Newsom Freedom Day is Coming

Permanent Martial Law in America

The American Police State

Must See Video

The annual flu is being used as an excuse by the corrupt media to terrorize Americans, for government to illegally close businesses, to close gun stores, to tell workers not to work and earn money to support their families and to implode the entire economy.

We the people are being openly butt-fucked.

The Sheeple have been played

for suckers by the corrupt media

xx

The normal everyday flu that infected 34,000,000 people and killed at least 20,000 has been totally ignored by the corrupt multi-national corporate media machine.
.
But along comes the Corona Flu with only 81,900+ infections and the media tells the Sheeple to pull their hair out, shut down the entire economy and hide in the closet to await Death. 
.
And the Sheeple bleat: "Please saaave us Master. We will obey you."

“People are sheep. TV is the shepherd.” 
― Jess C. Scott

Democrats Abolish Freedom of the Press

Democrats Attack Freedom of the Press

(Life News)  -  California Governor Jerry Brown has signed an oppressive, Planned Parenthood-backed bill to stop whistleblowers and journalists from conducting undercover investigations of any “health care providers.”

The Center for Medical Progress’s undercover video project did a lot of damage to Planned Parenthood when it revealed the abortion giant’s baby body parts operation. Through the California bill, Planned Parenthood is trying to stop anyone from trying to expose its horrendous practices ever again.

The legislation makes it a crime for anyone to record undercover footage of “health care providers,” including abortion facilities. An original version of the bill also would have punished third parties, including journalists and lawyers, who do nothing more than report or distribute the footage, the Courthouse News Service reports. Violations include stiff fines and jail time, according to the report.

California Assembly Bill 1671 is almost assuredly going to become the subject of a lawsuit not only from pro-life groups who wish to expose the abortion industry but other political groups, the media and defenders of free speech who want to engage in similar undercover journalism.

After Governor Brown signed the bill, David Daleiden emailed LifeNews:

“The Center for Medical Progress never recorded “confidential” communications, so California’s existing recording law and the new distribution provision are simply inapplicable to our work. However, it is clear that Planned Parenthood does not want to be held accountable to the public whose taxpayer money it gladly takes by the hundreds of millions, and will even attack freedom of speech and the freedom of the press in order to maintain its own arbitrary levels of secrecy.”

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must De-Fund Planned Parenthood Immediately

The amended version removed the penalties for third parties who distribute the footage. But that was not enough even for some of Planned Parenthood’s allies. The Los Angeles Times editorial board published a strong op-ed against the bill. The American Civil Liberties Union of California, which often partners with Planned Parenthood on legal cases, also opposes the bill, citing First Amendment concerns about freedom of the press.

Here’s more from the report:

Kevin Baker, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of California, said they share Planned Parenthood’s concerns about privacy, but the measure is written too broadly and could inadvertently catch people in criminal activity. Lawyers and journalists who share material from a whistleblower, he said, could be held liable for aiding and abetting.

Opponents point to [bill sponsor state Assemblyman Jimmy] Gomez’s own live Facebook video from a hospital last week, when he was treated for a broken elbow sustained in a legislative softball game, as an extreme example of the bill’s reach. Could the conversations captured in the background as Gomez discussed his injury be considered an infraction?

“You might be inadvertently recording conversations and posting them online in ways that violate the wording of this law,” Baker said. “That’s the problem of the bill. It isn’t limited.”

During the debate on Wednesday, state Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa, called out the hypocrisy of the bill.

“When ‘60 Minutes’ uses a hidden camera and discovers a unique story, it’s called outstanding journalism,” Moorlach said. “But when a private citizen does it and unmasks a very, very unpleasant truth, it’s a call for legislation.”

State Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Oakland, a pro-abortion lawmaker, also expressed concerns about the bill.

“Everyone is supportive of Planned Parenthood, because it was a terrible thing that happened to them,” Hancock said, but added that First Amendment rights “are absolutely core values.”

Read More . . . .

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 . . . .

Sheriff's sue on L.A.’s high-capacity ammunition magazine ban

Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko

Stand up for Freedom

The Leftists cannot stop themselves from 

attacking your right to defend yourself.

(Los Angeles Daily News)  -  Gun owners and California law enforcement officers are suing the Democrat run city of Los Angeles, claiming its ban on high-capacity magazines violates state regulations.

The City Council voted in July to ban ownership of large-capacity magazines containing more than 10 rounds of ammunition. With gun owners facing a Nov. 18 deadline to give up the magazines, the suit seeks to block the law from going into effect.

Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko, one of 30 sheriffs across the state who filed the lawsuit Friday, questioned how law enforcement agents would drive through the city when other parts of the state allow high-capacity magazines.

“The ordinance creates a patchwork of laws that law-abiding citizens and law enforcement have to navigate through,” Bosenko said.

The California Rifle and Pistol Association, which is the state-affiliated group of the National Rifle Association, and the California Reserve Peace Officers Association also joined the lawsuit.

Since 2000, California has outlawed manufacturing or selling high-capacity magazines, but Los Angeles’ ordinance goes further, making it illegal to possess them.

Cities including Sunnyvale and San Francisco also ban possession of high-capacity magazines and have successfully fended off lawsuits from the NRA.

Los Angeles City Councilman Paul Krekorian led his council colleagues this summer in passing the ban. At a July news conference, he cited several local incidents in which semi-automatic weapons were used, including the 1999 Los Angeles Jewish Community Center and 2013 Santa Monica College shootings.

Violation of the new ordinance carries misdemeanor charges.

Krekorian called the lawsuit a “predictable and desperate attempt by NRA lawyers to strike down a common-sense policy that will keep our city and its people safe.”

Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer also criticized the lawsuit, stating the city’s law is constitutional.

Read More . . . .

Los Angeles - All handguns must be locked

Leftist Democrats on the March

• Gangbangers roam the streets, murders are increasing, but Democrats are obsessed about reducing the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves.

(Breitbart News)  -  On October 27 the Democrat Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to require all handguns to locked or disabled inside the owner’s home.

The measure was pushed by Councilman Paul Krekorian–the same council member who recently pushed through an ordinance requiring all ammunition magazines with greater-than-10-round capacity to be surrendered to the police or otherwise disposed.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Krekorian used preschoolers to frame his argument for locking up guns. He said, “It’s unacceptable to live in a country where it’s more dangerous to be a preschooler than to be a police officer — and we can do something about that today.”

Enforcement of the gun storage requirement would be handled on the backend, when police visit a given home for another reason–a domestic disturbance, suspicious activity, etc—and discover a gun unlocked in what they deem an unsafe location. The punishment would be a misdemeanor charge.

Gun rights groups have already made it known that they will be suing the city if the gun lock requirement is put in place. But Councilman Mitch Englander stood with Krekorian and said, “This is less about gun control and simply more about controlling your gun. It’s really that simple.”

There are two interesting things to note there. Number one is that fire and water pose a far greater risk than guns not simply to preschoolers, but to all children under the age of 10. Breitbart News previously reported CDC stats that show children under the age of 10 are killed in accidental burn-related deaths seven times more often than in accidental shootings and are killed in accidental drowning deaths 16 times more often than in accidental shootings. Yet Krekorian is focused on firearms. 

The second interesting thing to note is that the exercise of the Second Amendment within the home is accepted as constitutionally protected even among many ardent anti-gunners. And the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) spoke to this in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and again in McDonald v Chicago (2010).

Moreover, in the majority opinion handed down with the McDonald ruling, Justice Sam Alito not only referred to self-defense as the “central component” of the Second Amendment but also pointed to handguns as the favored means of self-defense.

How can a single mother exercise self-defense and defend the life of her children if Councilmen Krekorian and Englander force her to disable her handgun?

Read More . . . .

California's Rigged Elections - 2 Ways California Could Expand Voter Choice in Elections

"Corruptus in Extremis"

• Welcome to the one-party authoritarian state of the People's Republic of California where your vote has no meaning and those "elected" to office are the bought and paid for tools of Sacramento special interest groups.
• The corrupt Democrats and Republicans have effectively banned all four opposition parties from the general election.  
• The California Libertarian Party, the California Green Party, the Peace and Freedom Party and the American Independent Party are no longer on the November ballot for voters to choose from.

By Richard Winger
Editor of Ballot Access News

California’s existing election system for Congress and state office could be improved with the following ideas.

The problem with the status quo is that ever since it went into effect in 2011, there has been very limited choice on the November ballot. So far, no independent or minor party candidate has appeared on the November ballot for statewide office. Each statewide office in November has been between one Democrat and one Republican, with no write-in space.

In November 2014, California voters were the only voters in the nation who had to vote for either a Democrat or a Republican for statewide office, or they couldn’t vote at all. The only minor party candidates that have qualified for the November ballot under the top-two system were three in 2012 and three in 2014, all in legislative or U.S. House races in which only one major party member was running, so that it was impossible for the minor party member not to place second and thereby qualify for the general election.

On the other hand, the existing system lets any voter vote for any candidate in June.

There are several ways to improve the system, to keep the freedom of choice in the primary and yet expand choice in the general election.

Banned in California

ONE: abolish primaries, as Louisiana has done. Louisiana only has a general election, and all candidates run in that general election. 85% of the time, someone gets 50% or more in November and is elected. But when no one gets 50%, Louisiana holds a runoff in December. Louisiana uses instant runoff voting for overseas absentee ballots, which makes it possible to hold the two elections that close together.

That system keeps everybody happy. No one is excluded from campaigning and running in the general election season when voters are most engaged.

During the last few years in Louisiana, the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party has elected some local office candidates. Libertarian registration has been growing fast in Louisiana and is now above 10,000. The Green Party and the Reform Party are also ballot-qualified and their members can run for anything in the fall campaign season, just by paying a modest filing fee.

California could improve on the Louisiana system by providing instant runoff voting, or approval voting, for all voters, so that no December runoff would be needed.

TWO: restore the blanket primary. California used a blanket primary in 1998 and 2000, and also California used a blanket primary for all special congressional and legislative elections from 1967 through 2010.

A blanket primary has a single primary ballot, and all candidates appear on the ballot. The top vote-getter from each party automatically goes on the November ballot. Independent candidates can be handled in various ways.

Banned in California
The Democrats and Republicans have rigged California's elections so only
their parties appear on the general election ballot.  All independent
candidates and smaller opposition political parties are effectively banned
from the November ballot.  Other nations where parties are banned: Communist
China, Communist Vietnam and Communist North Korea. 

In California special elections, all independent candidates ran in the primary, but they all were automatically put on the runoff ballot as well. In regularly scheduled elections, California independent candidates did not appear on the primary ballot, but petitioned onto the November ballot. The advantage of that is it permits a candidate to enter the race as late as August of an election year.

It is true that the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated California’s blanket primary in 2000, in California Democratic Party v Jones. However, the blanket primary can be made constitutional if it is voluntary. The law could provide that parties either nominate with a blanket primary, or else they are free to nominate candidates by convention at their own expense.

All Republican Party attempts to invalidate open primaries in Montana, Utah, South Carolina, and Virginia have failed, so far, because the law in those states lets the Republican Party nominate by convention at its own expense if it doesn’t like the primary system (although, for Montana, that is only true for party office, not public office).

The blanket primary was very popular in California. The initiative for a blanket primary, Prop. 198, passed with 59% in 1996. It passed in every county.

Turnout in both primaries and general elections during the blanket primary years was fairly high: In November 1998, turnout was 57.6% of registered voters; in November 2000, 70.9% of registered voters. In the 1998 primary, 42.5%; in the 2000 primary, 53.9%.

In the top-two years, the general election turnout (percentage of registered voters) was 72.4% in 2012, and 42.2% in 2014. In top-two years, primary turnout was 31.1% in 2012 and 25.2% in 2014. Turnout between November 2010 and November 2014 declined more in California than any other state.

Whereas in November 2010 California voters had six parties to choose from on their statewide ballot, in November 2014, they only had two, and that clearly motivated some people not to vote in November. Californians want lots of choices in both the primary and the general election.

Read More . . . .

What a Free Election Looks Like

America is the only democratic nation on earth where voter choices are restricted and elections basically rigged by the same two parties that "magically" win 100% of all elections.

In the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg the voters had seven political parties to choose from and four parties elected to office.

That is called freedom.

Baden-Württemberg state election

Seven parties on the German ballot and four
parties winning office.
.
Maybe California should try something "radical"
like election freedom.

California Farmers Market Sells Marijuana

Step Right Up

And get your celery, pot, beets and arugula.

(Mother Jones)  -  In the fruit and veggie cornucopia that is California, local farmers markets sell everything from brandywine tomatoes and lemon cucumbers to hedgehog mushrooms and fresh medjool dates. But no farmers market can match the selection of the one in the Mendocino County town of Laytonville, which offers, among other things, an ample supply of heirloom cannabis.

Admittedly, this is not a typical farmers market. It takes place just once a year, at a hippie enclave replete with UFO murals and Ganesh shrines, and only certified medical marijuana patients may enter (though there's a doctor on site to help with that). But it does offer the spectacle of actual farmers selling their own produce and pot side by side.

Emily Hobelmann of the Lost Coast Outpost visited last year and was wowed by the selection:

All told, I saw squash and apples and pears and peppers and world-class cannabis flowers. I saw leeks and tomatoes, peaches and dab rigs. I saw picked beans and marijuana clones, carrots and cold water hash.

If you happen to be up that way, you can stop by between 11 a.m. and 4:20 p.m. next Saturday.

Read More . . . .

Mendocino County

The State of Jefferson is Back - Move for a 51st State

California is Too Damn Big

New state would be made up of 

the 20 northernmost counties

PLACERVILLE, Calif. (KCRA) —They came by the dozens, then hundreds.

Fueled by frustrations over a perceived unequal representation in state government, supporters of creating a new state in Northern California packed the El Dorado County supervisor's chambers in an effort to win their support.

The state of Jefferson would be made up of California's 20 northernmost counties with a population of approximately 1.7 million people, similar to the number of people living in Idaho.

"We just hope that the Board of Supervisors will actually see for themselves how much enthusiasm there is for people in El Dorado County, that want more representation," state of Jefferson organizer Mike Thomas said.

Should Northern California Secede and
Become the State of Jefferson?

Under the current vision, each of the 20 counties would have one state senator, while the 60 assemblymen would represent districts based on population size.

Currently the region in question is represented by just six lawmakers in Sacramento. The rest of California has 114.

"We have 11 counties up here with one state senator, L.A. County has 11 senators so you can see the mismatch," Thomas said. "Our founding fathers never envisioned that a state would actually do that."

Jefferson supporters presented before the supervisors and standing-room only crowd for about 45 minutes, hoping to convince them to issue a declaration saying the county intends to join the new state.

Eight Northern California counties have already thrown support for the new state. They include Modoc, Siskyou, Glenn, Tehama, Yuba, Sutter, Lake and Lassen counties.

In order for it to become a state, Jefferson would need a majority of votes in both houses of the California Legislature and Congress.

New states have been formed this way, but it hasn't happened for a long time. Maine was the last state to do it when it split from Massachusetts -- in 1820.

One of many proposed maps of a 51st state.

State of Jefferson supporters.

A group called Keep it California also presented before the supervisors.

Organizer Jamie Beutler acknowledged representation is an issue, but said Jefferson isn't the solution.

"It's much easier to work with what we have and solve our problems, which we believe can be solved, than to form an entire new state, and start all over again with all of the unknowns that there are," Beutler said.

Many said they were drawn to the idea of Jefferson, but remained skeptical.

Maggie Cogburn came here with her husband and wanted to learn how the logistics would work.

"It's pretty much in line with what I've already known, I'd like to hear more details on how are they going to do a lot of things," Maggie Cogburn said.

For others, the small government low taxes message struck a chord.

"Southern California and Central California has been dictating to the rural counties, and overriding our votes," said Terry Willhoit. "We're having to live to their standards in the metropolitan big cities, and we're not big city people up here, we are hometown people."

The supervisors did not vote on the state of Jefferson but promised to look into it more closely.

Read More . . . .

State of Jefferson petition goes to El Dorado Co. board

Scalia trashes California in Gay marriage ruling

Justice Anthony Kennedy

Ripping Sacramento's Kennedy

• Kennedy was appointed to the Court by President Ronald Reagan and has come down on both the Conservative and Liberal side of issues.
• It has been argued that "libertarian principles play prominent roles in Justice Kennedy's judicial opinions in several areas of the law," especially "privacy rights, race, and free speech."  (Wikipedia)
• The Gay marriage ruling has set off Justice Antonin Scalia and social Conservatives into full melt down mode.

(Breitbart News)  -  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia took a swipe at California in his dissent of Friday’s landmark 5-4 ruling that made gay marriage a constitutionally protected right under the Fourteenth Amendment and legal in all 50 states.

In his now-infamous opinion, Scalia wrote that “a system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy,” adding:

Judges are selected precisely for their skills as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east-and west-coast states. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner, or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count).

Of course, California counted very much on Friday; the deciding vote in the Court’s decision on gay marriage came from Justice Anthony Kennedy, a California native.

Unhinged?
Justice Antonin Scalia

“The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest,” Kennedy wrote in his opinion.

In many ways, Kennedy’s opinion reflects the longstanding public opinion shift toward the approval of gay marriage that got its start in the Golden State.

As The Sacramento Bee points out, then-San Francisco mayor, and now-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, was the first in the country to order city officials to perform gay weddings in 2004. Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, was passed in California in 2008, then overturned just a few years later.

“At long last, marriage equality in the United States,” San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee reportedly told a cheering crowd Friday, after the Court handed down its decision. “We started that movement. We started that movement right here in San Francisco.”

At a news conference on Friday, California Attorney General Kamala Harris called the day “an incredible day in history,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

“California is validated. We are validated,” Harris said. “Each day that one of those couples have to go without being able to have their marriage and their love legally recognized … is one day too long.”

Harris also reserved some sharp words for Scalia: “Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.”

“Justice Scalia has caused many people to question the dignity of the Court when he makes statements such as the statements he’s made in connection with this case,” Harris added. “And that’s unfortunate.”

Read More . . . .

Personally I could care less if Gays want to marry.
There are real issues to worry about.

Obama's DOJ continues their war on California Medical Marijuana

A failure but the "war" goes on

• The Statists who worship an all-powerful Federal Government just cannot stop themselves from trying to control everything you do, eat, drink, smoke or think.

(East Bay Express)  -  California’s multi-billion medical cannabis industry will remain in the crosshairs of federal prosecutors, despite direction from Congress to cease interfering with state medical pot systems.

In December, the US Congress passed and the president signed a historic amendment that de-funded the Department of Justice’s war on medical pot. Medical marijuana is legal in 23 states, yet the Obama Administration had spent an estimated $300 million enforcing the marijuana provisions of federal Controlled Substances Act.

After three months reviewing the amendment, the DOJ told the Los Angeles Times this week that “it did not believe the amendment applies to cases against individuals or organizations.”

The amendment states no DOJ funds may be used to: "prevent [medical marijuana] States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, pos- session, or cultivation of medical marijuana."

The Justice Department spokesperson said the department won’t arrest state regulators, but will continue to arrest, imprison, and seize the property of citizens and organizations involved in lawful state medical marijuana activity.

But the amendment’s author, Congressmember Dana Rohrabacher, said in February in San Francisco that prosecutors who waste time targeting legitimate dispensaries are breaking the law. 

“If any of you is being attacked, that federal prosecutor is breaking the law — that breaks the letter and the spirit of the law that passed the House with great debate,” he said. "Make sure your lawyers know [U.S. prosecutors] are breaking the law by being there. Their paycheck cannot be used to prosecute."

Federal appeals court judges have already begun to question prosecutors on the amendment's applicability to pending cases.

Northern California’s US Attorney Melinda Haag has targeted several of the Bay Area’s most legal, regulated dispensaries for property forfeiture including Harborside Health Center, and Berkeley Patients Group. These cases are mired in appeals motions over the cities of Oakland and Berkeley’s rights to have standing in the cases.

Harborside attorney Henry Wykowski told the Times the amendment is vague and open to interpretation in upcoming court hearings. 

The amendment could be read broadly to cover the California cannabis industry, the regulation of which includes some state laws, as well as a California Supreme Court ruling vesting regulatory authority with local jurisdictions. 

Many cities have banned cannabis dispensaries, while others tax and regulate collectives operating out of retail storefronts as well as cultivation. The federal government has a history of threatening California city councilmembers, county supervisors, and government staffers with drug trafficking charges if they seek to regulate medical cannabis cultivation or distribution. Federal prosecutors have shut down cultivation regulation programs in Humboldt County and Oakland. 

Update 4/3 3:20 p.m.: 

Congressmember Rohrabacher's office responded to the DOJ's statement via email, calling the DOJ's reading of his law incorrect. Rohrabacher’s Communications Director Ken Grubbs stated: “Rohrabacher believes the DOJ's self-referential interpretation to be emphatically wrong. The legislation's explicit language speaks for itself.”

(East Bay Express)