how much a recall will cost.

Read More . . . .

Too Many People = Too Many Fires

Leftist Democrat steps down after sexual harassment allegations

Another Leftist Asshole Bites The Dust

• I hate how phony Leftist are. They parade around claiming to better than everyone else while shoving their hands down women's pants.

(The Hill)  -  The Democratic majority whip of the California State Assembly on Monday announced that he will immediately resign following allegations of sexual harassment.

In a statement posted to his Facebook page, Raul Bocanegra said he has decided to resign "effective immediately" instead of waiting until September of 2018, as he had originally announced.

“Upon further reflection during the recent holiday weekend, and conversations with family, friends, supporters, I have decided to resign earlier from the State Assembly effective immediately, which was my original intention,” Bocanegra said in the statement.

Bocanegra cited "persistent rumors" of sexual misconduct in a statement last week to the Los Angeles Times in which he initially announced his plans to resign. 

The Times earlier this month said it had contacted Bocanegra's office in reporting a story about six women who claimed they had been sexually harassed by the state lawmaker.

Bocanegra in his statement to the newspaper said he had asked California’s Assembly Rules Committee to investigate the allegations.

On Monday, Bocanegra denied that he is guilty of such crimes but said he is “admittedly not perfect.”

“I sincerely hope that my decision to resign immediately does not embolden those who are using this serious problem in our society to advance their own personal political gain, rather it is my hope that this action can instead help to widen the doors for victims of sexual assault and workplace harassment to find justice and solace,” he said.

Read More . . . .

Na Na Na Na Hey Hey Goodbye

California Democrat legislators are exempt from state laws

(San Francisco Chronicle)  -  The state Legislature’s exemption of its own employees from a 1999 law intended to protect the jobs of whistle-blowers has garnered attention in recent weeks, as women complaining of pervasive sexual harassment in the state Capitol publicly call for such protections for legislative employees. But the whistle-blower act isn’t the only area of the law in which the Legislature has demonstrated a “do as I say, not as I do” mentality.

Take access to public records. Want to know whom government officials are meeting with, talking to or emailing? Or how officials were disciplined after an investigation found them culpable of wrongdoing? State agencies and local governments must release such information — calendars, emails and disciplinary records — under the California Public Records Act, which the Legislature created in 1968. But the same information is nearly impossible to get from state lawmakers, because the Public Records Act does not apply to the Legislature.

Instead, lawmakers are covered by the Legislative Open Records Act, which they passed in 1975 in the wake of the Watergate scandal. The act that applies to them is riddled with exceptions, effectively keeping secret many documents that other branches of government must disclose.

“The Legislature has created in many areas a black box where the public can’t see records it would be entitled to see if the public officials at issue weren’t in the Legislature,” said David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit organization advocating government transparency.

The Legislature’s open records law allows it to withhold investigations of wrongdoing, even when they led to disciplinary action. It also keeps secret correspondence by lawmakers and their staff, as well as officials’ calendars. The Legislature even refused to give reporters the calendars of two senators undergoing federal prosecution on corruption charges until media companies sued and won a court order compelling their release.

As more government agencies began storing information electronically, the Legislature updated the Public Records Act in 2000 to compel disclosure of digital records. Now state agencies and local governments must provide public records in any format in which they exist. That gives the public access to electronic records, such as databases, in their original digital format.

But the Legislature has never made the same update to its own open records act. “It was a nonstarter,” former Assemblyman Kevin Shelley of San Francisco told the Sacramento Bee in 2015.

Then there’s the open meetings law. The idea that government meetings should be open to the public has been enshrined in California law for more than 60 years. In 1953, the Legislature passed the open meeting law that applies to local governments, and in 1967 it passed a similar one for state agencies. Yet the 1973 law it passed requiring open meetings of the Legislature does not follow the same rules.

One major difference: It allows legislators to gather secretly in partisan caucuses. When issues hit the floor of the Assembly or the Senate, it’s common for one political party or the other to pause proceedings and call for a caucus. Legislators file out of the chamber and into two private meeting rooms where Democrats and Republicans separately gather for conversations that exclude the public and the media. They can hash out disagreements or craft strategy behind closed doors, then return to the chamber to publicly cast their votes.

Local governments, such as city councils, cannot do this. 

Read More . . . .

Democrats and common sense do not mix

NAACP says National Anthem is racist

Leftist Idiots on Parade

• Morons fascinate me. The NAACP is silent about millions of illegal aliens being imported taking away jobs from African American citizens. Instead they get their Leftist panties in a twist over phony issues like millionaire NFL players and and the national anthem.

SACRAMENTO (CBS13) — The California NAACP is pushing to get rid of the national anthem that they’re calling racist and anti-black.

“This song is wrong; it shouldn’t have been there, we didn’t have it ’til 1931, so it won’t kill us if it goes away,” said the organization’s president Alice Huffman.

Colin Kaepernick started the NFL protests, which quickly spread to bring attention to systemic racial injustice in the country. But Huffman says Kaepernick’s message was lost when it turned into a debate about the flag.

Huffman adds that the protests did lead her to look at the lyrics of the “Star Spangled Banner” especially the parts of the anthem we don’t typically sing.

“It’s racist; it doesn’t represent our community, it’s anti-black,” she said.

Huffman is referring to the third stanza which includes the lyric “no refuge could save the hireling and slave from the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave.”

THIRD STANZA (FULL LYRICS AT BOTTOM OF STORY)

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

She says some interpretations conclude that the lyrics celebrate the deaths of black American slaves fighting for freedom, and the song should be replaced with something that supports all of our values.

“That’s an extreme way of doing things,” said Kenneth Lu, a veteran living in Davis.

The opinions varied at the VFW in West Sacramento.

“I believe it’s a slap across the face, whether there’s a flaw in the context, I don’t see it that way. I have to stick with our traditions and our values and what we represent,” said Sydney Lugo.

“It won’t solve any problem,” said veteran John Cox.

Huffman says it may not solve anything, but it’s a step towards social justice that she says is long overdue.

“This is not about the flag. We love the flag. This is about a song that should never have been the national anthem. This country is a country that has shared values, and the more we respect each other, the better off we’ll be as a country,” said Huffman.

A separate resolution by the California NAACP is calling on Congress to censure President Donald Trump for his remarks about firing those who don’t stand for the anthem. They are also asking NFL teams to let Kaepernick play again.

Read More . . . .

Democrats jack up gas taxes

Dems Demand: "Give till it hurts"

Democrats never met an illegal alien or corrupt businessman they did not want to give your money to.

(KABC) --

Nancy Alvarez , a mother of three, said her car is her second home. She is worried about how the price of gasoline going up 12 cents a gallon will impact her family financially.

"It's expensive, but I can afford it at the moment," Alvarez said. "I'm able to survive. Anything more than that, you're pushing the limit."

The money from the increase will add up to $52 billion over the next decade to fund transportation projects.

On the same day the gas tax increase will take effect, gas stations will switch from the summer gas blend to a cheaper winter blend which AAA said should minimize the impact of the tax hike.

Since the increase was opposed by the California Republican Party, some residents like Alvarez might change the way they vote.

"I do care about the roads, but I also have to care about regular people like myself, how it affects our bank account." Alvarez said.

Along with the 12-cent increase for regular and premium gas, diesel consumers can expect a 16-cent increase on a gallon of gasoline.

Read More . . . .

Dems & GOP looks to flood streets with criminals

Revolving Door "Justice"

• California has already released tens of thousands of criminals from prison to prey on helpless citizens.
• Now screaming "fairness" the liberal retards want to release arrested criminals right back on the streets without any bail to ensure they will show up to court.

(NPR)  -  The national effort to get states to move away from a bail system based on money — something detractors call unjust and antiquated — got a big boost this week: A yearlong study backed by California's chief justice recommended money bail be abolished and replaced with a system that includes robust safety assessments and expanded pretrial services.

Calling the state's commercial bail system "unsafe and unfair," a working group created by California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (Republican) argues that the state's bail system bases a defendant's liberty too much on his or her finances, rather than an assessment of whether the defendant is a flight or safety risk.

"Therein lies the fundamental fairness issue of: Is there a two-tier justice system that is operating here?" asks Martin Hoshino, who heads the Judicial Council of California, which is an advisory and policymaking council of the state's courts.

"These recommendations reflect the overwhelming belief that wealth-based justice is not justice at all," says Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, who along with state Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, co-authored a bill proposing big changes to cash bail.

The report recommends a phaseout of a money-based bail system, replacing it with a risk-based pretrial assessment that uses a computer algorithm and judicial discretion; expansion of preventive detention for the most dangerous cases; and expansion of pretrial services in every county. The latter could include monitoring compliance with a defendants' release conditions, anger management counseling and reminders to people to show up on their court date.

Read More . . . .

Liquefying Corpses Legalized by Democrats

A Democrat Priority

(Inverse)  -  California Governor Jerry Brown passed AB 967, an innocuously named bill for a not-so-innocuous law. The bill, proposed by assembly member Todd Gloria, a San Diego democrat, will make it legal for Californians to liquefy their corpses after death in a bath of caustic juice.

The process, referred to as water cremation (or aquamation, resomation, bio-cremation, or flameless cremation), has been proposed as a much more environmentally friendly way to dispose of a body after death. The bill is sponsored by Qico, Inc., a “sustainable cremation” company that specializes in this form of corpse disposal, and it will go into effect by at least July 1, 2020.

“A lot of people view water creation as a more respectful option and we’re glad a lot of people will be able to have it,” Jack Ingraham, the CEO of Qico, tells Inverse. “We think this is a trend for the future. I think within 10 years to 20 years, cremation will be thought of as a water-based process, and the entire flame process will be replaced.”

Unfortunately, no actual liquid is returned to the survivors, only the remaining calcium, or the bones. “These are crushed into the ashes returned to the family,” Ingraham says, who adds that the process also results in about 20-30 percent more “ashes” being returned to the family. So while you can’t drink Uncle Frank, you will get more of his ashes.

These days, the only mainstream options available are burial or cremation, both of which aren’t especially green; coffins take up a lot of valuable space and are made of slowly biodegrading wood, and cremation requires reaching temperatures of up to 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, which isn’t exactly energy efficient. Then there’s the option of sending a dead body to space in a rocket, which is not green, for obvious reasons.

Aquamation, in contrast, dissolves a body, DNA and all, in a vat of liquid into a relatively unharmful solution of slightly alkaline water that can be neutralized and returned to the Earth. California is the latest state to make the procedure legal, joining 14 others.

Read More . . . .

The next logical step

1984 - One year in jail for saying "she" instead of "he"

Democrats Openly Piss on

the 1st Amendment

(Fox News)  -  California health care workers who “willfully and repeatedly” decline to use a senior transgender patient's “preferred name or pronouns” could face punishments ranging from a fine to jail time under a newly signed law. 

California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the legislation last week. 

The sponsor, Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener, has argued adamantly that nobody is going to be criminally prosecuted for using the wrong pronoun. 

“It’s just more scare tactics by people who oppose all LGBT civil rights and protections,” he said in a statement last month. 

But the language seemingly allows for the possibility, however remote. 

The bill itself is aimed at protecting transgender and other LGBT individuals in hospitals, retirement homes and assisted living facilities. The bill would ensure those facilities accommodate transgender people and their needs, including letting them decide which gender-specific bathroom they prefer to use. 

"It shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to take any of the following actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status," the bill reads.

Among the unlawful actions are “willfully and repeatedly” failing to use a transgender person’s “preferred name or pronouns” after he or she is “clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.”

The law states that if provisions are violated, the violator could be punished by a fine “not to exceed one thousand dollars” or “by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year,” or both.

One opponent of the law, the California Family Council's Greg Burt, slammed the measure when the bill was in its early stages.  

“How can you believe in free speech, but think the government can compel people to use certain pronouns when talking to others?” he said to the California Assembly Judiciary Committee in August, according to CBN News. 

Read More . . . .

Will taxpayers trust the GOP again?

GOP - A Party of Idiots

• The fools running the GOP refused to even put a proposition on the ballot to repeal the insane money-pit bullet train. 
• If you don't actually believe in anything then how can you oppose Marxism?

By Jon Coupal;

The California GOP is rapidly approaching the edge of a black hole from which there is no escape. But rather than reverse course by appealing to the needs and aspirations of average Californians, the response by some Republicans in the Legislature is to rush forward to throw themselves into the abyss by supporting policies that punish the middle-class.

Only a quarter of California voters are registered Republicans, barely more than those declaring no party preference. In the Legislature, Republicans number less than a third of lawmakers in each house.

There was a time when even some Democrats in the Legislature supported a healthy economy, taxpayers’ rights and Proposition 13. If any still exist, they are hiding under their desks. Over the last two decades, that party has lurched to the left and those now in Sacramento are devoted to serving the interests of government (aka public sector unions), the ever-expanding entitlement class and the wealthy denizens of coastal enclaves.

For taxpayers, criticizing Democrats is almost too easy given how thoroughly they have abandoned the middle class. But Republicans have traditionally been held to a much higher standard when it comes to taxation and fiscal responsibility. The question now is the extent to which taxpayers can trust Republicans at all.

With Republican support, the California legislature passed several bills slamming California’s ever-shrinking middle class. First, there was perhaps one of the most unpopular bills in California history, Senate Bill 1, imposing $52 billion in permanent new gas taxes and user fees on California drivers. Next was the infamous “cap-and-trade” legislation, Assembly Bill 398. In a few short years, drivers could be paying a buck and a half a gallon just in taxes and climate fees when added to the already sky-high levies imposed by the state. 

Last, but certainly not least, is Senate Bill 2, part of the California’s ineffective and counterproductive response to the housing shortage. The bill would impose a $75 to $225 “recording fee” on all real estate transactions and generate as much as $258 million annually. Only in California and Monty Python movies would a tax on real estate be considered a rational response to a housing shortage.

Let’s be clear. Those legislators who best defend taxpayers are still Republican. But unfortunately, those faithful few are being smeared by association with those who bend with the wind, succumb to the next big campaign contribution or promise of some “juice committee” appointment or lobbying gig. Note that the reverse is true as well: Some Republican legislators who stood firm for taxpayers were punished by having their committee assignments revoked or banished to the smallest office in the Capitol.

Average taxpayers understand how painful these tax hikes are. But they probably don’t understand how politically incompetent the Republican leadership was in getting them passed. Republican support for tax hikes allowed targeted Democrats in marginal districts (those where a Republican has a chance of winning) to vote against the tax hikes. These Democrats can now seize the mantle of fiscal responsibility even though everyone knows that, had their vote for the hikes been necessary for passage, they would have voted yes. Time and time again, Republican support of tax hikes allowed the “lifeboating” of Democrats in swing districts. To use a phrase by one party leader, this was “felony stupid.”

Taxpayer advocates take no joy in the slow immolation of the Republican Party.

The loss of any effective opposition from a minority party is a loss to all Californians. A strong democratic process relies on the competition of ideas. Moreover, one party rule has led to an extraordinary abuse of power in several areas including campaign rules, shutting down debate and jerry-rigging agencies and commissions in ways to crush political opposition. The loss of a vibrant Republican Party in California will accelerate the state’s metamorphosis into a Venezuela-like banana republic.

In order to have a chance against the power and money of the Democrats, Republicans need to distinguish themselves on critical matters of policy. Unlike social issues — as important as they may be — the fiscal issues of economical government, reasonable taxation and protection of Proposition 13 have been the rock to which Republicans have wisely clung as California’s political skies have turned from purple to blue. A return to these principles is a necessary first step for the GOP to repair its damaged reputation.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Read More . . . .

Poll: Gavin Newsom still leads field in California governor’s race

See our stories:
Gavin Newson - Anti Semitic Gay Hater
and
Gavin Newsom: “easier to get a gun than a happy meal in California.”

This Worthless Pile of Crap Would be the Perfect Governor for the People's Republic

(Mercury News)  -  It’s still nine months away, but Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom continues to lead the pack of contenders in next June’s “top two” primary election for governor, according to a UC Berkeley poll released Friday.

Results show that the Democrat, a former San Francisco mayor, is favored by 26 percent of likely voters.

Three other candidates vying for second place are trailing far behind, including former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat who garnered only 10 percent of likely voters in the poll, which was conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies.

Two Republicans, San Diego businessman John Cox and Orange County Assemblyman Travis Allen, posted similar numbers: Cox was favored by 11 percent of likely voters, Allen by 9 percent.

The number of likely voters who favor Newsom changed little from a Berkeley IGS poll in May, when it was 22 percent.

But it’s still early and most California voters aren’t paying much attention to the race, said Larry Gerston, a professor emeritus of political science at San Jose State University.

“Newsom still leads, but his lead is not nearly enough to separate him from everybody else if you are thinking about the top two’’ vote-getters who will advance to the November election regardless of party. “Newsom is only at 26 percent, which is only a quarter of the electorate,’’ Gerston said.

And as promising as the early numbers may be for Newsom, the poll shows that a third of likely voters are still undecided in the race, which has a crowded field of six major candidates that also includes state Treasurer John Chiang and former state schools superintendent Delaine Eastin, both Democrats.

Chiang placed fifth, attracting 7 percent of likely voters, while Eastin came in last with 4 percent.

“There’s a heckuva lot of undecided,’’ said Melissa Michelson, a political science professor at Menlo College in Atherton. “This really still could go to anybody.’’

Newsom’s early polling lead and huge fundraising advantage — he raised $5.3 million during the first six months of 2017 — are big factors, Michelson said.

“But I don’t see that he’s got a lock,’’ she said. “Gavin’s pretty popular up here where we all know him from his days in San Francisco.’’

Read More . . . .

Dems, GOP look to kill California's top-two primary system in 2018

Restore Free Elections in California

• In a crooked back room midnight deal Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the GOP and the Dems "reformed" our primaries.
• The result was independent candidates, and smaller political parties like the Greens and Libertarians being banned from all future general election ballots.

(Los Angeles Times)  -  Political parties and open primaries are the electoral equivalent of oil and water. They may coexist, but they don’t mix.

So it’s hardly surprising that neither California’s dominant Democrats nor its fading Republicans have ever really embraced Proposition 14, the sweeping ballot measure that abolished partisan primaries six years ago.

Some, in fact, say they’ve seen enough. It’s time to scrap it.

“If we don't get California straightened out for every party, at least give them some kind of chance, then why the hell are we involved in politics at all?” asks Tom Palzer, a Republican from Rancho Cucamonga.

Banned From The Ballot
Laura Wells was the 2010 Green Party nominee for
Governor of California.  The Democrats & GOP have worked
together to ban all smaller political parties and independent
candidates from the general election ballot.  The Elites
have even declared that your write-in vote is illegal
and will not be counted.

Banned From The Ballot
Chelene Nightingale was the 2010 nominee of the
conservative American Independent Party. The GOP
wants to keep Conservative parties off the November
ballot. The GOP could care less about your freedom
to vote for who you want.

Palzer, who recently launched his second straight long-shot bid for the U.S. Senate, is the author of a proposed ballot initiative for November 2018 that would wipe out the top-two primary. It would restore the role of parties in picking who’s on the ballot in California's general elections.

While he’s an activist who’s largely been doing this on his own, Palzer’s effort was crafted at the same time rumors swirled in Sacramento this summer of powerful political groups hoping to do the same thing. That effort, in a perfect world, would have produced an initiative which included “reform” items like new campaign money rules while also repealing the top-two primary. But in an unusually quiet ballot measure year, it never materialized. And it would surely have been fought by self-styled good government groups.

The original champion of the top-two primary, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, called its passage “a clear message that Californians are tired of partisan gridlock and dysfunction” the day after the June 2010 election. The promise was that it would help centrist candidates beat out ideologues.

Its impact has been “inconsistent,” concluded an April study co-written by Eric McGhee, a researcher at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. Perhaps the state’s leading expert on the top-two primary, McGhee believes there’s only been a slight increase in moderates (all Democrats) elected to the Legislature. Even then, the state’s independent redistricting rules and the 2012 revamping of legislative term limits may deserve just as much credit.

“To the extent that they can be known, the causes of that greater moderation seem to be about evenly split” among all three of those changes, McGhee said.

The only undisputed winners in changing the primary rules have been unaffiliated “independent” voters, who used to be banned by some parties from voting in their primaries. Now there’s one large slate of candidates, and everyone can vote for anyone.

It’s also unleashed a torrent of campaign spending, mostly by independent political action committees that raise money in unlimited amounts.

“This has become a special interest boondoggle,” said Shawnda Westly, a Democratic strategist and former leader of the state party.

An analysis by the nonpartisan California Target Book shows that independent committees spent more than $29 million on legislative races in 2016, much of which came from business and education groups.

"Overwhelmingly, California's voters want money out of politics,” Westly said. “The only thing top-two did was expand its role.”

Read More . . . . .

Welcome to Authoritarianism
An example of the phony "top two" system.  In 2014 it was a Democrat vs. Democrat choice for voters in the 6th State Senate District.
.
The corrupt "top two" phony election system gives the voters a choice of only one political party.  There was no Republican on the ballot and all small opposition parties and independent candidates are banned.  The corrupt Elites have even made your write-in vote illegal.  (More)

A One-Party U.S. Senate Election.
In 2016 California voters were given the pretend "choice" between Democrat Kamala Harris and Democrat Loretta Sanchez. Voters were not allowed any other choices on the general election ballot.

One-Party Rule
The People's Republic of California is now a one-party state where small opposition parties are banned from the general election ballot. Other countries where only one party is on the ballot include Communist North Korea, Communist China, Communist Vietnam and Communist Cuba.
.
Now the People's Republic of California joins their overseas Brothers in holding mock, pretend elections.