Skip to main content


Tag for items relating to the State of California.

New Leadership Required!!!

The leaders in this State are killing this State. They have passed a bill that the Governor will sign to raise the minimum wage to $9 next July and to $10 by January of 2016.

Don't they know that this State has 8.7% unemployment, 1.3% higher than the national average?

Don't they know that businesses are closing their doors or leaving this State, nearly 73,000 fewer businesses in 2012?

Don't they realize that people are NOT coming to California anymore and many are leaving?

Don't they realize that businesses are already going to be paying more for each employee due to ObamaCare?

We need a whole-sale change of leadership in this State!



Common sense lost ...

Why is it that when a person sits as a politician, all common sense goes out the window and they fail to stand against what they believe to be wrong?

School Board member Joe Hurtado even acknowledges the situational common sense saying he stands behind the deal though, if it were a mortgage, he "would run."

I have heard similar comments it in other areas of government. For example, at a City Council meeting some years ago, a member of the Council stated, "While I am philosophically opposed to eminent domain, it is a necessary tool."

We need to stop electing these people!

We need representatives who will use common sense when making decisions. We need representatives who will stand firm when they are opposed to something.

School Districts Pay Dearly For Bonds [SFC]

2012 Propositions - How I Am Voting

There are 11 propositions on the ballot for November (2012). Here is how I will be voting along with a short comment as to why.

  • Proposition 30 -- No
    Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

    We do not need to be taxed any more!!! As one of the arguments against this proposition states, "We already have the 2nd highest state income tax rate, as well as THE highest state sales tax rate." Businesses are already failing or moving out of state. We don't need to push them even harder.

  • Proposition 31 -- No
    State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

    There are a lot of things that sound good in this proposition. However, I am very concerned about the reach of this proposition. It not only changes the rules at the state level, but also at the local level as well.

  • Proposition 32 -- Yes
    Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute.

    I am supporting this for one reason. No one should have the right to take money out of my paycheck for political purposes unless I say it is okay. It is that simple!

  • Proposition 33 -- Yes
    Auto Insurance Companies. Prices based on Driver's History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.

    Competition in business is always a good thing for the consumer.

  • Proposition 34 -- No
    Death Penalty. Initiative Statute

    I support the death penalty. However, in California, those who oppose the death penalty have already ensured that it will rarely, if ever, happen. The fact that there has only been 13 executions in the last 46 years is proof of that.

  • Proposition 35 -- Yes
    Human Trafficking. Penalties. Initiative Statute.

    We need to get tougher on those who commit these types of crimes.

  • Proposition 36 -- No
    Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony Offenders. Penalties. Initiative Statute.

    We do not need to weaken the Three Strikes Law. It is serving us well!!!

  • Proposition 37 -- No
    Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling. Initiative Statute.

    I am opposing this primarily due to Section 110809.4. Enforcement which opens the door to numerous lawsuits because of incorrect labeling especially when the benefit from that labeling requirement is minimal.

  • Proposition 38 -- No
    Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.

    We do not need to be taxed any more!!!

  • Proposition 39 -- No
    Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.

    This is a transfer of wealth from successful businesses to fund clean energy. The loss to the successful businesses will result in people losing their jobs. We need to focus on creating jobs, not becoming number 1 in the nation in terms of unemployment!

  • Proposition 40 -- Yes
    Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

    As Julie Vandermost, the official sponsor of the proposition, states, "This measure is not needed and we are no longer asking for a NO vote." I'm curious to see how many still vote No.

Proposition 32 -- Paycheck Protection

There is a battle waging here in California for political control of this State. And, the results of Proposition 32 will determine that control for years to come.

There are many who believe that the political actions within this State are heavily influenced by the unions, especially the CTA (California Teachers Association), and have been for many years. Proposition 32 addresses this by making all contributions for political activity to unions or corporations voluntary.

And, there are others who believe it is large corporations who have the strongest influence. Proposition 32 addresses that as well as contributions to state and local candidates are prohibited with the passage of this proposition. Both unions and corporations will be allowed to fund PACs (Political Action Committees), but direct support of state and local candidates will be prohibited.

There have been a couple attempts within the last 15 years attempting to accomplish the goals in Proposition 32. However, each meet their demise at the hands of the unions who spent millions in ensuring their defeat. And, once again, the unions are spending millions (approximately $40 million to date, $16 million from the CTA alone) to defeat Proposition 32.

I will be voting yes on Proposition 32 for one reason and one reason only. I believe no one has the right to take money directly from a person's paycheck without their consent. In this case, it is not uncommon for unions to take funds from their members paychecks specifically for political purposes. If a member voluntarily provides those funds, so be it. And, that is exactly what this measure does. It requires all political contributions to be voluntary.

It is time we level the political landscape here in California. It is time the citizens of this state to have a louder voice than the unions and corporations funding the campaigns of state and local politicians.

Vote Yes on Proposition 32.

Reference Links:

Note: Please read the text of the proposition. The No on 32 campaign is suggesting there are exemptions for corporations. If you read the text of the proposition or even just the summary at BallotPedia, you will see there are no exemptions!

Marriage ...

We have all heard the news, Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. I was not surprised by this ruling nor should anyone else.

We live in a time where groups of individuals who are unable to sway public opinion can use the courts to achieve their goals. This is extremely evident when it comes to same-sex marriage. You can see here that most states ban same-sex marriage. (You can also read about various polls here.) However, time after time, the supporters of same-sex marriage have taken the issue to the courts and achieved their goals with the latest being the overturning of Proposition 8.

So, what are those of us who support traditional marriage to do?

Unfortunately, I believe it is too late to do anything about marriage. The Ninth Circuit will uphold the decision as will the Supreme Court. Same-sex marriage will happen!

We need to focus on changing the hearts of people. As the public opinion polls show, support for same-sex marriage is growing. The question is, why? Is it fatigue over the issue? Is it apathy?

I believe the silencing of God in this country is the biggest reason for the change. Over the last 50 plus years, there has been one challenge after another to remove religion, especially the Christian religion, from the public square: from prayer at schools to removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. And, with each successful challenge, fewer and fewer people are willing to share their beliefs for fear of reprisal.

The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience attempts to remind Christians that they are "called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good". The declaration discusses three specific issues: Life, Marriage and Religious Liberty.

Religious Liberty to me is of utmost importance. As I stated, I believe fear of reprisal causes many to hide their faith. We need to eliminate that fear by focusing on strengthening our right to share our religiously based opinions. Unfortunately, that is a tough task. It will require us to share first and then challenge the attacks that we WILL receive. I believe that once that fear is removed, we will see more and more Christians standing up for what we believe is right such as the sanctity of life.

I am a Christian! Jesus died for me and everyone else. It is by God's grace that I have eternal life.

I will not keep that good news to myself!

Will you stand with me?

Happy New Year -- from the socialist republic of California

Posted in

Happy New Year to everyone!

For those of us still stuck in California, here are some of the creative laws our government feels necessary. Socialism is strong!

California's new laws for 2010

New California Laws For 2010


Posted in

Is there hope?

A commission in California will recommend a change to the "personal income tax structure to reduce the burden on the wealthy". They will also recommend abolishing sales and corporate taxes, replacing it with a tax on businesses net receipts.

Read the article here.

You can also visit the website for the Commission on the 21st Century Economy to learn more about the commission and their charge.

Proposition 8 - the facts ...

Posted in

I was reading a news article (here) about the California State Supreme Court's ruling validating Proposition 8, the California Marriage Protection Act. While reading the comments to the article, I came across the following:

"If California did not want gay marriage then all of this would never have happend and those who are married now would have never been offered the chance…. so think about the facts."

The implication of the statement is that California "wants" same-sex marriage. I disagree, so I responded with the following:

The facts are:

1) In 2000, Californians passed Proposition 22 stating that marriage should be between one man and one woman.
2) Those who want to redefine marriage took the issue to court. And, in May of 2008, eight years later, 4 of 7 judges in the California State Supreme Court voted to overturn Proposition 22 and allow same-sex marriage. The State Supreme Court also denied a request to "stay" the decision until Proposition 8 was decided later in the year.
3) In November of 2008, Californians again declare that marriage should be between one man and one woman by passing Proposition 8.
4) In May of 2009, the State Supreme Court rules that Proposition 8 is valid. And, even though some disagree, the Court had no choice but to let approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages remain recognized because they did not grant the stay requested after their earlier decision.

Those are the facts.

Same-sex marriage is an issue in this State because a group of individuals who want to redefine marriage have made it an issue. And, the group has been successful in achieving their goals using the Court system. However, each time it has been presented to the voters of this State, the voters have been clear that they do not want marriage redefined.

Marriage is not a right. Historically, it is a religious ceremony joining one man and one woman in "holy matrimony". Today, not only is it a religious ceremony for most, but the State uses it as a "legal instrument" to confer "benefits" to those who are "married".

Personally, I believe the State should come up with another legal instrument to confer those "benefits" and leave marriage to the religious institutions. This will allow the State to grant the legal instrument to both traditional unions and same-sex unions without redefining marriage. I think this would best serve both sides of this issue.

I would love to see the proponents of same-sex marriage pressure the State to come up with a legal instrument other than a "marriage certificate" to confer the rights they are seeking. The State and the Federal Government need to get out of the marriage business.

Will that happen? Considering this article, it looks like the fight is moving back into the court system.