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