Skip to content

Here Are 3 Steps to Take on Marriage After Court’s Ruling

Here Are 3 Steps to Take on Marriage After Court’s Ruling published on

Here Are 3 Steps to Take on Marriage After Court’s Ruling
Commentary By
Ryan T. Anderson @ryantand
Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the
William E. Simon senior research fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage
Foundation. He also focuses on justice and moral principles in economic thought, health care and
education, and has expertise in bioethics and natural law theory. He’s the author of the
forthcoming book, “The Future of Marriage and Religious Liberty.” Read his research.
Friday’s Supreme Court decision is unadulterated judicial activism.
As Chief Justice John Roberts said in dissent: “Today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own
conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to. … Whatever force that belief
may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy
preferences” in other rightly condemned activist decisions.
Nothing in the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage in all 50 states, and five unelected justices do not
have the authority to redefine marriage everywhere. Still, the question now is: What do we do?
I suggest that pro-marriage citizens should follow the example of pro-life citizens.
Thank you!
The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. We’ll respect your inbox
and keep you informed.
In January 1973, the Supreme Court created a constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Pro-lifers were told
they had lost, that the issue was settled. The law taught citizens that they had a new right, and public opinion quickly
swung against pro-lifers by as much as a two-to-one margin.
Pundits insisted that all young people were for abortion, and elites ridiculed pro-lifers for being on the “wrong side of
>>> For more on this, see Ryan T. Anderson’s new book, “ Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and
Religious Freedom”
But pro-lifers put their hand to the plow, and today we reap the fruits. My generation is more pro-life than my parents’.
A majority of Americans now support pro-life policies. In the last decade, states have enacted more laws protecting
unborn babies than were passed in the previous 30 years.
What happened?
The pro-life community stood up and responded to a bad court ruling. Academics wrote books and articles making
the scientific and philosophical case for life. Statesmen like Henry Hyde, Edwin Meese, and Ronald Reagan used the
bully pulpit to advance the culture of life. Activists and lawyers got together, formed coalitions, and devised effective
Now everything the pro-life movement did needs to be done again on this new frontier of marriage. Here are three
critical steps to take.
First, we must call the court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges what it is: judicial activism. Just as the pro-life movement
successfully rejected Roe v. Wade and exposed its lies about unborn life and about the Constitution, we must make it
clear to our fellow citizens that Obergefell v. Hodges does not tell the truth about marriage or about our Constitution.
Second, we must protect our freedom to speak and live according to our beliefs. The pro-life movement
accomplished this by ensuring that pro-life doctors and nurses would never have to perform abortions. It won the
battle to prevent taxpayer money from paying for abortions. And it made sure that pro-lifers and pro-life organizations
could not be discriminated against by the government.
Pro-marriage forces need to do the same: Ensure that we have freedom from government coercion to lead our lives,
rear our children, and operate our businesses and our charities in accord with our beliefs about marriage. Likewise,
we must ensure that the government does not discriminate against citizens or organizations because of their belief
that marriage is the union of husband and wife.
Third, we must redouble our efforts to make the case for marriage in the public square. To do this, we must use
reason and our own personal stories. This is the most compelling way to bring the truth about marriage to light.
Originally published by The Boston Globe

Fatherhood and Marriage Bring Out the Best in Men

Fatherhood and Marriage Bring Out the Best in Men published on

Fatherhood and Marriage Bring Out the Best in Men
Commentary By
Vanessa Calder @heritage
Is fatherhood becoming a relic of the past?
The sad absence of fathers in American families is pervasive and has been growing for decades. In the 1960s, less
than 10 percent of American children were born to single women, but as of 2013, the number had increased to 41
percent. Among Hispanic children, 54 percent are born to unwed mothers, and the figure is 72 percent for African-
American children.
The institution of fatherhood is not merely a passé throwback to the mid-20th century. Active and engaged
fatherhood is an integral part of nature’s design. As Rutgers University’s David Popenoe states, “The contribution of
fathers to child-rearing is unique and irreplaceable.”
Research shows the absence of fathers in the home is associated with poorer outcomes for children. Children with
involved fathers are more likely to graduate from college, and children raised by both their married mothers and
fathers are far less likely to be poor and less likely to engage in delinquent behaviors or become teen parents.
Thank you!
The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. We’ll respect your inbox
and keep you informed.
But children are not the only ones who benefit; fatherhood and marriage bring out the best in men, too. Recent
studies show fatherhood facilitates biological changes that are linked to reductions in risky behavior for men and
reduced anger and increased empathy.
Married men also are more likely to be healthy, practice self-control and remain engaged in the workforce. Marriage
is lucrative as well. A 2014 American Enterprise Institute study found married men ages 28-30 are likely to earn
$15,929 more a year than their single peers, and married men ages 44-46 earn $18,824 more than their single
Unfortunately, government welfare policy penalizes marriage and therefore committed fatherhood. If a father marries
the mother of his children, household income will increase provided the father works, which means the family can
abruptly lose some or all welfare assistance.
Marriage is one of the best antidotes to child poverty and keeps fathers connected to their children. At the very least,
policymakers must look for ways to reduce marriage penalties. In order to provide men and their children with the
best opportunities for growth and development, leaders must look for ways to restore a culture of marriage.
Policies that do not undermine marriage can help encourage fathers’ relationships with their children and restore the
prominence of married fathers in their children’s lives.

Has God Evolved Regarding Acceptable Marital Unions

Has God Evolved Regarding Acceptable Marital Unions published on

Has God Evolved Regarding Acceptable Marital Unions?


President Obama has stated that Americans should not tell Americans who they should marry. This statement is correct. God has already determined what unions are acceptable, and God’s laws of nature do not change based on what you feel. Marriage is a holy union which was ordained by God, before there was a United States of America, and you have no constitutional right to marry. Since marriage is God’s union between a man and a woman, no other marriage unions are acceptable in God’s sight. What man calls Discrimination, God calls Sin.

As It Is Written/ Thus Sayeth the Lord (paraphrased) God realizes that many of us only want to do evil, so God is leaving us to do shameful things. Women have stopped having natural sex with men and started having sex with other women. Men have stopped having natural sex with women and began wanting each other all the time. Men did shameful things with other men, and in their bodies they will receive punishment for those wrongs. Because they do not think that is important to have a true knowledge of God, He is leaving them alone and allowing them to have their own worthless thinking. Man is being filled with every kind of sin, evil, greed, rudeness, pride, gossip, hatred, jealousy, murder, fighting, lying and thinking the worst things about each other. Man is disobedient to their parents, foolish, promise breakers, showing no kindness or mercy. THEY HATE GOD. If you as people of faith condone, accept, willfully participate in such behavior, and don’t stand up for God, it is better for you never to have known God. You will be like a dog returning to his own vomit. And if even an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel contrary to the one God has given, that person will be condemned by God.

“The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth and that every thought and imagination of the human heart was evil all the time. And the Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart”. God loves us and is longsuffering and wants all men to be saved, but he hates willful sin, and his practice will not endure forever.

So as the United States Supreme Court decides on the merits of God’s law. Rest assured it does not matter to God what they decide. His law WILL NOT change. And whether you are the President of the United States, a member of the Supreme Court, a politician, or a member of the legislature, God does not give a good rats — about your decisions or opinions, neither does he care about opinion polls. When you attempt to redefine God’s law of nature you have declared that “We Are God’s”, and God’s commandments and laws mean nothing.

People of faith have been planted here, in this season, for a reason. To Stand Your Ground For God. And we are to obey man’s law except where it violates God’s law. So when man’s law comes in conflict with God’s law, people of faith are to “obey God rather than man”.

So the question is “Has God Evolved Regarding Acceptable Martial Unions?”

If your answer “NO”, as people of faith, will you stand with God or with Man?

V. Voice
It was passed on to me, so I am passing it on to you. Please pass it on, if the Spirit of God so directs you.

The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the Poor in America

The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the Poor in America published on
The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the Poor in America

Commentary By
Stephen Moore @StephenMoore
Stephen Moore, who formerly wrote on the economy and public policy for The Wall Street Journal,
is a distinguished visiting fellow for the Project for Economic Growth at The Heritage Foundation.
Read his research.
Joel Griffith @joelgriffith
Joel Griffith is a research associate at The Heritage Foundation.
President Obama recently acknowledged what every sane person knows to be true: The best anti-poverty program is
a job. Obama said this at a recent conference on poverty.
But he continues to repeat a falsehood over and over. This is the claim that the poor work just as hard as the rich do.
Well, yes, many people in poor households heroically work very hard at low wages to take care of their families. No
doubt about that. Yet the average poor family doesn’t work nearly as much as the rich families do. And that’s a key
reason why these households are poor.
The most recent Census Bureau data on household incomes document the importance of work. Census sorts the
households by income quintile, and we will label those in the highest quintile as “rich,” and those in the lowest quintile
as “poor.” The average household in the top 20 percent of income have an average of almost exactly two full-time
workers. The average poor family (bottom 20 percent) has just 0.4 workers. This means on average, roughly for
every hour worked by those in a poor household, those in a rich household work five hours. The idea that the rich are
idle bondholders who play golf or go to the spa every day while the poor toil isn’t accurate.
The finding that six out of 10 poor households have no one working at all is disturbing. Since they have no income
from work, is it a surprise they are poor?
Thank you!
The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. We’ll respect your inbox
and keep you informed.
As for rich households, 75 percent have two or more workers. For the poor households, that percent is less than 5
Of course, hours worked doesn’t account for all or even most of the gap between rich and poor. But it does account
for some of it. One of the more pernicious concepts is the notion of “dead-end jobs.” No, the surefire economic dead
end is no job at all. There’s no climbing the economic ladder if you’re not even on the first rung.
Marriage is also a very good anti-poverty program. Married couples are almost five times more likely to be in the
highest income quintile (33 percent) than in the lowest quintile (7 percent).
Without a father in the home, there is usually at most one full-time worker. Married couples are more economically
successful for many reasons, not least of which is that they can and often do have two people working and bringing in
a paycheck. So divorce and out-of-wedlock births have a lot to do with the income inequality. Budget expert Isabel
Sawhill of the Brookings Institute found that if marriage rates were as high today as they were in 1970, about 20
percent of child poverty would be gone. What is worrisome is that a record 47 percent of Americans aged 25 to 34
have never married.
What is to be learned from all of this income data? First, one of the best ways to reduce poverty is to get people in
low-income households working—and hopefully 40 hours a week. By the way, one reason raising the minimum wage
won’t help lower poverty much is that it will help far fewer than half of the poor who have no job at all. And if it
destroys jobs at the bottom of the skills ladder, it may lead to fewer people working and exacerbate poverty.
This data also reinforces the case for strict work requirements for all welfare benefit programs. When welfare takes
the place of work it actually contributes to long-term poverty. It isn’t cold-hearted to be in favor of work programs. It is
providing a GPS system to help the poor find a way out of poverty.
Finally, getting married before having kids is a great way to avoid falling into the poverty trap.
Yes, there are way too many working poor in America, and that problem needs to be addressed by programs like the
earned income tax credit that supplement low-income wages. But there are way too many non-working poor in
America. That’s a problem liberals seem to want to do nothing about.

Originally published in The Washington Times

California Senate to Hold Hearing on Bill to Force Pregnancy Centers to Promote Abortion

California Senate to Hold Hearing on Bill to Force Pregnancy Centers to Promote Abortion published on

Editors Note:  This is an opportunity that should be allowed to happen.  Forcing all expectant mothers to sit thru a presentation of what Abortion is About 
would certainly be an unexpected consequence.. harvey
California Senate to Hold Hearing on Bill to Force Pregnancy
Centers to Promote Abortion

The California Senate will hold a hearing next week on the “bully bill” that would force pregnancy centers in California
to promote abortion. Brian Johnston of the California Pro-Life Council says pro-life people need to start calling and
emailing legislators urging opposition.
“This bill mandates a statement all Pregnancy Care Centers would have to tell mothers seeking care that includes
how to get an abortion but not alternatives like adoption. It also exempts abortion clinics from giving the same
mothers the same information,” he said.
“This bill must be urgently acted on! It is crucial that we rally around California’s Pregnancy Resource Centers and
make sure that they are able to offer the support and answers that women deserve,” Johnston added. “AB 775
passed on the Assembly Floor and has now been referred to the Senate Committee on Health, and is scheduled to be
heard on June 24, 2015. If it passes the Senate Committee on Health it will be one step away from the Governors
Lori Arnold of the California Family Alliance also talked about the dangers associated with the bill.
“Mirroring its path in the Assembly, AB 775 will be heard June 24 before the Senate Health Committee,” she said.
“Although named the “Reproductive FACT Act,” the bill is more accurately described by several pro-life organizations
as the “bully bill.” AB 775 stifles free speech by forcing non-profit Pregnancy Care Clinics to promote a governmentmandated
message that violates their right of conscience. The mandate comes despite the fact that such centers
receive no taxpayer funding and are supported entirely by private fundraising and donations.”
Arnold said:
AB 775 violates the free speech rights of Pregnancy Care Clinics by forcing them to promote abortions
services that are contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs.
AB 775 exempts Medi-Cal family planning providers, including abortion clinics, from its disclosure
AB 775 promotes viewpoint discrimination by forcing one-sided disclosures by Pregnancy Care Clinics but not
abortion facilities.
AB 775 undermines licensed PCC medical clinics by suggesting they are not “legitimate” organizations since
they do not provide abortions.
AB 775 increases taxpayer liability, since abortion facilities are largely funded with government money. PRCs,
on the other hand, are funded and operated by concerned individuals, offering a wide range of pregnancy
support services at no expense to taxpayers.
ACTION: Please contact the members of Senate Committee on Health, so we can stop this piece of legislation that
takes away free speech and bullies our Pregnancy Care Centers. Call-to-Action Link.
Members of the Committee follow:
Senate Health Committee
Chair Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina)
Sacramento Office (916) 651-4022
Fax (916) 651-4922
District Office (626) 430-2499
Vice Chair Janet Nguyen (R-Santa Ana)
Sacramento Office (916) 651-4034
Fax (916) 651-4934
District Office (714) 558-4400
Isadore Hall, III (D-Inglewood)
Sacramento Office (916) 651-4035
Fax (916) 651-4935
District Office (310) 412-0393
Holly J. Mitchell (D-Los Angeles)
Sacramento Office (916) 651-4030
Fax (916) 651-4930
District Office (213) 745-6656
Bill Monning (D-Monterey)
Sacramento Office (916) 651-4017
Fax (916) 651-4917
District Office (831) 657-6315
Jim Nielsen (R-Roseville)
Sacramento Office (916) 651-4004
Fax (916) 651-4904
District Office (916) 772-0571
Richard Pan (D-Sacramento)
Sacramento Office (916) 651-4006
Fax (916) 651-4906
District Office (916) 262-2904
Richard Roth (D-Riverside)
Sacramento Office (916) 651-4031
Fax (916) 651-4931
District Office (951 680-6750
Lois Wolk (D-Vacaville)
Sacramento Office (916) 651-4003
Fax (916) 651-4903
District Office (707) 454-3808

Redlands seeking patriots for General Plan Steering Committee

Redlands seeking patriots for General Plan Steering Committee published on

By Sandra Emerson , Redlands Daily
Redlands seeking people for General Plan Steering Committee
REDLANDS >> The city is seeking volunteers for a General Plan Steering Committee that will serve in an advisory
capacity on the General Plan update.
The 19-member committee will work with city staff, General Plan planning consultants, community organizations,
neighborhoods and residents while updating the plan.
The General Plan was adopted in 1995. It has been amended over the years.
The City Council on Tuesday appointed Mayor Pro Tem Jon Harrison and Councilman John James to the committee.
The Planning Commission will select two of their members.
The city is seeking members from the public for the remaining 15 positions.
Six of the panel’s members are to represent six disciplines: the business/real estate community; education; cultural
arts; historic resources; parks and trails; and open space and agriculture.
The six candidates may be nominated by city staff, council members or the city’s various commissions or community
organizations related to the discipline, according to the city staff report
Nine of the positions are to represent the nine planning areas in the General Plan, seven of which are in the city.
They are downtown, Lugonia, the “Colony,” the West End, the University District, East Valley and
Highland/Canyonlands. The two areas outside of the city are Mentone and Crafton.
The committee members are to live in the planning area they represent with the exception of downtown.
Councilwoman Pat Gilbreath asked that residents with businesses in some of the industrial planning areas be
“They have to be a resident in the city, but they may have a business in that industrial area, and I think they need to
have representation as well,” Gilbreath said.
Anyone from the public can apply to represent a planning area on the committee, but they must be nominated by city
staff or council members, according to the staff report.
Applicants must be Redlands residents for at least three years. They must be current on all city utility, license and fee
The committee members will be pre-selected by July 17 and approved by the council on July 21.
The first meeting will be held shortly after selection. The panel will meet at least eight times over two years. Each
member is expected to attend two public workshops for the General Plan.
A copy of the application can be found here or at City Hall, 35 Cajon St.

Justices Side With Church, Squelch Rebel Yell in Free Speech Cases

Justices Side With Church, Squelch Rebel Yell in Free Speech Cases published on
Justices Side With Church, Squelch Rebel Yell in Free Speech
Supreme Court hands speech advocates ‘great victory’ and ‘painful bite.’
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that specialty license plates are “government speech” and can be vetted by
states based on their content. Dissenting justices and the losing attorney say the ruling may have consequences
related to government-owned message boards.
BFreedom-of-Speech-megaphone-300x23611y June 18, 2015 | 4:29 p.m. EDT + More
In separate rulings on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded Americans’ freedom to advertise on public
property while also limiting their right to do so by broadening the definition of government speech.
The rulings specifically addressed roadside signs and license plates, and formed a mixed bag for advocates who
believe the First Amendment limits authorities’ censorship powers.
In one case, Reed v. Gilbert, the justices unanimously said an Arizona town cannot enforce sign restrictions that
discriminate based on content.
In the other, Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans, a majority of the court found states can deny specialty license
plate submissions based on their content.

David Cortman, the attorney who successfully argued for greater sign-posting freedom, says that in his case, “the
court rightly rejected the ability of the government to pick and choose speech favorites and treat some speech better
than others.”
Cortman’s client, Pastor Clyde Reed of Good News Community Church in Gilbert, Ariz., ran afoul of local
rules regarding “temporary directional signs” when he posted notices ushering parishioners to the site of his services.
Under the town’s code, he could put relatively small signs in place no more than 12 hours before services – meaning
not before 9 p.m. at night – and faced possible fines for violations.
“Not only did it not make any logical sense, it also didn’t make any legal or constitutional sense,” Cortman says.
Led by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court found the town’s distinctions between “directional” signs and “ideological”
or political ones, which were given greater leeway, was impermissible content discrimination that did not serve a
compelling government interest.
“It’s a great victory not only for the church but also for the First
Amendment,” says Cortman, who works at the advocacy group
Alliance Defending Freedom. “It’ll have a far reach, because it
doesn’t only apply to signs, obviously.”

The ruling still allows governments to apply content-neutral bans or restrictions on temporary signs, based on things
like their size, building materials or lighting.
[ALSO: Facebook ‘Rapper’ Wins at Supreme Court]
Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a concurring opinion that the town’s defense of its policies didn’t pass “even the laugh
test.” But she worried the majority’s high standard of scrutiny in the case may turn the Supreme Court into a
“Supreme Board of Sign Review” and lead to the scuttling of many reasonable local laws.
“I think that’s not quite accurate,” says UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh. “[The Supreme Court] might end up
reviewing fewer because the rule is clearer.” Still, he says it’s unclear what will happen to local laws banning
temporary signs but exempting historical markers.
In the license plate case, Thomas joined the court’s four more liberal justices to block the Sons of Confederate
Veterans’ quest to force Texas to allow the slave states’ battle flag on novelty license plates.
Texas allows hundreds of specialty plate options, but in a rare decision refused the Confederate flag submission.
[EARLIER: Justices Ponder Swastikas, Racial Slurs on License Plates ]
The Confederate heritage group, which has won permission to have the controversial flag on license plates in nine
other states, argued Texas had created a public forum for such messages, and therefore could not discriminate based
on content.
Attorney R. James George Jr., arguing for the flag’s display, told justices during oral arguments that states must
choose between allowing all submissions – including swastikas and racial slurs – and getting rid of their specialty
plate programs.
The five-justice majority disagreed, finding the plates are government property and bear government speech – not
private speech entitled to First Amendment protection.
However, Justice Samuel Alito accused his peers of approving a violation of the First Amendment and wrongfully
leaning on an earlier decision about donated park monuments.
In his dissent, Alito wrote license plates in Texas have become
“millions of little mobile billboards” on which the government sells
ad space reflecting the views of car owners, not the government.
“The Court’s decision passes off private speech as government speech and, in doing so, establishes a precedent that
threatens private speech that government finds displeasing,” he warned. “This capacious understanding of
government speech takes a large and painful bite out of the First Amendment.”
[READ: Foes of False Speech Ban Score Unanimous Supreme Court Victory ]
Alito warned the ruling may be used by governments to favor certain messages on government-owned roadside ad
platforms or bulletin boards on college campuses.
George says many governments essentially have become advertising agencies already, and foresees wild viewpoint
discrimination and further constitutional questions following the court’s ruling.
At least one existing Texas plate, he points out, advertises a church.
“Government has gotten into the advertising business, and that is not a traditional government function,” he
says. “Under this concept, [state and local governments] can run ads on all the highway signs that flash for
emergencies, and they can decide to run ads for Republican candidates but not Democratic candidates and Coke but
not Pepsi.”
Volokh says the ruling may have even more of a punch in trademark disputes, with the government making a claim
that the official registration of band or sports names constitutes government speech.
“A trademark sometimes has that little ‘r’ with a circle or a ‘TM,'” he says. “It’s clearly a government-related symbol or
nobody would know what it means.”

San Bernardino toll bill clears California Assembly

San Bernardino toll bill clears California Assembly published on
San Bernardino toll bill clears California Assembly: Land Line
A push underway at the California statehouse covers congestion concerns that effect commuters and commerce in
the San Bernardino area.
The Assembly voted 69-7 to advance a bill to authorize the California Department of Transportation to construct a toll
lane on the area’s Interstate 10 and 15 corridors. The San Bernardino County Transportation Commission would be
permitted to operate a value-pricing program on the corridors.
Existing toll-free lanes could not be converted to pay lanes. However, high-occupancy vehicles lanes could be
converted to high-occupancy toll lanes.
Sponsored by Assemblymember Cheryl Brown, D-San Bernardino, AB914 now moves to the Senate for further
During a recent meeting on transportation issues Brown highlighted that one of every five jobs produced last year in
the Inland Empire came from warehousing, distribution and trucking.
“Trucking and logistics is the most important component of our local economy. … It’s really important that it remains
robust because that’s where the majority of jobs are created,” Brown stated.
The San Bernardino Association of Governments, which is also legally organized as the county transportation
commission, is proposing two projects for tolling authority. Specifically, the association wants to improve the 35-mile
stretch of I-10 from Pomona to Redlands and the 35-mile stretch of I-15. In addition, the commission would also be
permitted to pursue extending the HOT lanes to include I-10 connectors into Los Angeles County and on I-15 into
Riverside County.
Due to increasing urbanization along the corridors, the bill’s analysis states that continued expansion will be a
challenge. The problem is expected to worsen as the county’s population is expected to grow from 2.1 million to 3.4
million by 2050.
The two corridors now get 483,000 vehicles per day. The figure is expected to increase to 668,500 vehicles daily by
Advocates say the bill would give the commission the tools necessary to better manage existing congestion concerns
and accommodate growth in the commuter and trade corridors.
Opponents say they are concerned about the burden of debt that would be necessary to finance the value-pricing
To view other legislative activities of interest for California, click here.

Bill to Curtail Gun Speech in California Schools

Bill to Curtail Gun Speech in California Schools published on
Showdown for bill to curtail gun speech in California schools
California State Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego, is backing a measure that could change how gun threats are interpreted in schools across the
state, even if it wasn’t intended as a threat. (Photo:
An expansive proposal termed dangerous by gun rights advocates to both First and Second Amendment rights is up
for an important vote in the California Assembly.
The bill, which could allow many expressions that include the use of a gun to be considered as a threat, was
introduced in the state Senate in February with the support of a prominent prosecutor and passed that body in an
easy 36-0 vote in May. Now, it’s in the hands of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, where pro-gun advocates
hope to halt its progress.
Framers of the legislation, that would create a new crime under state law, see the bill as expanding law enforcement’s
ability to stop crime from happening at schools.
“Threats of gun violence are costly to schools and law enforcement, and result in lost learning time for our students,”
said Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego, in his author’s statement on the bill. “These threats also create anxiety and fear
for students, school staff, and parents.”
Block’s proposal, SB 456, allows that any person who threatens to use a firearm on school grounds or in a statement
made via phone, computer or other device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it
out. The bar of determining whether the threat was real or not will depend on if a school or law enforcement agency
makes preparations based on the threat. This could lead to something as innocent as a pop-tart gun, if taken
seriously, to be adjudicated as a violation of the law.
Those found guilty of this new crime would be liable for a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $1,000 fine or a year in
county jail, or both, as well as be held liable for reimbursement of any costs associated with countering the perceived
At least one district attorney, San Diego County’s Bonnie Dumanis, has come out strong in support of the bill, arguing
in her jurisdiction last year at least 130 threats were logged in area schools.
“Threats of school violence have increased to an alarming rate and individuals need to know they’ll be held
responsible if they make such threats,” Dumanis said. “In light of the threats, and number of school shootings that
actually take place across the nation, students and their families have a right to feel safe.”
However, gun rights advocates argue language in the bill is vague and doesn’t define what an actual threat is.
“We certainly don’t oppose the criminal prosecution of people who make true threats against innocent students,
teachers, and school staff,” Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, told “Our concern
is that the measure, as it stands, is overly-broad and could chill or criminalize First Amendment protected speech.”
A key committee vote on the legislation Tuesday is seen as the most likely chance for lawmakers to either kill the
proposal or at least add protections to the bill before it is sent on to the floor.
“We’re cautiously optimistic that the Assembly Public Safety Committee will appropriately amend the bill into a form
that respects First Amendment rights while giving prosecutors the tools they need to deal with real criminals,” Combs

High-speed rail mired in outrage

High-speed rail mired in outrage published on

High-speed rail mired in outrage

by James Poulos | June 12, 2015 5:29 am

high-speed rail fly california[1]Reacting to a new analysis showing how California’s high-speed rail could stretch between Palmdale and Burbank, affected residents descended on downtown Los Angeles to voice outrage and anxiety before train officials.
“The coordinated protest,” noted[2] the Los Angeles Times, “presents a potent political challenge as state officials push to speed up construction of the $68-billion system in densely populated Southern California.”
For the beleaguered train project, championed by Gov. Jerry Brown, the turbulence reflected just one more round of defiance, building steadily across the Golden State as communities come to grips with the disruption it will bring.

Public outcry

“About 150 residents and city officials from communities and cities such as Santa Clarita, San Fernando, Acton and Sylmar spoke for a total of six hours during public comment to tell the eight member board about the potentially devastating impact the project could have on their area,” as LAist observed[3]. “According to the analysis, the track just within that segment could affect 20,000 homes, 47 schools, 48 churches and 25 parks when completed.”
The crowd presented the High Speed Rail Authority with “complaints about potential harm to groundwater and home values, hints of lawsuits to come and indignation that the government wasn’t listening to the people it serves,” the Associated Press reported[4].
The meeting — L.A.’s first in two years — followed on last month’s acrimonious hearing in San Fernando. There, “elected officials joined residents in confronting state officials, going so far as to set up their own public address system in the auditorium to express their grievances,” according to the AP.

With controversy swirling around the train, already beset by delays and challenges, officials took a conciliatory but vague approach to the criticism. “High Speed Rail Authority Chair Dan Richard asked for patience among the protestors, saying it was still early in the process and they would continue to work with the community to analyze all options before making a decision,” noted[5] Southern California Public Radio. “He said they are not at this time considering any routes other than the ones presented in recent weeks at community meetings.”

Unpopular choices

Were public opposition to push the Authority away from the San Fernando plan, officials falling back on other plans would confront outrage from different quarters. “The other three options all involve tunneling under the Angeles National Forest,” as the LA Weekly reported[6]. “Environmentalists, equestrians and other activists hate this idea. Even though the train would run underground, there will have to be multiple access points, both for maintenance and in case of emergency.”
“Even worse, running the train through the Angeles National Forest would, according to environmental activist Kristin Sabo, endanger the region’s water supply, since it would cut through the San Fernando Groundwater Basin, one of the few sources of water DWP owns and therefore doesn’t have to buy.”

Funding at risk

At the same time, Republicans in Congress have pressed ahead with a fresh round of concerted opposition to the pricey bullet train, which still relies on Washington dollars. As CBS Sacramento reported[7], the Authority “may soon not be able to spend federal funds on the project under its current $3 billion matching grant with the federal government.” House Republicans voted through a new measure that would wipe out the agreement struck between the Authority and the Federal Railroad Administration — if the Senate opts to go along.
“This amendment would have no material impact on California’s high-speed rail program, even in the unlikely event that it is enacted,” said Richard, according to CBS. Although Hill watchers have not anticipated a swift Senate shift away from funding the train, if the situation in California continues to sour, that calculus could change.

Source URL:

Copyright ©2015 unless otherwise noted.

Forced Vaccinations of Children by State ~ State Recalls

Forced Vaccinations of Children by State ~ State Recalls published on

It is time we send a clear message to lawmakers – these are our kids, not yours. If you try to take away our rights as parents, we will try to take away your rights as lawmakers.

As you already know, parents and children here in California are up against big money pharmaceutical companies, medical associations, doctors and politicians with seemingly endless amounts of campaign cash from special interest donors.
They are attempting to portray parents as kooks, hippies and negligent. They are working hard to scare the public into supporting numerous mandatory vaccines, although there is absolutely no compelling reason why this should suddenly be an issue at all.
In fact, the recent Disneyland outbreak had nothing to do with school vaccines. The person who spread measles was from another country.

We want everyone to be safe and healthy and our organization is NOT anti-vaccine.
We believe that it should be up to the parent to decide what is best, and when, for each child based on receiving factual and non-hysterical health information.

The bottom line is this – this is not about any issue other than they are trying to take away our rights and they are doing it, not because they are genuinely concerned about our health and welfare, but because a vast number of lawmakers are FUNDED AND INFLUENCED by special interests!

California Advances Law to Live in Vehicles A OK

California Advances Law to Live in Vehicles A OK published on

The California Assembly is advancing legislation to protect homeless people who live in their cars from fines and vehicle impounds.
Local governments could not punish people caught sleeping in cars under AB718. It advanced to the Senate on Monday with a 54-to-12 vote.

Democratic Assemblyman Kansen Chu of San Jose says his bill lifts a burden from Californians who have lost jobs and homes.
The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty says three in four California cities prohibit resting or lodging in cars.
Courts and advocates for the homeless have raised concerns about selective enforcement of the rules. Los Angeles is reconsidering its ban on living in cars after losing a court challenge.

Local government and police groups that oppose AB718 say parking lots aren’t designed for living.

California Senate approves legislation to combat global warming

California Senate approves legislation to combat global warming published on

Large wind turbines spin at an Altamont wind farm off Dyer Road near Livermore, Calif., on Friday, Feb. 7, 2015. Google has signed an agreement to buy power from NextEra Energy's Golden Hills Project, that will help provide electricity to the Googleplex and the company's data centers. The project will remove the old existing wind turbines to be replaced by 48 new and much larger wind turbines. (Doug Duran/Bay Area News Group)
Large wind turbines spin at an Altamont wind farm off Dyer Road near Livermore, Calif., on Friday, Feb. 7, 2015. Google has signed an agreement to buy power from NextEra Energy’s Golden Hills Project, that will help provide electricity to the Googleplex and the company’s data centers. The project will remove the old existing wind turbines to be replaced by 48 new and much larger wind turbines. (Doug Duran/Bay Area News Group)
Climate change: California Senate approves legislation to combat
global warming
By Jessica Calefati
Posted: 06/03/2015 12:44:38 PM PDT83 Comments | Updated: 3 days ago
Large wind turbines spin at an Altamont wind farm off Dyer Road near Livermore, Calif., on Friday, Feb. 7, 2015.
(Doug Duran/Staff file photo)
SACRAMENTO — The state Senate on Wednesday approved a far-reaching array of bills designed to cement
the Golden State’s reputation as an international leader in the fight against climate change.
If enacted, the legislation will trigger a fundamental shift in the kinds of cars and trucks Californians drive and the
way they power their homes. New targets would force industries to create more renewable energy, make more
vehicles that don’t burn gasoline and further slash greenhouse gas emissions.
Democrats roundly praised the bills, which were inspired by goals Gov. Jerry Brown outlined in his inaugural
address. They said the legislation is needed to help the environment and create jobs.
“We’re talking about creating a new economy for tomorrow,” Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon said.
But Republicans railed against the legislation on the Senate floor. They called it “coastal elitism at its worst” and
insisted the proposals would hurt the Central Valley, the region hit hardest by the Great Recession and the
devastating four-year drought.
Sen. Jeff Stone, R-Temecula, seethed as he told his Democratic colleagues that Senate Bill 350 would “kill
thousands of blue and white collar jobs in the Central Valley.” Sen. Jean Fuller, R-Bakersfield, pleaded with her
Democratic colleagues to vote no. “I beg you,” she said.
But Democrats refused to budge. “Markets change. We transform. That’s who we are,” said Sen. Bob Hertzberg,
D-Van Nuys. “Welcome to America, baby!”
Many energy experts say Californians won’t know the true impact of the legislation on their daily lives for many
years because the formula needed to achieve these ambitious goals — and the cost of such bold change for
taxpayers and business owners — remains murky.
“I’m quite dubious about our ability to accomplish these goals we’re getting so many kudos for setting,” said
James Sweeney, director of Stanford University’s Precourt Energy Efficiency Center.
“It’s going to be up to future governors and future lawmakers to make these goals work,” Sweeney said. “Unless
we come up with a plan that’s not terribly disruptive to average Californians’ lives, they’re never going to follow
If the legislation becomes law, it will be up to the California Air Resources Control Board to implement two of the
measures’ toughest goals: cutting petroleum use by cars and trucks in half over the next 15 years and slashing
greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels over the next 35 years.
To achieve the first goal, the board has suggested getting Californians to drive less by using more mass transit,
dramatically increasing the fuel economy of cars and doubling the use of alternative fuels. But the board has
publicized few additional details about how to get there — and that omission makes the legislation impossible to
support, opponents say.
“Most of California’s businesses and families rely on petroleum for their day-to-day transportation needs and (the
legislation) has the ability to compromise the availability of transportation fuels,” the California Chamber of
Commerce wrote last month to lawmakers.
An oil industry trade group said it’s hoping for better luck and a different outcome when the measure is
considered by the state Assembly.
“We will continue to educate consumers and businesses on the enormous negative impact the legislation will
have on all Californians and hope members of the Assembly are more willing to take a critical look at this
legislation than did their counterparts in the Senate,” said Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western
States Petroleum Association.
Along with the dramatic reduction of petroleum in gasoline it requires, Senate Bill 350, sponsored by de Leon, DLos
Angeles, and Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, would also require California utilities to generate at least 50
percent of their electricity from solar, wind and other renewable energy sources by 2030 and require state
agencies to toughen building standards.
The Senate approved the measure on a 24-14 vote, with all Republicans voting no.
Billionaire activist Tom Steyer was one among many environmental advocates who praised the Senate’s action
on the climate package as a “bold step forward” that tackles climate change “head on.”
“We owe it to our kids and our grandkids to protect them, and that means addressing climate change before it’s
too late,” Steyer said in a statement.
The Senate’s endorsement of the legislation comes several weeks after Brown signed an agreement between
California and 11 other U.S. states and foreign provinces to sharply limit emissions of greenhouse gases by
That same commitment is the backbone of Senate Bill 32, sponsored by Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills,
which would extend California’s landmark climate law, signed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006.
The new bill — which passed the Senate 22-15 –would lock into law a goal that Schwarzenegger had set: cutting
greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by midcentury.
Other pieces of legislation the Senate approved Wednesday would establish a committee to advise the
Legislature on climate policies that could create jobs; require that California’s pension funds for teachers and
state workers divest from coal companies; and spur farmers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
California may not know precisely how it will achieve these goals, but UC Berkeley energy expert Dan Kammen
said he isn’t worried. He expects the Golden State’s brightest minds to create new technologies to cover any
ground we can’t with today’s tools.
“These are decades-long goals,” Kammen said. “The way to get there is to have a strategy that we know we
must update and modify as we innovate.”
Contact Jessica Calefati at 916-441-2101. Follow her at
CURRENT LAW: Under Assembly Bill 32, signed into law by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006,
California must cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
CLIMATE BILLS APPROVED BY SENATE: Under SB 32 and SB 350, California would be required to cut
emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The measures would also cut petroleum use in cars and trucks
in half, require California to generate half of its power from renewable sources and boost building efficiency
standards — all by 2030.

Public Sector Unions’ $9 Billion, Two-Stage Attack on Prop 13

Public Sector Unions’ $9 Billion, Two-Stage Attack on Prop 13 published on

by Chriss W. Street 2 Jun 2015 Newport Beach, CA
Public Sector Unions’ $9 Billion, Two-Stage Attack on Prop 13
Sandy Huffaker / Getty
It was only a matter of time until California’s powerful public sector unions geared
up for a two-step approach to overturn the 1978 Proposition 13 ballot measure that
has saved California property owners about $550 billion in property taxes.
Rather than taking on homeowners directly, unions are preparing a $9 billion “split roll ballot initiative” that will initially
jack-up rates on non-residential owners. If successful, unions can later file an off-year initiative to raise residential
property taxes in a low-turnout off-year election.
Until Prop 13, outrageous government-sponsored inflation caused property tax bills to skyrocket, taxing seniors out of
their homes in the 1960s and 1970s. After Jerry Brown became governor in 1975 and threatened to raise the property
tax rate dramatically, Californians became the tip-of-the-spear in a national taxpayer revolt by passing Prop 13. The
measure limited taxes to 1% of original assessed value and a 2% maximum growth.
Prop 13 passed because it created a virtuous coalition of apartment owners willing to contribute lots of cash and
individual home owners enthusiastic to organize their neighborhoods into soldiers to fight property tax increases.
The measure has saved California taxpayers about $550 billion since 1978, according to Jon Coupal, President of the
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association. For almost 40 years, it has been the “third rail” of California politics: “Mess with
it, and die.”
But a public sector union coalition led by the California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, the
SEIU and their fellow travelers under the slogan “Make It Fair” is proposing a $9 billion a year “split roll” property tax
rate increase on commercial, industrial, agricultural and rental property owners, while exempting home owners.
If the unions pass this year’s split roll tax increase, they know apartment owners who have written the big checks to
protect Prop 13 in the past will not fund a battle to just protect individuals from residential property tax increases.
The average American today essentially works for the government until April 21 each year to pay for approximately $3
trillion in federal and $1.5 trillion in state taxes. That equals the first 111 days of the year and 30.2 percent of the
nation’s entire income.
One of the most contentious slurps at the public trough is property tax rates, which vary from less than 1 percent to as
high as 4.6 percent. Many towns and counties also levy addition real estate taxes. The average property tax payment
in the U.S. is about $2,089 per parcel per year, but it varies from a few hundred dollars in the South to a whopping
$6,579 in New Jersey, according to WalletHub.
About $15 billion worth of homes are foreclosed on each year because of property tax delinquencies, according to a
2012 study by the National Tax Lien Association.
Comparing politically “blue” Democrat states to “red” Republican states, property tax rates in Democrat states
averages at the 62nd percentile of all states, and Republican states average at the bottom 40th percentile level for all
states, according to WalletHub. But Democrat states would have averaged 20 percent higher, if Prop 13 had not
restricted the growth of property taxes in California to the 17th-lowest state in the nation.
Despite already having the highest total tax burden of any state, Gov. Jerry Brown in 2012 convinced voters to pass
Proposition 30, which raised the top income and sales tax rates in California to far higher than any other state in the
nation. Since that tax increase, hundreds of large companies have left California, including Waste Connection,
Comcast and Campbell’s Soup.
California’s budget has been rescued by the stock market capital gains taxes generated from new initial public
offerings in Silicon Valley’s social media and high tech boom. But when Intel decided to spend $8 billion on a new
semiconductor plant, the company built it in Oregon.
The negative economic by-product of the Democrat-controlled California legislature’s tax-and-spend policies is that
23.4 percent, or 8.9 million, of the state’s 38 million residents now live in poverty, according to a new Census Bureau
The good political news for unions is that this economic failure has created a built-in coalition to support taxing
businesses and the supposedly rich. The unions hope that coalition consigns Proposition 13 to what Karl Marx called
“The Dustbin of History.