Check Your Voting Status
It is highly recommended that in the next few days you verify that you are still on the Voter Roles. A link to do so is here on the California Secretary of State website.
In the Primary Election there were reports that people were taken off the Voting Roles and were forced to vote Provisionally. And though we are told that voting is not rigged it is also common knowledge that Provisional Ballots are not normally counted.
In the Primary Election there were reports that people were taken off the Voting Roles and were forced to vote Provisionally. And though we are told that voting is not rigged it is also common knowledge that Provisional Ballots are not normally counted.
Poll Working or Watching
"What can I do to help?" So glad you asked. For the last several months, CTP has admonished our members to participate in the election, thereby putting a pair of conservative eyes at each polling place. There are two ways to help:
1.) Poll Worker. It requires a commitment of a long day, plus training for $115. They are desperate for help. You will be able to not only watch what goes on in the room, you can insist that any egregious or inappropriate activities be remedied. Use this link to download a poll worker's application: http://www.sbcountyelections.com/Portals/9/ElectionWorkers/PollWorkerApplication.pdf?_=1477006978890 , or call 909 387 8300.
2) Poll Watcher. There is also two hours of training, but it can be done from your computer at home in 15 minute chunks. Once the training is complete, you will be able to get an assignment based on where you live. You do not have to commit to the whole day. Contact the Election Integrity Project (EIP) here: https://www.electionintegrityproject.com/california_category/take-action/training/
Click to enroll AND get trained for EIP's Poll Observer Training...ALL ON YOUR COMPUTER.
Thanks for your faithful contribution!
Carol Houghton
Chino Tea Party
Chino Tea Party Endorsed Candidates
This is the most important election year in your lifetime!!
This is the most important election year in your lifetime!!
United States President -- Donald Trump / Mike Pence
U.S. Congress, 27th District -- Jack Orswell
U.S. Congress, 31st District -- Paul Chabot
U.S. Congress, 35th District -- Tyler Fischella
State Senate, 23rd District -- Mike Morrell
State Senate, 25th District -- Mike Antonovich
State Senate, 29th District -- Ling Ling Chang
State Assembly, 33rd District -- Jay Obernolte
State Assembly, 40th District -- Marc Steinorth
State Assembly, 41st District -- Casey Higgins
State Assembly, 42nd District -- Chad Mayes
LOCAL CITY COUNCILS
Chino
Chino Mayor - Eunice Ulloa
Chino Hills
Art Bennett
Paul Molinaro
Montclair
Benjamin Lopez
Ontario
Richard Roybal Jr
LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS
Chino Valley Unified School District
Mia Ontiveros
James Na
Andrew Cruz
Chaffey Joint Union High School District
Matthew Munson
LOCAL SCHOOL BONDS
Chino - Measure G - NO
Claremont - Measure G - NO
Ontario/Montclair - Measure K - NO
Alta Loma - Measure H – NO
LOCAL CITY MEASURES
Rancho Cucamonga - Measure Q - NO
Upland - Measure U - NO
California Propositions- November 2016
Prop 51: Community College Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2016
This proposition creates $9 billion dollars in bonds for school districts and infrastructure. It boasts that for each $1 billion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000.00) it spends; it creates 13,000 jobs. That is about $76 million dollars per job. Can you afford tax increase to pay for servicing this bond measure each year, to pay the principal and interest payments? Within this proposition is the expectation that these taxes will need to be collected to do so.
**The California Budget funds $30 billion dollars for higher education all the while the state colleges are raising tuition on students and parents. UC and CSU schools doubled their tuition fees over the last decade. This is also in addition to the faculty unions vote to receive a 10% raise for college educators.[1][2]
Many taxpayer organizations are against this including Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. San Diego County Tax Fighters, CalTANs, SoCal Tax Revolt Coalition Inc.
Recommendation: NO
Prop 52: Hospital Quality Assurance Revenue Fund
Requires voter approval of any changes to the hospital fee program to ensure the funds collected go to its intended purpose of supporting hospital care to MediCal patients. It also helps to pay health care costs for low income children. Hospitals pay for this without a tax increase to taxpayers. This also helps the state in receiving Federal dollars for Medicaid.
Recommendation: YES
Prop 53: No Blank Checks
The sale of state bonds needs to be approved by the voters for any project $2 billion dollars and above, if they are to be repaid out of the state’s general revenues. Although politicians can sell billions of state bonds without voter approval if the bonds will be repaid through a specific revenue stream or charges imposed directly on Californians in the form of taxes, fees, rents and tolls.
A 2014 report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) reported that California is carrying $340 billion dollars in public debt. Also voters are far too often not told the actual costs of a project, such as the Governors High Speed Rail Project which voters were told would cost $9 billion dollars is now at over $70 billion dollars.[3]
Taxpayers approving of this proposition: Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, SoCal Tax Revolt Coalition Inc.
Recommendation: YES
Prop 54: California Legislature Transparency Act
The public business should be performed in an open and public manner, and the citizens should be given the opportunity to fully review every bill and express their views regarding the bill's merits to their elected representatives, before it is passed.
To enable we, the People, to observe through the Internet what is happening and has happened in any and all of the Legislature's public proceedings so as to obtain the information necessary to participate in the political process and to hold our elected representatives accountable for their actions.
To enable we, the People, to record and to post or otherwise transmit our own recordings of those legislative proceedings in order to encourage fairness in the proceedings, deliberation in our representatives' decision-making, and accountability. To give us, the People, and our representatives the necessary time to carefully evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the final version of a bill before a vote by imposing a 72 hour public notice period between the time that the final version is made available to the Legislature and the public, and the time that a vote is taken, except in cases of a true emergency declared by the Governor.
Recommendation: YES
Prop 55: The California Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act of 2016
This is a temporary income tax increase on couples earning $500k a year. It does not increase the tax on anyone earning under $250k a year. It does not extend the temporary sales tax increases.
The tax revenue generated by this is to go directly to local school districts, community colleges and state healthcare expenses for low income children and families.
**California’s Budget for 2016-17 gives $141 billion dollars to Health Humans Services agencies.
In 2011, the top 1 percent of tax returns accounted for 41 percent of the state's personal income tax revenues.
From 2008-2015 1,68 companies left California.[4]
Recommendation: NO
Prop 56:
California Health Care, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016
This is a tax increase on all tobacco products including “e-cigarettes”. It taxes distributors and creates a new “fund”. They say 82% of the revenue created by this new tax will go to a Health Care Treatment Fund. This is what’s known as a “sin tax”.
**The Mercatus Center at George Mason University found that “sin taxes” are regressive, falling disproportionately on consumers at the lower end of the income distribution. Not only do "lower income classes tend to lose slightly more of their total income than higher income classes..." on a wide range of excise-taxed products, but Daniel Suits actually found that excise taxes are the most regressive form of taxation.
Also once the “sin tax” has done the job of discouraging the behavior the revenue stream from it dissipates and the revenue is then needed to come from somewhere else, usually another tax. Fewer than 15% of adults smoke in the United States.[5][6]
Recommendation: NO
Prop 57: Criminal Sentences. Juvenile Criminal Proceedings and Sentencing. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute
The proposition allows tens of thousands of violent, dangerous and career criminals to be released early. It give the Department of Corrections bureaucrats the Constitutional Authority to reduce sentences for “good behavior”, even for inmates previously convicted of murder, rape child molestation and rape. It overturns key provisions of Marsy’s Law, “3 Strikes”, Victim’s Bill of Rights, Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act, and the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act – measures enacted by the public that have protected victims and made communities safer.
Recommendation: NO
Prop 58: Killing English Language Assimilation in Schools (SB 1174)
Voters passed Prop 227 in 1998 to ensure that all children in California public schools were taught English by immersion which simply means that all lessons were taught in English. Prop 227 also encouraged family members to provide English tutoring to the pupils.
Families were also allowed in Prop 227 to sue and hold personally liable the administrators, school officials for repeatedly not enforcing the Prop 227 implementation.
This proposition would delete parts of Prop 227 such as the ability for parents to sue for implementation. It now takes a 2/3 vote by Legislators in both the Assembly and Senate, and the Governor to sign, any changes to the current provisions of Prop 227. This proposition would give the Sacramento elected officials the ability to change provision by a majority vote instead.
** According to Forbes English is the language of business globally[7] and to cheat children out the learning of this is a travesty. If children are being taught in Californian public schools, it is our duty that they learn the language of the state and Nation.
Giving the Legislators an easier way to change what the voters passed in 1998, Prop 227, is not in the best interests of the students, their parents and voters.
Recommendation: NO
Prop 59: Overturn Citizens United Act
Requires the Secretary of State of California to ask voters whether California’s elected officials should use all of their authority under the Constitution including proposing and ratifying amendments of one or more amendments to the US Constitution to overturn Citizens United v Federal Election Commission and other judicial precedents.
** The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, not only threw out the time limits for electioneering, but added that the federal government could not set limits on corporations spending whatever they wanted to promote their own political messages during campaigns. The ban violated free speech protections, the court said.[8]
Keep in mind that none of this stops the unions from using their large coffers against conservative candidates and initiatives. Progressives have been using this to garner support from Wall Street as well.
Recommendation: NO
Prop 60: Adult Films. Condoms. Health Requirements. Initiative Statute.
Requires performers in adult films to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse. Requires producers of adult films to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations related to sexually transmitted infections. Do we really need a law for common sense.
Recommendation: NO
Prop 61: The California Drug Price Relief Act
This is one of the more deceptive ballot measures on the ballot this election. It claims to create a glass ceiling with the pricing of drugs for California patients but instead it creates unworkable contracting requirements which will tie up doctors and other health care providers with more red tape and may actually increase the cost of drugs for patients. This may also reduce patient’s ability to access drugs.
88% of California patients in MediCal, 20 million people with private insurance and 1.3 million people in Covered CA would not be a covered. Veterans themselves may see increases in drug costs which is why many Veterans groups are opposing this measure.
There are over 100 organizations that are opposing this measure including tea party groups.[9]
PROP 61'S CONTROVERSIAL PROMOTER WROTE IN A SPECIAL EXEMPTION FOR HIS OWN ORGANIZATION.
The author and promoter of Prop 61 is Michael Weinstein, the controversial president of an organization that brought in more than $1 billion last year selling prescription drugs and operating HMOs. Suspiciously, he exempted his organization’s HMO from having to comply with his own measure.
Weinstein deceptively claims his goal is to lower prescription drug prices for the state of California. Yet, his organization is currently suing the state of California so it can charge the state more for prescription drugs. His lawsuit has blocked a law that would save taxpayers $10 million a year. In addition, in five separate government audits, Weinstein’s organization was accused of overcharging Los Angeles County by more than $6 million.
Recommendation: NO
Prop 62: Repeals Death Penalty
Proposition 62 says the worst of the worst murderers get to stay alive, at the taxpayers’ expense. The death penalty is reserved for only the worst murderers like child killers, rape/torture murderers, serial killers, and cop killers.
Recommendation: NO
Prop 63: Safety for All, Lt Governor Newsome’s Anti-Gun Law
*** This is already law in California and this is playing politics by giving Lt Governor Gavin Newsome credit for existing law as he expects to run for Governor of the state. UPDATE: Newsom’s So-Called “Safety for All” Initiative Broadsided by the California State Legislature JULY 19, 2016 BY Gun Owners of CA ***
With the passage of two bills by California State Senators and their subsequent signature by Governor Brown, Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 63 has been dubbed as “irrelevant” – according to Senate Pro Tem Kevin de Leon. Kevin de Leon’s SB 1235 (ammo registration) and SB 1446 by Senator Loni Hancock (magazine ban) are similar to the Newsom ballot measure – and even if passed, the signed legislation will still trump the proposition. Because of the unprecedented manner in which the bills were written and passed – and because there are legal wrangling’s as to what would be needed in order to statutorily conform both (should the initiative pass), we are on new and shaky Constitutional ground.
The devil is in the details – and just about everywhere else in this tangled mess. Meanwhile, Newsom is continuing to raise money on a moot issue.
We’ve done our role, said State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon. Any individuals who want to further their own political interests, that’s their own business. But we have taken care of business and as far as I am concerned any ballot measure in the fall is irrelevant.
Recommendation: NO
Prop 64: Marijuana Legalization
This is just another Gavin Newsome initiative. It gives a lot more money to the legislature to spend on programs we don’t need or want. This is not the answer.
Recommendation: NO
Prop 65: "Environmental Fee Protection Act,"
This ballot measure is deceptive as the title makes you believe that as a consumer and taxpayer you are being protected against an environmental fee but it is the exact opposite. In 2014 the Carry Out Bag Ban became law. The law states that mandates that the stores sell every paper or plastic bag to consumers for a minimum of 0.10 cents, although stores can charge what they wish for this convenience.
Under the law the grocers and other retailers are able to accept the fees as revenue to their stores. The consumers and taxpayers have been paying this fee, tax, every time you purchase any products and receive a bag. This measure wants to tax the retailers and mandate that the money that comes from this law implementation, the revenue, be used for environmental objectives specifying that the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Fund be established and that the Wildlife Conservation Board administer the funds.
It also mandates a loan in the amount of $500k be taken from various environmental agencies and projects to fund the Wildlife Conservation Board adopting regulations and administration.[10]
*** Never has there been a better example of special interests. Not only are grocers and retailers allowed by law to keep the revenues created by the Carry Out Bag Ban but this measure wants to “Steal from Peter to pay Paul”. It wants other environmental agencies to loan it money to get started with a very specific environmental group.
The measure wants to include recyclable plastic bags, your personal cloth grocery bags, reusable bags, compost-able bags as bangs to be banned. A NO vote means uphold the law as it sits today and let the grocers and retailers keep their revenue as the state legislature intended when they passed the law. ***
Recommendation: NO
Prop 66: Reform Death Penalty
California’s elected law enforcement leaders, police officers, frontline prosecutors, and the families of murder victims ask you to REFORM the California death penalty system by voting YES ON PROPOSITION 66! We agree California’s current death penalty system is broken. The most heinous criminals sit on death row for 30 years, with endless appeals delaying justice and costing taxpayers hundreds of millions. It does not need to be this way.
Recommendation: YES
Prop 67: Referendum to Overturn Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags.
According to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office says a YES vote on this measure means: Most grocery stores, convenience stores, large pharmacies, and liquor stores would be prohibited from providing single-use plastic carryout bags. Stores generally would be required to charge at least 10 cents for any other carryout bag provided to customers at checkout. Stores would keep the resulting revenue for specified purposes.
A NO vote on this measure means: Stores could continue to provide single-use plastic carryout bags and other bags free of charge unless a local law restricts the use of such bags.[11]
Recommendation: NO
[1] http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2016-17/pdf/Enacted/BudgetSummary/Kthru12Education.pdf
[2] http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2016-17/pdf/Enacted/BudgetSummary/HigherEducation.pdf
[3] https://ballotpedia.org/California_Public_Vote_on_Bonds_Initiative,_Proposition_53_(2016)
[4] http://www.spectrumlocationsolutions.com/pdf/Businesses-Leave-California-.pdf
[5] http://mercatus.org/publication/taxing-sin
[6] http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/17/health/smoking-rate-decline/
[7] http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark/2012/10/26/english-the-language-of-global-business/#67ceb1582164
[8] http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/232535-in-support-of-citizens-united-against-targeting-political-speech
[9] http://www.noprop61.com/facts
[10] http://www.lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Initiative/2015-074
[11] http://www.lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Propositions
This proposition creates $9 billion dollars in bonds for school districts and infrastructure. It boasts that for each $1 billion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000.00) it spends; it creates 13,000 jobs. That is about $76 million dollars per job. Can you afford tax increase to pay for servicing this bond measure each year, to pay the principal and interest payments? Within this proposition is the expectation that these taxes will need to be collected to do so.
**The California Budget funds $30 billion dollars for higher education all the while the state colleges are raising tuition on students and parents. UC and CSU schools doubled their tuition fees over the last decade. This is also in addition to the faculty unions vote to receive a 10% raise for college educators.[1][2]
Many taxpayer organizations are against this including Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. San Diego County Tax Fighters, CalTANs, SoCal Tax Revolt Coalition Inc.
Recommendation: NO
Prop 52: Hospital Quality Assurance Revenue Fund
Requires voter approval of any changes to the hospital fee program to ensure the funds collected go to its intended purpose of supporting hospital care to MediCal patients. It also helps to pay health care costs for low income children. Hospitals pay for this without a tax increase to taxpayers. This also helps the state in receiving Federal dollars for Medicaid.
Recommendation: YES
Prop 53: No Blank Checks
The sale of state bonds needs to be approved by the voters for any project $2 billion dollars and above, if they are to be repaid out of the state’s general revenues. Although politicians can sell billions of state bonds without voter approval if the bonds will be repaid through a specific revenue stream or charges imposed directly on Californians in the form of taxes, fees, rents and tolls.
A 2014 report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) reported that California is carrying $340 billion dollars in public debt. Also voters are far too often not told the actual costs of a project, such as the Governors High Speed Rail Project which voters were told would cost $9 billion dollars is now at over $70 billion dollars.[3]
Taxpayers approving of this proposition: Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, SoCal Tax Revolt Coalition Inc.
Recommendation: YES
Prop 54: California Legislature Transparency Act
The public business should be performed in an open and public manner, and the citizens should be given the opportunity to fully review every bill and express their views regarding the bill's merits to their elected representatives, before it is passed.
To enable we, the People, to observe through the Internet what is happening and has happened in any and all of the Legislature's public proceedings so as to obtain the information necessary to participate in the political process and to hold our elected representatives accountable for their actions.
To enable we, the People, to record and to post or otherwise transmit our own recordings of those legislative proceedings in order to encourage fairness in the proceedings, deliberation in our representatives' decision-making, and accountability. To give us, the People, and our representatives the necessary time to carefully evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the final version of a bill before a vote by imposing a 72 hour public notice period between the time that the final version is made available to the Legislature and the public, and the time that a vote is taken, except in cases of a true emergency declared by the Governor.
Recommendation: YES
Prop 55: The California Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act of 2016
This is a temporary income tax increase on couples earning $500k a year. It does not increase the tax on anyone earning under $250k a year. It does not extend the temporary sales tax increases.
The tax revenue generated by this is to go directly to local school districts, community colleges and state healthcare expenses for low income children and families.
**California’s Budget for 2016-17 gives $141 billion dollars to Health Humans Services agencies.
In 2011, the top 1 percent of tax returns accounted for 41 percent of the state's personal income tax revenues.
From 2008-2015 1,68 companies left California.[4]
Recommendation: NO
Prop 56:
California Health Care, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016
This is a tax increase on all tobacco products including “e-cigarettes”. It taxes distributors and creates a new “fund”. They say 82% of the revenue created by this new tax will go to a Health Care Treatment Fund. This is what’s known as a “sin tax”.
**The Mercatus Center at George Mason University found that “sin taxes” are regressive, falling disproportionately on consumers at the lower end of the income distribution. Not only do "lower income classes tend to lose slightly more of their total income than higher income classes..." on a wide range of excise-taxed products, but Daniel Suits actually found that excise taxes are the most regressive form of taxation.
Also once the “sin tax” has done the job of discouraging the behavior the revenue stream from it dissipates and the revenue is then needed to come from somewhere else, usually another tax. Fewer than 15% of adults smoke in the United States.[5][6]
Recommendation: NO
Prop 57: Criminal Sentences. Juvenile Criminal Proceedings and Sentencing. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute
The proposition allows tens of thousands of violent, dangerous and career criminals to be released early. It give the Department of Corrections bureaucrats the Constitutional Authority to reduce sentences for “good behavior”, even for inmates previously convicted of murder, rape child molestation and rape. It overturns key provisions of Marsy’s Law, “3 Strikes”, Victim’s Bill of Rights, Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act, and the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act – measures enacted by the public that have protected victims and made communities safer.
Recommendation: NO
Prop 58: Killing English Language Assimilation in Schools (SB 1174)
Voters passed Prop 227 in 1998 to ensure that all children in California public schools were taught English by immersion which simply means that all lessons were taught in English. Prop 227 also encouraged family members to provide English tutoring to the pupils.
Families were also allowed in Prop 227 to sue and hold personally liable the administrators, school officials for repeatedly not enforcing the Prop 227 implementation.
This proposition would delete parts of Prop 227 such as the ability for parents to sue for implementation. It now takes a 2/3 vote by Legislators in both the Assembly and Senate, and the Governor to sign, any changes to the current provisions of Prop 227. This proposition would give the Sacramento elected officials the ability to change provision by a majority vote instead.
** According to Forbes English is the language of business globally[7] and to cheat children out the learning of this is a travesty. If children are being taught in Californian public schools, it is our duty that they learn the language of the state and Nation.
Giving the Legislators an easier way to change what the voters passed in 1998, Prop 227, is not in the best interests of the students, their parents and voters.
Recommendation: NO
Prop 59: Overturn Citizens United Act
Requires the Secretary of State of California to ask voters whether California’s elected officials should use all of their authority under the Constitution including proposing and ratifying amendments of one or more amendments to the US Constitution to overturn Citizens United v Federal Election Commission and other judicial precedents.
** The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, not only threw out the time limits for electioneering, but added that the federal government could not set limits on corporations spending whatever they wanted to promote their own political messages during campaigns. The ban violated free speech protections, the court said.[8]
Keep in mind that none of this stops the unions from using their large coffers against conservative candidates and initiatives. Progressives have been using this to garner support from Wall Street as well.
Recommendation: NO
Prop 60: Adult Films. Condoms. Health Requirements. Initiative Statute.
Requires performers in adult films to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse. Requires producers of adult films to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations related to sexually transmitted infections. Do we really need a law for common sense.
Recommendation: NO
Prop 61: The California Drug Price Relief Act
This is one of the more deceptive ballot measures on the ballot this election. It claims to create a glass ceiling with the pricing of drugs for California patients but instead it creates unworkable contracting requirements which will tie up doctors and other health care providers with more red tape and may actually increase the cost of drugs for patients. This may also reduce patient’s ability to access drugs.
88% of California patients in MediCal, 20 million people with private insurance and 1.3 million people in Covered CA would not be a covered. Veterans themselves may see increases in drug costs which is why many Veterans groups are opposing this measure.
There are over 100 organizations that are opposing this measure including tea party groups.[9]
PROP 61'S CONTROVERSIAL PROMOTER WROTE IN A SPECIAL EXEMPTION FOR HIS OWN ORGANIZATION.
The author and promoter of Prop 61 is Michael Weinstein, the controversial president of an organization that brought in more than $1 billion last year selling prescription drugs and operating HMOs. Suspiciously, he exempted his organization’s HMO from having to comply with his own measure.
Weinstein deceptively claims his goal is to lower prescription drug prices for the state of California. Yet, his organization is currently suing the state of California so it can charge the state more for prescription drugs. His lawsuit has blocked a law that would save taxpayers $10 million a year. In addition, in five separate government audits, Weinstein’s organization was accused of overcharging Los Angeles County by more than $6 million.
Recommendation: NO
Prop 62: Repeals Death Penalty
Proposition 62 says the worst of the worst murderers get to stay alive, at the taxpayers’ expense. The death penalty is reserved for only the worst murderers like child killers, rape/torture murderers, serial killers, and cop killers.
Recommendation: NO
Prop 63: Safety for All, Lt Governor Newsome’s Anti-Gun Law
*** This is already law in California and this is playing politics by giving Lt Governor Gavin Newsome credit for existing law as he expects to run for Governor of the state. UPDATE: Newsom’s So-Called “Safety for All” Initiative Broadsided by the California State Legislature JULY 19, 2016 BY Gun Owners of CA ***
With the passage of two bills by California State Senators and their subsequent signature by Governor Brown, Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 63 has been dubbed as “irrelevant” – according to Senate Pro Tem Kevin de Leon. Kevin de Leon’s SB 1235 (ammo registration) and SB 1446 by Senator Loni Hancock (magazine ban) are similar to the Newsom ballot measure – and even if passed, the signed legislation will still trump the proposition. Because of the unprecedented manner in which the bills were written and passed – and because there are legal wrangling’s as to what would be needed in order to statutorily conform both (should the initiative pass), we are on new and shaky Constitutional ground.
The devil is in the details – and just about everywhere else in this tangled mess. Meanwhile, Newsom is continuing to raise money on a moot issue.
We’ve done our role, said State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon. Any individuals who want to further their own political interests, that’s their own business. But we have taken care of business and as far as I am concerned any ballot measure in the fall is irrelevant.
Recommendation: NO
Prop 64: Marijuana Legalization
This is just another Gavin Newsome initiative. It gives a lot more money to the legislature to spend on programs we don’t need or want. This is not the answer.
Recommendation: NO
Prop 65: "Environmental Fee Protection Act,"
This ballot measure is deceptive as the title makes you believe that as a consumer and taxpayer you are being protected against an environmental fee but it is the exact opposite. In 2014 the Carry Out Bag Ban became law. The law states that mandates that the stores sell every paper or plastic bag to consumers for a minimum of 0.10 cents, although stores can charge what they wish for this convenience.
Under the law the grocers and other retailers are able to accept the fees as revenue to their stores. The consumers and taxpayers have been paying this fee, tax, every time you purchase any products and receive a bag. This measure wants to tax the retailers and mandate that the money that comes from this law implementation, the revenue, be used for environmental objectives specifying that the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Fund be established and that the Wildlife Conservation Board administer the funds.
It also mandates a loan in the amount of $500k be taken from various environmental agencies and projects to fund the Wildlife Conservation Board adopting regulations and administration.[10]
*** Never has there been a better example of special interests. Not only are grocers and retailers allowed by law to keep the revenues created by the Carry Out Bag Ban but this measure wants to “Steal from Peter to pay Paul”. It wants other environmental agencies to loan it money to get started with a very specific environmental group.
The measure wants to include recyclable plastic bags, your personal cloth grocery bags, reusable bags, compost-able bags as bangs to be banned. A NO vote means uphold the law as it sits today and let the grocers and retailers keep their revenue as the state legislature intended when they passed the law. ***
Recommendation: NO
Prop 66: Reform Death Penalty
California’s elected law enforcement leaders, police officers, frontline prosecutors, and the families of murder victims ask you to REFORM the California death penalty system by voting YES ON PROPOSITION 66! We agree California’s current death penalty system is broken. The most heinous criminals sit on death row for 30 years, with endless appeals delaying justice and costing taxpayers hundreds of millions. It does not need to be this way.
Recommendation: YES
Prop 67: Referendum to Overturn Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags.
According to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office says a YES vote on this measure means: Most grocery stores, convenience stores, large pharmacies, and liquor stores would be prohibited from providing single-use plastic carryout bags. Stores generally would be required to charge at least 10 cents for any other carryout bag provided to customers at checkout. Stores would keep the resulting revenue for specified purposes.
A NO vote on this measure means: Stores could continue to provide single-use plastic carryout bags and other bags free of charge unless a local law restricts the use of such bags.[11]
Recommendation: NO
[1] http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2016-17/pdf/Enacted/BudgetSummary/Kthru12Education.pdf
[2] http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2016-17/pdf/Enacted/BudgetSummary/HigherEducation.pdf
[3] https://ballotpedia.org/California_Public_Vote_on_Bonds_Initiative,_Proposition_53_(2016)
[4] http://www.spectrumlocationsolutions.com/pdf/Businesses-Leave-California-.pdf
[5] http://mercatus.org/publication/taxing-sin
[6] http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/17/health/smoking-rate-decline/
[7] http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark/2012/10/26/english-the-language-of-global-business/#67ceb1582164
[8] http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/232535-in-support-of-citizens-united-against-targeting-political-speech
[9] http://www.noprop61.com/facts
[10] http://www.lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Initiative/2015-074
[11] http://www.lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Propositions
How To Vote To Stop The
.
Shadow Government
.
Shadow Government
Taking Back The U.S. Government
In this era of business-suit machismo, why does no presidential candidate propose kicking the biggest, softest butts – the ones that most need kicking?
We can imagine the stump speech:
Wars? Okay with me… but not if you can’t win ‘em.
We paid $1 trillion to the people who were supposed to be fighting the War on Drugs. It hasn’t worked. Drugs are as plentiful and as easy to buy today as when the war began back in 1970.
I would say to the people responsible: “You’re fired! And give us back our money.”
We paid more than $1.6 trillion to fight terrorism and more than $2 trillion for the war in Iraq. Our boys may have done a good job out in the field, but the brass has totally failed.
When the war began we faced only a few hundred fanatics. You could have put them all on a luxury cruise ship… and never brought them back. Now, there are hundreds of thousands… maybe millions… of terrorists – some right here in the U.S.
Our leaders told us that drones, boots on the ground, and bombing would lead to peace and stability. Instead, they’ve done the opposite.
My message to the strategists, generals, and war profiteers: You’re all fired!
And how many times have we heard from politicians that we need to “help our hardworking families”?
That is supposedly why, since 2009, we have transferred $10 trillion or more to Wall Street to fight this war on the business cycle. The money was supposed to “trickle down.” Well, it didn’t. It stayed with the richest people in the country.
My message to the PhDs behind this program: “Go back to school. You’re fired.”
And get this… we’ve spent $22 trillion on the War on Poverty since 1964. We had 10% below the poverty line then. Guess how many are below the poverty line today? 10%. It was almost as if they didn’t want to win. I’d fire the bureaucrats responsible for it.
And all you Deep State lobbyists, hacks, hangers on, chiselers, zombies, cronies, and connivers: You’re all fired, too.
We’re taking back the U.S. government!
By Bill Bonner